[OBW]

BB,
And now you see the reason for my comments. Since you did not simply back away from the kind of position that you were taking, it seems that the most important part of your original posts is being ignored.

Nee and Lee were false teachers. They deserved to be cast aside (in terms of teaching, not necessarily salvation). But everyone is focused on whether their followers might be going to hell.

The real problem, as I see it, is whether following these men, and others like them, is cheating Christians out of their rightful place on this earth in this age. We were created to be the image bearers of God. But those who are taught that refusing works is spiritual are effectively sidelined from the job of image bearer. They may argue that God sees it so it is good.

But Jesus said to let your light shine before men. He said to live righteously in the midst of perverseness. He said to obey. He said to love your neighbor as yourself. That does not really happen without what some might call works.

I agree that God sees all we do. But he called us to be out doing, not sitting on the sidelines. If we live our lives righteously before men, then we are doing what God has called us to. Even if the world does not take notice, God does. And he is pleased because that activity is part of what was originally declared to be "very good." When you skip that part and try to just push on through to the NewJ without even giving lip service to those works, you are living a gospel not found in the Bible (except as pointed out among the Pharisees and other "my religion is what counts" kind of people).

If we make that abundantly clear. If we point to its importance and clear command in the scripture, then the people who have enough vision to cut through the fog of Lee/LSM/LRC dogma will find their way out and live that life.

If they live that life, it will not matter whether you ultimately turn out to be right or wrong because they will be fully engaged in living the true Christian life. Only those who refuse such an obedience are potentially at risk. And the clarity of that risk is not a certainty. The ultimate outcomes are determined by God. The judgment of everyone is according to God. Not according to our understanding of it.

For that reason, it is too often the case that just taking the kind of "you'll go to hell" argument fails because those who didn’t agree probably also don't agree in the "going to hell" part. And that part is the hardest to pin down. Probably because that is strictly God's domain.

But the clear parts talk about our living. They give us commands (even in the NT era). It is much easier to deal with teachings that go directly against the clear commands.

And suggesting that the church is not about helping the poor is in direct opposition to the clear word of Christ. Suggesting that people should not try to be righteous, but wait around for enough "dispensing" is in direct opposition to the clear word of Christ as reiterated by several of the other writers, with both James and Peter being strong among them.

I might still tend to believe that there is a base level of salvation that does not require much (and that doesn't just get a free pass to the "streets of gold") and that still cannot be lost. But that is a far distance from what Jesus continually demanded of those who would follow him — whether close up as literal followers, or as believers who remained where they were. Just get that to be acknowledged and you don't have to worry about whether your position is correct. It will become a moot point.