View Single Post
Old 12-23-2016, 06:04 PM   #98
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,185
Default Re: Comments on The One Publication by Philip van Dijk

Originally Posted by least View Post
(2) If the Lord's Recovery is, as our brother Witness Lee claims, nothing more than a burden based on an interpretation of Watchman Nee and himself, then is this recovery maybe nothing more than another institutional denomination, something this recovery of the Lord vehemently sought to depart from in the first place?
If the Lord's Recovery is a burden based on an interpretation, what happens when I come along with another interpretation, like the ekklesia was so local that it was a meeting? There was not 'non-gathered' ekklesia? It could be dispersed? There could be ekklesia in homes, boats, on mountaintops, several or even hundreds simultaneously occurring in one single large metropolitan city? What happens if I or anyone else for that matter has a revelation from God's word?

But it wasn't the Revelation of Nee. So it doesn't count. All of which shows that indeed the Lord's Recovery is based on one man's interpretation. One man's interpretation, another man's marketing of that interpretation, and a corporation claiming sovereignty over the marketing of that interpretation.
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'
aron is offline   Reply With Quote