Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Deny – to refuse the truth of.
Do you agree that the NT truth regarding our oneness is something that was obtained solely by the Lord’s earthly ministry, particularly His work on the cross (both crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) as well as the sending of the Spirit? If so, does the teaching of “one city one church” deny this truth requiring something in addition to the Lord's work for us to have the "proper" oneness?
|
No, OCOC does not deny the truth of the Lord's work on the cross (both crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) as well as the sending of the Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Denying the work of the cross is equivalent to denying “the Lord who bought them”. If I argue that the Lord's work is 90% of our oneness then I am denying the truth that the Lord's work is 100% of our oneness.
The Apostle Peter does not refer to apostasy or blasphemy. He doesn’t say they speak sacrilegiously about Jesus, or that he spoke profanely about Jesus, or that he renounced his faith in Jesus. He said that he has a non orthodox teaching of the NT, this teaching creates a sect of Christians, dividing the Body, which is damnable. This teaching requires us to stand on something other than the Lord's work of redemption, hence it denies the Lord who bought us.
According to UntoHim in post 58 the ground of the LSM/Local churches is the "person and work of WL". That, to my understanding, is to deny the Lord who bought us.
|
They did not "deny the Master who bought them," but added extra conditions to the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." He never abolished nor refuted the place of the Pharisees nor the commandments of Moses which they claimed to uphold, instead He exposed their leaven and hypocrisy, elevating the teachings of man to the level of the word of God.
To the apostle Peter, what is "damnable" about these false teachings, is not that they resulted in divisions, but that they denied the Lord who redeemed us. Witness Lee has never done this. What he did was introduce and elevate the "extras," a.k.a. leaven, into the truth of the gospel.
If we apply this level of judgment to Lee, then we must also apply the same judgment to Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc.
Is there anyone left who can then be properly acknowledged as "orthodox."