[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I do glean a lot from preachers/teachers I hold in high regard for their faithfullness to the Word. Many have traveled to Israel many, many times over as well as throughout the world and their experiences have enlightened me immensely. Others are truly gifted speakers who clearly explain the meaning of the scriptures. I hold many in high esteem.

Lee, to my knowledge, for all that is worth, to my recollection did not travel even once to Israel but considered himself and by his followers an expert on the bible.

I really didn't have any intention of indicating that anyone needs to go to Israel. And I believe that Lee spoke of going at least two times. (Maybe it was someone else, but I thought it was Lee.) He mentioned visiting the Mosque in Jerusalem both times and noting that the second time there was a rock inside of it that wasn't there the first time, but was referred to as if always there. And it was roped off so you couldn't tell if it was even a real rock.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I'm not sure what you mean by recently. Most of us here were born in the 40s/50s. I don't consider those years recently unless we are comparing them to the years of the 1800s or before.

In terms of the history of the church, the 1700s are really quite recent. In fact, for the majority of the time that there have been churches, a significant number could not read if they wanted to.

My comment is meant to indicate that what we are able to do cannot be presumed as the standard by which everyone in Christian history is gaged because they were totally incapable of it.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

OBW. I disagree ! Not only do I believe what is written in 1 Corinthians 3:5-7, I've seen the application at work. So have most of us here!

Not sure what you are disagreeing with. That we can figure it out for ourselves or that we can't.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I have never said don't need preachers/teachers. I have always acknowledged I have learned a lot from different preachers/teachers, some of whom you yourself have criticized.

And that is the reason that I started off the post by saying it was not simply a response to you. It was not intended to be read as if you were standing in for others and that it all applied to you. You don't need to excuse yourself from what you think is my aim at you. No one particular is in the cross-hairs. Your general comment brought more than a simple response to mind and it went well beyond that comment and therefore beyond saying anything to or about you. Agree or disagree with the point I make. You don't need to defend yourself in the process.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

It's not that we are barely tolerating the "evil" clergy-laity system OBW, it's the division that bothers me. . . .

For some it is the case. I hear it all the time. And for others it is not. It is not so simple. I've read the posts where some speak as if they are just coming close to going through the motions so that they are not in violation of the command to assemble together.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Hmmm.. so there are people who are not 'capable' of the reading the Scriptures? Let's see...they are capable of reading smut, reading history, computer books, novels but wow...they are not capable of reading the Word.

You miss the point. It is about the capability to read at all. And there are still some who cannot. Maybe not very many in America. But some places it is quite common. Do we simply give them over to Satan for their inability to read?

That is the point.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

True. But back in that day, the RCC had not been instituted. There were no denominations. There were not bible colleges/schools where people paid to become ordained pastors. The church was not a 'business' with IRS tax exemptions.

I believe there were divisions and I believe it is likely because of divisions, apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers came about.

Huh? Because of division those things came about? I thought the apostles were preaching from the beginning. Before Corinth had its first convert looking for convert number two so they could divide.

Actually, pointing to the RCC, denominations, bible colleges, and "pay for an ordination" regimes does not address what Paul was talking about in Ephesians. I might get in trouble with some, but I would suggest that overall there is more sound understanding of Christ and His mission for us through the various methods of transferring existing knowledge from person to person, even within the RCC, than there is in a "me and my bible" world. I can't prove it. But it might be true.

I am becoming more and more convinced that one of the things we learned from the LRC and so often still cling to is a sense of superior knowledge concerning anything organized in Christianity, from seminaries (bad) to clergy (bad) to liturgies (bad) and the RCC (whore of Babylon bad). And I'm not sure that it is doing us any good. Especially that last one. Yes, there are some things that I have a problem with in the RCC's practices. But if we try to argue that the RCC is one of those seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, then they are a church, not the whore of Babylon.

It still is a conflict in my being. It sticks in my craw at times. But I'm not sure that we were taught correctly. Yet we (and sometimes, still even I) speak as if it is a certainty.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Get involved in any organized church denomination, the same thing happens. You'll go to a 'bible study' and it underscores the ministry of that pastor.

I was not very clear in the portion that you were referring to here. I actually admitted that their way was not entirely wrong. That being said, because the LRC/LSM/Lee ministry is such a narrow ministry that openly despises almost all others, there is a cry from within me that says even if the way was technically correct, the application was not.

Learning from those who learn from others, etc., back to the beginning is not bad. In fact, it would seem to be expected. Think of the references to the "customs" and ways of the church recorded in scripture. Not a lot of them, but they are there. And that "apostles' teaching" thing was from the very beginning. Anything else was a different gospel.

But in the case of the LRC, there was a significant break in the progression of teaching. Both Nee and Lee took on isolated ways. Nee was not as arrogant as Lee, but he openly suggested that his writings were unique. Full of things that no one had seen before. In other words, teachings that were not from the apostles. That was the error. Not the format, but the content.

I won't comment on your pentecostal preachers demanding evidence of tongues. I was raised in one of those. There is a new breed of charismatic group that accepts the existence of those gifts but does not presume superiority on them or demand that they be everyone's gift. I am not part of that either, though I think I can live with that. I prefer to be apart from those things even though I am not simply a cessationist.

As I noted to KTS yesterday, I am not prone to flowery, spiritual speech. But I do not despise it unless I sense trickery in it. (Master is trixsy!!)

Continue in what you are learning. Be rich in love and good works. And I'm sure that you are as you are able.