The Lord's Recovery or Man's Movement?

Indiana · 11-21-2008, 06:08 PM

HOPE shared on the Early Nee thread, When WN and WL referred to “Work” they did not mean the work of the Lord in a generic sense but rather their particular work and not just their particular personal work but a movement and particular entity which had a life and direction of its own.

The concept of “the Work” was a huge mistake by WN and was and continues to undermine many truths that he did open up to the Body of Christ.

Along with this, the term the Lord’s recovery has been brought into question on the Early Nee thread. I came upon a website today www.local-church-movement.org that supports the term the Lord’s recovery and the concept that it is indeed the move of the Lord from Martin Luther up to the present day. Of course, what is meant by "the Lord’s recovery" is much more expansive and meaningful than what has thus far been defined on the Early Nee thread. Shall we give it fair play on this thread? The website I have referred to also refutes those who say the "recovery” is NOT the Lord's move on the earth, but is a movement of man. Shall we address this refutation also in a fair and reasonable way?

Do we have an early Lord’s recovery and a point at which it stopped and became a movement of man instead?

11-21-2008, 06:08 PM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	The Lord's Recovery or Man's Movement? HOPE shared on the Early Nee thread, When WN and WL referred to “Work” they did not mean the work of the Lord in a generic sense but rather their particular work and not just their particular personal work but a movement and particular entity which had a life and direction of its own. The concept of “the Work” was a huge mistake by WN and was and continues to undermine many truths that he did open up to the Body of Christ. Along with this, the term the Lord’s recovery has been brought into question on the Early Nee thread. I came upon a website today www.local-church-movement.org that supports the term the Lord’s recovery and the concept that it is indeed the move of the Lord from Martin Luther up to the present day. Of course, what is meant by "the Lord’s recovery" is much more expansive and meaningful than what has thus far been defined on the Early Nee thread. Shall we give it fair play on this thread? The website I have referred to also refutes those who say the "recovery” is NOT the Lord's move on the earth, but is a movement of man. Shall we address this refutation also in a fair and reasonable way? Do we have an early Lord’s recovery and a point at which it stopped and became a movement of man instead? Last edited by Indiana; 11-21-2008 at 11:48 PM.