[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, it just makes it unclear. Which is why I asked you to clarity.

Noted. Thank you.

No, it still doesn't follow. You are trying to imply the existence of a general rule based up a CMW's specific observation. I don't think CMW stated a general rule applied. I think her point was is that Lee/LSM/LC were arrogant to an extreme fault and that caused their downfall.

Perhaps. But that yet stands to be proved.

Again, you are trying to create a rule where none was implied.

I think there was an implication, but now that point appears to be moot.

Lots of preachers and teacher sometimes point out the (ostensive) sad state of the Church. My own pastor does it from time to time. But that's not what Lee was solely doing. Lee was wholesale condemning and invalidating the whole of contemporary Christianity, Christendom or whatever you want to call it, with the view that his movement was God's only viable alternative.

I disagree. The concept of locality was formulated in whole by Watchman Nee. I do not believe that Lee carried Nee's concept to an unreasonable extreme. Nee said, "this is the pattern of locality in the Bible, which should be followed for this reason." Lee said, "This is the pattern as Nee said said it, we practice it, and others should as well." Witness Lee never stated or implied that "salvation is only in the local churches," which is what you have implied here. I have no qualms whatsoever of either Nee or Lee condemning the widespread acceptance of religious division in Christendom (I'll address this in a little more detail with my next response to CMW).

It was a black and white issue with him. Either one was in Babylon or one was in the Recovery (which, not coincidentally, he happened to have founded and lead). There is a huge difference here. Let's try to keep things straight.

I'd like to. Well, sin is a pretty black and white issue, wouldn't you agree? As such, that which is sourced in the flesh of man should also be a black and white issue. Therefore, if a person perceives something to be sourced in the flesh (ie. divisions), then it pretty much would amount to a black and white issue with them. The problem, then, may not necessarily be that such a vision is sectarian - different from the norm so as to be strange - but that an established acceptable paradigm is offended. See, Watchman Nee claimed that denominations were essentially of the flesh and soul, and that offended some. Witness Lee claimed that the local ground is the ground upon which Christ affirms the church, and that offended many.

As a side note (and one which I find particularly fascinating) one of the main items of contention between Witness Lee (That is, his teachings) and his detractors is the footnote in Rev. 17 which identifies the sects in Christianity as the harlots. For a few hundred years Protestants had absolutely no problem with the identification of the mother of the Harlots, Babylon, as being the Roman Church (in fact Martin Luther taught this very thing). Yet when it came to Lee's identification of the harlots as being, "all the different sects and groups in Christianity that hold to some extent the teaching, practices, and traditions of the apostate Roman Church," the issue became something entirely different. How dare Witness Lee call Protestant Christianity a bunch of harlots (Despite the fact that he clearly identified them as being those who "hold to some extent the teaching, practices and traditions of the apostate Roman Church")! This, in and of itself, smacks of hypocrisy.