Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical

[Evangelical]

Wherever we go and whatever we do, we are always in the church, the Body of Christ.

Being in prison did not stop the apostle Paul from being in the church.

The church is something spiritual and mysterious and not confined to the four walls of a building or an organization.

God sees every believer, and considers them all part of His one Body, the church.

Religion has made us believe that we are not in church unless we go somewhere on a Sunday. This is far from the truth.

Whenever a person accepts Christ they are made part of God's family.

But we also must be wise and not accept fellowship with everyone. We should not fellowship with those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11.
- sexual immorality
- greed
- idolatry
- slander
- drunkards
- con artists and extortioners

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wherever we go and whatever we do, we are always in the church, the Body of Christ.

Being in prison did not stop the apostle Paul from being in the church.

Unfortunately I'm an amateur and not qualified to teach or edify. But we're all priests and kings, and can at least hold forth on the word. (somewhat).

It seems to me that you overlay current meaning onto ancient text, and create an ontological entity that shouldn't exist in its own right, the creation of which becomes a distortion and diversion.

Our faith is in Christ, right? At least Luther got that right. And Wesley. They were refused the sacraments of the church but they had faith, and didn't waver. We gather in the name of Jesus Christ, not in the name of some church programme, or doctrine, or theology, or ministry (of the age!! - sorry, couldn't resist). The gathered faithful, assembled by the Holy Spirit, are focused on the One who can lead them home to the Father of lights. Instead, however, the gathering becomes focused on the gathering. The bride begins to eye her garments, and suppose herself a queen. She takes her eyes off the King, and light becomes darkness. And how great is the darkness!

The word 'ekklesia' predated Christ by centuries. See e.g. LXX, "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I'll sing hymns of praise to Thee". Jesus didn't invent some new term or idea when He told Peter that He'd build "My church". The focus of the church, or meeting, or gathering, is on Jesus, and on Jesus alone. Jesus is the drawing power, Jesus the Architect and Builder, Jesus the light, Jesus the Shepherd and sole trustworthy voice. "In these last days God has spoken to us in the Son. . ." (Heb 1)

I'm not saying any of your statements are wrong. And perhaps your devotion to the Lord puts mine to shame. But to posit the church as an ontological entity in its own right is a prelude to distraction, and opens a door for fierce men and women to rise up and mislead, if possible, even the elect.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

It seems to me that you overlay current meaning onto ancient text, and create an ontological entity that shouldn't exist in its own right, the creation of which becomes a distortion and diversion.

The word 'ekklesia' predated Christ by centuries. See e.g. LXX, "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I'll sing hymns of praise to Thee". Jesus didn't invent some new term or idea when He told Peter that He'd build "My church". The focus of the church, or meeting, or gathering, is on Jesus, and on Jesus alone. Jesus is the drawing power, Jesus the Architect and Builder, Jesus the light, Jesus the Shepherd and sole trustworthy voice. "In these last days God has spoken to us in the Son. . ." (Heb 1)

In the LC, they like to talk about what the church isn't, and say things such as "the church isn't a building", "we don't go to church", etc. It seems that Nee/Lee developed a lot of ideas about what the church is by approaching the subject from the view of what the church is not. That is the wrong approach and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

Take the very premise of the ground of locality - that there can only be one church per city. If we replace the word church with assembly/gathering, what the LC is really saying is that there can only be one assembly per city. It's a ridiculous notion, and not even the LC practices this. So this leads us to the immediate conclusion that the word church has an alternative meaning to LCers, and this meaning is what that the ground of locality is based upon. If we are to view the church as it is found in the bible, any talk of boundaries, territory or 'ground' of the assembly starts to sound strikingly divisive.

It's also interesting to consider certain ideas of the church that were summarily dismissed, ones which Evangelical has also dismissed. One of which is referring to a building as a church. What is any religious building for? It is for assembly. That is the one and only purpose of any "meeting hall"/building. So it's not all that erroneous to refer to a building as a church. I'm not suggesting that people should do that, but I'm saying that it's a relatively minor issue if someone wants to do so. Same thing with the phrase "going to church". If we operate with the understanding that the church an assembly (any assembly), then you quickly realize that the saying "going to church" is basically the equivalent of "going to assemble". What's the big deal with saying that? I don't see anything wrong. In essence, a reaction to seemingly erroneous notions about the church caused Nee and Lee to form even more erroneous notions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they like to talk about what the church isn't, and say things such as "the church isn't a building", "we don't go to church", etc. It seems that Nee/Lee developed a lot of ideas about what the church is by approaching the subject from the view of what the church is not. That is the wrong approach and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

Great points here.

Before I left the LC's, the Lord led me to study the Brethren and their early splits. I studied their early principles, and how they diverged over time. I found one of John Darby's earliest writings to be very significant. I have posted this before. Darby felt that their unity was based upon a common judgment of evil.

This has become the basis for all exclusivism. Both Nee and Lee followed Darby in this line of reasoning concerning the uniting bonds of the church. History tells us that years after their initial split, inclusion in exclusive Brethren circles required the judgment of George Muller. If new congregants or assemblies refused to condemn Muller, they could not receive the "right hand of fellowship" from Darby and the exclusives.

Thus the oneness of the LC's has little to do with the seven "one's" in Ephesians 4. Ask Titus Chu, he got quarantined for allowing drums and guitars, asking for clean sheets, and publishing his own books. Same thing happened to Dong in Brazil. This is why the Blendeds will never work with outside churches; sue them yes, but never work with them, because they were trained by Lee that oneness is not what we have in common, but how we judge others.

And remember ... only the headquarters in Anaheim can decide what we are to judge. And when convenient, the "victims" may change from from time to time. I understand this month they like the Catholics for teaching deification.

[OBW]

Wherever you go
Whatever you do
Whatever you say
Say, say, say
Say it with love.

(couldn't resist the similarity to the Moodies in that first post)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they like to talk about what the church isn't, and say things such as "the church isn't a building", "we don't go to church", etc. It seems that Nee/Lee developed a lot of ideas about what the church is by approaching the subject from the view of what the church is not. That is the wrong approach and it leads to the wrong conclusions.

Take the very premise of the ground of locality - that there can only be one church per city. . . . If we are to view the church as it is found in the bible, any talk of boundaries, territory or 'ground' of the assembly starts to sound strikingly divisive.

This is my argument. "The church isn't this and that", all these straw men to take our eyes off of Jesus. Then to save you from the boogeyman they give you the "new and pure" church, which is NOT THE STRAWMAN!! Hurray!! Now we can just love Jesus! Right!?

Wrong. We merely created a new non-strawmen entity, based upon our imagination, and selective response to our modest sensory input. "And the last state of the man was worse than the first." Ineed, not trusting in the all-seeing and all-knowing God, we trust our feeble perceptions. We look around and perceive multiple assemblies, and declare, "division". How do we know God doesn't look around and see multiplication? Why, because we don't want to, is why - we only see what we want to see.

Lee took it so far that he declared that in order to be one, all the local churches had to be "exactly identical", with "no differences whatsoever". Whatever happened to living stones? Now we're identical bricks! Whatever happened to "every tribe and people and tongue"? Now we're a smoothie. Every distinction homogeneously blended away into a ministry smoothie. But it's not the boogeyman!!

It started out with the church, then local ground, and boundaries. Then Deputy God, Handing Over, the Jerusalem Principle, the Work, the Ministry, God's New Move, Vital Groups, the Building Up, God's One Trumpet, God's Oracle, the Feeling in the Body. . . can I stop now? Or will the strawmen get us?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

This is my argument. "The church isn't this and that", all these straw men to take our eyes off of Jesus. Then to save you from the boogeyman they give you the "new and pure" church, which is NOT THE STRAWMAN!! Hurray!! Now we can just love Jesus! Right!?

Wrong. We merely created a new non-strawmen entity, based upon our imagination, and selective response to our modest sensory input. "And the last state of the man was worse than the first." Ineed, not trusting in the all-seeing and all-knowing God, we trust our feeble perceptions. We look around and perceive multiple assemblies, and declare, "division". How do we know God doesn't look around and see multiplication? Why, because we don't want to, is why - we only see what we want to see.

A strawman is exactly what it is, and it's all too easy to fall victim to this kind of tactic. Especially as Christians, we want to stand for what is right, and also stand against whatever contradicts the Bible. Unfortunately, manipulative leaders know how to use people's resolve to stand for what's right to their own advantage, in order to provoke a desired reaction.

Enter Lee. There was no end to his talk about "degraded Christianity." He told LC members exactly what "other Christians" believed. No one questioned such a view. The resulting strawman was constructed effortlessly. Some of the early LCers came in dissatisfied with other Christians groups. Thus, the attacks against other churches resonated with them. Those like me who grew up in the LC never saw for ourselves what other Christians were like. We were told what they were like and we had no reason to believe otherwise because we looked up to those leading us.

What was missing from the whole equation was a validation of the things being asserted.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The resulting strawman was constructed effortlessly.

That it's an ideational strawman to advance an argument, can be seen in how it's selectively applied. The boogeyman, here labeled "Christianity", is fallen, devilish, and degraded. On the contrary, "God sees no iniquity in the church" that is created by the argument. Lee told us to "forgive the messy kitchen" of the LC, ut the messy kitchen of "Christianity" was never forgiven, or overlooked; on the contrary it was raised again and again, and paraded before the assembly.

I could go on and on. I'll never forget the testimony from the Full-Time Training Taipei, from the so-called New Move: "If Christianity does it, then it's hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not hierarchy." That was one of the hand-picked cadre of the trainers speaking, to the astonishment of American elders and co-workers who were being re-educated.

[Evangelical]

Nee positively defines what the church is in his book "Normal Christian Church Life".

The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name.

It is important to realize that the ground of locality in no way implies a perfect church. The churches mentioned in Revelation were genuine local churches but all but one had problems.

"there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church.

Within a city are not merely "multiple assemblies" as some here claim. Christians don't just "go to a building" they go to a building with a name, that was founded by a particular organization, there are often two or more buildings on the same street, and they don't talk to or coordinate with each other (as if they are completely different religions). It is as if they do not have the same Father, Christ and Spirit.

The situation is different from the "multiple assemblies" of the Bible.

Furthermore, is the situation of degraded Christianity. The book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola Author and George Barna reveals how much of what is accepted as Christianity today is actually paganism.

It was the degraded Catholic church that caused Luther and others to separate from her, and so on and so forth until Christ returns.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church. .

Can a church save you, yes or no? Luther and Wesley got it right. So true churches and false churches are irrelevant; by attempting to discriminate you arguably reveal yourself to be false. By what measure you measure, it will be measured of you.

In your initial post you mentioned what constituted false Christians, the immorality, confusion, drunkenness, etc. We should indeed refuse fellowship with such behavior. This is not doctrine, but common sense. Lee brought us into his 'true church', where in order to keep LC oneness, we had to overlook immorality, drunkenness, and confusion. As one sister put it brightly, after the latest "move" was announced; "Well, it's the church!"

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name.

The way in which the Bible refers to assemblies does not 'reveal' anything. Besides, the Bible doesn't always refer to assemblies by the city in which they are located. Take for instances the opening of Philemon:
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The way in which the Bible refers to assemblies does not 'reveal' anything. Besides, the Bible doesn't always refer to assemblies by the city in which they are located. Take for instances the opening of Philemon:
Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house

This is how Jesus referred to assemblies-

Revelation 1:11
saying "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

Ephesus is a church - city, not denomination, house/street name, or country
Smyrna is a church - city, not denomination...
Pergamum is a church- city, not denomination...
Thyatira is a church- city, not denomination...
Sardis is a church - city, not denomination...
Philadelphia is a church - city, not denomination...
Laodicea is a church - city, not denomination...


Here, Jesus refers to churches by city name, and seven of them, proving that "a church" is a church in a city.
He does not call them the "Church in Asia".
They are called the "churches in Asia" proving that each city was one church.
He does not refer to them by their doctrine, founder, or beliefs, despite all their differences.

This is the New Testament pattern about church names given to us in the Bible.

A biblical church is all the believers in a city.

How many churches in your town/city? 10, 100, 1000? In the Bible both Paul and Jesus only refer to one per city.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"there is no such thing as a perfect church" is true, but an imperfect local church (a true church) is better than an imperfect local division which is a false church.

Evangelical, how did you get from "imperfect local church" to "imperfect local division"? What's the determining factor(s)? WHO gets to decide which is which?

I think you may want to have a talk with some of the brothers from the Great Lakes/Canada area about this local church verses local division business.

You see, once upon a time there was ONE imperfect local church in Toronto (one which followed the ministry of Witness Lee). Then, once upon a time some brothers came up from Anaheim Calif to declare that the imperfect local church in Toronto was all of the sudden considered as an imperfect local division! And then, so very conveniently, these brothers from Anaheim set up their own meeting and declared THEIR IMPERFECT LOCAL CHURCH to be the true "Church in Toronto".

Let's humor for a minute the poor fellow who just dropped in from Mars and knew nothing about imperfect local churches or imperfect local divisions - - WHICH IMPERFECT LOCAL MEETING PLACE SHOULD HE CONSIDER TO BE THE TRUE LOCAL CHURCH IN TORONTO?

This is not a trick question my dear friend. It does, however, have some huge implications on the practical implication of any "local church" that claims to have Jesus Christ and the Bible as it's only factor of oneness.

By the way...Welcome to LocalChurchDiscussions.Com, the only imperfect venue for open discussions regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Churches established by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evangelical, how did you get from "imperfect local church" to "imperfect local division"? What's the determining factor(s)? WHO gets to decide which is which?

I think you may want to have a talk with some of the brothers from the Great Lakes/Canada area about this local church verses local division business.

You see, once upon a time there was ONE imperfect local church in Toronto (one which followed the ministry of Witness Lee). Then, once upon a time some brothers came up from Anaheim Calif to declare that the imperfect local church in Toronto was all of the sudden considered as an imperfect local division! And then, so very conveniently, these brothers from Anaheim set up their own meeting and declared THEIR IMPERFECT LOCAL CHURCH to be the true "Church in Toronto".

Let's humor for a minute the poor fellow who just dropped in from Mars and knew nothing about imperfect local churches or imperfect local divisions - - WHICH IMPERFECT LOCAL MEETING PLACE SHOULD HE CONSIDER TO BE THE TRUE LOCAL CHURCH IN TORONTO?

This is not a trick question my dear friend. It does, however, have some huge implications on the practical implication of any "local church" that claims to have Jesus Christ and the Bible as it's only factor of oneness.

By the way...Welcome to LocalChurchDiscussions.Com, the only imperfect venue for open discussions regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Churches established by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.
-

Have you ever heard the moon analogy? If not I will tell you, it is a good one.
If we are in London and we look up at the moon, we are looking at the "moon in London".
If we are in New York and we look up at the moon, we are looking at the "moon in New York".
How many moons are there? Only one.
How many visible expressions of it are there? One per city.

To confine a church to a particular assembly hall or ministry is to make it too narrow. To say the church is a national or international church is to make it too big.
The Bible only speaks of the church being in a particular location.

Now suppose someone comes along and says, you know what? That moon is kind of ugly, I can do it better. I'm going to make it better and give it a new name. They then take the moon, improve it, and give it a name, "The Improved Moon". That is essentially denominationalism. That has happened, what, 10,000 or so times now? Every denomination has a name other than its locality.

Leaving denominationalism to go to the ground of locality, is not creating a new denomination. I know that is hard for some to understand, because they are so used to the idea of a divided Christianity.
Leaving denominationalism, to create a new church called "the such and such non-denominational free church", IS creating a new denomination.

So based on this, I would say that if both are on the ground of locality then they are both the "one church in Toronto".
An imperfect local church is a church on the ground of locality.
An imperfect division is a church on the ground of a denominational organization or institution. This is a human addition to God's plan.
Even if such a denomination were perfect in terms of brotherly love and sin, it cannot be truly perfect as it is a division.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nee positively defines what the church is in his book "Normal Christian Church Life".

According to his opinion based on the exclusion of evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ground of locality is what the Bible reveals - assemblies or churches (however you want to call them), are referred to by their city/locality name.

And by region, and by the person in who's house they meet.

The real evidence of Nee's answer trying to force evidence is that when he revisited it in Further Talks, he essentially notes that there are some examples that are contrary to his city-church rule, but that they can't mean the city-church rule is wrong because of the city-church rule.

That is like saying "All cars are black. The fact that you see cars of different colors does not disprove the rule because the rule says that all cars are black. And the rule is right."

It is a serious logical error. The error (under many names) in which the evidence against a proposition is dismissed because the proposition is presumed correct. It is a variant on begging the question in which an unsupported statement is made and then used to refute and/or dismiss evidence against it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Within a city are not merely "multiple assemblies" as some here claim. Christians don't just "go to a building" they go to a building with a name, that was founded by a particular organization . . . .

And if that is really a problem for Christianity, then Nee, followed by Lee and his other coworkers, simply added to the number of buildings housing assemblies with names. That they claim theirs is not a name but merely a description is hardly meaningful when using any other moniker format but theirs is dismissed as error. And if someone is already using their non-name name, they figure out how to get around it so they can use it anyway.

You are not the first to come here thinking that the doctrine of dirt (not found in the Bible) is the key to Christian unity and that it is only found in the churches that follow Lee. Oddly, even those following the doctrine of dirt are dividing among themselves. And suing each other.

And it is the "original" that is the most egregious in the lawsuit category.

So the "right" church is the most "wrong."

Go figure.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

According to his opinion based on the exclusion of evidence to the contrary.
And by region, and by the person in who's house they meet.

The real evidence of Nee's answer trying to force evidence is that when he revisited it in Further Talks, he essentially notes that there are some examples that are contrary to his city-church rule, but that they can't mean the city-church rule is wrong because of the city-church rule.

That is like saying "All cars are black. The fact that you see cars of different colors does not disprove the rule because the rule says that all cars are black. And the rule is right."

It is a serious logical error. The error (under many names) in which the evidence against a proposition is dismissed because the proposition is presumed correct. It is a variant on begging the question in which an unsupported statement is made and then used to refute and/or dismiss evidence against it.
And if that is really a problem for Christianity, then Nee, followed by Lee and his other coworkers, simply added to the number of buildings housing assemblies with names. That they claim theirs is not a name but merely a description is hardly meaningful when using any other moniker format but theirs is dismissed as error. And if someone is already using their non-name name, they figure out how to get around it so they can use it anyway.

You are not the first to come here thinking that the doctrine of dirt (not found in the Bible) is the key to Christian unity and that it is only found in the churches that follow Lee. Oddly, even those following the doctrine of dirt are dividing among themselves. And suing each other.

And it is the "original" that is the most egregious in the lawsuit category.

So the "right" church is the most "wrong."

Go figure.

Let's talk about logical errors shall we?

Why is it that no denominational names and only city names can be found in reference to churches in the Bible?

Why does the Bible frequently use the term "the church" and not "your church".

What the Bible says:
Matt 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church"

What you hear:
Matt 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to your church".

The concept of "my church" and "your church" is not in the Bible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And by region, and by the person in who's house they meet.

The real evidence of Nee's answer trying to force evidence is that when he revisited it in Further Talks, he essentially notes that there are some examples that are contrary to his city-church rule, but that they can't mean the city-church rule is wrong because of the city-church rule.

City-church rule is proven by the fact that in Revelation 1:11 it only counts SEVEN churches.

Revelation 1:11
saying "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

If a regional church, it would count less than 7.
If house assemblies were considered churches, it would count more than 7.

Furthermore we find that there are seven lamp stands:
"And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands." (Revelation 1:12).

Each lamp stand symbolizes only one local church in each city.

I'm afraid that you have little biblical evidence to support your notion that each assembly in each house could be considered a church, or that a church can comprise of multiple localities. Yes it does say the "church in " this house and that house, but this means the "assembly", and besides, the whole church of a city would not fit inside a house.

That's the way Jesus Himself referred to his own churches, you would have to admit that there are many beliefs and practices in Christianity that are based upon far less biblical evidence than that which I have provided here.

[Evangelical]

Watchman Nee was highly influenced by EM Barber, who held to Keswick theology and numerous others including Roman Catholic mystical quietists.
If you hold to Nee's theology you are essentially a Keswick theologian.

But suppose you reject Nee and Lee and choose to just "follow Christ". It sounds noble, it sounds spiritual, but let's see for a moment if that is even possible. We are still a follower of someone. Everyone's a follower of someone, whether they admit it or not. It is impossible to read the Bible with a neutral and unbiased mind. Born in America? Your reading of the Bible will be skewed by your American worldview. Are you African? You may interpret some parables of Jesus differently to someone would in the West, as your ideas of the family and social structure may be different. All of these things skew our interpretation of the Bible.

What is your natural disposition? This will influence which Bible verses "stand out" to you the most, and upon which ones you like to dwell.

What version of the Bible did you read? King James? He ordered that the scribes change some of the words in the bible to better reflect his views of his church, the church of England. They made a new version of the Bible to suit their purposes and desires.

Do you believe in salvation by grace alone? You follow Martin Luther.
Luther wrote some harsh things against the Jews:

"On the Jews and Their Lies"
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

Believe in total depravity, free grace? God's sovereignty? You follow Calvin.
Calvin condemned a man to death:
“On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva"

Read Paul's letter to the Corinthians? You follow Paul.
Read the Gospel of Luke? You follow Luke and his spin on the gospel, as opposed to Matthew.

Accept the New Testament Canon? You follow the so many men who chose what should go in that.
Have an English version of the Bible? Others decided how it should be translated for you, you didn't get the choice.

Believe in the Trinity? - chances are you were "brainwashed" to believe in that by others, or you would be labelled a "heretic" and cast out of your mainstream denomination if you didn't. Try to prove you got it from the Bible? Catholic Church fathers perverted the text in Matthew 28:19. The original said:
With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)


Believe in the Nicene Creed? Constantine and early Roman Catholic fathers in 325 AD wrote that for you to believe today. Jesus never wrote or said it.

Bible chapter and verse numbering - your view is skewed by this too. Sometimes it is incorrect and distorts the context. A person who knows Hebrew well might tell you.

You may not have books written by Luther, Calvin, King James, on your shelves, but it is their thoughts and philosophies that influence your thinking today and those that came before. In addition to the thoughts and philosophies of your society, your family, friends, and your own random thoughts and imaginations as well.

When you sit with your Bible alone and think you are getting the pure unadulterated Word of God and becoming a better theologian because the Spirit is magically giving you all of the "sound teaching" that others cannot give you, better think again.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everyone's a follower of someone, whether they admit it or not. It is impossible to read the Bible with a neutral and unbiased mind. Born in America? Your reading of the Bible will be skewed by your American worldview. Are you African? You may interpret some parables of Jesus differently to someone would in the West, as your ideas of the family and social structure may be different. All of these things skew our interpretation of the Bible. .

According to Lee (I'm going by memory here) Nee read all the different teachings, took the good and chucked the bad. He used different writers and ministries and views to balance each other out, and not fall into any trap of extreme or unbalanced interpretation.

So why then, aren't we accorded the same privilege in the local church of Nee and Lee? Why suddenly the One Trumpet? Why can't we take the good (assuming there is some) in the LSM and toss the bad?

Why did the age turn with Nee? Don't you think this is too subjective by half? Or even three quarters? Nee got to read everyone, and pick through, but if we tried it we'd merely get confused? Was Nee really that great?

And then, when Lee passed, no more Spiritual Giants? Only read the Great Man's words and stay in the ministry? Is this not a too hopeful and too subjective reading of the course of history?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is your natural disposition? This will influence which Bible verses "stand out" to you the most, and upon which ones you like to dwell. .

Somehow Nee avoided the natural disposition of the Chinese? Because he was raised up on the "virgin soil" of China, he could come at the Bible free from the Eurocentric worldview and finally cut straight the word of truth?

The narrative is so self-serving as to be delusional. It can only exist in the hermetically-sealed world of the local church of Nee and Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When you sit with your Bible alone and think you are getting the pure unadulterated Word of God and becoming a better theologian because the Spirit is magically giving you all of the "sound teaching" that others cannot give you, better think again.

I guess God's word and an occasional diversity of ministers is plenty enough for me these days. I was specifically told that going back to the pure word of God was a "tactic of the enemy." But isn't reading the ministry of just one man in place of the Bible also a "tactic of the enemy?"

And what if I no longer value "being a better theologian?" What if loving God and loving my neighbor are sufficient goals in my christian life? Actually, studying Lee full-time was way easier than what Jesus has personally instructed us to do.

And btw I saw all kinds of brothers at LSM serving out of their natural life, violating scriptural commands, and "killing" their brothers, all the while thinking they were serving God.

[Cal]

I assume you started this thread as a response to my points about being a follower of Lee rather than Christ.

Look there is nothing wrong in principle with following a teacher or being influenced by one. The problem comes in when you don't feel the freedom to follow the leading of the Lord when it contradicts the teacher. I mentioned this specifically about the LCM trying to influence people not to leave the movement. When you believe that the Lord would never lead someone to lead the LCM the fact is you put following Lee and the LCM leaders above following Christ. Because whether you like or not the Lord could lead someone to leave your movement.

So if you are responding to me you missed my point.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I assume you started this thread as a response to my points about being a follower of Lee rather than Christ.

Look there is nothing wrong in principle with following a teacher or being influenced by one. The problem comes in when you don't feel the freedom to follow the leading of the Lord when it contradicts the teacher. I mentioned this specifically about the LCM trying to influence people not to leave the movement. When you believe that the Lord would never lead someone to lead the LCM the fact is you put following Lee and the LCM leaders above following Christ. Because whether you like or not the Lord could lead someone to leave your movement.

So if you are responding to me you missed my point.

No I just had the feeling to post about this, did not have anyone in mind in particular. Apologies if it felt that way to you. I was reflecting upon influences and the fact that on one is truly neutral and unbiased.

Here's the thing. We can leave a movement and a false church, but we can't leave the genuine church. To do so would be to deny the Lord. The Lord may lead someone to leave a movement. But He would not ask them to leave a genuine church. There is no example in the bible of the Lord asking them to leave anything that He has started.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No I just had the feeling to post about this, did not have anyone in mind in particular. Apologies if it felt that way to you. I was reflecting upon influences and the fact that on one is truly neutral and unbiased.

Here's the thing. We can leave a movement and a false church, but we can't leave the genuine church. To do so would be to deny the Lord. The Lord may lead someone to leave a movement. But He would not ask them to leave a genuine church. There is no example in the bible of the Lord asking them to leave anything that He has started.

That's not true.

The Lord started worship in Israel through Moses, giving them the law on the mount. For a thousand years He reinforced what He had started by sending judges, kings, priests, and prophets. Then Jesus came in person to lead them out of what He personally started.

Why? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

The Lord led me to the local church. Then He led me to migrate to start two new churches. Meanwhile, something horrible happened in Anaheim at LSM under the leadership of WL and later the Blendeds.

What happened? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

Then the Lord led me out of what He had started.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's not true.

The Lord started worship in Israel through Moses, giving them the law on the mount. For a thousand years He reinforced what He had started by sending judges, kings, priests, and prophets. Then Jesus came in person to lead them out of what He personally started.

Why? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

The Lord led me to the local church. Then He led me to migrate to start two new churches. Meanwhile, something horrible happened in Anaheim at LSM under the leadership of WL and later the Blendeds.

What happened? Hypocrisy, unbelief, corruption, the list is long.

Then the Lord led me out of what He had started.

You are right, I was wrong. I did not think of the Old Testament to New Testament period.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But suppose you reject Nee and Lee and choose to just "follow Christ". It sounds noble, it sounds spiritual, but let's see for a moment if that is even possible.

Obviously you are reading from the same "talking points" I used to speak from.

But as someone who has been both "in and out," things don't always appear as they seem.

Let me relay one "shocking development" I came across in ~2003. I was reading Nee's classic The Normal Christian Church Life with a few brothers. I could not believe my eyes! Page by page we were comparing Nee's early teachings with the practices of Witness Lee and now the Blended Brothers. Oh what a shocker! Nothing matched! Not even by a mile.

Could you believe that most Baptist denominations were closer to Nee's teachings than LSM was? And all along we had thought that Nee's book was a guide of sorts to LSM and the LC's.

Dear brother Evangelical, since you so value Watchman Nee's teachings and the Recovery, please go back and do the same. If you like, I could give you a guided tour, that is if I can retrieve my book, which I gave to an old friend.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously you are reading from the same "talking points" I used to speak from.

But as someone who has been both "in and out," things don't always appear as they seem.

Let me relay one "shocking development" I came across in ~2003. I was reading Nee's classic The Normal Christian Church Life with a few brothers. I could not believe my eyes! Page by page we were comparing Nee's early teachings with the practices of Witness Lee and now the Blended Brothers. Oh what a shocker! Nothing matched! Not even by a mile.

Could you believe that most Baptist denominations were closer to Nee's teachings than LSM was? And all along we had thought that Nee's book was a guide of sorts to LSM and the LC's.

Dear brother Evangelical, since you so value Watchman Nee's teachings and the Recovery, please go back and do the same. If you like, I could give you a guided tour, that is if I can retrieve my book, which I gave to an old friend.

That doesn't mean that what they started was not of the Lord and not genuine. Nor does it mean that what continues today in various localities is not genuine.

Luther wrote some pretty vile things against the Jews in his later life but no one is rejecting Sola Fide because of it. The Reformation was of the Lord and genuine.

If you do not believe that the LR was/is of the Lord, then please tell us which denominations or organizations are?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That doesn't mean that what they started was not of the Lord and not genuine. Nor does it mean that what continues today in various localities is not genuine.

Luther wrote some pretty vile things against the Jews in his later life but no one is rejecting Sola Fide because of it. The Reformation was of the Lord and genuine.

If you do not believe that the LR was/is of the Lord, then please tell us which denominations or organizations are?

I agree with this. My family was a mix of Catholics (my father) and Lutherans (my mother.) I have studied both of their beginnings, both of their histories, and both of their current conditions.

I first contacted brothers and sisters in the LC's back in May 1973. I worked with several of them for the whole summer. The light of Jesus Himself shined on their faces. Just seeing them huddled for lunch on the steps convicted my dark Catholic heart. That was more than real. They had the freshness of a newborn babe! That had nothing to do with the teachings of Nee or Lee. It was all about Jesus!

What exists in the LC's today is nothing like that. My how things have changed! Perhaps there are pockets of scattered saints in diverse LC's which still bare a resemblance to the Lord. I have no way to know that, nor can I critique every gathering of Christians around the globe. (As both LSM and you apparently do on a regular basis.) I am not the judge of our Lord's own body, as LSM loves to be. I am here only because LSM hurts people.

[NewManLiving]

Our dear brother Evangelical forgets that the Church in Rome was once a so-called local church. She became corrupt and is now considered by many to be an abomination. So you see the Lord can remove a Lampstand. Regardless of how one views the doctrine of locality, the LSM local churches are strictly ministry or business churches that support the LSM organization. Those genuine local churches that disagree with the Blendeds, regardless of the reason are immediately censored. This is NOT the New Testament pattern. Paul did not run his business off the Churches. When all of Asia left him he did not run about trying to sue them and cut them off. He still called them churches. He never considered himself to be The Minister of the Age with his own system of churches orbiting around him. He did not disparage the ministries of the other Apostles. The list of differences goes on and on. By the way, our brother Paul had a very personal side to him as well; "That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings being conformed to His death". Paul's goal was Christ alone - to forsake all for the prize.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I make no apologies. If you want local church members to post here then expect local church answers.

It's not the model "I prefer". It's the model revealed in the Bible. Time and time again when the local church is mentioned it is by the locality (the city name etc).

The Bible mentions the church in the city, but it doesn't command that we meet "as" the church in the city. There are at least four instances in the NT that mention a church "in the house" and there is no reason to assume the church in the house is the same as the church in the city unless you've already predetermined it is, which is circular thinking. Further there is one other place were it mentions the church in a region, Galatia.

Now you can rationalize these other manifestations of church away, as Nee did, but as I said the only ground to do it is if you've predetermined that the church in the city is the only valid "ground," which is faulty reasoning. So therefore the church in the city as the only valid model is put in reasonable question. Therefore insisting on the church in the city, discounting other manifestations of church, is unreasonable and so in violation of the NT command to "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind." Which is why the LCM mindset is wrong.

I believe the church in the city exists. But there is no compelling reason to believe that it must be organized and administrated as the LCM is. The LCM superficially calls itself the church in the city and thinks if you call yourself that then that's what you are. It doesn't work that way.

Further, there is no way of determining whether the "elders" of a group which claims to be the church in the city are actually the elders God wants everyone in that city to follow. Suppose there are two groups claiming to be the church in the city. Which one do you join? This problem actually exists. You know what the LCM does? They just say the other group is invalid. As if they have "franchise rights." Oh really? Now, why would that be?

How do I know if another group starts meeting as the church in the city that they are not the ones to meet with? That others were there first? "Squatters right?" That they claim be following the right ministry? There's your hierarchy. The LCM has never joined another existing city church. Every time they've come across one they've either taken it over, or if it refuses that they've discounted it and started another church. That's some of the history of your movement you've chosen to ignore.

The LCM has historically rejected any group which called itself the church in the city that didn't submit to their little movement. They find some convenient reason to discount it. What gives the LCM movement the right to do this kind of thing? To be judge, jury and executioner of every church that doesn't align itself with them? Please explain.

You cannot find a denominational or a hierarchical structured model anywhere in the Bible. I do the right thing and request others to present to me these "different models" and no one can show me.

Already shown you the house churches. There is nothing in the Bible that says a church can't have a "name." Plus the LCM is a hierarchy going right up to the Blendeds. Not admitting that is just denial.

Please listen to yourself. Trying to argue that such an important matter as the church is not something Jesus revealed to us.

Please listen to yourself. You are a tiny sect of Christianity yet you are insisting that you are doing church right and everyone else in history has done it wrong. You have set yourself up as the judges of every Christian group in the world. You have expected everyone to line up with you, and if they don't, you've declared them as outside of God's genuine move. In the meantime, people are getting saved, growing, being shepherded and building the church outside your little walls and the only way you are getting new members is stealing their sheep because you can't seem to get anyone saved yourselves. Yet you are right and everyone else is wrong. Yessiree.

This is classic sect/cult thinking: "We are the only one's that see it." What are the odds that this is true? What are the odds that only you guys get it, especially considering that there is no evidence that the LCM way has produced better, wiser, more mature, etc, Christians than anyone else. In fact, often the opposite is true. I've come in contact with LCMers I knew decades ago. I don't get any sense they have more growth or a better relationship with God than me. In fact, in some ways they seem stunted.

You're like the Mormons. The Mormons believe they are among the few who've figured out that Jesus really isn't God. They claim to be Christians, but the odds are extremely remote that they've got it right and the other 99% have it wrong. This simple fact never occurs to them. Apparently it never occurs to you either.

Or you are merely recounting negative experiences that happened decades ago in the 70's and 80's. Things seem to have moved on, the LR has moved on. Welcome to the 21st Century.

I would say you are actually very ignorant of the history of the group you are giving you life to.

The things done in the name of Christianity by the denominations has far exceeded any negative thing that the LR has ever done as far as I see it. Inquisitions, murders, etc.

Yet you are all defending them as if they are the exemplar of what church is all about.

Let's stick to recent history, okay? Every group has problems. You are one unwilling to face the recent ugliness in the group you belong to. You are the one ignoring recent history.

Hopefully my post has demonstrated enough "independent thought" for my little brainwashed mind .

Not really.

[Evangelical]

Do we know the difference between regulation and legalism?

Knowing and practicing the difference makes the difference between gladly obeying God with relative ease and striving to obey God with gritted teeth.

The majority of Christian churches today express authority and obedience as this:
God has given us some rules to follow, teaches you what they are.
Tells you to try your best to follow them
Don't worry if you fail, repent, pick yourself up and try, try again.

But this doesn't work. There are many Christians stuck in this never ending cycle of religious zeal, trying to obey God, failing, repenting and trying again.
This cycle is propagated by churches which do not know the effective solution. They can only teach rules and laws without providing the solution for how to obey.
On the other hand there are Christian churches and groups which give up completely, they have no rules. They claim to experience or pursue the Spirit, yet anyone can do or behave whatever they feel like.

The problem is really a lack of law and obedience, but is this law obeyed by regulation by life, or is it legalism?.

Regulation is necessary for order in the church. Regulation prevents chaos. Regulation is godly and righteous. We can think of regulation as like a Voltage regulator, which is meant to keep the Voltage constant. Regulation will keep our Christian life constant, with fewer tries and failures, ups and downs. Regulation will also help us be regular in the sense of regular prayer times, regular bible study, and regularly attending church. We will no longer do this things only when we feel like it, or when we have obtained enough religious zeal.

regulation means

"a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority."
"the action or process of regulating or being regulated."

Christians are under authority. As Christians we are under God's authority, the Supreme authority. We are also under the authority God appoints over us in the church. We are under the governing authority God has put over us in society. Wives are under the authority of their husbands, and children their parents (Ephesians 5:23-33). Christ has authority over the Church. The apostles authority still remains today - whenever we heed the words of Paul in the Scriptures we are coming under his apostolic authority, and Christs.

But is that authority by regulation or legalism? Legalism, is the concept of "rule and conquer" by law, reward and punishment. It is about putting law above life. Legalism is hard to bear, because there is no life. Legalism is to try and fail, be rewarded or be punished. Many think that legalism is the way to be regulated, but this is not so. If we want to regulate electricity we cannot demand that it regulate itself, and then punish it when it does not. We need to install a "voltage regulator" to obtain a constant voltage.

Thankfully God has provided us with such a "voltage regulator". It is the law of the Spirit of life. The Christian has law, but this law is one of Spirit and life. Romans 8:2 "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death".

Genuine regulation is according to life, not rule of law. Regulation by life can be likened to the flow of blood in our bodies. Our hearts regulate our bodies by pumping blood. If our heart did not beat regularly, our bodily functions would be in chaos. If our heart was irregular, it brings chaos to the rest of our body, and brings anxiety to our minds. Our bodies do not do as they please, they are regulated by the flow of blood in our body.

In a similar way, the Holy Spirit as the spiritual "life blood" in us, regulates us individually. The Holy Spirit also, in the Body of Christ, regulates the church. The flow of the Spirit in every member is regulating them to obey the authorities. A genuine Spirit-led life is a regulated life, not one of many tries and failures or lawlessness.

Regulation by the Holy Spirit, the law of life, produces harmony, normality and freedom from chaos. It is pleasant and not so hard to bear. Even though the expected righteous requirements for Christians exceeds that of the Pharisees (Matt 5:20), for the Christian it is not a burden because it is achieved by the life in us. This is the genuine "freedom in Christ".

Just as an elephant does not need to try to be an elephant because it has an elephant's life, a Christian does not need to try to be a Christian because they have Christ's life. A Christian who tries to be a Christian without Christ's life, will ultimately fail. But with Christ's life it is possible to be victorious.

It is for this reason that it is worthwhile to practice to live and experience Christ's life, by calling the Lord's name, praying, reading the Word, fellowship, listening to and obeying Christ. Over time you will experience inward regulation by the Spirit of life.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The majority of Christian churches today express authority and obedience as this:
God has given us some rules to follow, teaches you what they are.
Tells you to try your best to follow them
Don't worry if you fail, repent, pick yourself up and try, try again.
...
On the other hand there are Christian churches and groups which give up completely, they have no rules. They claim to experience or pursue the Spirit, yet anyone can do or behave whatever they feel like.

Evangelical, could you please provide some LC context to this topic? I'm assuming the tie-in is what you refer to as "law of the Spirit of life."

Secondly (and please don't take this as a sarcastic remark), but do you care to explain how you arrived at the conclusion from the portion of your post I quoted? Is this your observation? If not, do you have data to back this up? Or is this just your assumption about what various Christian groups are like?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Evangelical, could you please provide some LC context to this topic? I'm assuming the tie-in is what you refer to as "law of the Spirit of life."

Secondly (and please don't take this as a sarcastic remark), but do you care to explain how you arrived at the conclusion from the portion of your post I quoted? Is this your observation? If not, do you have data to back this up? Or is this just your assumption about what various Christian groups are like?

By LC context I take this to mean you asking me to quote Nee/Lee about this? If so it is strange for you to ask for that, if you are supposed to be following the Bible only and are free from Nee/Lee's teachings. But since you are asking, yes it would be connected somehow with the teaching about the law of the Spirit of life.

The ones that "have no rules" are the ones such as these:
http://charismissional.com/how-to-get-stoned-on-jesus/
Would the Holy Spirit ever instruct a Christian to "get stoned on Jesus"? If not, this indicates they are not led by the Spirit despite their claims and "spiritual" experiences.

Regarding the majority of Christian churches, yes I have some personal experience about this. But I feel it is better to consider the numbers. Whether someone has done an academic study on this or not, I have not looked. But I have done my own approximate evaluation to see whether my claim about "the majority" might be correct.

I take the list of Christian denominational member numbers from Wikipedia, found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ber_of_members

I then add up the denominations which I consider to be following rules and practicing legalism. How do I know that Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican teach that we should obey God by following rules, that is, legalism? This is from my experience and the experiences of others that I know. This is also often a belief of Protestantism that these denominations, particularly Catholic, are "works based".

Going by the numbers in millions, we have Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican at
1200+300+86+85 = 1671 million.
Protestant are 800 million.

If we assume that all of those Protestants believe in obeying God by following the Spirit (or the law of the Spirit, as Law/Nee might say), and if we assume that all of those Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican obey God by legalism, then
the numbers show that:
1671/(1671+800) = 67% of denominational members try to obey God by following rules.
To me, 67% is a majority and therefore my statement that the majority of churches obey God by not following the Spirit, is factual.

This simple analysis I have done overlooks a few things. Firstly, not all Catholics, Orthodox or Anglican are legalistic. There are charismatic movements within these denominations that stress the importance of the Spirit. There are some individual priests or members who know the Spirit-led life. Secondly, not all Protestants are following the Spirit. I have attended baptist or Presbyterian churches which are very legalistic. Some, are quite sarcastic towards the worship practices and beliefs of the Pentecostals and charismatics, and their focus on the Spirit. In some churches you would rarely hear the word Spirit mentioned, and some do not believe the Spirit is a person, but rather a mysterious force or power.

So if you disagree with my view that the majority of denominations are not obeying God by following the Spirit, you are free to provide your own analysis or evaluation and disagree.

But I think it would be harder for you to justify that the majority of Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican are following the Spirit, than it is for me to justify that they are not. It may be easy for a Roman Catholic to claim that they are following the Spirit, in their own way they are convinced this is true. But I think it would be particularly hard for a Protestant to admit or acknowledge that the majority of Roman Catholics follow the Spirit, would it not? To do so would be for a Protestant to infer that the Roman Catholics are led by God to offer prayers to Mary, venerate and pray to saints, and idolatry.

In my experience, the only denominations which make reference to or preach about the power of the Spirit or the inward dwelling of the Spirit for our ability to obey God, are the charismatics/pentecostals, and the Lord's Recovery, and probably certain house churches as well (I am only familiar with major denominations), depending upon their denominational persuasion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if you disagree with my view that the majority of denominations are not obeying God by following the Spirit, you are free to provide your own analysis or evaluation and disagree.

But I think it would be harder for you to justify that the majority of Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican are following the Spirit, than it is for me to justify that they are not. It may be easy for a Roman Catholic to claim that they are following the Spirit, in their own way they are convinced this is true. But I think it would be particularly hard for a Protestant to admit or acknowledge that the majority of Roman Catholics follow the Spirit, would it not? To do so would be for a Protestant to infer that the Roman Catholics are led by God to offer prayers to Mary, venerate and pray to saints, and idolatry.

It seems you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here. My goal wasn't to agree or disagree with you, it was to determine how you arrived at your conclusions. I think you answered that question for me with this statement: I then add up the denominations which I consider to be following rules and practicing legalism...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In my experience, the only denominations which make reference to or preach about the power of the Spirit or the inward dwelling of the Spirit for our ability to obey God, are the charismatics/pentecostals, and the Lord's Recovery, and probably certain house churches as well (I am only familiar with major denominations), depending upon their denominational persuasion.

The reason that I asked about LC context, is because just as I suspected, you have singled out the LC to say that they are one of the few groups who talk about a certain matter. Given my LC experience, when you speak of groups "practicing legalism", I would readily put the LC in that category. In my opinion, this attempt to distinguish regulation and legalism is hodgepodge.

In the LC, they have a lot of unspoken rules - things like how to dress, etc. All of which could be categorized as legalism. If a member were to call it such, they could expect to be corrected and told how we all need to be 'regulated'. In other words, it is at the whim of leaders to determine what is 'regulation' and what is 'legalism'.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here. My goal wasn't to agree or disagree with you, it was to determine how you arrived at your conclusions. I think you answered that question for me with this statement: I then add up the denominations which I consider to be following rules and practicing legalism...



The reason that I asked about LC context, is because just as I suspected, you have singled out the LC to say that they are one of the few groups who talk about a certain matter. Given my LC experience, when you speak of groups "practicing legalism", I would readily put the LC in that category. In my opinion, this attempt to distinguish regulation and legalism is hodgepodge.

Including the LC into those who "practice legalism" only confirms my statement about "the majority of Christian churches" even more!

Or, you could just evaluate what I wrote by the Bible alone. Note, that I never quoted or referenced Nee or Lee once in what I said. You asked me to provide a LC context, not me.

You seem to desire to focus on the LC.

Are you sure you are not in an anti-LC cult dear Freedom?

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the LC, they have a lot of unspoken rules - things like how to dress, etc. All of which could be categorized as legalism. If a member were to call it such, they could expect to be corrected and told how we all need to be 'regulated'. In other words, it is at the whim of leaders to determine what is 'regulation' and what is 'legalism'.

How does a leader enforce "unspoken" and "unwritten" rules?

Hmm
Not being late for meetings.
Dressing appropriately.
Parking your car appropriately within the lines.
Lining up for meals in an orderly fashion.
Acting with consideration of others and respecting other's property .
These are unwritten and unspoken rules in society.

you are really "splitting hairs" on this one.

If you want to see real legalism in action,go to any Roman Catholic, or Church of England or Lutheran church, and see how they ritually pray the same thing out of the same book every Sunday. The
Priest says virtually the same thing according to ritual every time. There is a rote prayer for any problem you might have. Are you willing to call them out for being a cult for that?

[Evangelical]

Every Sunday, in Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Church of England and (I believe, I could be wrong) Lutheran churches.
The church priest conducts a fixed and pre-arranged order of service. One of which the majority of speaking is done by the priest, with their assistance, and perhaps the reading of a bible verse or two by a member of the congregation and church announcements.

The congregation reads the same things out of the same one book every Sunday (minor variations to be sure). They hardly use the Bible, only the words written in the prayer book.
There is no prophesying, or freedom for any member to interrupt the service so as to speak their mind or share what the Lord has told them.

Everyone speaks in rote unison, sits or stands according to the priestly directions. Only the priest can handle the bread and wine, to do so normally requires extensive theological training. If you disagree with anything, or want to change anything, there is very little you can do.

Contrast that with the LC, where there is no order of service or prayer book there are no priests, any believer can handle the bread and wine. Anyone can speak at any time.

Supposedly the LC is a cult, and yet it allows more freedoms than in the other churches that you say are not cults? Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

This is one of the key burdens of this forum, to answer this question, at least the part about the LC. “Carry Up My Bones From Here” attempts to summarize this answer based on the book of James and quotes Nigel Tomes, Don Rutledge, Steve Isitt, John Ingalls, Ohio, Witness Lee, Kerry Robichaux, Ed Marks, and others.

The burden of James is to turn back those who have wandered from the truth.

Those who have wandered from the truth look like “the twelve tribes in the dispersion”. In the Old Covenant we had 12 tribes, but not in the New Covenant. What is it that makes the LC, RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran distinct? The Old Testament teachings they hold onto.

For example, the Ground of the Church doctrine which you are so strong to champion is an Old Testament teaching. Cut out everything from the Old Testament and there is no teaching. You have letters addressed to a church in Ephesus, or to the churches of Galatia, or to the church in their house, or to “the twelve tribes in the dispersion”. No one is saying that James is teaching us that we need to be “tribes in a dispersion” but somehow you infer a very strict teaching that condemns all other believers beside yourself because Paul addressed a letter to "the church in Ephesus". This is a commandment of men.

Why do you ignore the very clear commandments of the New Testament? We only have two: love God with our whole heart and love our neighbor as ourself. According to James once you start judging your brother because he is not “on the proper ground” you are a judge of these two New Testament commandments.

If you really have some great insight into the New Testament that will help everyone then show us with the meekness of wisdom in works of faith. If you want to change the age, if you want to bring in the kingdom it is not going to be by being “a hearer of the word only” but rather by being “a doer of the word”. Any group, whether it is the LC or any other one that is a hearer only has wandered from the truth.

When we appear before the Lord’s judgement seat we are not going to be judged based on whether or not we were faithful to Witness Lee’s “ground of the church” doctrine. We will be judged based on whether or not we were faithful to the two commandments Jesus gave us to keep.

Tribes are characterized by individual leaders and doctrines that make them distinct. I infer that this picture of 12 tribes in dispersion, people who are believers in the New Testament but holding onto their Old Testament distinctions, are like dry bones scattered in the valley. Every single bone in my body is distinct from all other bones. If you knit them together in life, then you will have one body, but take away that life and you have scattered bones. The basis of our oneness is what the Lord did on the cross, not the boundaries of a city purchased by people in the world.

[DistantStar]

You are setting up a strawman. You are assuming that cults are what those sects are.

Then you proceed to show how the LC denomination is not like them, and therefore not a cult.

Perhaps it's the other away around, don't you think? Perhaps the "evil" rituals of the Catholics and Orthodox and Lutheran churches are normal while the LC is the cult.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not saying they are or are not. I'm just questioning your reasoning here.

Besides, compare yourself with normal evangelicals. We are all here (as far as I know) not Catholics or Orthodox Christians. None of us ascribe to their rituals. The debate is not between Catholocism and the LC (although I see few differences). The debate is between normal evangelical churches and the LC.

This is a red herring designed to divert us into defending things we don't believe in.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You are setting up a strawman. You are assuming that cults are what those sects are.

Personally I dislike the word cult. The definition of a cult includes the early church. It is not a New Testament term and the utter vagueness of this term authors confusion.

The New Testament refers to false prophet, false teacher, antichrists, and the fruit of a false teacher.

The New Testament goes into great detail about what a false teacher is (for example hypocrite) so I consider all those other terms to be included in these.

The New Testament also tells us that teachers will receive "stricter judgement". We are told not to judge our brother, and judging that a "Lutheran" is in a "cult" is that judgement. However, we are told to take heed to the doctrine that we walk in. So then judging false teachers and heretical doctrines is prudence, and is something the NT directs us to do.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Personally I dislike the word cult. The definition of a cult includes the early church. It is not a New Testament term and the utter vagueness of this term authors confusion.

I see your point and I agree. I am not saying that either the LC denomination or any other sect is a cult. I was making a point that IF either the LC or one of the sects he mentioned is a cult, then the LC could just as likely be the cult.

But like I said, this a red herring to distract us into defending things we don't believe in.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Supposedly the LC is a cult, and yet it allows more freedoms than in the other churches that you say are not cults?

Why is LC a cult and RC, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran not cults?

Because those groups don't practice mind control.

They allow members to think for themselves.

They don't isolate their members.

They don't try to restrict their members to only reading their materials.

They don't put pressure on members to attend an inordinate number of meetings and conferences.

They don't declare churches as "rogue" because they don't practice "one publication."

They don't declare any church a false church if it doesn't line up with their headquarters.

They are open the public debate about their beliefs, practices and history.

They don't hide their history.

They don't assassinate the characters of those who publicly question them

They don't tell members that if they leave their movement they are leaving "God's best" or suggest that God will judge them for doing so.

They no longer push the teaching that they are the "one true church."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How ironic.

Lee claimed that his "high peaks" were the consummation of the recovery of lost truths in scripture. Now Evangelical wants me to accept that lots of Christians have been believing this all along!

How can you positively reference degraded Christianity which your leader regularly condemned as "hopeless and helpless?"

Because it is not one of those matters that became degraded.
It became forgotten about, in the Western church, as one of the links I provided shows.
Degraded Christianity is marrying homosexuals. That is one of the many reasons they are degraded. Not because they left or stopped holding onto the truths they still hold.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Degraded Christianity is marrying homosexuals. That is one of the many reasons they are degraded. Not because they left or stopped holding onto the truths they still hold.

The degraded Recovery has its share of homosexuals, they just keep them locked up in the closet.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Degraded Christianity is marrying homosexuals. That is one of the many reasons they are degraded. Not because they left or stopped holding onto the truths they still hold.

Some groups in Christianity are marrying homosexuals. That is very different from declaring that Christianity is marrying homosexuals.

You are washing the error of a few onto the whole. It is no more applicable to the majority of Christianity than it is to the LCM.

That there will be some who go off into serious error is sort of given. That would seem to have been what was happening with some in Thyatira. Some really deep things of Satan. And yet there was still a church. Still a lampstand. Not a group that could be cast aside for failing to meet Nee's formula of whatever.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Some groups in Christianity are marrying homosexuals. That is very different from declaring that Christianity is marrying homosexuals.

I could say Christians are not marrying homosexuals. This means every group that does this is not Christian. Consider Mystery Babylon. The church went from Judaism, to a period of normality to paganism. The church that receives the pagan teachings. The book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna, makes this clear. Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider Mystery Babylon. The church went from Judaism, to a period of normality to paganism. The church that receives the pagan teachings. The book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna, makes this clear. Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations.

Have you ever stopped to consider as to whether or not the so-called "pagan teachings" are the problem that you think that they are? I once lived in fear of anything 'pagan'. Then one day, I realized that it was nothing more than a boogeyman. I didn't even know what pagan was - I wouldn't know it if I saw it.

Another poster here who hasn't posted in a while previous mentioned a book titled Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow, which pulled strongly from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (A book which Lee liked). Woodrow later published a book recanting his previous book. Here is a statement he has on his website. He says it better than I could say it. Any obsession of 'pagan' things is senseless:

Some claim that round objects, such as round communion wafers, are symbols of the Sun-god. But they fail to mention that the very manna given by God was round! (Exod. 16:14). Some are ready to condemn all pillars and historical monuments as pagan. But they fail to take into account that the Lord himself appeared as a pillar of fire; and, in front of his temple, there were two large pillars (Exod. 13:21,22; 2 Chron. 3:17).

Because Babylon had a tower (Gen. 11:4), some suppose this must be why there are church buildings with towers or steeples: they are copying Babylon! A newspaper reporter in Columbus, Ohio, wrote to me about this. In that city, and numerous other places, this claim has been made. Let me say it quite clearly: No church ever included a steeple or tower on their house of worship to copy the tower of Babel! Why discredit thousands of born-again Christians by promoting ideas that have no connection? If a tower in itself is pagan, God would be pagan, for David described him as “my high tower” (2 Sam. 22:3; cf. Prov. 18:10).

No Christian who puts a bumper sticker with a fish symbol on the back of his car has ever done so to honor the fish-god Dagon. No congregation has ever put a cross on a church building for the purpose of honoring Tammuz. No Christian has ever gone to an Easter sunrise service to worship Baal. No Christian has ever worshipped a Christmas tree as an idol. Claims that imply “all these things started in Babylon,” are not only divisive and fruitless, they are untrue.

The concern about not wanting anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pa...n-mystery.html

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Have you ever stopped to consider as to whether or not the so-called "pagan teachings" are the problem that you think that they are? I once lived in fear of anything 'pagan'. Then one day, I realized that it was nothing more than a boogeyman. I didn't even know what pagan was - I wouldn't know it if I saw it.

Another poster here who hasn't posted in a while previous mentioned a book titled Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow, which pulled strongly from Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (A book which Lee liked). Woodrow later published a book recanting his previous book. Here is a statement he has on his website. He says it better than I could say it. Any obsession of 'pagan' things is senseless:

Are they a problem? Let's see what God says:

"Thus saith the LORD, 'Learn not the way of the heathen... for the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.'" (Jer 10:2-4)

First of all, God does not like His children learning the ways of the heathen and adopting their vain customs. Everybody knows that Christmas and Easter are vain - they only really exist so that the secular world can make money. It is altogether commercial. Businesses rely upon Christmas and Easter to make a large profit. Christ no where asked us to celebrate such things.
Secondly the decorating of trees is clearly prohibited.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola Author and George Barna, makes this clear. Every group that celebrates Easter and Christmas has received the pagan teachings. As far as I know this is the majority of denominations.

One of LSM's seven annual "feasts" occurs during the Chinese New Year.

Do you have any idea how pagan that celebration is?

So you say LSM is merely using this time to preach the gospel, but if other Christians do the same at Christmas or Easter, then they have received pagan things. Is this not, by definition, hypocrisy?

[Evangelical]

BTW if anyone would like to consider home churches in a biblical one city per church model, there is this link:

http://homechurchhelp.com/there-is-one-church-in-a-city

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of LSM's seven annual "feasts" occurs during the Chinese New Year.

Do you have any idea how pagan that celebration is?

So you say LSM is merely using this time to preach the gospel, but if other Christians do the same at Christmas or Easter, then they have received pagan things. Is this not, by definition, hypocrisy?

That's not the issue. The issue is taking those pagan things, and mixing them with the truth. I don't see them doing that in the LSM feasts. Easter, Christmas, are mixtures of pagan things with Christian things. It is the mixture that God does not like.

Consider what God says about mixture:

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 MKJV
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?
And what agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever?
And what agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, as God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you
and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of LSM's seven annual "feasts" occurs during the Chinese New Year.

Do you have any idea how pagan that celebration is?

So you say LSM is merely using this time to preach the gospel, but if other Christians do the same at Christmas or Easter, then they have received pagan things. Is this not, by definition, hypocrisy?

I am just guessing:- the choice to hold a conference during the Chinese New Year holidays may be because it is a long weekend of public holidays (for the countries that deem it as public holidays) so more people can attend this conference without taking leave from work.

Let me know if I have misunderstood your point.

[Evangelical]

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

If the dogs are Christian or Jewish or Muslim, makes no difference, a dog is a dog, and a swine is a swine. We are not to waste time on them.

We are to seek out, the "sons of peace" (Luke 10:6).

Remember, it is God who grows the plants, we just tend to it. If the plant is not ready to be picked and used for God's kingdom, we leave it alone until it becomes ready.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast. ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them. under their feet, and turn again and rend you."..

You quoted that verse out of context. Here is the context:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.

If you judge that the "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew" is a "dog" then you also will be judged with the same judgement with which you judge others.

When you read verses 1-5 it seems Jesus is telling us not to judge since He says "judge not". But that ignores verse 6. How do you reconcile these two portions as it is clearly meant to be considered as two parts of one whole?

Jesus doesn't tell us not to judge ourselves, He only tells us not to judge others. By all means judge your dog nature or swine nature.

This is reiterated by James who tells us not to judge our brother.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted that verse out of context...

I consider the verse to be speaking to unbelievers. All gentiles are really dogs you know? Jesus called the Canaanite woman a dog. If we are not to judge who is a dog and who is a swine, then how can we obey that verse? But I believe a dog and a swine refers to a person's behavior, not the person themselves. Judge the sin not the sinner you know? Then this is not judging to call someone a dog or swine because of their bad behavior. I mean if any person no matter who they are is acting like a dog or swine then we avoid them.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted that verse out of context. Here is the context:
Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. 6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.

I was googling for explanations of Matt 7:6

One of the first links I found was this
http://www.gotquestions.org/pearls-before-swine.html

I will tentatively go with this for now. If anyone has a different take, please share.

[ZNPaaneah]

James 4:2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not.

compares these verses with Matt 7. Ye Lust, ye kill, covet and cannot obtain -- this is our dog and swine nature.

3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures.

Matt 7 talks about "ask and you shall receive, but only after it talks about not giving what is holy to the dogs. The reason your prayers are not answered is because you are asking amiss.

11Speak not one against another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy neighbor?

This corresponds with "judge not lest ye be judged".

Again, I would say that when you read James he brings you back to Jesus.

[Evangelical]

We can learn a lot by considering the chronological order of the NT books:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/resou...testament.html

James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone. Paul had yet to write his epistles. As one of the earliest books in the Bible, James teaches faith+works. For this reason the book of James is more the "expired" Word of God, than the inspired Word of God.

Consider the person of James himself. James as Jesus's half-brother was basically a second-class apostle who was not an authority in the church. See John 7:5. For this reason Peter refers to Paul's letters, not James.

James was really written to the Jews who had been dispersed amidst the Roman Empire during a time of intense persecution. Instructions for Gentiles were different (Acts 21).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The truth about your statement "The Bible doesn't say we can't denominate." The Bible is the truth, so I gave you truth, because I gave you the verses about denominating.

If you stand in a denomination, stand absolutely. If you stand as a free group, stand absolutely. If you stand on the ground of the church, stand absolutely. Otherwise, you are in a marsh. If you give up the denominations, yet you are not absolute for the proper ground of the church, you are in a marsh. You may also be in the local church life and not be absolute. That is a marsh. Even the Lord cannot heal a marsh. A marsh is a neutral, halfway place, full of compromise.
The Visions of Ezekiel, by Witness Lee

The people who stand in denominations stand in Christ, and for Christ. That is why they are there. I can with clean conscience receive them in the name of Christ, and be reciprocated. Witness Lee offered a swamp. You couldn't even stand in his presence in a plaid shirt, without getting ripped up. "That was disrespectful! Don't you know, we owe him our lives!" The man was either an egoist and bully who used the "ground" to grind his minions into mincemeat, and that's the positive view, or a delusional megalomaniac, a less sanguine view.

And that's the only ground you could stand on in the local church programme. Pay lip service to Jesus Christ, pooh-pooh the "fallen denominations", and be abjectly servile to the Ascended Master. Everything else there, and I mean everything, was sinking sand. Only the Ministry and the Oracle were firm tethers on which to hang your hat. Everything else shifted weekly, even daily, as the Great Man leaned.

That's the ground of the local church. The rest is a shell game with words. Human theology, pushing verses this way and that. The local church is actually more of Lee than the Lutherans are of Luther. "But they don't take a name". Right. Sure.

The proverbial bloodletting in the name of local church oneness reeks to heaven. The metaphorical blood of the saints cries out. They were crushed by the "ground of the church" by the thousands, even tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions if you count China (and we should). No thanks. I'll be absolute, against this teaching. Because this teaching is against our union in Christ, which is the name above every name. I categorically and unequivocally reject it.

And "no hierarchy" - please. As the FTT trainers put it so plainly, "If others do it, it's hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not hierarchy." Subjectivity completely off the rails. "What I do is good, what others do is not good." People usually get over this view by their pre-teen years. Those who hold it life-long are under the thrall of darkness. The fact that they brandish verses by the dozen makes it even more pernicious.

Again, I don't mean to disrespect Evangelical, who may be far ahead of me in the race. I just see bad ideas and am trying to call them out. Sorry if my writing isn't seasoned sufficiently with grace.

[Evangelical]

Maybe you can be more specific and state which denominations you believe stand for Christ and which do not. Many would disagree with you that Catholic and Orthodox for example, stand for Christ. Consider that Pope Francis said that Christians do not exist outside of the Roman Catholic church. Lee never said that.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe you can be more specific and state which denominations you believe stand for Christ and which do not. Many would disagree with you that Catholic and Orthodox for example, stand for Christ. Consider that Pope Francis said that Christians do not exist outside of the Roman Catholic church. Lee never said that.

Evangelical, please answer a question for me... what is, for example, "the church in New York City"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, please answer a question for me... what is, for example, "the church in New York City"?

Sure, all believers in New York city are the church in New York city.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sure, all believers in New York city are the church in New York city.

Then, how can one small group refer to itself (or consider itself) as the church in New York City?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe you can be more specific and state which denominations you believe stand for Christ and which do not.

Maybe we could start with those groups that the CRI says are an authentic expression of NT Christianity. Or does the CRI imprimateur only work for the LC?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe we could start with those groups that the CRI says are an authentic expression of NT Christianity. Or does the CRI imprimateur only work for the LC?

For a start I would rule out any denomination that accepts gay marriage or prays to idols. That rules out Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Episcopalian.
Still a lot more to go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._denominations

[Cal]

There is no place in the Bible that it says that if a church does not call itself the church then it's not the church.

Suppose you have a duck, but the duck calls itself a chicken. Does that mean it's not a duck? No, it's still a duck. Has it lost it's standing as a duck? Can it no longer swim nor dive for food? Can it only walk around the yard and peck at the ground? No. Anyone would say that's stupid.

So if some believers calls themselves "New Life Community Church" they are still the church in that city, or at least part of it. The LCM churches are the same way, they are just part of the church in the city. What you call yourself is irrelevant. What the LCM calls itself does not change its status, other than in the minds of its members.

The idea that what you call yourself determines what you are is simply ridiculous. It's just not biblical.

You don't start being the church in the city just because you call yourself that and you don't stop being it because you call yourself something else. Your view of this thing is extra-biblical. As I said, it's simply a device to convince anyone you can that you are special. But you aren't.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For a start I would rule out any denomination that accepts gay marriage or prays to idols.

How does CRI deal with these issues? Your interest in CRI's blessing for local churches flies against your determined ignorance toward their view of other believers. How can one request the same thing (legitimacy, approval) that they deny every other assembly? It doesn't make sense.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's ok about the OED, i have hard copy .

Well I've been in denominations decades longer than I have in the LC and it has never felt like a denomination to me. It could be just that they are so different to denominations that I am persuaded they are not one. Or they truly are not a denomination.

In regard to your comment I quoted above, we have the common faith but we are no organization.

That is, there is no organization called the "local church organization". Living Stream Ministry is a ministry, that is an organization. But the church is not, in keeping with the concept of the church being the Body of Christ, and not an organization of man. There is a clear distinction between church and ministry.

There is no organization, just as there was no human organization with Christ and his 12 disciples. just people grouping themselves together to serve the Lord. There is no human organization, no hierarchy, and no official, permanent leader. The organization is spiritual.

There is no pressure to come to church meetings or not come to church meetings and no pressure to say or do anything in the meetings. There is encouragement for sure, but no pressure.

Like Igzy said there is no New Testament condemnation of "organization". The word church means "assembly". Every meeting has some basic form of organization.

No, I think what we hate is:

These churches are not a perfect work, and the double minded men.

When we first came in we gloried that even though we were brothers of low degree in Christ we were in His high estate. What we hated about the Christian organizations we left was that they had lost that, when the rich were made low there was no glorying.

We hate the filthiness and overflowing of wickedness. We hate the spectator Christianity where everyone is a “hearer only, deluding themselves”.

We were attracted to the church because they visited the widows and the orphans in their affliction. They were unspotted from the world.

But we hated the organizations that hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons. They dishonor the poor and have respect to the rich, even though the rich oppress them and drag them into court. They don’t even act or speak like someone who is going to be judged by the Lord’s rule to “love your neighbor as yourself”.

What we hate is the bitter jealousy and faction, the confusion and every vile deed. What we hate is that they lust, they kill, they covet, and they are friends with the world.

How do we know? Because they are speaking one against another, even in lawsuits. We hate the corruption.

What we loved was not that it wasn't an organization but that everyone prayed, everyone worshipped, when someone was sick the elders prayed to heal the sick.

Instead we see phony elders who condemn them. There is no confessing of sins, no forgiveness, no turning a sinner back from the error of his ways. These are the things we hate.

We call this "organized religion" but that isn't really the issue, the issue is that it is dead religion without works of faith.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The local church is actually more of Lee than the Lutherans are of Luther. "But they don't take a name". Right. Sure..

An interesting point about not taking a name. You know who didn't want to take a name in the NT? The demon(s) in the man of the Gadarenes. When Jesus asked him what was his name he demurred, "Oh, there's a bunch of us, here." He didn't want to be exposed.

Then he flowed out into a bunch of unclean animals, each with its own name. "Lord's move to Europe". "Christians on Campus". "Defense and Confirmation Project". "Bibles for America". "Affirmation and Critique". Unclean animals all, each named and destined for deep waters and thence to oblivion.

And another point, about taking a names - the church in Pergamos was a name, right? A de-nomination? And Pergamos was, so the RecV tells us, a genuine church with a genuine lampstand. So why isn't the Lutheran church a genuine church with a genuine lampstand, if that's what Pergamos signifies? Or doesn't the interpretation carry that far? Why not, it doesn't work for you anymore? Or Thyatira, a genuine church, no? Real Christians, even overcomers, and the appelation 'ekklesia'. . . but not on the local ground? Then why the lampstand? If Thyatira gets a lampstand, then why isn't it a legitimate church on the proper ground (Christ)?

To me, the whole thing is just a shell game with words. Vanity and confusion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

An interesting point about not taking a name. You know who didn't want to take a name in the NT? The demon(s) in the man of the Gadarenes. When Jesus asked him what was his name he demurred, "Oh, there's a bunch of us, here." He didn't want to be exposed.

Then he flowed out into a bunch of unclean animals, each with its own name. "Lord's move to Europe". "Christians on Campus". "Defense and Confirmation Project". "Bibles for America". "Affirmation and Critique". Unclean animals all, each named and destined for deep waters and thence to oblivion.

And another point, about taking a names - the church in Pergamos was a name, right? A de-nomination? And Pergamos was, so the RecV tells us, a genuine church with a genuine lampstand. So why isn't the Lutheran church a genuine church with a genuine lampstand, if that's what Pergamos signifies? Or doesn't the interpretation carry that far? Why not, it doesn't work for you anymore? Or Thyatira, a genuine church, no? Real Christians, even overcomers, and the appelation 'ekklesia'. . . but not on the local ground? Then why the lampstand? If Thyatira gets a lampstand, then why isn't it a legitimate church on the proper ground (Christ)?

To me, the whole thing is just a shell game with words. Vanity and confusion.

Aron, do you realize you just quoted yourself and responded to yourself?

Your posts are so dramatic and extreme:
"Unclean animals all, each named and destined for deep waters and thence to oblivion"


This is not about not taking a name as in your demon example. This is about not taking a name other than Christ. Unlike your demon example, we do take a name, we call ourselves Christians. To draw a connection between the demon story and this matter is frankly absurd and irrational.

Well I think Christians on Campus is great, they do good work there. No one is going to "deep waters and oblivious". It's an appropriate name, they are, truly, "Christians on Campus". Anyway this is not a denomination but an organization or ministry and there's nothing against taking a name with that. The issue is with taking names for Christ's own Bride, much like you would be upset if your wife called herself someone else. But if your wife has her own particular business, or ministry, she can call that whatever she likes.

This is about distinguishing between who we are and what we do (ministry). When we say " I am a Lutheran Christian", we are giving ourself another name, we are identifying ourselves by that name. But if we say "my ministry is called Faith Alone Ministries", this is okay, this is what we do, not who we are.

It is more than just taking names. It is the whole man-made organizational structure that goes with it. It is about not holding onto Christ alone.

My observation is that you have all sorts of arguments for why this and why that, but as Christians we should observe how things were done in the New Testament and try and practice and follow that. On that basis, to denominate is clearly not something we should do.

If we are found to be hypocrites in trying to do this or it doesn't work out, we cannot say that everything we stood for or believed was necessarily wrong. If Lutheranism became corrupted, which it has by their adoption of homosexual marriage, we cannot say that the Reformation was wrong.

I would say that the "genuine church" is everything to do with how genuine we are ourselves individually and with those we meet together with. A church is not genuine just because it conforms to a particular model or structure.

It is possible that there is a Lutheran church that is genuine. The Reformation was genuine, there were genuine Reformed churches. But they stagnated and progressed no further. They adopted the name Lutherans and distinguished themselves from other Christians. So they became sectarian and denominational.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well I think Christians on Campus is great, they do good work there. No one is going to "deep waters and oblivious". It's an appropriate name, they are, truly, "Christians on Campus". Anyway this is not a denomination but an organization or ministry and there's nothing against taking a name with that. The issue is with taking names for Christ's own Bride, much like you would be upset if your wife called herself someone else. But if your wife has her own particular business, or ministry, she can call that whatever she likes.

We get it, we get it. What you don't get is this is your fetish, not the Bible's. Get over it.

Besides, doesn't your wife have a first name? That's her personal name. But it's not yours. Oops. There goes your analogy. Why not just consider the names of churches as "first names," for identification? Or should all wives stop using first names and just call themselves "Mrs. So-and-So?"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We get it, we get it. What you don't get is this is your fetish, not the Bible's. Get over it.

Besides, doesn't your wife have a first name? That's her personal name. But it's not yours. Oops. There goes your analogy. Why not just consider the names of churches as "first names," for identification? Or should all wives stop using first names and just call themselves "Mrs. So-and-So?"

In western society not so long ago, people referred to themselves as Mr and Mrs. They still do today on letters, bank accounts etc. To use first names was considered rude. Oops there's goes your logic .

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In western society not so long ago, people referred to themselves as Mr and Mrs. They still do today on letters, bank accounts etc. To use first names was considered rude. Oops there's goes your logic .

If that's the basis of your argument then I feel pretty confident where I stand.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well I think Christians on Campus is great, they do good work there. No one is going to "deep waters and oblivion". It's an appropriate name, they are, truly, "Christians on Campus". Anyway this is not a denomination but an organization or ministry and there's nothing against taking a name with that. The issue is with taking names for Christ's own Bride, much like you would be upset if your wife called herself someone else. But if your wife has her own particular business, or ministry, she can call that whatever she likes.

This is about distinguishing between who we are and what we do (ministry). When we say " I am a Lutheran Christian", we are giving ourself another name, we are identifying ourselves by that name. But if we say "my ministry is called Faith Alone Ministries", this is okay, this is what we do, not who we are.

It is more than just taking names. It is the whole man-made organizational structure that goes with it. It is about not holding onto Christ alone.

So there are human organizations, with names, and hierarchies, and that is okay. But the Bride and the Body of Christ are mystical, universal, and shouldn't take names. Okay, got it. Thanks.

What is concerning about this particular effort, here, is that the man-made ministries, supposedly serving the church, are actually usurping the church. The "no names" was merely a ruse to get the flock to divide, then the ministry took over. Supposedly the man-made, named organizations are furthering the church, but in actuality the church is set on by these vampires who drain its very life.

If you go to one of the local churches, so-called, where are the youth? Gone. They have two choices, either to serve the ministry or go in the world. None of them are left. (Now in your geography this may be different, I am speaking of my observations).

The only assurance that the ministry was serving the church and not vice-versa was the assurance of the minister, whom we trusted as sufficiently transformed as to be good on his word. He was not. As he told one of the brothers on the phone, who was wondering where the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars had gone, invested in a company run by Neer-do-well Son #1, "Now you have lost your virginity".

As I said, I see the "names" issue as a shell game to confuse and separate the sheep, whence they become ready prey.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

the local church of Nee and Lee ... continual critiques of its brethren in the denominations makes it look to me as among the worst offenders: not merely worldly but self-righteous, stubborn, divisive, judgmental, and proud. A stronghold, perhaps not of every unclean thing, but most of them, and the worst ones.

Here's an example of stubborn: the Humble Bondslave of the Lord, Witness Lee, apparently had a thorough and remorseful repentance before he left his earthly coil. He told the assembled, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers." Now, this wasn't in reference to Dong Yu Lan and Titus Chu, because they had not yet been expelled.

No, it seems Lee finally saw the light regarding his stance on those not currently meeting in the local church sheep pen. Those who met in the dreaded "denominations" (and the un-named, un-affiliated local assemblies he'd previously likened to incestuous daughters of Lot [I kid you not]). Lee said, "We were wrong".

But his Deputies had a hobby-horse to ride, and were determined to ride it to the finish line. So they kept going.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post seems a nonsensical rambling with not an ounce of facts presented or Scripture. As you can see I have presented Scripture and facts and historical church writings to evident my points.

The scriptures about denominationalism found here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

could bring you back to the truth if you read and pray about them and let the Lord speak to you.

I would like to see some facts from you about your claims about millions of "metaphorical bloodshed", whatever that even means.

The facts I have seen are that 2000 or so Christians in China were imprisoned or executed because of that terrible cult watch ministry and blindly supported by American evangelicals who think anyone different from them or from another culture is automatically wrong.

The 6 year study done by CRI cleared that all up and found that the local churches are NOT of this sort of illogical and nonsensical diatribe you are coming up with.

I apologize for my emotional and confused rambling. I'm not very good at argumentation, I'm afraid. I'm much better at being a simple brother who receives those who God has received in Christ Jesus. All of them, not just "God's best".

The metaphorical bloodshed was in reference to the Night of the Long Knives, circa 2007, when several thousands or tens of thousands of the brethren and sistren who'd given their lives to the Lord were rent asunder because some Chinese didn't want to lose face to each other. Culture is strong - you should not underestimate its influence.

And the millions was in reference to the vanished 20 million Shouters Lee once claimed. Not all of them were orthodox Christians unrighteously persecuted by secular authorities and evangelical Christians. Many were, or became, quite violent and cultic. Had Lee preached a simple message of repentance and love, perhaps that could have been avoided. But they got the Processed God, and Eating the Divine. You merely assume no causation between message and outcome, in spite of strong association and commonality.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

First you say there is no biblical record of a church taking a name, so that's evidence they should not take one. But there is also no biblical record of a ministry taking a name, but you say it's okay if they do.

Your logic is that the church is the Bride of Christ, and the Bride should take no name other than her husband's. Even though all wives have first names which are not their husband's names. But, also, husbands are supposed have only one wife, but there are multiple practical churches. So does that mean Christ has many brides? No, it means that the Bride is actually all the church's together. So, following your logic, unless a individual church is presuming to take a name that encompasses the whole Bride you shouldn't say the Bride is taking a name.

My point is that your argument for no name is not only not a biblical command, it's full of holes logically. Now, if you want to privately believe this stuff, that's your business. But I can't believe you are trying to peddle it to others, let alone insist it's something that should be binding on us all.

As aron said, Lee's model served one purpose: To discredit everyone else and convince his followers that they were the only real deal.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

First you say there is no biblical record of a church taking a name, so that's evidence they should not take one. But there is also no biblical record of a ministry taking a name, but you say it's okay if they do...

The Bible is against denominations which are factions:
1 Cor 11:19 For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

A denomination is a faction. There's no other way to describe it. You cannot have half a faction or half a unity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The people who stand in denominations stand in Christ, and for Christ. That is why they are there. I can with clean conscience receive them in the name of Christ, and be reciprocated. Witness Lee offered a swamp. You couldn't even stand in his presence in a plaid shirt, without getting ripped up. "That was disrespectful! Don't you know, we owe him our lives!" The man was either an egoist and bully who used the "ground" to grind his minions into mincemeat, and that's the positive view, or a delusional megalomaniac, a less sanguine view.

And that's the only ground you could stand on in the local church programme. Pay lip service to Jesus Christ, pooh-pooh the "fallen denominations", and be abjectly servile to the Ascended Master. Everything else there, and I mean everything, was sinking sand. Only the Ministry and the Oracle were firm tethers on which to hang your hat. Everything else shifted weekly, even daily, as the Great Man leaned.

That's the ground of the local church. The rest is a shell game with words. Human theology, pushing verses this way and that. The local church is actually more of Lee than the Lutherans are of Luther. "But they don't take a name". Right. Sure.

The proverbial bloodletting in the name of local church oneness reeks to heaven. The metaphorical blood of the saints cries out. They were crushed by the "ground of the church" by the thousands, even tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands or millions if you count China (and we should). No thanks. I'll be absolute, against this teaching. Because this teaching is against our union in Christ, which is the name above every name. I categorically and unequivocally reject it.

And "no hierarchy" - please. As the FTT trainers put it so plainly, "If others do it, it's hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not hierarchy." Subjectivity completely off the rails. "What I do is good, what others do is not good." People usually get over this view by their pre-teen years. Those who hold it life-long are under the thrall of darkness. The fact that they brandish verses by the dozen makes it even more pernicious.

Again, I don't mean to disrespect Evangelical, who may be far ahead of me in the race. I just see bad ideas and am trying to call them out. Sorry if my writing isn't seasoned sufficiently with grace.

Your post seems a nonsensical rambling with not an ounce of facts presented or Scripture. As you can see I have presented Scripture and facts and historical church writings to evident my points.

The scriptures about denominationalism found here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

could bring you back to the truth if you read and pray about them and let the Lord speak to you.

I would like to see some facts from you about your claims about millions of "metaphorical bloodshed", whatever that even means.

The facts I have seen are that 2000 or so Christians in China were imprisoned or executed because of that terrible cult watch ministry and blindly supported by American evangelicals who think anyone different from them or from another culture is automatically wrong.

The 6 year study done by CRI cleared that all up and found that the local churches are NOT of this sort of illogical and nonsensical diatribe you are coming up with.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post seems a nonsensical rambling with not an ounce of facts presented or Scripture. As you can see I have presented Scripture and facts and historical church writings to evident my points.

The scriptures about denominationalism found here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

could bring you back to the truth if you read and pray about them and let the Lord speak to you.

I did read them, and pray. You know what the Lord said? "Look at these verses. Does it say,

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Or does it say

Whoever believes and is baptized and meets on the proper ground will be saved, but whoever does not believe, or meet on the proper ground, will be condemned.

What does it say?"

I replied, "It says the first one, Lord, not the second."

Then the Lord said, "Then don't worry about it. You have enough problems already."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I did read them, and pray. You know what the Lord said? "Look at these verses. Does it say,



Or does it say



What does it say?"

I replied, "It says the first one, Lord, not the second."

Then the Lord said, "Then don't worry about it. You have enough problems already."

I know God did not tell you that, I don't believe you. The topic was denominations not the ground of the church. And we don't believe that those in denominations are not saved.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know God did not tell you that, I don't believe you.

I know you don't believe me. You have too much invested in the current regime to believe me.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The topic was denominations not the ground of the church.

Sorry. I was never a good scholar. So there is some difference in the topics? All I ever heard from Lee was on the proper ground. That's not related to the topic of denominations?

Up from Babylon, where the sects abound,
From division we must all rise up!
Brothers, Babylon’s not the proper ground;
From division we must all rise up!
Rise up! Rise up!
From division we must all rise up!

Or you never heard that song, either?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And we don't believe that those in denominations are not saved.

True that. But no building up, right? All darkness, vanity and confusion?

On a related subject, I no longer believe that "God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil of China" to recover the proper church ground, or save us from Mystery Babylon or the denominations or however you want to phrase it.

Watchman Nee was a man like you and I, and Lee's narrative was self-serving to the extreme. Watchman Nee used his revelation to gain and maintain earthly status. The Communists imprisoned him because of his status in church. "Kill the head and the body will die." Christ wasn't the head of the church, Nee was.

How did Nee get his revelation, anyway? From Jessie Penn-Lewis? I thought sisters were not allowed to teach.

In 1926, when he was suffering from tuberculosis, Ni began his first major book, The Spiritual Man, which sought to explain spiritual formation in terms of biblical psychology, especially the radical distinction between “soul” (self-consciousness) and “spirit” (God-consciousness). Published in 1928, the three-volume work has been called basically a translation of Penn-Lewis’s Soul and Spirit, published ten years earlier, though Ni did not make that clear. These early efforts laid the theological foundation for his future teaching ministry.

http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/n/ni-tuosheng.php

Nee used women in his formative years, as sources of and conduits to power. Once he established power he dropped them. God didn't raise up Watchman Nee; Watchman Nee did. And China wasn't virgin soil, either: it was corrupted and satanic as any other earthly soil. Lee's narrative was blatantly self-serving. I no longer believe it. Like everything else, the "denominations" topic in the hands of Nee and Lee was merely a vehicle to power.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We can learn a lot by considering the chronological order of the NT books:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/resou...testament.html

James was the oldest book of the New Testament. James was not up to date with the latest revelation from God about salvation by grace alone.

Where do you get this drivel? This is so arrogant, so repugnant. If James didn't have the vision why does Paul say he does?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul had yet to write his epistles. As one of the earliest books in the Bible, James teaches faith+works. For this reason the book of James is more the "expired" Word of God, than the inspired Word of God.

Really, according to Paul Abraham was saved by faith, and points to the examples in Genesis. According to James we saw that Abraham had faith by his works and pointed to the exact same examples. You would never know that Abraham had faith if he had not obeyed God to offer up his son. Now for my personal salvation it is not necessary for me to know that Abraham had faith, but when it comes to discerning a false prophet it is very important.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider the person of James himself. James as Jesus's half-brother was basically a second-class apostle who was not an authority in the church. See John 7:5. For this reason Peter refers to Paul's letters, not James.

2nd class apostle? He wasn't a "super apostle"? This is the most offensive and repugnant bile I have seen on this forum. Who made you lord and savior that you decide who the first class saints are, who is second class, who the super apostles are, etc. This is ugly.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

James was really written to the Jews who had been dispersed amidst the Roman Empire during a time of intense persecution. Instructions for Gentiles were different (Acts 21).

So let me get this straight, Jews can ignore the epistles of Paul and Gentiles can ignore the epistle of James. But I thought God worked in Peter for the gospel to the circumcision just like Paul to the uncircumcision. So should Gentiles ignore Peter's epistles also? What about Revelation is that for both Jews and Gentiles? Also, what about Paul's word that in the church there is neither Jew nor Gentile?

You are the author of confusion.

[Evangelical]

I have spent more time outside of the recovery than in it. So what I say about James is not from the recovery or Lee. It is from the Bible and history.

I can prove from the Bible that James did not have the vision and was stuck in Judaism, "faith + works".

I can prove that James was still in Judaism, of the "circumcision party":

Galatians 2:12:
For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/2-12.htm
Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Ac 21:18-26).

So you see, a view that thinks that all of the apostles including James were believing in "faith alone" as per Paul's teachings, is not correct. Some were still stuck in their Judaism (even Peter, whom Paul had to rebuke).

He is called "James the Less", as opposed to "James the Greater":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Less

James the Great is the first class apostle and James the Less is the second class apostle.

So before you go jumping to conclusions, you can see my view is informed by the history and the facts. The facts are that James is not of the same calibre as the other books of the Bible. If we do not realize this we may fall into error.

Martin Luther was a very smart person and knew this too and is perhaps the reason he called James an "epistle of straw", although he should not have sought to remove it from the Canon. He knew its author was not of the same calibre as Paul or Peter. If we follow James more than the other books of the Bible we can end up being a "judaizing Christian" like he possibly was, and are not keeping with the truth of salvation by faith alone.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have spent more time outside of the recovery than in it. So what I say about James is not from the recovery or Lee. It is from the Bible and history.

Yes, we all know that the account of James in Galatians and Acts is not favorable. I am in full agreement on that. My understanding is that his failure is the basis for his repentance, vision, and burden expressed in his epistle.

We also know that Paul persecuted Christians. Does that disqualify his ministry? We know that Peter denied the Lord. Does that disqualify his ministry?

So again I ask you to prove this from the book of James.

Also, everyone knows that James the brother of the Lord is not James one of the 12 disciples. I have no problem if you distinguish them, but 1st class and 2nd class is repugnant. You are showing partiality and evil judgements.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, we all know that the account of James in Galatians and Acts is not favorable. I am in full agreement on that. My understanding is that his failure is the basis for his repentance, vision, and burden expressed in his epistle.

We also know that Paul persecuted Christians. Does that disqualify his ministry? We know that Peter denied the Lord. Does that disqualify his ministry?

So again I ask you to prove this from the book of James.

Also, everyone knows that James the brother of the Lord is not James one of the 12 disciples. I have no problem if you distinguish them, but 1st class and 2nd class is repugnant. You are showing partiality and evil judgements.

And we also know both Peter and Paul had failures after being saved. Peter cowtowed to the Jews and Paul shaved his head for the Jews. Both reverted to Judaism in other words, ironically supposedly James's failure as well.

[Cal]

James is a crucial book because without it we might not be clear that real faith issues in works. James did not mean that our works justify us, he meant that works confirm the existence of justifying faith.

As one teacher said, the equation is not,

Faith + Works = Salvation.

it is instead,

Faith = Salvation + Works

In other words, real faith issues in two things (1) salvation, (2) works. This is what James was trying to convey.


The idea of justification by faith already was widespread when James wrote his letter, otherwise he would not have addressed the idea. But he did not challenge it, he qualified it. He challenged the false idea that all you had to do was say you had faith and you were saved. We know that to be true now because we know "nominal" Christians claim to believe but don't have works. They lack genuine saving faith that results in regeneration.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, we all know that the account of James in Galatians and Acts is not favorable. I am in full agreement on that. My understanding is that his failure is the basis for his repentance, vision, and burden expressed in his epistle.

We also know that Paul persecuted Christians. Does that disqualify his ministry? We know that Peter denied the Lord. Does that disqualify his ministry?

So again I ask you to prove this from the book of James.

Also, everyone knows that James the brother of the Lord is not James one of the 12 disciples. I have no problem if you distinguish them, but 1st class and 2nd class is repugnant. You are showing partiality and evil judgements.

Well the book of James itself is showing partiality. This is because James 1:1 makes clear it is written to believing Jews not Gentiles.

So why is James treating Jews and Gentiles differently?

Paul writes there is no Jew or Gentile and they are not to be treated differently (1 Cor 10:32, Gal 3:28).

James was in the habit of differentiating between Jew and Gentile. Paul had the revelation from God that there is no difference. Peter was on the fence, sometimes siding with Paul and sometimes with James. Paul called Peter out for his hypocrisy.

This proves that James did not have the same revelation as Paul that Jew and Gentile were to be treated the same.

Why did God give this revelation to Paul and Peter about the Gentiles but not James? Because James was not as important in the sense of being chosen by God for the purpose of carrying the gospel to the Gentiles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the book of James itself is showing partiality. This is because James 1:1 makes clear it is written to believing Jews not Gentiles.

So why is James treating Jews and Gentiles differently?

Paul writes there is no Jew or Gentile and they are not to be treated differently (1 Cor 10:32, Gal 3:28).

James was in the habit of differentiating between Jew and Gentile. Paul had the revelation from God that there is no difference. Peter was on the fence, sometimes siding with Paul and sometimes with James. Paul called Peter out for his hypocrisy.

This proves that James did not have the same revelation as Paul that Jew and Gentile were to be treated the same.

Why did God give this revelation to Paul and Peter about the Gentiles but not James? Because James was not as important in the sense of being chosen by God for the purpose of carrying the gospel to the Gentiles.

OK, great point, it is hard to read James if you can't get past the first verse.

Do "tribes in the dispersion" and the use of the word "synagogue" indicate that these must be Jewish believers and not Gentile believers?

Let us use the Lord's Recovery Church as an example since that would be the most appropriate for this forum. Also, although there were some Jewish believers in the LRC let's say that this for the most part were Gentile believers, especially since WN and WL are clearly Gentiles.

Lord's Recovery -- That refers to the Jewish believers who returned from Babylon. This term has a very Jewish flavor.

Meeting hall -- Everyone in the LRC is very clear to not refer to the meeting hall as the church but as a meeting hall. That word is equivalent to the word synagogue.

Ground of the Church -- This teaching is based on the OT type of the temple and is built on commandments in the books of Moses concerning the temple. This is a doctrine that comes straight from the OT, just as the woman at the well said. Like the Mormons it has a very OT flavor.

Minister of the Age -- this doctrine comes straight from Deuteronomy where Moses says that there will be a minister like him. Of course Moses was referring to Jesus, not to Watchman Nee. Once again OT flavor used to build key doctrines of this sect. Quite similar to the Mormons and Joseph Smith.

Mingling -- this word is based on a word in the book of Leviticus.

So I would argue that James is written to believers, like those in the LRC. The fact that false prophets will lead the believers astray by using the OT typology will of necessity, give these "tribes in dispersion" an OT flavor. It doesn't mean that the background of the believers was Jewish, but rather the background of the false teachings was the OT.

[NewManLiving]

Ep 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God;
Ep 2:9 Not of works that no one should boast.
Ep 2:10 For we are His masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand in order that we would walk in them

It seems that Paul and James think the same thing. We are saved by faith for good works. We all should walk in them

Originally Posted by Igzy

I like your analogy. But it's important again to realize by ducks we mean "churches" not "Christians." All churches are part of the city church. None has a higher status nor standing.

There is another part of the analogy. Those are the ducks that call themselves ducks and claim to be be the only true ducks (let's call them "uber-ducks"), and claim because the other ducks don't call themselves ducks they are not really ducks. These uber-ducks also do not really recognize any other ducks even if they just call themselves ducks until those ducks agree to follow the uber-duck leader and agree to read and publish only the uber-duck leader's quacks. These uber-ducks also insist that all ducks who are truly ducks only quack a certain way. Any ducks who do not conform are declared to be false ducks. Uber-ducks also never cooperate or meet with with other ducks unless it serves some ulterior motive.

Obviously, in this analogy, the uber-ducks are LCM churches.

Recall again in this analogy that "ducks" are churches, not believers.

I like the duck analogy. Thanks for introducing it. Evangelicals' characterization applies to churches/groups even better than it does to individuals.

I have not encountered the "claim because the other ducks don't call themselves ducks they are not really ducks". Rather, it is one of the basic tenets of the local churches that ALL christians in a city are really members of the one church in that city. That is emphasized over and over. All are ducks essentially even if they call themselves chickens or turkeys.

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys. But then one day they chanced upon a pond with ducks who were apparently enjoying themselves thoroughly eating tasty plants, drinking fresh clear spring water, and living in a lush green garden. Then they realized that the chicken coop was no longer the place for them so they decided to take up residence in the duck pond. So pleased were they with their good fortune that they started to declare "Praise the Lord, we are ducks! We're so happy in this lovely place!"

That ruffled some feathers.

[UntoHim]

Drake? That's cute, but as usual, you are really "ducking" the real issue at hand.

You sound like someone who hasn't been on the other side of the pond for quite a while...you know...where the vast majority of ducks hang out...you know...where the birds of a feather flock together.

You see, just because a few ducks decide to huddle over at some small, distant, exclusive part of the pond, they don't get to proclaim themselves the ONLY LEGITIMATE DUCKS. And to make things worse, they think they have a right to proclaim that all the other ducks in the pond are turkeys (if they're lucky, on a good day) but usually the other ducks get called way worse by these exclusive ducks...maybe...oh...let me think...DAUGHTER OF THE GREAT HARLOT! Remember that one, Drake? Oh, that little ditty didn't make it into the hymnal or supplement, did it?

Bottom line, it is God and his Word that have proclaimed that there really is just one pond. One Lord, One Spirit, One Baptism and One Pond! How cool is that? All other man-made boundaries, borders, limitations, provisos and exceptions based upon race, sex, national origin, former religious affiliations, or (wait for it..gasp..) your physical location, (or wait for it again, gasp, gasp) what minister, teacher, apostle or grand poobah you choose to follow...all these are not recognized, much less approved by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels or the Scripture writing apostles.

You see, my friend, the "splendid church life" did not start with the Local Church of Witness Lee. No, it started about 2,000 years before this brother or sister penned that song, and it's been going strong ever since. And anybody who says anything else is just winging it.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You see, just because a few ducks decide to huddle over at some small, distant, exclusive part of the pond, they don't get to proclaim themselves the ONLY LEGITIMATE DUCKS...

Well the "legitimate" ducks are huddling in one corner of the point because it's the only area which is clean. The majority of the ducks have polluted the pond with their filthy pagan ways. If a church has adopted many pagan and unclean things or founded by a pedophile, how are they not the daughters of the harlot? Denominations are the man made borders, boundaries and limitations which you describe. To bring borders and boundaries closer together does not stop the borders and boundaries to exist.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus founded the real church, all churches founded by men are not real churches.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the "legitimate" ducks are huddling in one corner of the point because it's the only area which is clean. The majority of the ducks have polluted the pond with their filthy pagan ways. If a church has adopted many pagan and unclean things or founded by a pedophile, how are they not the daughters of the harlot? Denominations are the man made borders, boundaries and limitations which you describe. To bring borders and boundaries closer together does not stop the borders and boundaries to exist.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus founded the real church, all churches founded by men are not real churches.

Good, so we have finally come to an agreement that the teaching of "deification" is a filthy, pagan teaching. Nothing is more pagan and filthy than deification, likened to Jezebel teaching the believers to eat things sacrificed to idols and commit spiritual fornication. OK, we are getting somewhere.

Of course, as James says, the one thing "above all" that we should never do is to sign a loyalty pledge. Witness Lee required the elders to sign a loyalty pledge to him. That is blasphemous. Our loyalty pledge is our baptism into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. The Romans required a similar pledge to the Caesar, Hitler required a loyalty pledge from the German Army, and of course the False prophet will stamp everyone with the number 666.

Yep, those are two very filthy pagan practices that have fouled the Christian pond.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee required the elders to sign a loyalty pledge to him. That is blasphemous.

I never heard about the loyalty pledge, is there somewhere I can read about it, or is that your own experience?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I like the duck analogy. Thanks for introducing it. Evangelicals' characterization applies to churches/groups even better than it does to individuals.

I have not encountered the "claim because the other ducks don't call themselves ducks they are not really ducks". Rather, it is one of the basic tenets of the local churches that ALL christians in a city are really members of the one church in that city. That is emphasized over and over. All are ducks essentially even if they call themselves chickens or turkeys.

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys. But then one day they chanced upon a pond with ducks who were apparently enjoying themselves thoroughly eating tasty plants, drinking fresh clear spring water, and living in a lush green garden. Then they realized that the chicken coop was no longer the place for them so they decided to take up residence in the duck pond. So pleased were they with their good fortune that they started to declare "Praise the Lord, we are ducks! We're so happy in this lovely place!"

That ruffled some feathers.

No, what ruffled the feathers was that the LCM could not stop there enjoying the oneness. They felt they had to declare that the other ducks weren't really ducks after all, even though the Bible doesn't teach that. They declared they were the only legitimate duck and that all the other ducks need to be absorbed into them, the one true duck.

But the Bible doesn't support this in any way. The Bible says that there is a church in a city, but it never says that church cannot be comprised of smaller churches. The existence of house churches within a city churches shows this is possible. At the very least it casts reasonable doubt on the LCM claim that legitimate churches are only at the city level.

Further, if the LCM came to a city already with a church just claiming to be the church in the city, the LCM would eventually find a way to discredit it, push it aside and set up their own churches. Time and again doing this and thus establishing themselves as dirty ducks.

God values oneness. But he never said or came close to making it clear that one church could declare itself the true expression of oneness while discrediting all other churches. The LCM might like to think they have some outward form of "oneness" technically. But their proud, dismissive and exclusive attitude is anti-oneness, and so disqualifies them as any kind of standard. You might as well argue that the Pharisees were the standard because technically they did some outward things right.

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, what ruffled the feathers was that the LCM could not stop there enjoying the oneness. They felt they had to declare that the other ducks weren't really ducks after all, even though the Bible doesn't teach that. They declared they were the only legitimate duck and that all the other ducks need to be absorbed into them, the one true duck.

But the Bible doesn't support this in any way. The Bible says that there is a church in a city, but it never says that church cannot be comprised of smaller churches. The existence of house churches within a city churches shows this is possible. At the very least it casts reasonable doubt on the LCM claim that legitimate churches are only at the city level.

Further, if the LCM came to a city already with a church just claiming to be the church in the city, the LCM would eventually find a way to discredit it, push it aside and set up their own churches. Time and again doing this and thus establishing themselves as dirty ducks.

God values oneness. But he never said or came close to making it clear that one church could declare itself the true expression of oneness while discrediting all other churches. The LCM might like to think they have some outward form of "oneness" technically. But their proud, dismissive and exclusive attitude is anti-oneness, and so disqualifies them as any kind of standard. You might as well argue that the Pharisees were the standard because technically they did some outward things right.

Igzy, you appear to be advocating any basis for assembling together is valid except if that basis is that all believers make up the one church in that place. You also don't appear to recognize the boundary of a city as counting for anything anyway.

To you any church group is acceptable, no matter the reason they divide themselves, except this one group who take a stand against those divisions. That group are dirty ducks to you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy, you appear to be advocating any basis for assembling together is valid except if that basis is that all believers make up the one church in that place. You also don't appear to recognize the boundary of a city as counting for anything anyway.

To you any church group is acceptable, no matter the reason they divide themselves, except this one group who take a stand against those divisions. That group are dirty ducks to you.

No, I recognize the city church. But to me it is possible the city church is an abstraction, much like the "universal church," but at the city level. The Bible gives no clear word that any of the city churches ever met together as a whole, nor that in doing so they called themselves "the church in <wherever>." The Bible never makes it clear that a city church is a "practical church" in the way the LCM envisions it. Nor does it say it is the only legitimate practical manifestation of the church. Further the NT records instances of house churches, thus casting doubt on the idea that the city church is the only valid "ground."

You are throwing out a red herring. I do not, as you claim, recognize any church "no matter the reason they divide." The actual fact is that you have no proof that just because there are multiple practical churches in a city that the Lord sees that as "division." This is a template you have imposed on the NT, not one it itself clearly contains.

Further, I do not think the LCM has truly "taken a stand against divisions." What the LCM has done is taken a stand against other church's legitimacy by claiming they are divisions, something they have no clear biblical ground to do. So if anything the LCM churches are divisions themselves. They have no right to speak for the whole church in the city and to claim to be the sole legitimate manifestation of the church in that city. Claiming to be the only legitimate place for the city church to meet is itself a divisive act.

All groups that meet together in the Lord's name and receive all believers are valid manifestations of the church in the city. What they call themselves matters little. Their attitude matters much more, and from why I've seen the LCM attitude is very sectarian. If you want to meet together in the spirit of the church in the city that's fine. But claiming to be the only legitimate manifestation of the church is taking it a step too far.

Originally Posted by Igzy

"The Bible gives no clear word that any of the city churches ever met together as a whole, nor that in doing so they called themselves "the church in <wherever>."

Igzy,

Your argument is one of nuance when you claim "as a whole". Also, in your quest to dismiss the local churches you have embraced unsound and shaky teaching and rejected the straightforward revelation of the Bible.

For example. many of the cities addressed with letters in the New Testament were large and spacious and logistically not possible to meet as a whole. Rome, Smyrna, Laodicea come to mind. This is still true today with localities such as Taipei and London that have several districts but meet separately in oneness. However, you are taking a logistical situation of time and space applying it to the divisions of today to justify the existence of denominations. This violates the clear prohibition in the Bible against divisions and the explicit teaching and spirit concerning the oneness of the believers by the Lord Jesus.

Now setting the "as a whole" argument aside and allowing that you did not mean it that way then here is the crux. There is no biblical justification for the existence of denominations. On the contrary it is forbidden and is sinful.

Both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul addressed the church in the singular as in Ephesus, Smyrna, Laodicea, etc. If you wish to ignore those obvious references in favor of some biblically unsubstantiated doctrine that teaches divisions are valid and a good and perhaps even wonderful arrangement then that is your prerogative. That doctrine should roll off folks in this forum like water off a duck's back. Sadly, it does not. Therefore, if anyone holds those beliefs I encourage you to follow Watchman Nee's advice and create even more denominations and build those denominational walls even higher! Be faithful to your beliefs before the Lord. If a divisions are good then more are even better.

In both these arguments you obfuscate the clear teaching of the Bible to justify denominations and division.

Good luck with that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I recognize the city church. But to me it is possible the city church is an abstraction, much like the "universal church," but at the city level...

You believe in the "God doesn't see division" heresy, I presume. Well everyone else can see it, God is blind? if the only legitimate ground for a church is the locality, and if there is no other church in that area that is practicing that, then it is true that it is the only legitimate place for the city church to meet.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Many and perhaps most of the ducks who call themselves ducks once thought they were chickens and turkeys.

Nope, they all thought they were ducks. They just had different names for their duckdom. But then one duck came along said, "You can't be duck unless you call yourself a duck. That means I'm the only duck!"

To which the other ducks in a very duck-like fashion replied, "Quaaaaaack!!"

Which was the duck version of a raspberry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nope, they all thought they were ducks. They just had different names for their duckdom. But then one duck came along said, "You can't be duck unless you call yourself a duck. That means I'm the only duck!"

To which the other ducks in a very duck-like fashion replied, "Quaaaaaack!!"

Which was the duck version of a raspberry.

Hence the origins of Duck Dynasty!

[Ohio]

That pledge letter was written and excessively promoted by now President Benson Philip and Ray Graver. Many have testified how much coercion and arm-twisting took place behind the scenes. Don Rutledge spoke of this in his writings. Steve Pritchard of Toronto published his official retraction of his signature in an open letter.

Originally Posted by Igzy

By the way, this re-dedication and and "new move" were flops.

I'm not so sure. Definitely spiritual "flops," but on the other hand, political genius.

Benson later succeeded Lee, and the letter laid the foundation for subsequent quarantines.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You think it's dangerous that God has given you the Holy Spirit and wants you to become like Him? It's not dangerous, that's Christianity in a nutshell. Even Catholicism teaches that. If you aren't like Him, then you get to go to hell where people who "aren't like God" live.

Theosis is not new with Lee. It's a main theme in Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been for a long time.

However, no one has ever become Christ ... except in their imagination. All it ends up being is, dancing with ghosts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Theosis is not new with Lee. It's a main theme in Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been for a long time.

However, no one has ever become Christ ... except in their imagination. All it ends up being is, dancing with ghosts.

It was a main theme with the books "the God Men" and "The Mind Benders". These books came out when I first came into the Local Church. I heard from Ray Graver directly how they had twisted and intentionally misunderstood Witness Lee's teaching. I watched video tape from Witness Lee boasting of how they ran circles around the lawyers in the depositions.

There was a very strong defense at that time that Witness Lee had a fundamental, Bible based understanding that had been misinterpreted by these writers. At that time he condemned the Eastern Orthodox view, warned us that it was off, and warned us that the use of terms like deification could be pagan and idolatrous.

However, 14 years later he embraces the term "deification" even though it could easily provoke the "misunderstandings" that prompted the earlier books. He also switched, saying that the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Deification supported his use of the word (even though his teaching would be considered heretical by them).

I feel this is his MO, to be intentionally provocative, to play with heretical terms yet fill his teachings with caveats and redefinitions so he could stir up a controversy and then say we didn't understand.

Why? Witness Lee's main teaching is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the builded church, that he alone is building the church and you know it by the intense spiritual warfare over the church. Therefore he had to do something that would provoke a response from others to maintain this pretense that there was a spiritual warfare over his teachings.

[Evangelical]

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book.

Now can a person be a Christian and live in Sodom?

Yes. The situation of today's Christians living in the USA is that of Lot.
Lot was a genuine follower of God who lived amidst a world of sin and depravity. Unfortunately he was afraid and complicit to his environment to the extent that he offered his daughters to be raped. This is equivalent to Christian parents who give their children over to the depraved situation in the environment out of fear or weakness.

If Sodom had legalized gay marriage, would Lot have supported it?
Of course he would not. God called Lot out of Sodom to flee, just as God rained his judgement upon them. Therefore if there is a Christian who supports Sodom, they are in fact no Christian at all.

This puts American Christians in a difficult situation. Unlike Chinese Christians, for example, who live under persecution, Americans are very proud of their nation, even going so far as to have American flags within church buildings. Unfortunately this is a hindrance if such a nation should become Sodom. The believer is torn between patriotism and the Bible. Only those with a steadfast and absolute heart will choose the Bible over their flag. The rest, who prefer to remain in Sodom, will perish, or be turned to a pillar of salt like Lot's wife who turned back.

Today, Christians who prefer to remain in Sodom characterizes the majority of Christians who consider America to be a great Christian nation or who attend denominations which support or bless homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, like Lot and his wife, their allegiance to their homeland clouds their judgement. In such a case, God raises up people like Abraham from outside Sodom, to rescue the "Lots" still living in the land of Sodom when time for God's judgement comes. We can consider Nee and Lee's ministry to be like Abraham's, coming to America from other lands, to rescue genuine Christians, the Lots, out of the depraved environment.

In summary,

Given that America is Sodom, American Christians should expect God to raise up some "Abrahams" from outside of her, to pray for and rescue the genuine "Lots" within her. In some sense Lee and Nee fulfilled this "Abraham" ministry.
Christians who are complicit to Sodom out of fear or weakness, are Lots that need prayer and rescuing by the "Abrahams". They are still considered righteous by God and God does not desire for them to perish. This characterizes Christians in gay marriage approving denominations.
Christians who support Sodom and are not affected by it in a negative way, and promote the continuing practices of Sodom, are not Lots or Christians at all.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

It seems your point is that this thread falls within a discussion of Witness Lee's teachings. I agree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book.

It seems your point is that the world is going to be judged by God. I agree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now can a person be a Christian and live in Sodom?

Yes. The situation of today's Christians living in the USA is that of Lot.
Lot was a genuine follower of God who lived amidst a world of sin and depravity. Unfortunately he was afraid and complicit to his environment to the extent that he offered his daughters to be raped. This is equivalent to Christian parents who give their children over to the depraved situation in the environment out of fear or weakness.

It seems to me that this should be a much more important topic, how should a Christian walk in this evil and adulterous age. I don't think we need to take Lot as our example, nor do I agree that living in the US now means we are destined to walk in Lot's shoes.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Sodom had legalized gay marriage, would Lot have supported it?
Of course he would not. God called Lot out of Sodom to flee, just as God rained his judgement upon them. Therefore if there is a Christian who supports Sodom, they are in fact no Christian at all.

I don't feel comfortable with you being the "judge" who "Passes judgement".

For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. (Jn 3:17)

I have no issue with you disagreeing with the legalization of homosexual marriage, nor do I have any issue with you as both a Christian and citizen exercising all of your rights to oppose these laws. But no one has made you judge, and surely not of eternal salvation.

I have much to say about you and to judge and condemn. But He Who sent Me is true (reliable), and I tell the world [only] the things that I have heard from Him. (Jn 8:26)

My thought is what has the Lord told me to say? What is the NT testament teaching? Your reference to Sodom and Lot are certainly relevant to a discussion about legalized gay marriage, but they do not address what will make a genuine Christian or disqualify a person from being a genuine Christian.

If anyone hears My teachings and fails to observe them [does not keep them, but disregards them], it is not I who judges him. For I have not come to judge and to condemn and to pass sentence and to inflict penalty on the world, but to save the world. (Jn 12:47)

I can teach the Lord's word. If someone doesn't observe those teachings I don't then become a judge to condemn them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This puts American Christians in a difficult situation.

No, it doesn't. The only reason you think this is because you have made yourself the judge. You knew from the moment you were baptized that the world was already judged and condemned. Your commission is to preach the gospel, so that some may be saved. You are not here to "inflict a penalty on the world" or to judge or to condemn.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book...

Evangelical,

You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical,

You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

Although not what Evangelical quoted, this quote is interesting:

"Do you think that God will allow His people to dwell in such a wicked city? Certainly not. Thus, under God's sovereignty, Chedorlaomer led the attack against Sodom. God allowed that war to take place. Four kings fought against five kings. Humanly speaking, the five kings should have been victorious since their number was greater. But the four kings defeated the five kings, and the city of Sodom was taken. The Bible stresses the taking of Sodom because Lot dwelt there. This fighting was not merely a matter of four kings against five kings; it was a fighting for one of God's people. Lot might have been peaceful as he dwelt in Sodom, but God was not peaceful. God would never allow Lot to stay there in peace. God might have said, "Lot, you may have peace within, but I will stir up some disturbance from without. I will send the four kings to defeat the five kings and capture your city. They will capture you, your family, and all that you have." This is in fact what happened to Lot. Lot suffered defeat after defeat. Eventually, as the last step of his defeat, he fell into the hands of the enemy. He was captured, and the king of Sodom could not help him." (WL, Life Study of Genesis, Chapter 43, Section 1).

Based on this theory you might feel that 9/11 and the various wars in the Middle East were a result of God not allowing the US to dwell as Sodom in peace.

It seems to me this might have been a more interesting discussion than the one about Gay Pride.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Although not what Evangelical quoted, this quote is interesting:

"Do you think that God will allow His people to dwell in such a wicked city? Certainly not. Thus, under God's sovereignty, Chedorlaomer led the attack against Sodom. God allowed that war to take place. Four kings fought against five kings. Humanly speaking, the five kings should have been victorious since their number was greater. But the four kings defeated the five kings, and the city of Sodom was taken. The Bible stresses the taking of Sodom because Lot dwelt there. This fighting was not merely a matter of four kings against five kings; it was a fighting for one of God's people. Lot might have been peaceful as he dwelt in Sodom, but God was not peaceful. God would never allow Lot to stay there in peace. God might have said, "Lot, you may have peace within, but I will stir up some disturbance from without. I will send the four kings to defeat the five kings and capture your city. They will capture you, your family, and all that you have." This is in fact what happened to Lot. Lot suffered defeat after defeat. Eventually, as the last step of his defeat, he fell into the hands of the enemy. He was captured, and the king of Sodom could not help him." (WL, Life Study of Genesis, Chapter 43, Section 1).

Based on this theory you might feel that 9/11 and the various wars in the Middle East were a result of God not allowing the US to dwell as Sodom in peace.

It seems to me this might have been a more interesting discussion than the one about Gay Pride.

Witness Lee could spew his venomous hatred and condemnation upon any one he wished, especially upon those of the household of faith. In the Genesis Life-Study on Lot (#54 or so), he likened every American "free group," essentially all those genuine believers outside of the Recovery or the denominations, to the incestuous children of Lot born in that cave. It was perhaps the most pathetic teaching I ever read.

Some of these recent posts by Evangelical, condemning all Americans and American Christians are right up there with it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee could spew his venomous hatred and condemnation upon any one he wished, especially upon those of the household of faith. In the Genesis Life-Study on Lot (#54 or so), he likened every American "free group," essentially all those genuine believers outside of the Recovery or the denominations, to the incestuous children of Lot born in that cave. It was perhaps the most pathetic teaching I ever read.

Some of these recent posts by Evangelical, condemning all Americans and American Christians are right up there with it.

“You can always judge a man not by his friends, but by the quality of his enemies. A good man will never have enemies who are anything but petty and childish. A bad man will have enemies that are legion. Who it is that dislikes a man reveals much about the man himself.” ~ Wicasta Lovelace

Free groups, Christians, all Christian congregations other than his very small group, etc.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical, You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

I provided reference to his quotations in a (much) earlier post:
In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. In chapter 53 Lee states that in Sodom marriage had become completely degraded. In reference to today being the times of Noah, he states that Christians have become doped. In chapter 96 Lee states that the USA, Sweden and France is a Sodom and that God hates it.

I understand this to mean not because the majority of people in those countries are practicing homosexuals, but because those countries believe it is okay. Lee often tries to get at the heart or spirit of the matter. It may be true as you say that in a practical sense, the USA is not like Sodom at all. But in a spiritual sense, it is more like Sodom than not. In the old testament God seemed to judge cities based on their actions. Now I believe he judges based upon their belief. Now, God judges the heart and spirit of the matter that is the root cause of the sinful actions.

I think we could proceed with a discussion about whether God judges a city because of its heart and belief, or because of its actions alone? (ignoring for a moment, that legalizing redefinition of marriage is itself a sinful action). If it is actions alone, then USA is not a Sodom, for the reasons you stated. But if it is the heart and belief of the nation that God considers, then I believe Lee is right, USA (and other countries) is Sodom.

A heart that is on the one hand for God, and on the other hand is for homosexuality and gay marriage, is not a pure heart.

Now some biblical support that God cares about the heart of the nation:
1 Samuel 16:7 "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Romans 12:9 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I provided reference to his quotations in a (much) earlier post:
In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. In chapter 53 Lee states that in Sodom marriage had become completely degraded. In reference to today being the times of Noah, he states that Christians have become doped. In chapter 96 Lee states that the USA, Sweden and France is a Sodom and that God hates it.

I understand this to mean not because the majority of people in those countries are practicing homosexuals, but because those countries believe it is okay. Lee often tries to get at the heart or spirit of the matter. It may be true as you say that in a practical sense, the USA is not like Sodom at all. But in a spiritual sense, it is more like Sodom than not. In the old testament God seemed to judge cities based on their actions. Now I believe he judges based upon their belief. Now, God judges the heart and spirit of the matter that is the root cause of the sinful actions.

I think we could proceed with a discussion about whether God judges a city because of its heart and belief, or because of its actions alone? (ignoring for a moment, that legalizing redefinition of marriage is itself a sinful action). If it is actions alone, then USA is not a Sodom, for the reasons you stated. But if it is the heart and belief of the nation that God considers, then I believe Lee is right, USA (and other countries) is Sodom.

A heart that is on the one hand for God, and on the other hand is for homosexuality and gay marriage, is not a pure heart.

Now some biblical support that God cares about the heart of the nation:
1 Samuel 16:7 "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Romans 12:9 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God

Brother Evangelical,


Thanks for the quotations. As I said in a previous post, without evidence I am not going to believe whatever W. Lee, Nee, Darby, Evangelical, OBW, Ohio, aron, testallthigs, etc., said. From your quotations Lee was just stating what he believed was true. I might use his argument and change it to prove the opposite (actually, it is not the opposite, but you get my point). When Constantine “legalized” Christianity the Roman Empire became Christian (in that case that was a real Holy Roman Empire). You see the absurdity of this kind of logic. this would give the legislators the power to turn a nation in one way or the other just by legalizing something (aren't Buddhism, JW's, New Age, Islam and so on legalized?)

You said that now you believe God judges based upon what people believe, not only based upon their actions. Would you mind providing some proof for your statement? Thanks.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Brother Evangelical,


Thanks for the quotations. As I said in a previous post, without evidence I am not going to believe whatever W. Lee, Nee, Darby, Evangelical, OBW, Ohio, aron, testallthigs, etc., said. From your quotations Lee was just stating what he believed was true. I might use his argument and change it to prove the opposite (actually, it is not the opposite, but you get my point). When Constantine “legalized” Christianity the Roman Empire became Christian (in that case that was a real Holy Roman Empire). You see the absurdity of this kind of logic. this would give the legislators the power to turn a nation in one way or the other just by legalizing something (aren't Buddhism, JW's, New Age, Islam and so on legalized?)

You said that now you believe God judges based upon what people believe, not only based upon their actions. Would you mind providing some proof for your statement? Thanks.

Compared to the Roman Empire, in the USA the situation was different, the majority of the nation wished it to be so.

Christianity is based upon the view that God judges on the basis of belief.
John 3:16 or any other verse about belief in Christ proves that God judges us based upon our belief.
We never tell someone they can be saved by doing something as many other religions do, but by believing.


Further proof is found here:

Jeremiah 17:10 ""I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.""

The heart is more important to God than the actions, although all are considered in his judgement.

In 1 Samuel 16:7 God said he rejected Saul because He can see the heart.

Similarly God rejects the USA because he sees the heart of the nation, majority in favor of things He does not approve.

Sodom is not about homosexuality alone, but moral depravity in general. It is indisputable that the USA is one of the most morally depraved nations on Earth today. So it can be considered Sodom for more than just the reason of accepting homosexual marriage. Divorce rate, pornography production (about 89% of the worlds pornography is produced in the USA), let's throw in the abortion rate as well (some here may prefer to use abortion as an example). Whatever way we look at it is not helping the argument that USA is not Sodom. I think we can show either by belief or actions, that USA is Sodom.

By the way, what some here may not understand, is that when the Bible talks about mystery of lawlessness, it does not mean lawlessness against the laws of America or any other nation, but lawlessness against God's laws. A person promoting gay marriage is a lawless person, even if they are abiding by the laws of America, and even if they are not homosexual themselves.