Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - Re: The Trinity Thread (To be a merged thread)

Boxjobox · 08-04-2020, 08:49 AM

So to reiterate my premise: we are supposed to be discussing Née Lee and the LC on this site. WL/LSM refers to what they established as the Lords Recovery, the recovery of the church. I would say that WL did an adequate job of recovering the basic principles of the local church, at least as a starting point that would need further refinement and consideration of practice as time went on. I really don’t see anyone who spoke and brought out so much from the scriptures the many elements of the church and the need to forget the old Christianity ways of meeting, denominationalism, etc, and come together as Christians in the city where one lived and meet as the church. As to how that would look in each city, based on the locality would need ongoing attention.
But, WL went a step- well a lot more than a step!, further and wanted to fill the church content with his own theology, which was a warped presentation of trinitarianism. My premise is that the foundational church had no such theology and in fact would view such as foreign to what was established by Paul. I see no gospels spoken that put Jesus as God nor any teaching that would invite the idea of a 3 people God. Au contraire , both Jesus and Paul speak of one God, the Father, and Paul, in no uncertain terms calls for this to be the profession. All of Paul’s writings follow this thought. So a recovery of the church should have recovered this foundational belief. Instead, WL stuck to his own interpretations of. 4th century trinitarianism, and alas, although an adequate understanding of the foundational “ground” of the local church was established, the content was anything but recovered. Hence, you now have this entrenched entity who claim to be “the church” meeting as the recovery, but in content are far from such— Such an anomaly! It is that anomaly that I think this whole site was set up to discuss. Unfortunately, the dear moderator of the main site does not want a discussion to venture into the notion that a recovery of the church must needs be a discussion of the belief and practices of the scriptural foundational church, but would rather limit the discussion to 4th century ideology. Thus I get removed from the main site and relegated to the alt, because I guess the moderator has abandoned the thought of the need for recovery and has opted for reformation.

08-04-2020, 08:49 AM	#88
Boxjobox Moderated Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 829	Re: The Trinity Thread (To be a merged thread) So to reiterate my premise: we are supposed to be discussing Née Lee and the LC on this site. WL/LSM refers to what they established as the Lords Recovery, the recovery of the church. I would say that WL did an adequate job of recovering the basic principles of the local church, at least as a starting point that would need further refinement and consideration of practice as time went on. I really don’t see anyone who spoke and brought out so much from the scriptures the many elements of the church and the need to forget the old Christianity ways of meeting, denominationalism, etc, and come together as Christians in the city where one lived and meet as the church. As to how that would look in each city, based on the locality would need ongoing attention. But, WL went a step- well a lot more than a step!, further and wanted to fill the church content with his own theology, which was a warped presentation of trinitarianism. My premise is that the foundational church had no such theology and in fact would view such as foreign to what was established by Paul. I see no gospels spoken that put Jesus as God nor any teaching that would invite the idea of a 3 people God. Au contraire , both Jesus and Paul speak of one God, the Father, and Paul, in no uncertain terms calls for this to be the profession. All of Paul’s writings follow this thought. So a recovery of the church should have recovered this foundational belief. Instead, WL stuck to his own interpretations of. 4th century trinitarianism, and alas, although an adequate understanding of the foundational “ground” of the local church was established, the content was anything but recovered. Hence, you now have this entrenched entity who claim to be “the church” meeting as the recovery, but in content are far from such— Such an anomaly! It is that anomaly that I think this whole site was set up to discuss. Unfortunately, the dear moderator of the main site does not want a discussion to venture into the notion that a recovery of the church must needs be a discussion of the belief and practices of the scriptural foundational church, but would rather limit the discussion to 4th century ideology. Thus I get removed from the main site and relegated to the alt, because I guess the moderator has abandoned the thought of the need for recovery and has opted for reformation.