The Unique Move of God

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Interesting you bring this up. You are actually equating "gap widening" with divisions in the body of Christ. If this is what you see, you should find that the LC is no difference from all the other denominations you mentioned. It is just part of the downward spiral of divisions. And it is not the last as proven from the divisions within the LC in the last few decades.

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example? I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example?

No, there is no right divisions because there is only one body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

What you said was like the eye saying it have no need of the hand.

1 Cor 12:20 But now the members are many, but the body one.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Lee was not always right and Nee was not always right. Seems in your mindset Catholicism is the absolute evil given you resolute to compare with it all the time. Frankly, I don't know which is more evil in the eyes of God, external idolatry or secret idolatry.

Let me share with you some verses from Ezekiel 8. (BTW, don't waste time searching for explanation from RcV footnotes. There is not a single footnote from Lee. Not difficult to understand why.)

6 And He said to me, Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel is committing here, that I should be far from My sanctuary? But you will yet see greater abominations.
7 Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I looked, and there was a hole in the wall.
8 And He said to me, Son of man, dig now through the wall. So I dug through the wall, and there was now an entrance.
9 And He said to me, Go and see the wicked abominations that they are committing here.
10 Thus I entered and looked, and there were every form of creeping thing and detestable beast and all the idols of the house of Israel, engraved on the wall all around.
11 And standing before them were seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan standing among them, each with his censer in his hand and the smell of the incense cloud went up.
12 And He said to me, Do you see, son of man, what the elders of the house of Israel do in the dark, each in the room of his engraved images? For they say, Jehovah does not see us; Jehovah has forsaken the land.

Brother, dig deep into the wall of the Recovery.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

No, there is no right divisions because there is only one body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

What you said was like the eye saying it have no need of the hand.

1 Cor 12:20 But now the members are many, but the body one.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

No right divisions? How would you characterize the Reformation then? Was Luther wrong to divide from Catholicism?

We cannot discuss this further unless you believe the Reformation was a "right division". If you believe it was a wrong division then we would be arguing for rejoining the Catholics wouldn't we?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No right divisions? How would you characterize the Reformation then? Was Luther wrong to divide from Catholicism?

We cannot discuss this further unless you believe the Reformation was a "right division". If you believe it was a wrong division then we would be arguing for rejoining the Catholics wouldn't we?

Are you so sure that Luther was right? Surely he didn't stand on the ground of locality of the church.

What is your authoritative source of truth? Lee, Nee, Reformation or the Bible? Where did the Bible say division of the body of Christ is right?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Are you so sure that Luther was right? Surely he didn't stand on the ground of locality of the church.

What is your authoritative source of truth? Lee, Nee, Reformation or the Bible? Where did the Bible say division of the body of Christ is right?

I believe Luther was a genuine move of God in the Lord's Recovery. Yes, the Lutheran churches becoming state churches was disappointing in regards to the locality.

bible verses supporting division can be found here:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.


This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe Luther was a genuine move of God in the Lord's Recovery. Yes, the Lutheran churches becoming state churches was disappointing in regards to the locality.

bible verses supporting division can be found here:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.


This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Evangelical your "stand" conflicts with scripture.

The Catholic church represented the one body of Christ. In Revelations the Catholic oneness church was typified by Thyatira, the fourth local church, one of the seven golden lampstands.

Jesus Himself called for overcomers in that church, and promised to reward them. He never instructed them to start a new division. How can you declare that a "right division."

Is it then not entirely hypocritical to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu for attempting to reform the local churches in his region, while extolling Martin Luther as the Minister of the Age for doing the same? Titus Chu was only "accused" of violating Recovery traditions established by Witness Lee, and not the scripture itself. At the Whistler Kangaroo Court, witnesses on behalf of LSM never presented any evidence that he should be "purged" according to your verses.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical your "stand" conflicts with scripture.

The Catholic church represented the one body of Christ. In Revelations the Catholic oneness church was typified by Thyatira, the fourth local church, one of the seven golden lampstands.

Jesus Himself called for overcomers in that church, and promised to reward them. He never instructed them to start a new division. How can you declare that a "right division."

Is it then not entirely hypocritical to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu for attempting to reform the local churches in his region, while extolling Martin Luther as the Minister of the Age for doing the same? Titus Chu was only "accused" of violating Recovery traditions established by Witness Lee, and not the scripture itself. At the Whistler Kangaroo Court, witnesses on behalf of LSM never presented any evidence that he should be "purged" according to your verses.

The Catholic church, as a religion, has never represented the one body of Christ. It has always been a worldly mixture since Constantine. And I don't subscribe to any idea that the churches mentioned in the bible were all Catholic and headed up by Pope Peter. In previous discussions I recall you writing something about other Christians existing at the same time (anabaptists?) who were the genuine local church at the time and were persecuted by the Catholics. So I doubt you believe that either, so perhaps are just saying that for the purpose of making a point.

Anyhow, not seeming to agree with the Reformation puts you at odds with the majority of protestant evangelicals.

It's one thing to point out the wrong things with leadership, it's quite another to doubt the validity of the Reformation. Not that I have anything against Catholic people, we were even meeting together with some at one stage, they didn't really know how to read the bible as we would. The problem is the mixture, and they don't really believe in a personal relationship with God - not in the way a born again Christian would.

[A little brother]

Evangelical, I am grateful that we can start to go back to the Bible to dig out some truth together.

I would like to share one viewpoint first. In the Bible, there are different types of "languages". Some are plain descriptive ones on events and opinions as in Acts and the epistles. The other uses lots of symbols and types as in Revelation. Understanding the later is more difficult because it depends on how we interpret the symbols and types. Hope you agree that there is an element of guessing so we oftenly cannot be 100% sure.

So I started to first put away those preconceptions we learned from others on what the symbols and types mean, and go back to the texts themselves. Sometimes I find the messages are actually plain clear even without interpreting the symbols. May be there are further spiritual depths hidden in the symbols, but we should not ignore what is there in the plain text.

So let's try this with your verses...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.

Let's firstly not care about what Babylon means. In Rev 18:4, who did the voice from heaven call upon? It was calling "my people", God's people. (Have to admit that I have interpreted the voice from heaven as God's voice though) The voice was calling all God's people not to be partaker of Babylon's sins. It did not intend to have any God's people being left behind. So this is not a call for division of God's people or the body of Christ. It is instead a call for oneness to walk away from the sins of Babylon, whatever it represents. If somehow because of that Babylon we part with our fellow brothers and sisters, then probably we are failing God's call.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Who were the evil persons that Paul mentioned? They are "anyone who bears the name of brother" but "is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".

Firstly, He might not be talking about true brothers - could be just people who claimed to be a brother. I think we have no issue purging false brothers and definitely this is not a division of the body of Christ.

And even in the very unlikely case some true brothers had sinned (and probably refused to repent after fellowship), Paul named the sins very specifically. The evil persons were to be purged, isolated, or even quarantined if you like this word. There was no mention of splitting up the Corinthian Church. He was definitely not asking the true brothers who had not sinned to walk away to set up a new Church. And there is no mention of having different opinions of what a Church should be as a sin and reason for the purging.

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "division." Division to me means animosity and unwillingness to fellowship, not the idea that one brother might feel led to do one thing and one another.

Where did we get the idea that one group of brothers in a city hold absolute authority over the rest of the Christians there about how they all should serve the Lord? Where do we get the idea that the Lord gives such wisdom and power so narrowly?

So let's say some Christians are meeting together in a city and several of the members feel to move to the other side of the city and start a new congregation. What could be the problem with that, and who has the power and authority to try to stop them?

So just because Christians feel to meet and serve in different ways does not mean they are divided by animosity. Animosity comes in, ironically, when one group tries to dictate to everyone else.

Again who has the authority to object and say that believers don't have the right to follow the Lord as they feel? This is the arrogance of the LCM. They think they have that right. So whenever someone doesn't go along with them, they cook up some way of calling that person divisive. But actually it is the LCM that is showing animosity and divisiveness by insisting that things be done their way.

So again, always question the premises and the definitions. What the LCM defines as "divisive" is simply anything they don't like and can't control. But it's a bogus definition and one that no one is obligated to recognize. They can live in their fantasy all they want. You don't have to listen to them and the unreasonableness they display makes my point.

The only thing that troubles me about them is they victimize the naive. Other than that they are simply annoying.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Evangelical, I am grateful that we can start to go back to the Bible to dig out some truth together.

I would like to share one viewpoint first. In the Bible, there are different types of "languages". Some are plain descriptive ones on events and opinions as in Acts and the epistles. The other uses lots of symbols and types as in Revelation. Understanding the later is more difficult because it depends on how we interpret the symbols and types. Hope you agree that there is an element of guessing so we oftenly cannot be 100% sure.

Well I believe the bible interprets the bible. But agree that we cannot be 100% sure of anything.

Originally Posted by A little brother

So I started to first put away those preconceptions we learned from others on what the symbols and types mean, and go back to the texts themselves. Sometimes I find the messages are actually plain clear even without interpreting the symbols. May be there are further spiritual depths hidden in the symbols, but we should not ignore what is there in the plain text.

ok

Originally Posted by A little brother

So let's try this with your verses...



Let's firstly not care about what Babylon means. In Rev 18:4, who did the voice from heaven call upon? It was calling "my people", God's people. (Have to admit that I have interpreted the voice from heaven as God's voice though) The voice was calling all God's people not to be partaker of Babylon's sins. It did not intend to have any God's people being left behind. So this is not a call for division of God's people or the body of Christ. It is instead a call for oneness to walk away from the sins of Babylon, whatever it represents. If somehow because of that Babylon we part with our fellow brothers and sisters, then probably we are failing God's call.

I have a point to discuss in response. Firstly, I think it's a mistake to interpret this verse without considering what Babylon means, and will lead to wrong conclusions. It's like trying to interpret why the Israelites came out of Egypt without considering who Pharaoh or Egypt was.

Now my point:

Point 1: Coming out of Babylon (or anything) usually means physical separation, division.

Biblical insights: The Israelite's physically came out of Egypt and Babylon, Lot physically came out of Sodom, The early Christians physically left Jerusalem on heeding Christ's words. They all divided from something to obey God's voice.

For the sake of discussion, as you say, let's suppose it means walking away from the sins of Babylon, whatever that means. The next question is how do we walk away from the sins of Babylon and yet retain oneness with brothers and sisters in Christ who do not walk away from the sins of Babylon?

Example: In the case of the Catholic church, the false brothers could be the leaders, the rulers, and we cannot get away from them unless we physically leave. There may be a great many true brothers who decide to stay. So we must separate from them too, physically, though not spiritually.

I think it is obvious that not all true believers left the Catholic church with Luther. They chose to stay. But many left and joined Luther. So there is a division, but it is a right division because it is leaving a situation which cannot be fixed.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Who were the evil persons that Paul mentioned? They are "anyone who bears the name of brother" but "is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".

Firstly, He might not be talking about true brothers - could be just people who claimed to be a brother. I think we have no issue purging false brothers and definitely this is not a division of the body of Christ.

And even in the very unlikely case some true brothers had sinned (and probably refused to repent after fellowship), Paul named the sins very specifically. The evil persons were to be purged, isolated, or even quarantined if you like this word. There was no mention of splitting up the Corinthian Church. He was definitely not asking the true brothers who had not sinned to walk away to set up a new Church. And there is no mention of having different opinions of what a Church should be as a sin and reason for the purging.

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

Let's see what the bible says about false brothers. Here is one verse:

Galatians 2:4
4 And this, because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into Slavery under the law.

This is in no doubt in reference to Judaizers, or Christians who follow the law. Is this not Catholicism which follows good works to get to heaven?

Yet here, the churches in Galatia were genuine churches, with some false brothers in their midst.

Suppose a false brother established Roman Catholicism in the same city, and was named as Pope. Then, we have an entirely different situation, where it is a majority of false brothers and a lesser number of true brothers in their midst. We cannot say that the few true brothers should remain, to preserve a "oneness of the body" that does not really exist between the true and the false.

If 90% of the Catholic church are false brothers, including the leaders, then it makes no sense to ask the true brothers to remain to preserve a false unity with false brothers. In the case of Luther, he had no choice but to oppose it. He had to separate himself from it. Catholicism, is not part of the body of Christ.

In summary, I believe it is right to divide from the false, and wrong to divide from the true.

The issue with denominations is that they were or are often divisions between the true (e.g. baptist and presbyterian people being divided over opinions regarding baptism or salvation), whereas the reformation was division between the true (Bible followers, Luther, et al.) and the false (papal system).

But in reality, the first divisions came about when people decided to start denominations rather than going back to the common ground upon which all Christians can fellowship - the locality. Any two or more Christians can come together and fellowship if they live in the same place.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example? I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Such an extremist point of view, like many things both W. Nee and Evangelical have written. Wasn't Nee the one that got restored to the ministry without publicly repenting, and then immediately decided that all "absolute" members must hand over everything they owned to the ministry. Nee here was even more extreme than Karl Marx who felt that having all things common was more than adequate.

Some ex-members on this forum feel the same about the LC's as Nee did about denominations -- either build them up or tear them all down! Sounds great until one thinks about some of God's children who happen to live and serve there. (It's always easier to tear down some one else's house, isn't it?)

LSM operatives happened to take that same attitude about the GLA LC's about ten years ago, deciding on their own that these LC's were all filled with leprosy, and conveniently discovered some verses in Leviticus which supposedly justified tearing them down and replastering these GLA LC's. It was really just religious zeal run amok. Thank God we are a nation of laws.

Sometimes "sitting on the fence" is just another way of saying that one happens to love those on both sides. Unfortunately love is too often missing from the LSM vocabulary and leadership.