Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is no excuse, Kentucky is where they recovered the church back to Noah's Ark isn't it?

Originally Posted by aron

"These experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers."

Amen. One of the great ironies of the Nee/Lee saga is that it prohibits the very thing it's supposedly based on. We're told that Nee read all the great works of Christian history & learnt from them. He read widely & broadly, looked far afield & profited from the enormous base of work he digested. Somehow all these competing points of view were able settle in his mind & build something solid, something that approximated reality as it is.

Now, the LAST thing the LSM wants its captive flock to do is follow Nee & dispassionately consider varied sources. Today, there can be only one source - the printing press in Anaheim.

The irony could hardly be more striking. Someone should make a movie - Hollywood loves this stuff. The free thinker who struck out on his own and started a personality cult that programs its followers to only think his thoughts.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

Originally Posted by aron

You feign ignorance of my argument to avoid facing it. The LSM tries to legitimize its existence by presenting a Kiplingesque "Just So Story" of church history, conveniently omitting anything that doesn't line up with the narrative thrust of "recovery". I point out that there are more churches than the RCC and the Protestants, some of whom apparently believe in justification by faith.

Then you reply they're too insignificant to note. I point out one significant example, perhaps missed in medieval Germany but hardly so today, and you tell me to go join them.

The LSM version of church history is hardly worth teaching to grade schoolers, much less college graduates at their full time training centres. Its coherence necessitates the omission of the bulk of what actually has and does happen on the ground. Only then can this "Christianity" be a convenient foil for their "recovery".

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For some we need to Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.

For others, we need to know their tribulation and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not. This is so we would not be ignorant of Satan's devices.

For others we need to learn about the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans, stumbling blocks to the church.

Still we also need to be inoculated against the evil influence of Jezebel, false prophets and false prophetesses.

With others we need to Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst hear; and keep it, and repent.

With all of them the Lord says I know thy works so it is crucial that we also know their works.

Finally, a major error some make is to be boastful Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Being reproved by the Lord is not a reason for us to ignore their example, nor does it indicate He loves them any less.

Finally, I would point out that Philadelphia is composed of saints who have experienced some of the failed church experiences:

He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the [h]temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

Indicating that these experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers.

That is why we should consider them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you don't think the Coptic or EOC need recovery then why aren't you joining them like Hanegraaf ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems that you being in the recovery was a waste of time, should have joined the Coptic or EOC.

Originally Posted by awareness

That's not an option here in Kentucky. Neither is the so called recovered churches. I'm in the church of no city, since I live out in the county. But there are plenty of Christians in this church, all around me. Do they need perfecting in Christ? Yes! Just like the rest of us, including those in the so called recovered churches. The recovered churches just think they are better than all the rest ... but they are not ... their cultic ways make them worse.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If anyone thinks these churches don't need recovering or reforming then why not join them . . .

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness, I don't think we know how much we today owe to Coptic versions of books of the Bible. In fact, the earliest we have of NT books is in Coptic, not Koine Greek.

Originally Posted by awareness

So recovery is to go back to before the RCC kicked in salvation by works? But not back to the earlier days, when there were more than one way to salvation? Consider James, of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus. He made Paul prove that he wasn't abolishing the law.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

Originally Posted by E

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Coptic church does not believe in salvation by faith alone as they did in the early church. So clearly the recovery is needed.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems that you being in the recovery was a waste of time, should have joined the Coptic or EOC.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Witness Lee church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community?

Lee's teaching forced me to really question my sense of reality, who God is, and how He's moving on the earth. It is a different gospel - focused solely on the works of a fallen man and the culture he desired for the group that meets in his name. The Lord very physically removed me from this group and placed me back on solid ground - He is so gracious to me in so many ways. I couldn't speak for certain, but I would have to say that Witness Lee has had no impact what so ever on my community. In speaking more in more broad sense of community I would also say that Witness Lee likely has had no impact.

What have they taught you that you did not know before?

Nothing. Anything I could attribute to Witness Lee and his church that would be considered positive, I have also found through other means outside of the "recovery". I could list dozens of things I have been taught that would be considered negative.

If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Witness Lee church is.

If I asked 10 believers I know, 0 would know anything about Witness Lee and his supposed recovery. I could ask 50 believers, 100, the answer would still be 0.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Could we apply that same line of reasoning to Witness Lee’s churches?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For some we need to 5Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.

For others, we need to know their tribulation and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not. This is so we would not be ignorant of Satan's devices.

For others we need to learn about the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans, stumbling blocks to the church.

Still we also need to be inoculated against the evil influence of Jezebel, false prophets and false prophetesses.

With others we need to 3Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst hear; and keep it, and repent.

With all of them the Lord says 8I know thy works so it is crucial that we also know their works.

Finally, a major error some make is to be boastful 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Being reproved by the Lord is not a reason for us to ignore their example, nor does it indicate He loves them any less.

Finally, I would point out that Philadelphia is composed of saints who have experienced some of the failed church experiences:

12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the [h]temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

Indicating that these experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers.

That is why we should consider them.

Originally Posted by aron

Perhaps you can state clearly why the EOC never had a reformation, why all the spin off groups like the LDS, JW, SDA, Christian Science and LSM all seem to emerge from Protestants and not EOC, and what EOC teaches concerning justification by faith? Is their justification "tradition" from the Bible or no? If no, why did cult-watcher Hanegraaf join them?

Or must we consider the EOC as one of your unheard-of groups? Again, EOC may have been unknown in 1517 Bavaria, but not in 21st-century global Christian faith.



Intelligent? I may not know much, but I know that a teaching of church history that has 3/4 of its timeline as blank space is hardly promoting intelligence. No, but "Get out of your mind" is the default response to those who think, seek, and ask.

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro E, Recovery to what? If recovery back to the early church days, the Coptic church claims to go back to Mark the Evangelist.

And bro aron. Our old standing Christian churches, like the RCC & EOC, are the touch stone, or baseline, that Cultologist's use to measure what it is to be a cult.

And by that standard The Recovery is a cult. And so is the church that don't want to be called Mormon.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you can state clearly what you believe Coptic Christianity can contribute to the Recovery today? I think you will find they are stuck in their age-old traditions like the EOC and broke with the rest of Christianity at an early time, over disagreement about the nature of Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you are going to allude to these other groups then you best state clearly why you think we should consider them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you can state clearly what you believe Coptic Christianity can contribute to the Recovery today? I think you will find they are stuck in their age-old traditions like the EOC and broke with the rest of Christianity at an early time, over disagreement about the nature of Christ.

Originally Posted by Evandelical

It's one thing for you to criticize what I wrote for not being cohesive and all inclusive of all Christian groups in history. It's another thing for you to be able to say something intelligent about them that shows why I/we should not have excluded them from the narrative.

Originally Posted by aron

The EOC is obscure? The Syrians and Ethiopians are unheard of? Maybe in Germany in the late Middle Ages, but today?

In one sense I understand, given that it was my view once; it's also common to find a conscious, resolute myopathy, a total lack of curiosity when that's necessary to maintain the coherence of one's narrative. (And it fits on a thread about Mormonism!)

But the ignorance level of a medieval Western Europe is hardly appropriate for what purports to be a global Christianity in the 21st century (again, note the similarity to Mormonism).

WL once told us that no one had taught him anything new in 45 years. That's probably one of the most telling things he ever said.



The internal cohesiveness of the Luther/Darby/Nee/Lee segment in the Recovered Church History needs a 1,500-year blank spot: "No light there; nothing to see folks; move along!" Of course LSM may occasionally wave Fenelon and Guyon as props; pad teachings with quotes from Augustine & Jerome. But one finds a stubbornly-held antipathy for anything outside their primitivist, massively truncated story. The level of determined and conscious ignorance, of "shutting out" required to hold it all together is amazing. It's really quite a window into psychopathology.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way I see it, the contributions of these obscure and often unheard of groups, are exaggerated beyond proportion.

Originally Posted by LSM Church History

There was Jesus, and then there was the Church (Matthew 16 is cited; Acts 2; Acts 10). Then the Church got degraded (2 Timothy; Revelation 2 & 3). Then there were 1,500 years where nothing of interest happened. Then Luther began the Recovery out of Great Harlot Babylon RCC with Justification. Then Darby & Brethren recovered 'Christ' in OT types and figures. Then we recovered the Church!

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but the context is the Reformation - are churches splitting in the 4th century really relevant? Numerous rebellions, splits and offshoots occurred before the Reformation for various reasons, but no serious historian considers these as part of the Reformation.

Originally Posted by aron

You are framing the argument in a way that may have made sense in 16th century Europe but hardly in 21st century global Christianity. What about the EOC? What about the churches that split after Chalcedon in the 4th century? Your argument seems to assume they didn't ever exist. Even though they didn't exist, practically speaking, for Luther (he was persecuted by the RCC), they should exist for us, in our thinking of church history. Why frame an argument of historical narrative so contrary to the facts on the ground (there are [and were] more Christians than merely those affiliated with Protestants and RCC)?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Actually, Ohio, it does. The shame and embarrassment that comes with having been deceived so successfully by the LC....let me just say that knowing I am not alone in this is a balm to my wounds! Especially seeing brothers and sisters here who love our Lord and trust His word...and have His shining....this is comforting. He also has comforted me through His word, enormously. I see in His word all the ways the Lee doctrines contradict scripture, and it has made it easy to set them behind me. Flee from them, actually. The contributions to this forum have blessed me greatly, and I hope so many unsuspecting believers will be steered away from the Lee church by this public conversation. God bless everyone who reads these testimonies with light and truth!

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Actually, Ohio, it does. The shame and embarrassment that comes with having been deceived so successfully by the LC....let me just say that knowing I am not alone in this is a balm to my wounds! Especially seeing brothers and sisters here who love our Lord and trust His word...and have His shining....this is comforting. He also has comforted me through His word, enormously. I see in His word all the ways the Lee doctrines contradict scripture, and it has made it easy to set them behind me. Flee from them, actually. The contributions to this forum have blessed me greatly, and I hope so many unsuspecting believers will be steered away from the Lee church by this public conversation. God bless everyone who reads these testimonies with light and truth!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hopefully ... in some way ... that encourages you.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Drake crossed any lines, it was because he was baited into it.

Originally Posted by Nell

What about you? You crossed the same line and did the same thing you accuse others of doing. Hypocrisy and condescension.
.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Ohio, I am so sorry you were under the deception for so long...

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Drake crossed any lines, it was because he was baited into it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake loves to chastise young believers emerging from the bondage of LSM's legalities, warning them with the weight of bolded scripture in order to silence those asking for assistance.

ByHisMercy you are not the first precious child of God to suffer judgmental backlash from LSMers while you by His mercy are seeing thru the smoke and mirrors what LSM is really all about.

This has been happening for decades. Unfortunately I viewed it from afar for 30 years and believed W. Lee when I heard his lies about those who spoke against the corruption at LSM. He adamantly instructed us that he was suffering persecution as a faithful follower of Jesus. What a falsehood!

Then I witnessed it first hand during the Ohio quarantines 10 years ago. The Lord shined a bright light on their pathetic ways. They damaged and divided every church in the name of oneness. Can you believe it? It was not the "oneness of the Spirit" which the Bible speaks of, but a twisted oneness with Witness Lee and his ministry which they demand of all.

Originally Posted by Drake

No brother, it is not about disagreement or discrepancy, and we should be diligent to examine the scriptures against any mans teaching. All that is fine and even healthy.

However, you and a few others have not only crossed the line of reasonable and reputable disagreement, but are well into the ditch of hate-mongering of brothers in the Lord. Gleefully you engage in name calling, reckless abandonment, and neglect of Matthew 5:22, recounting the sins of others while excusing your own sins, using the name of God and the things of Christ to justify your words and deeds against members of the Body of Christ. In so passing judgment on others for their sins, weaknesses, and shortcomings in this age you presume to wrest it from the hands of the One who will judge righteously His house, not yours, in the next. And your defense? Others before me did the same thing....

...... well, good luck with that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then apparently you disapprove of preaching the Gospel to the likes of Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists, idolaters, etc. Who then are the select few qualified to hear your gospel? Only the already saved?

There is a troubling statement of exclusive Brethren affairs in the opening of C. H. Macintosh's Treasury which laments their own abandon of the gospel. Here he sadly rebuts the common Exclusive "wisdom" of his day.

Our divine Master called upon sinners to repent and believe the gospel. Some would have us to believe that it is a mistake to call upon persons dead in trespasses and sins to do anything. "How," it is argued, "can those who are dead repent? They are incapable of any spiritual movement. They must first get the power ere they can either repent or believe."

What is our reply to all this? A very simple one indeed -- our Lord knows better than all the theologians in the world what ought to be preached ... Our Lord preached repentance, and He commanded His apostles to preach it; and they did so constantly.

Originally Posted by aron

The Mormon Church, like the Jehovah's Witnesses & the Local Church of the Living Stream Ministry, are all interested in Jesus Christ, but only as a springboard to their proprietary "recovered truth" in which they pin the unwary.

Originally Posted by aron

Seems as if Drake is being a tad subjective:

Originally Posted by Drake

However, you and a few others have not only crossed the line of reasonable and reputable disagreement, but are well into the ditch of hate-mongering of brothers in the Lord. Gleefully you engage in name calling, reckless abandonment, and neglect of Matthew 5:22, recounting the sins of others while excusing your own sins, using the name of God and the things of Christ to justify your words and deeds against members of the Body of Christ. In so passing judgment on others for their sins, weaknesses, and shortcomings in this age you presume to wrest it from the hands of the One who will judge righteously His house, not yours, in the next. And your defense? Others before me did the same thing....

Originally Posted by Drake

you and a few others have not only crossed the line of reasonable and reputable disagreement, but are well into the ditch of hate-mongering of brothers in the Lord. Gleefully you engage in name calling, reckless abandonment, and neglect of Matthew 5:22

Originally Posted by Drake

It’s okay to disagree. Brothers can and often do.....but you’ve gone too far.

Originally Posted by Ohio

[B]How is it "hate-mongering" to warn others about the dangers of LSM? These ones come to this forum after an internet search and ask questions. Do not ex-members have a responsibility to warn others?

Where was Drake when Lee and sons damaged so many trusting saints? Where was Drake when Phillip Lee was molesting the sisters who volunteered at LSM? Where was Drake when the saints' life savings were wiped out by investing in the Daystar motor home boondoggle? Is not the top priority of every real shepherd to protect the church of God? Why has Drake made it his life's mission to protect a ministry which damages people in the name of God?

Instead of threatening the forum shepherds with biblical judgments, Drake should read about the biblical warnings about evil shepherds.

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, ok. What is the meaning of those verses in Hebrews? What is “worse punishment “ and why is it worse?

Be happy to hear you out ....since you know differently.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

No brother, it is not about disagreement or discrepancy, and we should be diligent to examine the scriptures against any mans teaching. All that is fine and even healthy.

However, you and a few others have not only crossed the line of reasonable and reputable disagreement, but are well into the ditch of hate-mongering of brothers in the Lord. Gleefully you engage in name calling, reckless abandonment, and neglect of Matthew 5:22, recounting the sins of others while excusing your own sins, using the name of God and the things of Christ to justify your words and deeds against members of the Body of Christ. In so passing judgment on others for their sins, weaknesses, and shortcomings in this age you presume to wrest it from the hands of the One who will judge righteously His house, not yours, in the next. And your defense? Others before me did the same thing....

...... well, good luck with that.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

At least I'm not charging 50 bucks a head like your so-called apostle did.

I like the term "reasonable". It reminds me of the terms "genuine" and "proper"; the true meanings of which could only be sussed out by "the oracle" who had "the mantle". I'm pointing out the absurdity of the LC position. It's built on sensory experience of rhythmic calling and chanting and shouting and the commensurate thought-repression. If that makes you uncomfortable too bad. Maybe you should think about why that is so.

Originally Posted by awareness

Gosh! This thread is busy.


Bro Drake, who knows the mind of God? We can walk away from God. -- I had to after leaving the local church -- but that doesn't mean God walks away from us. I don't care what you think Hebrews means. I know differently.

Originally Posted by Drake

This word is spoken to believers byHismercy. It is not an easy word, not a comfortable word, not a comforting word, but it is His word and we cannot ignore it.

Originally Posted by Drake

No brother, it is not about disagreement or discrepancy, and we should be diligent to examine the scriptures against any mans teaching. All that is fine and even healthy.

However, you and a few others have not only crossed the line of reasonable and reputable disagreement, but are well into the ditch of hate-mongering of brothers in the Lord. Gleefully you engage in name calling, reckless abandonment, and neglect of Matthew 5:22, recounting the sins of others while excusing your own sins, using the name of God and the things of Christ to justify your words and deeds against members of the Body of Christ. In so passing judgment on others for their sins, weaknesses, and shortcomings in this age you presume to wrest it from the hands of the One who will judge righteously His house, not yours, in the next. And your defense? Others before me did the same thing....

Originally Posted by aron

Beware of those offering special, proprietary teachings.

Originally Posted by aron

My present condition is to point out the discrepancy between the Bible and the LC of Nee and Lee. I have pointed them out, and somehow this is construed as an offense against God. Rather I think the offense is to keep one's mouth shut, yet knowing of the problems. Witness Lee wanted us to forgive his messy kitchen yet he continually pointed out deficiencies in others.

Either God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day or no. Either you believe or no. This is the gospel message. Not the "recovered church".

Originally Posted by Drake

“Worse punishment” in the Hebrews verses I quoted.. I even bolded it so it would not be missed.

Well then bhm, what was your point about righteousness comes by our trust in the Son, and the Father has no additional qualifiers, etc. and what was the baloney that Aron cut through that so pleases you. He knows what he meant, but do you know what he meant? I know what he meant. .... but you are an independent thinker and don’t need to ride anyone’s coattails to make your own point so please clarify this....

What qualifiers? Qualifiers for what? Are there not additional qualifiers for entrance into the millennial kingdom? If not, then what is the meaning of Matt 5:22?

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To a Mormon Jesus is just one of 3 distinct beings called God. Sounds anti-Christ to me.

Originally Posted by Drake

Do not be swayed by voices in this forum that slander brothers in a very personal way and then excuse the consequences by teaching that God will overlook that sin because they believed in the Son. Scripture shows otherwise.

Originally Posted by Drake

Better read those verses again aron and pay close attention to who is described there as indignant..... and then have a closer read of Matthew 5:22 and talk to the Lord to resolve the on-going problem you have with certain brothers... while you are still on the way... before its too late and you have to meet the Lord at His BEMA in your present condition.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Drake, that never happened. I do not recall reading anything in this thread regarding punishment of the believer. I never referred to punishment of the believer. I am sorry you misunderstood me. Maybe the smoke got in your eyes?

Originally Posted by Drake

Bhm,

You appeared to suggest that any teaching about punishment of the believer was baloney, shackles, and chains.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Post #74 says you have misaimed by saying that Mormons are the antichrist and we should not keep company with them.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Drake, Gods' word is living and operative in those who believe, Jesus the Christ is the Word of God Himself, and everything in the word is breathed out by the living God, we will live by the word.....I know I wasn't referring to His word when I used the word baloney, but I want you and everyone else to know also. I was referring to doctrine of devils that come out of Lees' ministry. It's a bunch of baloney.

Are you possibly equating Lees' doctrines with Gods' word?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is your post #74 an example of a real discussion, is it? A discussion is an exchange of thoughts in order to reach a conclusion. Your posts are best described as commentary on a discussion, as highlighted by your previous posts:

"I wouldn't waste my time. I don't think E wants real discussion."

"Foofaraw! Yeah! You tell them."

Originally Posted by Ohio

I wouldn't waste my time. I don't think E wants real discussion.

Originally Posted by Drake

I don’t take offense. Compare away!

The more someone compares, the more obvious it becomes that they don’t know what they pretend to know.... if they ever knew 3 or 4 decades ago they prolly forgot.

So, no. I think your comments about Mormons becoming offended at the comparison is your projecting your feelings onto them without ever having brought the topic up with them.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I learned about Witness Lee in 2015... do you want a detailed account of my interactions and friendship with Mormons prior to 2015? Send me a private message and I’ll fill you in.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I learned about Witness Lee in 2015... do you want a detailed account of my interactions and friendship with Mormons prior to 2015? Send me a private message and I’ll fill you in.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You obviously haven’t spent time with Mormons. I will say this, my Mormon friends would take offense to me comparing them to The Witness Lee church...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is it wise for you to keep company with anti-Christ? (2 John 1:10 )

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It implies that you spend time with Mormons, and they are your friends. But now it seems that you only have one Mormon friend, so your "Mormon friends" are an imaginary group of friends that you created to legitimize your knowledge about Mormons and infer that I don't know much about Mormons.

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

How about the additions of the writer of Hebrews?

Consider this....

"For when we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fervor of fire, which is to consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three witnesses. By how much do you think he will be thought worthy of worse punishment who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has considered the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay"; and again "The Lord will judge His people". It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:29-31

This word, is aimed at correcting any thought or idea that God is so merciful, and that His words of grace so cover His chosen, that while the unbelievers will suffer the punishment of His indignation, they who had been sealed with His Spirit's seal will somehow escape.

Baloney?

This word is spoken to believers byHismercy. It is not an easy word, not a comfortable word, not a comforting word, but it is His word and we cannot ignore it.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree, not touchy or volatile at all... I love it when we agree Drake! I’ve only known one Mormon since learning about Witness Lee and I didn’t discuss Lee’s church with him.

Why would they take offense? Well I guess it would be the same reason you take offense of those who compare the LSM churches to the Mormon church...

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree, not touchy or volatile at all... I love it when we agree Drake! I’ve only known one Mormon since learning about Witness Lee and I didn’t discuss Lee’s church with him.

Why would they take offense? Well I guess it would be the same reason you take offense of those who compare the LSM churches to the Mormon church...

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe that LofT..... but why would your Mormon friends take offense? Have you talked to them about Witness Lee and the local churches?

I have worked for and have had Mormons work for me... consider some as close work colleagues. I have never found any of them to be very volatile... at least not touchy to take offense.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I will say this, my Mormon friends would take offense to me comparing them to The Witness Lee church...

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You obviously haven’t spent time with Mormons. I will say this, my Mormon friends would take offense to me comparing them to The Witness Lee church...

Originally Posted by aron

Where's the "fearful expectation of judgment" evidenced, o indignant one? And then you try to intimidate others?? I'm more worried about facing the Lord if I don't say something.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think I have Mormons targeting my little subdivision. There are numerous families with young children who have moved in and they all seem to know each other. When one family hosted "elders" and then moved to Provo, Utah, that was enough to inform me.

I know little about them. Can you say more about them?

Are there any code words I can use to know who is Mormon?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You could go to a Baptist church and say the same.


Mormons are often compared to the Baptists for their remarkable similarities in their beliefs about baptism, the atonement, and the Second Coming, which are the teachings of traditional Christianity.

https://difference.guru/difference-b...s-and-mormons/

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

How about the additions of the writer of Hebrews?

Consider this....

"For when we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fervor of fire, which is to consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three witnesses. By how much do you think he will be thought worthy of worse punishment who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has considered the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay"; and again "The Lord will judge His people". It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hebrews 10:29-31

This word, is aimed at correcting any thought or idea that God is so merciful, and that His words of grace so cover His chosen, that while the unbelievers will suffer the punishment of His indignation, they who had been sealed with His Spirit's seal will somehow escape.

Baloney?

This word is spoken to believers byHismercy. It is not an easy word, not a comfortable word, not a comforting word, but it is His word and we cannot ignore it.

Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

That's right, Aron....cut right through the baloney....believing in the name of Jesus is the solution....the Father doesn't put any other qualifiers on us....but imputes righteousness on us for our trust in His beloved Son....additions by the LC or anyone else are shackles and chains.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Anyone the has spent time with Mormons and those within the Witness Lee churches know that there are many similarities. Now there is yet another.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Hey BHM, sorry... I was referring to the wind comments - thus my attempt at a “wind” pun. Thanks for your OP. It sounds like Drake is done.

Anyone the has spent time with Mormons and those within the Witness Lee churches know that there are many similarities. Now there is yet another.

Originally Posted by aron

The rest of it, called "the central lane of the divine economy" or "the Church" or "the body" or "the ministry of the age" or "God's current speaking" or some special "recovered truth" is foofaraw. The subtle one beguiled Eve and he's been beguiling ever since. 2 Cor 11 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ."

There is nothing else except Jesus Christ, crucified and raised to glory. In the simplicity of truth, there is safety. Beware of those offering special, proprietary teachings.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

It can be moved wherever is appropriate...It took me forever to figure out how to post my OP....sorry it ended up where it did. I am still getting familiar with the forum. Thank you everybody for this fellowship! Blessing me....

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Didn’t realize this convo would be so long winded- can we move to a different thread?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Didn’t realize this convo would be so long winded- can we move to a different thread?

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an interesting explanation of why Jesus used "wind." It may be true, then again maybe not. Maybe Jesus meant that a person of the Spirit is as free as the wind.

The Greek word used here for wind is pneuma. It could mean a current of air. But it's also used as breath, breeze, figuratively as spirit ; sometimes as the rational soul, vital principle, or mental disposition. Also as angel, daemon, God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit, and ghost, life, spirit and mind.

Here, pneuma clearly means blowing wind. And the wind, "blows where it wishes." Back to freedom again.

Originally Posted by awareness

To those in "The Church," whether the Mormon "The Church," The Recovery "The Church," or actually, all the other "The Churches," I have this to say :

Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Be not afraid to be as the wind. - John 8:32 & 3:8

Originally Posted by Drake

Not exactly.

All people are real.. obviously... but this verse is not talking about how real they are.... that would be over simplistic...rather, a regenerated person is different and their reality is not something you can always put your finger on. The "real" in the case of a regenerated person is like the wind... can't see it but you know something is there because you can hear it or see its effect. So, its not a statement that people born of the Spirit are real like all people are, believer and unbeliever alike. Rather, this is specifically about regenerated people and the reality of their regeneration.

That the Lord used sound as the evidence of the wind may have something to do with the testimony of He and his disciples mentioned in V11. They were making a sound and Nicodemus recognized it but could not define it exactly... so he seeks Jesus out to find out more and the Lord appears to be saying to Nicodemus something like ... we speak, you recognize something that you could not precisely define, and what you heard from us is mysterious just like the wind, you're not sure where it came from or where it is going but it is a fact and a reality.

Something like that.

Hope that helps... but in any case, I still don't see how it has anything to do with your initial counsel. Got the truth will set you free... but still don't understand how you meant "be as the wind" when applied to Christians in the local churches.... even using a different definition of what the "wind" is ... that may be because I don't know what your definition if "wind" is.

Feel free to clarify.

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

The LC resembles the RCC and LDS in that The Church is their end-all and be-all. At least Luther and Wesley got that right - salvation is through faith in the name of Jesus Christ, not loyalty to the Hive.

Christianity's not the problem or the solution. Sin is the problem and believing in the name of Jesus is the solution.

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess that verse can be confusing. Is a person born of the Spirit like the wind? Jesus says the wind blows where it wishes? Is that what he means about the person born of the Spirit?

If we add truth shall set you free, it certainly sounds like it.

At any rate, I doubt it means to be joined to "The Church," Mormonism, Local-Churchism, or otherwise.

That aside, what do you think the verse means?

Originally Posted by aron

The LC resembles the RCC and LDS in that The Church is their end-all and be-all. At least Luther and Wesley got that right - salvation is through faith in the name of Jesus Christ, not loyalty to the Hive.

Christianity's not the problem or the solution. Sin is the problem and believing in the name of Jesus is the solution.

Originally Posted by awareness

So to you the verse and context means that someone born of the Spirit is as real as the wind?

Interesting. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Drake

awareness,

I think it means that a person who is born of the Spirit, that is regenerated, is like the wind... in that, it is a bit hard to put your finger on it, but when you hear its sound, or watch trees sway in its wake, or it blows your toupee off then you know its there.... so it is with a regenerated person, you may not completely understand what happened to them and its not fully recognizable but it is a fact.. just like the wind. The context appears to support that interpretation.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess that verse can be confusing. Is a person born of the Spirit like the wind? Jesus says the wind blows where it wishes? Is that what he means about the person born of the Spirit?

If we add truth shall set you free, it certainly sounds like it.

At any rate, I doubt it means to be joined to "The Church," Mormonism, Local-Churchism, or otherwise.

That aside, what do you think the verse means?

Originally Posted by Drake

I see.... but how to you apply its meaning? I'm not making the connection.

A description of a regenerated person born of the Spirit is not a call "to be as the wind".

Please elaborate what you are trying to say in layman's terms.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for asking. I think this sums it up :

The wind blows where it wishes . . . So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by awareness

To those in "The Church," whether the Mormon "The Church," The Recovery "The Church," or actually, all the other "The Churches," I have this to say :

Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. Be not afraid to be as the wind. - John 8:32 & 3:8

Originally Posted by byHismercy

My response to finding that out was similar, Awareness.....when I heard the MOTA junk, and the one publication junk, I was revulsed instantly and thoroughly....I know it was the Holy Spirit within....elevation of this man Lee....this makes me angry.....how dare they glorify Lee.....I am just sick of the silent, unspoken reverence for a man and his 'way'....that was it for me.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

My response to finding that out was similar, Awareness.....when I heard the MOTA junk, and the one publication junk, I was revulsed instantly and thoroughly....I know it was the Holy Spirit within....elevation of this man Lee....this makes me angry.....how dare they glorify Lee.....I am just sick of the silent, unspoken reverence for a man and his 'way'....that was it for me.

Originally Posted by aron

Christianity's not the problem or the solution.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I could see all the problems and faults of the RCC system, and the glaring missteps of the SDA church, but was so blind to 'my' cult....why? How could I not see what I now see?

Originally Posted by awareness

Right on points bro Ohio.

When Mel Porter told me that I had to take his personality as my own, the whole point, that I had to agree to without questioning, was that, Lee was the one and only apostle on the earth, I said, "Well brother Mel, that looks like the Roman Catholic Church to me, with Lee as our Pope."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Historical revisionism by Mr. E.

How about we change the title of this forum to "THE DEFICIENCY OF THE RECOVERY?"

And the recovery looks much like the Catholic Church in so many ways:

• Headed by a MOTA much like the Pope
  Ruled by Blendeds much like the Cardinals
  Like a Monsignor, many LC's are administered by a LSM worker
  Elders in name only, actually rule like parish priests
  Daily readings in HWFMR like the Catholic Missal
  Meeting content the same all over the world
  One centralized publishing house for entire church
  Deformed practices of oneness like the RCC
  Quarantine dissenters like the heretics of old

Originally Posted by Ohio

Historical revisionism by Mr. E.

How about we change the title of this forum to "THE DEFICIENCY OF THE RECOVERY?"

And the recovery looks much like the Catholic Church in so many ways:

• Headed by a MOTA much like the Pope
  Ruled by Blendeds much like the Cardinals
  Like a Monsignor, many LC's are administered by a LSM worker
  Elders in name only, actually rule like parish priests
  Daily readings in HWFMR like the Catholic Missal
  Meeting content the same all over the world
  One centralized publishing house for entire church
  Deformed practices of oneness like the RCC
  Quarantine dissenters like the heretics of old

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, not at all. But it is a movement responsible for persecuting the independent churches.

See "THE DEFICIENCY OF THE REFORMATION" by Watchman Nee

Luther came out of Babylon but did not enter Jerusalem. He thought politics could help the church. Likewise, Calvin aligned the church and the state, and then persecuted heretics.

Calvin did not practice Sola Scriptura - he believed in a state church, persecution of perceived heresy, and infant baptism - these are Catholic ideas.

The Reformed churches (Lutheran, English ) look like Catholic churches in many ways.

Originally Posted by Kevin

So Drake and Evangelical, do you think I'm in a pig movement?

Originally Posted by aron

Or the idea of "locality" of the "local churches" being promoted until HQ suddenly decides it's time to take control, then they "recover" the Jerusalem Principle. Suddenly we don't want to do anything "outside the fellowship" of the Big Boss in Central HQ.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is why Lee’s movement and his churches are quickly dying out.

Originally Posted by aron

The narrative is so self-serving as to astound - talk about "signs and wonders" - one wonders how anyone over 12 years of age can accept it on face value?

Originally Posted by aron

The narrative is so self-serving as to astound - talk about "signs and wonders" - one wonders how anyone over 12 years of age can accept it on face value?

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Lee and LSM needed a little credibility, then they "stand on Luther's shoulders." When Lee and LSM demanded exclusive authenticity, then they alone "started afresh." It may just be a "contrived illusion" to the entire body of Christ, but they just need their own folks to believe it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Lee and LSM needed a little credibility, then they "stand on Luther's shoulders."

When Lee and LSM demanded exclusive authenticity, then they alone "started afresh."

It may just be a "contrived illusion" to the entire body of Christ, but they just need their own folks to believe it.

Originally Posted by awareness

So how is it that Nee and Lee started afresh? As I recall, Lee never claimed that. He said he was standing on the shoulders of great men from the past, as I remember it. That's not starting afresh.

But I remember the recovery explained. The simple story is that it started with Luther, and progressed to The Recovery ; the Recovery being the final stage before Jesus comes back.

Has the idea of the recovery evolved since I was in? Has it changed since Lee died? Are the blended brothers the final stage now? When is The Recovery finally accomplished? If it even exists? It may just be a contrived illusion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Lee and the recovery did what Luther and the Puritans should have done from the start, in hindsight, forget about reforming a pig, start afresh.

Originally Posted by Drake

The metaphorical “pig” refers to the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Kevin

So Drake and Evangelical, do you think I'm in a pig movement?

Originally Posted by Drake

YES.

As defined in Post #18.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, do you agree with your comrade Mr. E? Were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al simply putting "lipstick on a pig"?

Yes or No.
-

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To clarify my statement about lipstick on a pig, the Reformation was in 3 stages:
1. The initial stage of liberty from Catholicism - this is what everyone wants the Reformation to be known for, this is where the Holy Spirit recovered truths.

2. Union of the church with the state and abandonment of religious liberty by the Reformers. Just like the Catholic church they fought in many battles. Alignment of church with state was just like Constantine and the Roman Empire.

3. Persecution of believers by Protestant state churches - by now these state churches look very much like the Catholic church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Spirit and the reformers were recovering the truth. Meanwhile, the reformation became a movement of bloodshed and violence. Catholics were killing Protestants and Protestants were killing Protestants/anabaptists. That is the lipstick on the pig I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Ohio

To deride the reformation as mere "lipstick on a pig" is to reject the work of the Spirit and the faith many died for.

I would only ask, "who at LSM is willing to suffer like them?" Many, many reformers gave up their lives for the Lord and His word. LSM, on the other hand, will sue you or quarantine their own people for the slightest of correction.


It seems that those who always like to warn us of our criticisms of LSM in light of the judgment seat of Christ, ought to apply the same words to themselves regarding all the Reformers, many of whom were martyred.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E.
Witness Lee used these terms interchangeably. As a Local Church member you are not allowed to say which is better and which is worse. Even the Blended Brothers cannot do this. Watch your step.

So, what Martin Luther was doing was "putting lipstick on a pig"? Really? That's kind of far out there bro....even for you. No objective person could deny that Witness Lee considered his movement a "reformation" of "Poor, Poor, Christianity." In fact, Lee was always trying to bring about a reformation of "The Recovery". Sometimes it was called a new "flow". Sometimes it was called "the New Way". Lee was always in the business of tearing down, mostly so that he could claim to be the only one to build back up. This is why Lee is referred to as "The Master Builder".
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, do you agree with your comrade Mr. E? Were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al simply putting "lipstick on a pig"?

Yes or No.
-

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet I consider the word "reform" as in reformation of Catholicism or "the reformation" to be a worse term than recover or restore, and to me means lipstick on a pig.

Originally Posted by awareness

Do tell more bro Drake .... please.

Originally Posted by Drake

Reformation and recovery are two very different concepts.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mr. E.
Witness Lee used these terms interchangeably. As a Local Church member you are not allowed to say which is better and which is worse. Even the Blended Brothers cannot do this. Watch your step.

So, what Martin Luther was doing was "putting lipstick on a pig"? Really? That's kind of far out there bro....even for you. No objective person could deny that Witness Lee considered his movement a "reformation" of "Poor, Poor, Christianity." In fact, Lee was always trying to bring about a reformation of "The Recovery". Sometimes it was called a new "flow". Sometimes it was called "the New Way". Lee was always in the business of tearing down, mostly so that he could claim to be the only one to build back up. This is why Lee is referred to as "The Master Builder".
-

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are different words that have different meanings. Yet I consider the word "reform" as in reformation of Catholicism or "the reformation" to be a worse term than recover or restore, and to me means lipstick on a pig.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Correction...acronym?? to synonym

Originally Posted by byHismercy

By the way, isn't 'restored' an acronym for 'recovered'? Maybe we shouldn't tell the LC.....I hate to see tax payer wastin lawsuits run through our legal system...

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Sorry, Evan. I didn't mean to bait LCers. I just have fresh eyes for groups who are under the assumption they are THE church of Christ...besides that, I have recently received my schooling regarding strawmen arguments...something I can thank you and Drake for, exclusively! Something that cannot be thought of as anything but 'baiting', 'manupilation', 'deception'....in my humble opinion, the wrong path to take in honest discussion....

So you don't like baiting? But straw-manning folks is ok?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see the point of this considering that the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church have been referring to themselves as "The Church" for hundreds of years. Seems like another thread locked and loaded with irrelevant insinuation and innuendos. You should really stop baiting local church members to come onto your forum with posts like these.