Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Ding! I understand now. Thanks.
I did not intend to indicate in post #25 that the statement you quoted was not part of the content of the actual letter. That was not my intention or position (as revealed by my confusion in the last post!) - I fully acknowledge from the get-go that the statement you quoted is part of the letter. I think I should have said something like "then ELSEWHERE in the letter" or "when compared to the OTHER contents of the letter" but just neglected to say that because it was obvious in my mind and isn't everyone else a mind-reader? 
Yes, my problem is that the letter itself is contradictory seeming to say two different things. When one quote says "I don't mean x linked to z" but repeated throughout the letter is "x is linked to z", then that, in my eyes, is a problem. The one instance of "I am not talking about something in the Lord's recovery" gets swallowed up by the repeated point that there must be one publication in the Lord's recovery. |
In my eyes the ramifications are significant.
The quote states that the genuineness of a local church is not determined by whether or not that church "takes the ministry" (which I have to assume means Nee/Lee's ministry?).
It then goes on to explain that the one trumpet should be in the Lord's
ministry, rather than in the Lord's
recovery, indicating that a church that does not take the ministry/one trumpet is still a genuine local church. Since ministry is juxtaposed with recovery, the implication is that if the letter stated the one trumpet should be in the Lord's
recovery, then churches that do not take the ministry are thus not genuine local churches.
The problem is, the letter states that - one trumpet in the Lord's
recovery - in spades.