LSM’s Contradictary Rapture Teaching

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that you keep using this example that only the die-hard CoC people don't see as being ridiculous. And I guess you could say the same about the LRC and a lot of others about other specific things.

It's just an example close to home which others can relate to. Some would say that the GLA quarantines were all about "rock" music, since LSM claimed that TC was teaching "differently" and corrupting a whole generation of young people.

The bigger picture is that churches, leaders, and saints within denominations are often controlled, not by the Spirit within or the words of scriptures, but by their "founding fathers" who have established teachings and ordinances which rob us of our liberty in Christ.

[OBW]

We are free to worship as we see fit and we let the structure and forms of groups that we don't even subscribe to paint them in our minds.

Nothing will ever be entirely to any of our liking. If we choose to say that it is about having our freedom in Christ limited, then we are cheating ourselves. We are blaming our lack of spiritual liberty on something that we are not bound to. Unless we choose to bind ourselves to it. And even though I would not choose to be part of the CoC, I think that I could abide by their "no accompaniment" edict without feeling like I was somehow cheated from enjoying God in worship. Otherwise, I would need to really reconsider what it was that I was calling worship.

We may have serious problems with the LRC. But it seems that our thinking continues to be influenced by what we learned from it. Go worship in China. You will be even less free. Yet they continue to worship. And here we gripe about the music. Or the liturgy. Or preaching style. Or the "control." I put this in quotes because I think that we call it control when we don't like it and then call it the leading of the spirit or the direction of scripture when we do.

I'm not complaining about you or your post. I am speaking out loud what I have been challenged about over the last year or so. How do we balance the steady and unchanging truth of God with the constantly changing likes and ways of man and culture? And then there are those 57-year-olds that insist on three hymns, 1st, 2nd, and last verse, and only a piano and organ to accompany. (I am 57, but am not one of those.) The point is that generations are always a problem. How do we stand that the church seems to be "catering" to the 20/30 somethings? Or just the old-timers?

Sometimes we really need to differentiate between what we like and what is important. And if enough bothers you, forget that old LRC thing about going to the nearest place and find one that is more tolerable. I see no reason to force yourself to put up with constant conflict within over some theoretical construct that somehow resembles "ground."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not complaining about you or your post.

I was getting a little worried.

[countmeworthy]

[ And here we gripe about the music. Or the liturgy. Or preaching style. Or the "control." I put this in quotes because I think that we call it control when we don't like it and then call it the leading of the spirit or the direction of scripture when we do.]
This made me chuckle, Mike. I have been trying to pay closer attention to the Spirit in me. And your comment reminded me of something that I experienced last month.

I was invited to a ladies luncheon. A woman from Houston was going to be the guest speaker. She basically shared her testimony of salvation and the hardships she endured from from a painful divorce and deep depression. The Lord has healed her wounds. To Him be the Glory and and Praise. It was very moving. The fellowship was fantastic!!

She returned today and again, I was invited to attend. I was pretty excited to go a few days back. By last night however, I asked myself why I wanted to go. To recreate the moment of a month ago? To have my ears tickled? If you are wondering why I made the comment, about ears being tickled, she gave me a word from the Lord, I believe. Without knowing I have been praying for my brothers salvation, she told me my family was surrendering their lives to Christ. That brought great joy to my spirit. But today I honestly had no unction to go.

I did not want to go simply because I had a wonderful time last month. So I chose not to go this time around.

[ I ve been challenged about over the last year or so. How do we balance the steady and unchanging truth of God with the constantly changing likes and ways of man and culture?]

Mike. The Word of God is the same. Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow. We keep the Full Armour of God on us at all times. We walk in Spirit and in Truth. We ask the Lord to anoint our words. To give us Wisdom that we may know how to answer and respond to every person. You are Blessed and Highly Favored as a son of the Most High God.

[The point is that generations are always a problem. How do we stand that the church seems to be "catering" to the 20/30 somethings? Or just the old-timers?]
In my experience, I most comfortable in one on one settings or small group settings (5 or less). Since I don't go to an organized church, I have complete liberty of not having to report to a church leader. Please know, I recognize those who have a strong anointing and respect their unction.
At the moment, I have been ministering to a 52 yr old married man, who is a childhood friend. We talk Monday-Friday over the phone. I am teaching and ministering to 3 siblings, a 13 yr old boy, a 12 yr old girl, and an 11 yr old girl. I started last summer with them.

I do not point them to 'church". I point them to Christ.

A few weeks ago, I had jury duty. OH!! OH!! OH!! 2 days before, I was lead to do a study between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man. So I wrote down a bunch of scriptures. I took my bible and notebook to the courthouse, anticipating a long day.

And it was ! About 11am, I engaged in a conversation with a woman over court cases. We were given a 2 hr lunch so we went to a nearby restaurant. We were chatting about life and I had NO INTENTION to talk about God.

When our lunch arrived at the table, I began to pray over our food silently to myself. I could feel her looking at me so as I looked up, I asked her if I could pray over our food. She enthusiastically encouraged me to do so. I asked the Lord Jesus to bless our food and to bless us with His Presence.Leave it to the Holy Spirit to arrange a time for spiritual mentoring!!!

She told me she had been sensing something was missing inside her!! How bout that??? Here I had with me a whole bunch of scriptures on the SPIRIT and the spirit. And as the powers that be would have it, I got called to actual jury. I only had a moment to encourage her to ask Jesus to come inside her spirit and be Lord and Savior of her life to which she said she would. Glory to God!!

This is what my life is like. Nothing planned for the most part.

Be encouraged. God is GOOD!

BLESSINGS!!!

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The bigger picture is that churches, leaders, and saints within denominations are often controlled, not by the Spirit within or the words of scriptures, but by their "founding fathers" who have established teachings and ordinances which rob us of our liberty in Christ.

Greetings Ohio,

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment! People are taught to live by the Spirit and to walk by Faith. All scriptural and Truth. But when we "lowly" saints did, "no. No. That is not the way it done".

There is a person I fellowship with who is not happy in her LSM locality but still loves Lee's and Nee's teachings. Can never find ANYTHING wrong with the LSM ministry. Although the lack of a living church life depresses her.

I want to give an example of the spirit of control over her. She reads the RCV, life messages, footnotes. Etc.. I use a number of translations but mostly KJ, NASB followed by the NLT. (New Living Translation). I also reference the Amplified.

Ron Kangas has referenced the Amplified. So while this person foes not regard highly the KJ, NASB or the NLT, she does like the Amplified. Uh-huh.
That said, this person does listen to Christian radio and likes a lot of what she hears but is a die hard Lee follower.

[OBW]

In response to the question about Lee predicting a date, Tomes article does not indicate that. But it does indicate the year for the Second Coming. And since the first fruits rapture would have had to be s certain time before, there was a new scheme proposed when that time had clearly passed. The original was said to be in 1997. Now they are saying something like 2070.

And this was discussed in a previous thread (and possibly on the old Berean forum) in which Lee somewhat subscribed to a particular date in 1997 based on the writer Tomes mentioned (Ussher or something like that). I think it was late summer or early-mid fall.

In any case, we are now 15 years beyond that date in 1997.

It seems to me that if it were simply 2,000 years from some event in the first century AD, Jesus was fairly cavalier to suggest that he did not know and put everyone to watching for the day back then. It truly needs to be unknown for his statement to stand as anything but either a ruse or a fabrication by the writer.

It is most interesting that in many generations there have been groups that have "found the clues" and it is always within months or a very few years. They see the signs "clearly" and abandon normal life to go to a mountaintop. I'm not dismissing the reality of the Second Coming. I'm dismissing our ability to actually figure it out when Jesus said he didn't know. If all it took as a good mind, then it would seem that Jesus was playing word games because he had the best mind.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

In response to the question about Lee predicting a date, Tomes article does not indicate that. But it does indicate the year for the Second Coming. And since the first fruits rapture would have had to be s certain time before, there was a new scheme proposed when that time had clearly passed. The original was said to be in 1997. Now they are saying something like 2070.

And this was discussed in a previous thread (and possibly on the old Berean forum) in which Lee somewhat subscribed to a particular date in 1997 based on the writer Tomes mentioned (Ussher or something like that). I think it was late summer or early-mid fall.

In any case, we are now 15 years beyond that date in 1997.

It seems to me that if it were simply 2,000 years from some event in the first century AD, Jesus was fairly cavalier to suggest that he did not know and put everyone to watching for the day back then. It truly needs to be unknown for his statement to stand as anything but either a ruse or a fabrication by the writer.

It is most interesting that in many generations there have been groups that have "found the clues" and it is always within months or a very few years. They see the signs "clearly" and abandon normal life to go to a mountaintop. I'm not dismissing the reality of the Second Coming. I'm dismissing our ability to actually figure it out when Jesus said he didn't know. If all it took as a good mind, then it would seem that Jesus was playing word games because he had the best mind.

In any case, I am hoping this is the year the dead in Christ will rise first and we who are alive and remain will be caught with them in the clouds to meet aJesus in the air in our Glorious new bodies. Come Lord Jesus.

[Cassidy]

"The original was said to be in 1997"

Wait. Something just occurred to me when reading your post. What do you mean "was said to be", OBW?

There must be a direct quote from Witness Lee stating that the Lord's return would be in the year 1997.

Did he? If so, where is that "1997" quote?

Cassidy

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"The original was said to be in 1997"

Wait. Something just occurred to me when reading your post. What do you mean "was said to be", OBW?

There must be a direct quote from Witness Lee stating that the Lord's return would be in the year 1997.

Did he? If so, where is that "1997" quote?

What I'm saying is that this particular write-up is not the first discussion on the topic. I recall that when this was mentioned before, there was some kind of reference to the 1997 date. There was also a particular day given, although that might have been from the guy Lee was basing on and not Lee.

What I'm telling you is that there is somewhere to look. It is not just this one write-up by Tomes and these few comments by this forum.

This particular write-up by Tomes asserts that LSM (which prior to 1997 was Lee) pushed 1997, then changed it to 2070 when it was obvious that 1997 could not be true because certain events should already have been going on.

I think I remember noting that if it was considered a "prophecy" then under the old covenant, Lee would have been subject to stoning. (Not trying to be serious.) But it was noted that he did die in 1996 — after the necessary events were clearly not happening.

Again. Please do not think that I am asserting some kind of divine retribution. It is probably just an interesting combination of events. (And Lee was quite old.) Just like every generation thinks that the signs in their time are ripe for the Second Coming. The fact is that if it were so clearly obvious, then those who were not in that time would have cause to dilly-dally around. If we could know that 1997, or 2070, was the date, then some would have reason to toe the line while others could put it off. Do one of those "death bed" confessions.

And all of that kind of thinking misses so much of the point of salvation and following. It is at least as much about our returning to our righteous and rightful place as God's image-bearers in this life as it is getting some better place in the next life. This may be one of the reasons that LRC leadership has been so short on righteousness. They don't think that this age matters other than being "on the ground" and following the "minister of the age" into the next age. They don't care about this age.

And so much talk about eschatology is mostly so we can pine for the future and escape the present. If (and I believe it is true) Jesus is coming again, then he is coming again. I have yet to figure out what it is about knowing details about it that makes us better off for it. If it is uncertain, I have cause to consider my living at all times. If I can narrow it down to some particular year, then I might not be so careful. (Not saying that I always do a good job anyway.) I do not see that there is anything I can do about any of it outside of salvation, and living according to his teachings in God's righteousness. There is much more scriptural ink on how to do that. And it matters. Ignoring that to do anything else that you think is preparing for the rapture, or just the Second Coming (without a rapture theology), is probably a worthless endeavor because it will not be those who are waiting on the mountain top, but those who are living day-to-day according to God's righteousness that will be "prepared." Jesus didn't warn them so they would be weird, but so they would take their living seriously.

[OBW]

I just read parts of the Life Study of Hebrews, messages 18 and 22, which Tomes references. He is correct to say that Lee does not say that the 6,000 years followed by the 1,000 year millennium is entirely true. Lee adds nuances about the “church” and the Sabbath rest. But he does not contradict the 6,000 years, even continually repeating it as “approximately 6,000 years.”

But if there is this literal 6,000 years because of the day=1,000 years statement in scripture, then we must presume that the genealogies are accurate, and they put Adam’s creation at about 4,000 years BC. According to some, 4,004 BC. And Jesus was born approximately 4 BC. A nice, neat 4,000 years of OT era. Then there is only 2,000 years to go. And it is looking like the number of years is pretty precise. So you put that in the caldron and out comes this “calf” of 1997. And since that means that, with a 7 year tribulation, the rapture is either 1990 or 1993-ish, they had to start rethinking it by about 1995. So put the destruction of Jerusalem into the caldron and the calf changes to about 2070. (I guess we can be a little less precise now since the final 2,000 years does not start precisely at the end of the first 4,000 years.)

My main point is that this is all malarkey. Even if Lee never predicted a precise date, or even the precise year (but only the general period for the year) he is missing the point. If Jesus told his disciples to be watching, then “now” was always possible. If scripture was very soon going to provide enough information to ignore “now” for almost 2,000 years, then what was Jesus doing?

Why is everything always in the next life? Why is our Sabbath rest simply the millennium? Or even the church life? Why is right-living in this life so marginalized? Yes, there are always sermons on it (even in the LRC manner). Spending any time thinking about why some future date is probably it is an invitation to slack-off now.

Why should I concern myself with the end times? Because it is evident that there are consequences for our decisions now. Now is the time for salvation. Now is the time for sanctification. Now is the time for righteousness. Now is the time to walk according to the Spirit (and not some false “spirit”).

And if I truly believe in Jesus, then I would do what he commands. And he commands much more than spiritual living. More than plans about the rapture. More than having a great “church life.” He commands much more obedience. He commands righteousness beyond the simple 10-commandments. (And suggesting that we should just ignore them because “we can’t do it anyway” is to capitulate from the outset. And is subject to a kind of censure by Jesus.)

[Cassidy]

-1

Ok, I will welcome a direct quote from Witness Lee on 1997 if anyone can produce it..... but lacking that it now appears that not only did Witness Lee not "prophesy" the "day" of the Lord's return, he did not "prophesy" the year 1997 either.

From the article the person who calculated 1997 was Nigel Tomes. Using the framework of the teaching of 6000 years and 1 day=1000 years it is the author (Tomes) who derives 1997 mathematically then attributes this to Witness Lee as a prophecy and a prediction.

Furthermore, as OBW has confirmed in his reading, even Witness Lee was not fully convinced of the 6000 years = 6 days, etc. framework.

So we have a scenario where using a teaching that Witness Lee was not fully convinced of, Nigel Tomes has engaged in date setting the Lord's return at 1997 then attributing that as a prophecy by Witness Lee and then he (Tomes) declares it as a failed prophecy!

I find this very disturbing.

Cassidy

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

In response to the question about Lee predicting a date, Tomes article does not indicate that. But it does indicate the year for the Second Coming. And since the first fruits rapture would have had to be s certain time before, there was a new scheme proposed when that time had clearly passed. The original was said to be in 1997. Now they are saying something like 2070.

It seems to me ... that is IIRC ... WL's prediction of the time of His return was based on a few prophecies, mainly in Revelation. The references were to "42 months ... 1260 days ... and the time, times, and half a time." His point was that once we come to know the trigger point of these times, and the death and resuscitation of the Beast comes to mind, then we will probably know the year and month of His return, though not the exact "day or hour," in fulfillment of the Lord's own words.

Besides this I don't remember a prophecy of the exact year.