Ron Kangas Message

[UntoHim]

An anonymous person has asked for reaction and input regarding the following message given by Ron Kangas.

Message 5 Standing on the Unique Ground of
the Church,Being under the Limitation of the Body of Christ,and Being Body-conscious in One Accord

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1s...xpUjhKVUU/view
-

[aron]

My own personal reaction - don't even waste your time with that rubbish. "Limitation" - pffft

The only truly limited person that ever lived was Jesus Christ. He was fully obedient to the Father's will. Only by seeing His limitations before us, up to and including the death of the cross, are we set free. Not from man-made religious programmes. See e.g., Phil 2:7-12

Those who try to impose their "limitations" and "restrictions" on others are just displaying their own lack of self-control. They're trying to transfer their own unmet needs. If you come under them, and accept their limitations and restrictions, they feel a little better. But only Christ can heal them. Not you - don't even try.

So don't play co-dependent to these ministers of need. Just nod and smile and give them a fare-thee-well. That's what I do to the Sabbaterians and the Mormons and the JWs and all the rest who think I need discipling into their religious strictures. The LC's are nearly bad as them, but in some ways they're more pernicious, being more subtle (usually). Less obvious, more crafty.

But they'll try to get you to agree on one of their points, and then when you do, they'll leverage and leverage until you're fully enslaved.

Just smile and walk away.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

An anonymous person has asked for reaction and input regarding the following message given by Ron Kangas.

Message 5 Standing on the Unique Ground of
the Church,Being under the Limitation of the Body of Christ,and Being Body-conscious in One Accord

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1s...xpUjhKVUU/view
-

Not sure what parts of the message this anon poster wanted to address, but a 1-1/2 hour regurgitated LSM message is not an investment I care to make anymore. This topic has numerous threads with many posts filled with discussions on this board. Perhaps anon would like to be more specific.

If this principle of the ground of the church was so crucial, why was it never spelled out in the New Testament? Instead, the only N.T. references to the "ground" remotely related to this are in Colossians 2.7 where we are "rooted and built up in Christ established in the faith." Here Apostle Paul refers to believers in the church, the body of Christ, as both the farm of God (rooted in Christ) and the dwelling place of God (built up in Christ.)" Eph. 3.17 (a sister book to Colossians) says we are "rooted and grounded in love," the agape love of God. Col. 1.23 says further, "continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast and not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

I am now convinced that LSM's false ground of church oneness actually moves the believers away from the hope of the Gospel, which is uniquely Christ in us. Let me say this plainly: Christ is both the foundation of the church and the ground of the church. To use the physical site of the city Jerusalem as some metaphorical delineation of a future geographical church boundary has no N.T. basis and is easily negated by numerous verses including Jesus own instructions in John 4:20-24.

For Nee, Lee, and LSM to continually prop up false standards of oneness for the body of Christ, which is the church, has proven to be quite self-serving at best. Kangas et.al. can rant on condemning all Christians for all times using these false standards, yet LSM has never even lived up to their own standards; rather history has shown them to violate every principle they hold so dear. Many of us in the GLA lived through this a decade ago. Hypocrisy defines their position today, and they would do well to read all that the Lord has spoken to the Pharisees, the scribes, and the lawyers who opposed Him.

LSM's exclusive and elitist positions on the oneness of the body of Christ are little different than those of Catholicism, and no different from the Exclusive Brethren. Both of their histories are well documented. History shows us that both the Exclusives and the Blendeds have used these extra-biblical obscure teachings to promote strife in the church of God, to further divide the body of Christ, to quarantine/excommunicate other gifted ministers who refused their demands for domination, to wreak havoc on the saints of God, and to bring much shame to His precious name. As is usual for false teachings, the intended goal is exactly opposite from the actual fruit of the practice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

An anonymous person has asked for reaction and input regarding the following message given by Ron Kangas.

Message 5 Standing on the Unique Ground of
the Church,Being under the Limitation of the Body of Christ,and Being Body-conscious in One Accord

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1s...xpUjhKVUU/view
-

Had to download it. Playing it now. Ron Kangas' voice sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. It smacks of pretense.

And if Kangas thinks that what they are doing will bring the bridegroom back soon, he's become stupid on Witness Lee's kool-aid. We can't pull Christ down from heaven.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . Kangas et.al. can rant on condemning all Christians for all times using these false standards, yet LSM has never even lived up to their own standards.

How was Witness Lee "under the limitation of the Body" when he foisted son Philip on LC members? We have false weights and measures at work here.

"When we do it, it's not hierarchy, but when others do it, it's hierarchy." - FTT 'trainer' during the 1980s New Way. It's subjectivism and self-delusion imprinted on one's neighbours; placing restrictions on others whilst avoiding them on oneself.

The solution? The Christ revealed in scripture. "I [Christ] run in the pathways of Your [the Father] commands; for You [ Father] have set My [the Christ] heart free." ~Psalm 119:32. The Obedient Lamb, Jesus who is the Christ of God, knew the freedom found within the divine command. We see Him, and live. And by faith we continue to see as we struggle forward, to follow. Into the freedom of the sons of God. See e.g., Rom 8:18-21.

The limitations placed by Lee et al are counterfeits and frauds. My advice is, refuse them on their face. Don't give them an inch of ground. Stay fixed on the reality of the promise, found only in One alone. Christ is by definition singular. None can ever usurp Him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Those who try to impose their "limitations" and "restrictions" on others are just displaying their own lack of self-control. They're trying to transfer their own unmet needs. If you come under them, and accept their limitations and restrictions, they feel a little better.

Why do some people want to dominate others? Or, to control, to manipulate? Why do some see other people as merely means to an end? What spirit lurks behind, what motive force drives them?

I say what drives them is fear. They feel threatened by their environment, and try keep the fear at bay, by building a cocoon of co-conspirators, yes-men and flunkies. Any who don't go along are externalized Threat - pitied or panned.

"If I can just get everybody else to do what I want, then I'll be happy." Guess what - if you think like that you'll never be happy. You're a black hole of need. "The leech cries, Give, give" and is never satisfied.

And Witness Lee wasn't the first one to build the Kingdom of Self using religious props. Nor the most successful. But he was at the right place at the right time, with the right ambition. Like Jesse Jackson after Martin Luther King, who positioned himself as Chief Acolyte, then first to hold the Mantle of Power after the demigod died.

But it's just unmet need, projected onto others: need and fear. Anyone comes to you preaching restrictions, limitations &c, tell them to get lost.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why do some people want to dominate others? Or, to control, to manipulate? Why do some see other people as merely means to an end? What spirit lurks behind, what motive force drives them?

For some it is just a rigid mindset carried over from their time in the military. Do they even think what they are doing is wrong? Do they even stop to consider how they affect others? It seems that many convince themselves they are only shepherding the church. When ones leave due to perceived abuses, the leader rationalizes their unwillingness to bear the cross. I was told to put my shoulder to the plow, don't turn back, or I'm not fit for the kingdom of God.

The LC leader mindset somehow got bribed by distorted views of fruit bearing. The GLA quarantines could be considered a fight over fruit. Does Anaheim or Cleveland get to claim me and my church as their own fruit? If the Lord judges us by our fruit, would not the end justify any and all means to that end?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Why do some people want to dominate others? Or, to control, to manipulate? Why do some see other people as merely means to an end? What spirit lurks behind, what motive force drives them?

This paragraph jumped off the page at me. I will ask your questions again in a slightly different way...

Why do some people want to dominate women? Or, to control, to manipulate women? Why do some see women as merely means to an end? What spirit lurks behind, what motive force drives them?

I say what drives them is fear. They feel threatened by their environment, and try keep the fear at bay, by building a cocoon of co-conspirators, yes-men and flunkies. Any who don't go along are externalized Threat - pitied or panned.

"If I can just get everybody else (women?) to do what I want, then I'll be happy." Guess what - if you think like that you'll never be happy. You're a black hole of need. "The leech cries, Give, give" and is never satisfied.
....
But it's just unmet need, projected onto others: need and fear. Anyone comes to you preaching restrictions, limitations &c, tell them to get lost.

Interesting, huh? Do the same answers apply? Are women mistreated out of fear? Do "they" feel threatened by women?

Curious.

Nell

[JJ]

I like the responses to this request from Aron and Ohio. I gave many years of my life to follow Witness Lee's ground of the church teaching, left TLR for many years, then tried it again during Ron Kansas/Blendeds' reign to "give it the benefit of the doubt" for many more years, and concluded it was rancid.

I won't waste another precious minute of my time on listening to Ron, or anyone else who doesn't practice what they preach. "Body consciousness" my foot. If TLR leaders were conscious of the body of Christ they would weep in repentance for the thousands of saints damaged by abusive leadership there.

Let's redeem the time to behold and praise our glorious Jesus Christ. He is wonderful, and our true ground.

[awareness]

Brother JJ, this is what T. Austin-Sparks said in response to Nee's and Lee's ground of the church, that, Christ is the ground of the church. Witness Lee said that Sparks was "passing gas."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For some it is just a rigid mindset carried over from their time in the military. Do they even think what they are doing is wrong? Do they even stop to consider how they affect others? It seems that many convince themselves they are only shepherding the church. When ones leave due to perceived abuses, the leader rationalizes their unwillingness to bear the cross.

It could be I am ignorant what it is to take the cross. I've considered that. However I firmly believe that taking the cross is to willingly embrace to be abused.
That's what it comes across in the local churches. If you're a leader, all those you supposed to lead are at your disposal to be abused. If someone will resist being abused, they don't know what it is to bear the cross. As for the leaders there's no accountability as one once told me, they only answer to the Lord.

[aron]

Politics and the identity of self

Originally Posted by Nell

Why do some people want to dominate women? Or, to control, to manipulate women? Why do some see women as merely means to an end? What spirit lurks behind, what motive force drives them?

Are women mistreated out of fear? Do "they" feel threatened by women?

Curious.

Nell

I think the short answer is, Yes. Certainly for Watchman Nee, women were a means to an end. I've written repeatedly that women were instumental in establishing the Little Flock network. But because they were female, they could be eliminated as rivals for power. They had to "know their place". Of course Lee & today's Blendeds have followed suit.

But that is in a larger case, beyond matters of gender. We as a species love to place limitations on each other, based not only on gender but ethnicity, socioeconomic class, geography, and so forth.

Let me give an example. In my third grade, we began to have awareness not only of who we were, but that in distinction of who we were not. We began to identify ourselves against others. We of Mrs Smith's class began schoolyard strife with Mrs Jones' class, and Mr Chatworth's. Fourth-graders gave smack-downs to third-graders, and were bullied in turn by fifth-graders.

Later we turned our collective energies against new 'others' our team wore red and black, and we took the field against those in green and white, or purple and gold.

Again and again I see "me" defined in context of "us", which "us" is perforce defined in contradistinction to "them". As I said earlier, "Christianity" began to define itself against "Judaism"; Witness Lee would always say, "Most Christians think . . . " and say some generalisation which he'd then compare himself to.

My point is that we take the easy way out. We create some largely imaginary "other", then idealise ourselves against it/them. But Jesus broke all that. He was a pious Jew; he kept the law and obeyed the Father. He was the fulfillment of all the commands and promises. He was the Word made flesh.

The Bible shows us two ways: the way of obedience and the way of rebellion. My thesis is that Jesus alone kept the path of obedience; he became the Way. He was wisdom personified (Proverbs 8). He alone kept the Word. Now He is salvation to all. The partitions are gone.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The Bible shows us two ways: the way of obedience and the way of rebellion. My thesis is that Jesus alone kept the path of obedience; he became the Way. He was wisdom personified (Proverbs 8). He alone kept the Word. Now He is salvation to all. The partitions are gone.

The first Psalm shows us the two ways: the way of the Blessed and the way of the wicked. My argument here is that Jesus alone kept the Blessed Way. "If you, being evil, know to give good things to your children. . . " We are all evil in God's eyes, all are sheep gone astray. There is not one good one, no not one.

But The Blessed One shines before us, beckoning. The Obedient One, Blessed forever, is then the installed King in Psalm 2. See Deuteronomy 17:14-20 for confirmation: the King is the One who binds the Law into His heart.

And what is the identity of the King? "Behold, the Father and I are one". The earthly King fully identifies Himself with the Heavenly Father. This is the Holy One of Israel (Mark 1:37), who could eat and drink with the sinners and not lose His identity!!!!!

The partitions are gone. It is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No Lord's Recovery and no Catholic Church. No One Publication and no ministry of the age.

Back to the subject of this thread, there's no "us" being "under the restriction of the Body" or "limitation of the ground" or any other thing, self-identified against "them" who don't "keep the oneness" or "closely follow the apostle(s)" &c. Those are arbitrary, make-believe distinctions designed to push us apart for someone's personal, selfish profit.

Our job as believers and disciples (steadfast followers of the Way) is to reach out beyond the barriers, as Jesus did, and find God's heart in each one; not put up limitations onto each other. I say again, if anyone comes preaching a gospel of limitations and restrictions, tell them to take a hike. They're trying to segregate you according to man-made approximations. That is not, nor can it be, the path of holiness. Only Jesus is the Way.

[Evangelical]

The body has to have some restrictions/limitations otherwise how could it function?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The body has to have some restrictions/limitations otherwise how could it function?

The restrictions should come from the law of liberty, and not some Anaheim book publishing house.

[Meribah]

I have thought about why these people in the LC who are leaders have such a strong desire for control masked as "speaking the one thing", etc. I have this thought to contribute:

They do not think they are coming in to "control" others. They are so blinded to their own real motives that they tell themselves and others that they only desire to "bring things into order" (order=euphemism for control here) or shepherd the saints. Yes, they desire to "shepherd"--but only with the rod of iron. This type of shepherding manifests itself as an absolute inability to tolerate the idea that there might, just might, be a better way or idea or revelation that someone else has. They see acceptance of these things from others in the group as admitting flaw or fault of themselves--because THEY did not think of it. It is a screwed up way of looking at things. The Bible clearly teaches that all believers have something to share. Now, why would this be true if there was nothing new, nothing better, nothing higher? Of course it is because they have something new and possibly better/higher to share!

All throughout Christian history, new understandings have come and the Body has rejoiced to receive those that are discerned as clearly from the Lord and His Word. Ahh--but poof!--it is now all over. In these folks' eyes (the leaders) allowing these things to be expressed clearly points out that THEY did not think of it--and they desire to fully control and maintain their own personal view(s) of what the highest revelation might be and to have it be thought that only WL could possibly have had it. The great MOTA has spoken and died. God has nothing new for us. Is this not incredible that the INEXHAUSTIBLE God now has nothing new to offer??? They make me laugh at their audacity and they make me afraid for them because of what they are doing to the Body. I do not listen to them at all anymore unless they quote the Word directly or say something so firmly established (by others gone before) that I can amen it.

As they seek to maintain their power to have it their way and to shepherd with this rod of iron, the flock is slowly leaking away. Fewer and fewer go to video trainings. Why? Reruns are boring. Their manner of presenting (reading an outline and pausing to scold the more humble members of the body) is boring. Their condemnation of "those" (whoever they are!) is boring.

Seeing these slip away, their control grows more rigid. They scold and chastise "those"--who are unnamed. They seem not to learn. I shake my head. They cannot see past their own strong desire to have it their way--and at such a cost to all. They are blind to their true motives for "service".

As Princess Leia said, ""The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Could not agree more.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Meribah

I have thought about why these people in the LC who are leaders have such a strong desire for control masked as "speaking the one thing", etc. I have this thought to contribute:

They do not think they are coming in to "control" others. They are so blinded to their own real motives that they tell themselves and others that they only desire to "bring things into order" (order=euphemism for control here) or shepherd the saints. Yes, they desire to "shepherd"--but only with the rod of iron. This type of shepherding manifests itself as an absolute inability to tolerate the idea that there might, just might, be a better way or idea or revelation that someone else has.

Well yes, the LC concept regarding shepherding is like a box. It needs to be packaged so it lies within the confines of the ministry. If you try to shepherd outside the scope of the ministry, a brother might find himself negatively labeled even when there is benign intent.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Meribah

I have thought about why these people in the LC who are leaders have such a strong desire for control masked as "speaking the one thing", etc. I have this thought to contribute:...

Very well said, Meribah! And, Welcome to the forum.

I vote for making this a featured post.

[Drake]

Meribah> "As Princess Leia said, ""The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Oh, well, if Princess Leia said it, it must be true!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Meribah> "As Princess Leia said, ""The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Oh, well, if Princess Leia said it, it must be true!

Bro Drake, don't you know that Han Solo and Princess Leia were the original Adam and Eve according to Genesis in the original manuscript? I thought I read that in Bushnell.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Bro Drake, don't you know that Han Solo and Princess Leia were the original Adam and Eve according to Genesis in the original manuscript? I thought I read that in Bushnell.

Evangelical,

But just wait.

All your arguments will crumble once R2D2 quotes are deployed.

"Beep. Bloop. Blop. Bleep. Boop."

[Ohio]

Can we come back on message, please?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can we come back on message, please?

Actually Star Wars is relevant. I once noted on this forum that the evil trade federation (aka Walt Disney) sold us a story about the evil trade federation, and they made a mint off it! Brilliant!

Just market the idealised "rebels" who are really trade federation puppets - system pawns; movie actors who spout your cliches. And the gullible masses will line up, and come in by the droves.

"Star Wars" the movie franchise is actually owned by the bad guy, the Trade Federation, aka Walt Disney & Hollywood. Not too much of a stretch to see that.

Likewise, the "genuine local churches" are just franchised ministry outposts of a self-proclaimed prophet and apostle, who happened to - surprise, surprise - own the publishing company that put out all his books, all 326 of them! And coffee mugs, and CDs, and DVDs, and socks, and calendars and t-shirts and posters and whatever else they could market. There's gold in them thar hills!

That was the revelation: that if you tell the gullible masses that you have the revelation, enough of them will believe you, that you can make a living off it. Pretty good gig if you can get it.

I think they called that one, The Empire Strikes Back.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually Star Wars is relevant.

OK. I never saw that show.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK. I never saw that show.

Star wars is a story where the evil trade federation gobbled up the universe and enslaved it, making commodities of everyone and everything. Then the rebels (the Jedi) fought them and so on . . . the narrative story line.

Then one day, I heard that the owner of the Star Wars franchise, George Lucas, sold it to Walt Disney (who owned ABC, ESPN, Marvel, theme parks &c) for $500 million.

And I went, "Oh. The Trade Federation won the war." The irony was that the story was about how bad the TF was, and the TF put out the story, marketed it, sold it, and made a handsome buck. It shows that you can make a living selling anything if you put the right wrapper on it. You can write a book - "Hey!! I just ripped you off!!!" and if it has a funny color and you yell and wave, someone will buy it. Maybe a lot of people, who knows? I mean, hey, 15 million Mormons can't be wrong, can they? Gotta be something there.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually Star Wars is relevant....

Where would the correlation to chancellor Palpatine be?
Some one who appears to be quite passive and benign, but it's really a pretentious cover for a hidden agenda.

[JJ]

OK, funny tangent, with some truth, but still science fiction. Drake had a point here. But, he said nothing about the rest of Meribah’s post, where the real issues were.

There is much more that could be said about proper sensitivity to the body too.

Doesn’t it also include (regardless of where members meet):

humble, servant attitude toward other members
recognizing biblical service of others including good works, wisdom, teaching
righteousness in deeds
fairness
mercy
love!
open lines of two way fellowship and dialogue
not placing men in place of Christ as the head of the body
not taking credit for and copyrighting ministry and songs others penned years before
handling the holy word of God with reverence and respect without adding, taking away, or adulteration
admitting, regretting, repenting, and apologizing for failures

[Meribah]

Because the Force is with me, I am coming back in to reply to the comment that if PRINCESS LEIA said it," it has to be true". (O ye of little faith!)

No, it is NOT because she said it that it is true. It is true because this is what history has shown us to be true over and over. Those who seek tight control usually do so by some kind of fear tactic. People do not like feeling fearful (obviously). So, they ultimately turn on the ones who made them feel that way and that is what the quote is all about, of course.

Another famous quote would be equally applicable here: "Those who are feared by many have many to fear." In the end, fear tactics become a danger to the very ones who employ them. And in the case of church leaders who use them, this is good--because they should be removed from leadership. Why on Earth would ANY church claiming the name of Christ EVER use fear tactics? I remember Gamaliel, I think it was, who said to leave the Christian movement alone. If it was not of God, it would die out. If it was of God, it could not be stopped. (Paraphrasing here.)

The use of fear tactics is not only anti-Christ, but it is also a very clear indicator of a lack of faith--either in what is being done and practiced or in the Lord's ability to protect and guide His own people.

May the Force be with you all!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Meribah

Why on Earth would ANY church claiming the name of Christ EVER use fear tactics?

Because fear works. It's been used by even Jesus, and Christians ever since.

Oddly, I had enough fire and brimstone sermons growing up that I miss them. They were really scary when I was a kid, and too everyone in the pews. Now I think they are funnier than Comedy Central. But they inoculated me from any fear now that I'm grown up ... tho many Christians still try to use it on me. After all, aren't I gonna burn in hell forever and ever if I don't keep the faith?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If this principle of the ground of the church was so crucial, why was it never spelled out in the New Testament? Instead, the only N.T. references to the "ground" remotely related to this are in Colossians 2.7 where we are "rooted and built up in Christ established in the faith." Here Apostle Paul refers to believers in the church, the body of Christ, as both the farm of God (rooted in Christ) and the dwelling place of God (built up in Christ.)" Eph. 3.17 (a sister book to Colossians) says we are "rooted and grounded in love," the agape love of God. Col. 1.23 says further, "continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast and not moved away from the hope of the gospel."

I am now convinced that LSM's false ground of church oneness actually moves the believers away from the hope of the Gospel, which is uniquely Christ in us. Let me say this plainly: Christ is both the foundation of the church and the ground of the church. To use the physical site of the city Jerusalem as some metaphorical delineation of a future geographical church boundary has no N.T. basis and is easily negated by numerous verses including Jesus own instructions in John 4:20-24.

I quoted Ohio's post because I agree with it heartily and anybody who reads Alt Views knows, Ohio and I rarely agree on anything. So I thought it must be significant.

I listened to the first 15 minutes of Ron Kangas' message and basically it's a cargo cult appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_...es_of_the_term

In other words, the idea is that if you replicate the New Testament form of the church , you'll bring the Lord back. Witness Lee and his followers must make the case that the Bible implies that because it doesn't teach it. What it teaches it that what counts is authentic love and compassion, as the verses Ohio quoted above show. When love is present, Christ is present.

Now, let me add that there were many brothers and sisters in the Local Church who did show genuine love and compassion as individuals when I was there. But, the official position of the group as epitomized by Mr. Lee himself was sectarian and exclusivist and contradicted the true spirit of Jesus which is love.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I quoted Ohio's post because I agree with it heartily and anybody who reads Alt Views knows, Ohio and I rarely agree on anything. So I thought it must be significant.

I listened to the first 15 minutes of Ron Kangas' message and basically it's a cargo cult appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_...es_of_the_term

In other words, the idea is that if you replicate the New Testament form of the church , you'll bring the Lord back. Witness Lee and his followers must make the case that the Bible implies that because it doesn't teach it. What it teaches it that what counts is authentic love and compassion, as the verses Ohio quoted above show. When love is present, Christ is present.

Now, let me add that there were many brothers and sisters in the Local Church who did show genuine love and compassion as individuals when I was there. But, the official position of the group as epitomized by Mr. Lee himself was sectarian and exclusivist and contradicted the true spirit of Jesus which is love.

This must be fake news. Zeek and Ohio never agree.

All seriousness aside, Ohio and zeek are knocking it outta da park.

But Lee could easily discard the "Jesus is the ground" claptrap, as Lee would likely call it. Lee was a little more crude. When T. Austin Sparks made the very same point as bro Ohio, Lee said Sparks "was passing gas," unwittingly calling Christ gas.

And that's what Kangas, who once I was close with, sounds like to me today ... like passing gas.

Zeek introduced the Cargo Cult primitive kind of thinking. Clearly we in the modern age aren't free of that kind of thinking. Maybe it's hard-wired.

At any rate, isn't this effort to replicate the early church, in all its forms, aka, The Recovery, The Restoration, and even The Reformation, just that kind of thinking? The thinking that if we can just get it exactly the same as the early church the Lord will send the cargo, aka, The Bridegroom, in Recovery-speak.

Let's say it's true, that a Cargo Cult effort will work. Then we're in serious trouble. For one we can't replicate The Pentecost. For two, we're missing important data necessary to be sure we're getting it exactly right. That data is between Jesus and Paul. We don't have any.

We have data from Paul, that's in the 50s and 60s of the first century. We have data that comes decades after Jesus in the form of the gospels. We don't have data, or in other words documentation, between Jesus and Paul, between a.d.30 and a.d.50 or 60.

How then, if the Cargo Cult effort works, will we know how, based upon necessary documentation, to replicate the earliest Christians?

In any case, thinking in Cargo Cult terms, Nee's & Lee's ground of the church doesn't get us there. Sorry bro Kangas. I was mistaken when I thought you were smart. You're really no smarter than any other personality cult follower.

In the end, the big question is : Does the Cargo Cult method work? As Christians are we really suppose to be replicating anything, other than Jesus? Didn't Christ say, "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH?" Why are WE, namely Nee and Lee, trying to build it?

[Meribah]

The teaching that they (the LC--and basically only them) were going to "bring the Lord back" shocked and annoyed me more than most of their crazier teachings. I can scarcely even imagine an Almighty God being bound by His creatures in any way. In fact, I cannot. My mind just won't go there. And this business about the "ground" of the church being one per city has always made me shake my head. Apparently, the churches in each city in Paul's day were about 25 - 50 members. With everyone, for the most part, relying on walking to get to the meeting, there would not be many different choices for places to meet and certainly most would be close by. In other words--one per city because they just weren't that big.

So many of their teachings are created out of what appears to be thin air. First, the teaching that they--out of ALL the Christians on the Earth--are God's "recovery". Somehow they made it and no one else did. They are chosen. They are special. Where on Earth did they "see" this in the Word? Second, the teaching that WL was MOTA. While he was alive and teaching, I would look at him and think how pitiful it was that there were those who actually believed it. Again, what scriptural authority do they have for proclaiming his to be this? Third, the teaching that only the overcomers would be raptured in the first rapture--combined with the hint that those in the LC would surely be a part of those if they just hung in there (in the meetings). And these are only a very few of the crazy teachings! The first two have absolutely NO scriptural basis and the third hangs by a thread of unique interpretation of the parable of the wedding--which all but disappears once you know about the wedding customs of Galilee at that time. They have a right to their interpretation of the parable but, again, the first two teachings are just not in the Word and, therefore, not from the Lord, in my opinion.

When the Lord comes, they will undoubtedly think they did it. And yet, in the LC churches today, one can look around and know it just can't be so.

[Evangelical]

I guess we can't count on you to help bring the Lord back then. Bringing the Lord back is the best way to solve the world's problems.

Lee spoke and wrote extensively, from the Scripture, about how to be an overcomer and how to be raptured. None of which can be summed up in a simple statement that the only condition to be an overcomer/raptured is to "attend all the meetings". None of which applied only to LC members, but to all believers. I would challenge you to produce such a statement from Lee, in any of the written materials which are mostly available online to read for free. If you cannot, then I think the right thing to do would be to admit you misrepresented Lee's teachings.

Lee wrote extensively and in great detail, from the Scriptures, about being an overcomer and the rapture on topics such as overcoming the leaving of the first love and how to overcome persecution, worldliness and spiritual death. It is a pity that you overlook all these important truths from Scripture and focus on what he may or may not have said or written about "attending all the meetings".

[Evangelical]

One of the reasons Christ has delayed his return is that his Bride has not been ready. And preparation for Christ's return is biblical - story of the wise virgins. This is what is meant by "bringing the Lord back". And if anyone thinks the Lord cannot be delayed because He is the all-powerful God, they should read the story of Daniel and the Prince of Persia to see that is not the case. If anyone thinks the Lord is not delayed, then try explain why the apostles expected and even Jesus said "I am coming soon", yet 2000 years later is not here yet. If someone says "I am coming soon" and doesn't, the most likely explanation is they delayed.

The significance of the ground for Christ's return should not be underestimated. The ground is important - consider how much fuss Christianity has made over the centuries about Israel/Jerusalem? Most Christians would realize, I think, that it's not just about having Christ in your heart.

It is not about replicating the early church but providing the right environment for Christ to come back, and I think the right environment would look something like the early church. When Christ returns I don't think he will be stopping by the Vatican and the LGBT church on his way. He will be going straight to the churches which best resemble the church he started 2000 years ago.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

One of the reasons Christ has delayed his return is that his Bride has not been ready.

Yup.

Cause TC wrote books and let the GLA young people play electric guitars.

Yup.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And if anyone thinks the Lord cannot be delayed because He is the all-powerful God, they should read the story of Daniel and the Prince of Persia to see that is not the case. If anyone thinks the Lord is not delayed, then try explain why the apostles expected and even Jesus said "I am coming soon", yet 2000 years later is not here yet. If someone says "I am coming soon" and doesn't, the most likely explanation is they delayed.

Why do you have to turn to the uncertain interpretation of a vision than to simply accept the clear message in 2 Peter?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that fall advance to repentance.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not about replicating the early church but providing the right environment for Christ to come back, and I think the right environment would look something like the early church. When Christ returns I don't think he will be stopping by the Vatican and the LGBT church on his way. He will be going straight to the churches which best resemble the church he started 2000 years ago.

Don't quite understand your meaning by saying "not about replicating the early church" and yet "He will be going straight to the churches which best resemble the church he started 2000 years ago". Should we replicate or should we not?

Anyway, if the early church is exactly what the Lord wants, He should have already returned 2000 years ago.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

One of the reasons Christ has delayed his return is that his Bride has not been ready. And preparation for Christ's return is biblical - story of the wise virgins. This is what is meant by "bringing the Lord back". And if anyone thinks the Lord cannot be delayed because He is the all-powerful God, they should read the story of Daniel and the Prince of Persia to see that is not the case. If anyone thinks the Lord is not delayed, then try explain why the apostles expected and even Jesus said "I am coming soon", yet 2000 years later is not here yet. If someone says "I am coming soon" and doesn't, the most likely explanation is they delayed.

The significance of the ground for Christ's return should not be underestimated. The ground is important - consider how much fuss Christianity has made over the centuries about Israel/Jerusalem? Most Christians would realize, I think, that it's not just about having Christ in your heart.

It is not about replicating the early church but providing the right environment for Christ to come back, and I think the right environment would look something like the early church. When Christ returns I don't think he will be stopping by the Vatican and the LGBT church on his way. He will be going straight to the churches which best resemble the church he started 2000 years ago.

This strikes me as Cargo Cult supposition. There's no way you, or Lee could know such a thing. And it produces men building the church and not Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why do you have to turn to the uncertain interpretation of a vision than to simply accept the clear message in 2 Peter?

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, not intending that any perish but that fall advance to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 shows that the Lord is waiting for the church to repent before He comes back. It shows that His timing depends somewhat upon us. In this way we can bring the Lord back by being prepared and ready. 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that the more Christians repent the quicker Christ will return.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Don't quite understand your meaning by saying "not about replicating the early church" and yet "He will be going straight to the churches which best resemble the church he started 2000 years ago". Should we replicate or should we not?

Anyway, if the early church is exactly what the Lord wants, He should have already returned 2000 years ago.

We would want to replicate the condition of the good/faithful early churches, not the condition of the bad ones. I meant "not replicating the early church" meaning the outward forms, but not changing the condition.

The early church expected Christ to return in their lifetime.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This strikes me as Cargo Cult supposition. There's no way you, or Lee could know such a thing. And it produces men building the church and not Christ.

God could reveal it to us by the Spirit, but you don't believe in that do you?

Paul was a man who built the church:

1 Cor 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

2 Peter 3:9 shows that the Lord is waiting for the church to repent before He comes back. It shows that His timing depends somewhat upon us. In this way we can bring the Lord back by being prepared and ready. 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that the more Christians repent the quicker Christ will return.

The keywords here are "The Lord does not delay" and your argument was God's return can be delayed. Simple as that.

I am just so tired of the LC usual way of twisting the scripture to support its own argument instead of accepting the plain truth as stated. It was quite like the serpent saying "Did God really say,..." to Eve.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We would want to replicate the condition of the good/faithful early churches, not the condition of the bad ones. I meant "not replicating the early church" meaning the outward forms, but not changing the condition.

The early church expected Christ to return in their lifetime.

So now there are good early churches and bad early churches? Why then "early" should matter at all? Shouldn't we just be a good church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When Christ returns I don't think he will be stopping by the Vatican and the LGBT church on his way.

No, of course not.

We all know that the Lord will stop by Anaheim first.

Says so right in the Life Studies.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

The keywords here are "The Lord does not delay" and your argument was God's return can be delayed. Simple as that.

I am just so tired of the LC usual way of twisting the scripture to support its own argument instead of accepting the plain truth as stated. It was quite like the serpent saying "Did God really say,..." to Eve.

"the Lord does not delay" is primarily addressed to mockers who said that Jesus was tardy/slack in coming back. So the part you have interpreted as "the Lord does not delay" means "the Lord is not tardy/slack", as it is rendered in a number of Bible versions. It does not mean, that the Lord's return does not depend upon us. Because the second part of the verse says it does.

It's all explained here:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_peter/3-9.htm

I'll start with Ellicott:
By “is not slack is meant “does not delay beyond the time appointed.” There is no dilatoriness; He waits, but is never slow, is never late.

Gill says there was a delay:

some men began to charge God with slackness and dilatoriness; whereas the true reason of the delay of it was, that there might be time for the gathering in of his elect among them by his angels, or apostles and ministers, sent into the several parts of Judea, that so none of them might perish,

So Paul explained that Jesus is not tardy, but is purposefully taking time to come back because he wants to give everyone a chance to repent. In response to the mockers saying Jesus was slack, Paul was saying that there was a good reason for Christ's delay. Whichever way we look at it, Christ was delaying His return so that everyone gets a chance to repent.

Now a prevalent doctrine in Evangelical Christianity is that Christ will not return until the gospel is preached to the whole world based on Matt 24:14. Many gospel preaching groups are trying their hardest to preach the gospel so that Christ will come back soon. So clearly it is not just the Recovery which believes that Christs return is dependent to some extent on His people.

Also, we have 2 Peter 3:12 which says we can hasten Christ's return.

Unfortunately we cannot discuss this topic without getting into Calvinism. If you are a Calvinist that believes God does everything then I guess there's not much humans can do. But if there is any responsibility on man's part regarding man's repentance or gospel preaching then the simple fact is that Christ's return can be shortened or lengthened by man's actions.

But given God is present in eternity future I am sure that whatever mankind does is already known. So from His point of view, Christ's return is at the perfect time, but from our point of view it looks like a lengthening or a shortening of time.

Originally Posted by A little brother

So now there are good early churches and bad early churches? Why then "early" should matter at all? Shouldn't we just be a good church?

The "early" matters because at that time real churches still existed, you know, before they became sects/denominations.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Meribah

The teaching that they (the LC--and basically only them) were going to "bring the Lord back" shocked and annoyed me more than most of their crazier teachings. I can scarcely even imagine an Almighty God being bound by His creatures in any way. In fact, I cannot. My mind just won't go there.

I think it is a clever ploy of Satan to convince Christians that they cannot do anything to advance Christ's return, when 2 Peter 3:12 tells us to hasten Christ's return, it is even a command from the apostle Paul. In fact, every time we pray "thy kingdom come" in the Lord's prayer, we are hastening the Lord. What's the point of praying "thy kingdom come" if it is coming anyway?

This website presents it fairly well, based on 2 Peter 3:12


https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/...ist-15204.html

Is it possible? Can we hasten His return? For the answer to that, I studied what Greek scholar Dr. Marvin R. Vincent and others said about this passage. He and a number of Greek scholars agree that these words of Peter state that by our actions the Church can hasten the Day of the Lord:


Dr. Vincent goes on to explain,

…that day being no date inexorably fixed, but one the arrival of which it is free to the church to hasten on by faith and prayer. See Matt 24:14: The gospel shall be preached in the whole world, “and then shall the end come.” Compare the words of Peter in Acts 3:19, “Repent and be converted…that so there may come seasons of refreshing.”

That makes a lot of sense. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ isn’t a time chiseled in stone that can never, ever be changed. Peter says we’re to be looking for—and hastening—the coming of the day of God. Through our prayers we can cause Jesus Christ to come more quickly than He would have come.


A more in depth presentation can be found here:
https://bible.org/seriespage/9-scoff...-2-peter-31-13

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it is a clever ploy of Satan to convince Christians that they cannot do anything to advance Christ's return, when 2 Peter 3:12 tells us to hasten Christ's return, it is even a command from the apostle Paul. In fact, every time we pray "thy kingdom come" in the Lord's prayer, we are hastening the Lord. What's the point of praying "thy kingdom come" if it is coming anyway?

This website presents it fairly well, based on 2 Peter 3:12


https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/...ist-15204.html

Is it possible? Can we hasten His return? For the answer to that, I studied what Greek scholar Dr. Marvin R. Vincent and others said about this passage. He and a number of Greek scholars agree that these words of Peter state that by our actions the Church can hasten the Day of the Lord:


Dr. Vincent goes on to explain,

…that day being no date inexorably fixed, but one the arrival of which it is free to the church to hasten on by faith and prayer. See Matt 24:14: The gospel shall be preached in the whole world, “and then shall the end come.” Compare the words of Peter in Acts 3:19, “Repent and be converted…that so there may come seasons of refreshing.”

That makes a lot of sense. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ isn’t a time chiseled in stone that can never, ever be changed. Peter says we’re to be looking for—and hastening—the coming of the day of God. Through our prayers we can cause Jesus Christ to come more quickly than He would have come.


A more in depth presentation can be found here:
https://bible.org/seriespage/9-scoff...-2-peter-31-13

OK, II Peter says prayer can hasten the Day of the Lord. Good. We were discussing the "local ground" principle. I don't see where II Peter or the commentators you cited claim that meeting according to the "ground of locality" will hasten the Lord's return like Witness Lee and Ron Kangas claim. It seems they lacked the vision that the Local Churches were going to do the heavy lifting.

[Drake]

-1

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, II Peter says prayer can hasten the Day of the Lord. Good. We were discussing the "local ground" principle. I don't see where II Peter or the commentators you cited claim that meeting according to the "ground of locality" will hasten the Lord's return like Witness Lee and Ron Kangas claim. It seems they lacked the vision that the Local Churches were going to do the heavy lifting.

That we can affect the Lord's return in some way should cause every believer to stand up and take notice. Many don't even understand that.

Having settled that yours is a fair question.... exactly how may we hasten the Lord's return and what is the scriptural basis?

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1



That we can affect the Lord's return in some way should cause every believer to stand up and take notice. Many don't even understand that.

Having settled that yours is a fair question.... exactly how may we hasten the Lord's return and what is the scriptural basis?

Drake

Oh brother I think the only thing the Lord tells us to do is to watch and pray. He says nothing about the ground of locality. In fact there's nothing about the ground of locality in the whole NT. It's extra-Biblical. The notion that the ground of locality as the basis of The Recovery that will bring the Lord back is just wishful thinking, a pipe dream.

But dream on brother. It's harmless ... and maybe fun ... but wrong.

[Meribah]

Certainly we can "hasten" the day of the Lord's coming in some kind of sense--the Bible says so. But since the Lord already knew far ahead of time exactly what would happen and when, it will still happen when it is supposed to happen--all according to plan.Can we "hasten" it? Yes, by witnessing and bringing more to Christ. As soon as that last soul comes to Christ that is to be in the Church age, it is over. But the time of this soul's salvation was known far in advance and incorporated into His plan. We can also "hasten" it in a sense by praying "thy kingdom come". I personally believe that this is more of an affirmation. It is a way to be one with Him and show our desire to be with Him and for His purpose. I honestly don't know if it speeds it up in the sense of moving it up on the human calendar.

Time is relative. So, the "hastening" may not actually reduce the amount of time, but, instead, the experience of it. Scientists have now proven that property of time is actually changing. Apparently, we experience time in a much different way than they did before the Flood. I mention this to make the point that our prayers may alter one aspect of time without impacting another. So, in a sense, all of us are probably right.

And regarding the story in Daniel of the Prince of Persia. That, of course, was an angel that had been delayed, helped by Michael to break free and come to Daniel. The angels are servants like ourselves and, again, all their actions were known ahead of time. They can fail, falter, and perform superbly--as can we. But God goes right ahead and does what He has planned to do. An almighty and eternal God simply cannot be held back in the end.

Just my belief, but there it is.

[Meribah]

The phrase "I am coming soon"--along with the phrase "I come quickly" are often translated as "suddenly". When He comes, it will happen very suddenly and without warning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

That we can affect the Lord's return in some way should cause every believer to stand up and take notice. Many don't even understand that.

Having settled that yours is a fair question.... exactly how may we hasten the Lord's return and what is the scriptural basis?

Drake

-5?

Drake, what impact do you think all of LSM's scandals, lawsuits, and quarantines will have on hastening His return?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK, II Peter says prayer can hasten the Day of the Lord. Good. We were discussing the "local ground" principle. I don't see where II Peter or the commentators you cited claim that meeting according to the "ground of locality" will hasten the Lord's return like Witness Lee and Ron Kangas claim. It seems they lacked the vision that the Local Churches were going to do the heavy lifting.

We should consider that the believers were meeting together in a certain way when the Spirit came at Pentecost.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should consider that the believers were meeting together in a certain way when the Spirit came at Pentecost.

Brother, in love, let the idea of Cargo Cults sink in ; the idea that God will send the cargo if we can just get the tumblers in the right combination, and !viola! Jesus will come back, is thinking like the Cargo Cult primitives ... and is based -- maybe hard-wired -- on primitive superstitious kind of wishful thinking.

Plus, we don't have enough witnesses to know if those early believers were meeting in a certain away. Acts just says, "they [the new 12 apostles] were all with one accord in one place"(KJV), or NIV - "they were all together in one place." That's it. That all you're gonna get for your supposition of "meeting a certain way."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother, in love, let the idea of Cargo Cults sink in ; the idea that God will send the cargo if we can just get the tumblers in the right combination, and !viola! Jesus will come back, is thinking like the Cargo Cult primitives ... and is based -- maybe hard-wired -- on primitive superstitious kind of wishful thinking.

Plus, we don't have enough witnesses to know if those early believers were meeting in a certain away. Acts just says, "they [the new 12 apostles] were all with one accord in one place"(KJV), or NIV - "they were all together in one place." That's it. That all you're gonna get for your supposition of "meeting a certain way."

By quoting "all together in one place" you are just defeating your own case and making yourself look stupid. "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about. In contrast to the denominational situation where everyone is in different places. They would have been meeting in the way that the early church met. I think that's common sense. Not in multiple locations as per denominational divisions today.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By quoting "all together in one place" you are just defeating your own case and making yourself look stupid. "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about. In contrast to the denominational situation where everyone is in different places. They would have been meeting in the way that the early church met. I think that's common sense. Not in multiple locations as per denominational divisions today.

Sounds like neither the LC meets your criteria. LCers meet in multiple groups in multiple locations in the city. So LC is actually not different from denominations.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By quoting "all together in one place" you are just defeating your own case and making yourself look stupid. "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about. In contrast to the denominational situation where everyone is in different places. They would have been meeting in the way that the early church met. I think that's common sense. Not in multiple locations as per denominational divisions today.

You've just expressed why Jesus hasn't come back : We all have to come together in one place.

Lee got it wrong right out of the chute. Cuz in the early days of L.A. they had 5 meeting halls and weren't all in one place. No wonder the Lord hasn't come back.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

That we can affect the Lord's return in some way should cause every believer to stand up and take notice. Many don't even understand that.

Drake

This may be true in one sense. But in the other, it may also make people think the Lord is not coming back anytime soon - because we are not good enough to bring him back yet.

We hasten the Lord's return not in the sense we want to affect or change the Lord's return schedule. But that
(1) We know He will return in the best timing
(2) We desire earnestly this best timing He determined means He will return sooner than later

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Sounds like neither the LC meets your criteria. LCers meet in multiple groups in multiple locations in the city. So LC is actually not different from denominations.

The early church met in multiple locations, but considered themselves all one church. Unlike denominations which consider themselves to be different churches, or different 'flavors' of church. The denominations are basically sects, as they broke away and separated from the original and only one church in each city which existed in the time of the apostles.

The bible says Jesus is coming back for His church, not for a particular sect. Note that I use the proper and absolute definition of sect here, as a group which cuts or divides from the original group. Catholics/Orthodox also use this correct absolute definition. I don't use the term sect in a relative way, as Protestants/Reformers use it, which means those holding minority views in regards to their definitions of the Trinity, Confession of Faith etc.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The early church met in multiple locations, but considered themselves all one church. Unlike denominations which consider themselves to be different churches, or different 'flavors' of church. The denominations are basically sects, as they broke away and separated from the original and only one church in each city which existed in the time of the apostles.

The bible says Jesus is coming back for His church, not for a particular sect. Note that I use the proper and absolute definition of sect here, as a group which cuts or divides from the original group. Catholics/Orthodox also use this correct absolute definition. I don't use the term sect in a relative way, as Protestants/Reformers use it, which means those holding minority views in regards to their definitions of the Trinity, Confession of Faith etc.

No long ago you said "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about and now multiple locations are fine?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The early church met in multiple locations, but considered themselves all one church. Unlike denominations which consider themselves to be different churches, or different 'flavors' of church. The denominations are basically sects, as they broke away and separated from the original and only one church in each city which existed in the time of the apostles.

The bible says Jesus is coming back for His church, not for a particular sect. Note that I use the proper and absolute definition of sect here, as a group which cuts or divides from the original group. Catholics/Orthodox also use this correct absolute definition. I don't use the term sect in a relative way, as Protestants/Reformers use it, which means those holding minority views in regards to their definitions of the Trinity, Confession of Faith etc.

Another LSM's hypocrisy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it is a clever ploy of Satan to convince Christians that they cannot do anything . . .

It may indeed be a clever ploy. Another clever ploy is to get Christians to argue publicly with each other over meanings of words like "hasten". Or "ground", or "economy", or "in life and nature".

What is life? What is nature? It really is just 'sounding brass' unless we love. And how can we love unless we keep our eyes fixed firmly on Him. Not on the church, not on the ministry, not on the ground. On Him alone.

If we argue about hastening, we don't hasten. If we watch Him, we hasten.

But Lee didn't care about this. As long as he was in the center of the argument, he'd argue till the cows came home. And the cows did come home, and still the Lord did not return.

[Meribah]

A little brother has written:
" We hasten the Lord's return not in the sense we want to affect or change the Lord's return schedule. But that
(1) We know He will return in the best timing
(2) We desire earnestly this best timing He determined means He will return sooner than later"

Perfect! This is what I meant to say but lacked both the skill and intellect! Well said, a little brother, well said!

In my own simple way of saying it, I cannot imagine the Lord being persuaded to return before all those He foreknew as being brought into life have been brought into life and all those that were to receive redemption would receive it.

This is why I tend to think it is not a "hastening" in the sense of "cutting short". He is not willing that any should perish.

Again, a little brother, superb response!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The early church met in multiple locations, but considered themselves all one church.

Acts says that "they" were of one accord. The 'they' are the 12, in a house. Is that the early church you speak of?

I wonder? Is it even possible to get a dozen Jews together in one accord? I don't know. Not without divine intervention.

Now how do we go about repeating that pattern from way back when, so we can trigger divine intervention like that today?

We don't. It requires divine intervention. And that's a tricky one.

I heard of one method. And that is, replicating exactly what they were doing right down to the tee. It's important even, to dress like them, and the dwelling, the "house," should be replicated too.

Can we do that? One thing is for sure. The ground of locality hasn't done the trick.

Where's that MOTA when we need him, or her?

Our present age is without a MOTA. Aren't we, according to Lee's teaching concerning God having a minister in each age, suppose to have one?

When did the minister of the age stop happening?

Lee wasn't the MOTA. That became clear to me starting way back with Kangas in Detroit. That's when I found out Lee sent Kangas and two other loyal to Lee brothers, to push out the elders that were already established there ; over the "autonomous" local church, already standing on the ground as the church in Detroit, with Elders over the flock.

Lee can't be the MOTA, if he doesn't even keep to his own teachings. Especially concerning he and Nee's flagship teaching, the key Recovery revelation, that of the ground of locality, that is the final accomplishment required for the bridegrooms' return.

So Lee was the MOTA in name only, a MOTAINO, if you will.

And for that matter Nee was a MOTAINO too. Cuz he had a secret private life, of video taping nude sisters -- sexual assault -- and going to brothels.

When did God stop having a minister in each and every age? Maybe that wasn't ever a thing. But a thing Nee and Lee cooked up for obvious self serving reasons : to be The MOTA.

It's all too funny when I look back on now. Minister of the Age? Bahahahahahaha. Oracle of God? Bahahahahaha.

And "Blended Brothers?" Double Bahahahahaha! How come everyone is not laughing their way to quickest way out from such insanity?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Acts says that "they" were of one accord. The 'they' are the 12, in a house. Is that the early church you speak of?

I wonder? Is it even possible to get a dozen Jews together in one accord? I don't know. Not without divine intervention.

Now how do we go about repeating that pattern from way back when, so we can trigger divine intervention like that today?

We don't. It requires divine intervention. And that's a tricky one.

I heard of one method. And that is, replicating exactly what they were doing right down to the tee. It's important even, to dress like them, and the dwelling, the "house," should be replicated too.

Can we do that? One thing is for sure. The ground of locality hasn't done the trick.

Where's that MOTA when we need him, or her?

Our present age is without a MOTA. Aren't we, according to Lee's teaching concerning God having a minister in each age, suppose to have one?

When did the minister of the age stop happening?

Lee wasn't the MOTA. That became clear to me starting way back with Kangas in Detroit. That's when I found out Lee sent Kangas and two other loyal to Lee brothers, to push out the elders that were already established there ; over the "autonomous" local church, already standing on the ground as the church in Detroit, with Elders over the flock.

Lee can't be the MOTA, if he doesn't even keep to his own teachings. Especially concerning he and Nee's flagship teaching, the key Recovery revelation, that of the ground of locality, that is the final accomplishment required for the bridegrooms' return.

So Lee was the MOTA in name only, a MOTAINO, if you will.

And for that matter Nee was a MOTAINO too. Cuz he had a secret private life, of video taping nude sisters -- sexual assault -- and going to brothels.

When did God stop having a minister in each and every age? Maybe that wasn't ever a thing. But a thing Nee and Lee cooked up for obvious self serving reasons : to be The MOTA.

It's all too funny when I look back on now. Minister of the Age? Bahahahahahaha. Oracle of God? Bahahahahaha.

And "Blended Brothers?" Double Bahahahahaha! How come everyone is not laughing their way to quickest way out from such insanity?

About 120 in the upper room.

The important thing is they met in one accord, that's what the ground of locality is about.

And it doesn't have to be that many people. Just as a group of 120 people brought the Holy Spirit down at Pentecost, it would only take as much to bring Christ back. It does not need every Christian across the world holding hands and singing Kum Ba Ya.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

No long ago you said "all together in one place" is exactly what the ground of locality is about and now multiple locations are fine?

It's about meeting in one accord which does not necessarily mean a single location but typically does. If the 12 disciples at pentecost met in different places that would suggest they were not in one accord but had some disagreement between them. That is the situation today with denominations, baptist meet next door to Lutheran and their buildings are mostly empty there's no reason for them to not join together but they don't because they are different types of Christians.


Most denominations are not only not meeting in one accord to hasten the Lord's return, but also not praying for the Lord's return in a specific way on a regular basis like we do in the LC.

[Drake]

Awareness>"How come everyone is not laughing their way to quickest way out from such insanity?"

Bro Awareness, speaking for myself, it is here that I find the reality of Christ the Head and Christ the Body as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's about meeting in one accord which does not necessarily mean a single location but typically does. If the 12 disciples at pentecost met in different places that would suggest they were not in one accord but had some disagreement between them. That is the situation today with denominations, baptist meet next door to Lutheran and their buildings are mostly empty there's no reason for them to not join together but they don't because they are different types of Christians.


Most denominations are not only not meeting in one accord to hasten the Lord's return, but also not praying for the Lord's return in a specific way on a regular basis like we do in the LC.

OK, so now you say it's about one accord and not about locations. Then what role does locality of city have in this one accord?

All believers in a particular city need to meet in one accord and there is no need to have one accord between different localities?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

OK, so now you say it's about one accord and not about locations. Then what role does locality of city have in this one accord?

All believers in a particular city need to meet in one accord and there is no need to have one accord between different localities?

I think it's about both but the one accord is more important than meeting according to some formula.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it's about both but the one accord is more important than meeting according to some formula.

But when many Christians meet together in one accord you never respect that, rather condemn them all for "shaking hands over the fence."

Even if true, that's far better than the way LSM leaders treat us in the GLA. They won't even shake hands.

Look, God is very capable of telling us exactly what He wants. If He wanted there to be only one church per city, He would have told us this in the Word. Look at the detail He gave about the Temple! He spelled out exactly what He wanted. If one church per city was the Way to go, surely He would have said so! Our God knows that we are prone to failing and to mistakes. If He wanted us to do this so badly, He would have said it where no mistake could be made and no guessing would be necessary. Something like this: "Thou shalt have only ONE church in each city."

At the time Revelation and other parts of the New Testament were written, they were not yet large (in today's terms) in number. So, the Lord addresses THE church in each city because, more than likely, it was the only one due to size. Also, people lived in very close proximity to one another and cities were much more compact. This, plus the smaller numbers, ensured one church per city--for a time. Again, if God wanted there to be only one church per city, He could/would have said so. There would be no guessing--no straining to make an example into a doctrine.

Regarding the idea of a MOTA: if this were really true, again--why is it not clearly spelled out in the Word? But again, we only have ideas and thoughts about what we see in scripture as the basis for this. Since Paul wrote so much of the NT, then HE must be the MOTA of that age, they say. But does Paul dare to claim this? No. Does Peter--who walked with the Lord? No. John? No. Is it not ridiculous that all of this time later there should be a person with the audacity to claim this? Where is humility? It is gone. There is no MOTA--there are MANY ministers in each age.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Look, God is very capable of telling us exactly what He wants. If He wanted there to be only one church per city, He would have told us this in the Word. Look at the detail He gave about the Temple! He spelled out exactly what He wanted. If one church per city was the Way to go, surely He would have said so! Our God knows that we are prone to failing and to mistakes. If He wanted us to do this so badly, He would have said it where no mistake could be made and no guessing would be necessary. Something like this: "Thou shalt have only ONE church in each city."

At the time Revelation and other parts of the New Testament were written, they were not yet large (in today's terms) in number. So, the Lord addresses THE church in each city because, more than likely, it was the only one due to size. Also, people lived in very close proximity to one another and cities were much more compact. This, plus the smaller numbers, ensured one church per city--for a time. Again, if God wanted there to be only one church per city, He could/would have said so. There would be no guessing--no straining to make an example into a doctrine.

Regarding the idea of a MOTA: if this were really true, again--why is it not clearly spelled out in the Word? But again, we only have ideas and thoughts about what we see in scripture as the basis for this. Since Paul wrote so much of the NT, then HE must be the MOTA of that age, they say. But does Paul dare to claim this? No. Does Peter--who walked with the Lord? No. John? No. Is it not ridiculous that all of this time later there should be a person with the audacity to claim this? Where is humility? It is gone. There is no MOTA--there are MANY ministers in each age.

Christ told us what he wants here:
John 17:21 that all of them may be one

Some people think this is about setting up one church in each city, but it is not. It is about "the one church", in each city. The Bible teaches one Head, one Body, one Church (Col 1:18). The idea of one church per city is a statement of fact about the reality of the matter that there is only one church in the world and only one church that Christ established.

Denominations violate this truth because they see themselves as individual and independent churches. As soon as a denomination or a person starts saying "churches" , they are already not in line with the reality as revealed in the Bible. They stand for many heads, many bodies, and many churches.

Regarding the MOTA, one would find it difficult to deny that God raises up individuals (not many people) to release His vision of the age including Abel, Enosh, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Paul.

In fact it is almost comedy when people say there are MANY ministers in each age yet if they read the New Testament, almost half of it is written by Paul! Who is the other Minister of The Age on the same level as Paul? Timothy? Silas? Barnabus? James?

Protestants in particular, should know better that there is only one MOTA because everytime they say "we are saved by faith alone" that vision was from Luther alone. The idea of the "local church"came from Nee/Lee but now many groups and denominations are using that term but they have MOTA Nee to thank for it.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ told us what he wants here:
John 17:21 that all of them may be one

Some people think this is about setting up one church in each city, but it is not. It is about "the one church", in each city. The Bible teaches one Head, one Body, one Church (Col 1:18). The idea of one church per city is a statement of fact about the reality of the matter that there is only one church in the world and only one church that Christ established.

You are saying having many churches (one church per city) is a statement of fact about the reality of the matter that there is only one church in the world? I don't see how the math works.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Denominations violate this truth because they see themselves as individual and independent churches. As soon as a denomination or a person starts saying "churches" , they are already not in line with the reality as revealed in the Bible. They stand for many heads, many bodies, and many churches.

LC violates the truth because it sees itself as individual and independent church. As soon as the LC starts saying "churches", it is already not in line with the reality as revealed in the Bible. (Not that I want to accuse LC. Just hope you can see how pointless it is to accuse others without the basis of truth.)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding the MOTA, one would find it difficult to deny that God raises up individuals (not many people) to release His vision of the age including Abel, Enosh, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Paul.

Did the Bible say they are MOTA? Who told you that? God or WL/LSM?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In fact it is almost comedy when people say there are MANY ministers in each age yet if they read the New Testament, almost half of it is written by Paul! Who is the other Minister of The Age on the same level as Paul? Timothy? Silas? Barnabus? James?

It is actually tragedy when people say there is only one minister in each age yet when they read the New Testament, they don't see Jesus Christ is the one minister of every age.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Protestants in particular, should know better that there is only one MOTA because everytime they say "we are saved by faith alone" that vision was from Luther alone. The idea of the "local church"came from Nee/Lee but now many groups and denominations are using that term but they have MOTA Nee to thank for it.

Didn't Paul tell us we are saved by faith alone? How comes it is a vision from Luther alone? May be you are too accustomed to WL/LSM's way of taking credit for themselves and belittling others.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You are saying having many churches (one church per city) is a statement of fact about the reality of the matter that there is only one church in the world? I don't see how the math works.

The spiritual reality is that there is only one church in the world and the local church in each city is a reflection of that. However in denominationalism there are many churches in each city, which is not a reflection of the Universal church.

Originally Posted by A little brother

LC violates the truth because it sees itself as individual and independent church. As soon as the LC starts saying "churches", it is already not in line with the reality as revealed in the Bible. (Not that I want to accuse LC. Just hope you can see how pointless it is to accuse others without the basis of truth.)

That's incorrect - the LC sees itself as comprising all believers in the city. This distinguishes the LC from any non-denominational or house church group which might see itself as "individual and independent".

Originally Posted by A little brother

Did the Bible say they are MOTA? Who told you that? God or WL/LSM?

Did the bible say that we have to believe in the Nicene creed? Who told you that? God or emperor Constantine and the Catholic Church?

Originally Posted by A little brother

It is actually tragedy when people say there is only one minister in each age yet when they read the New Testament, they don't see Jesus Christ is the one minister of every age.

That's a strawman that we don't see Jesus Christ as the one minister of every age. There are many ministries such a the 5-fold ministry and obviously we are talking about the human channels God uses to carry out the ministry of Christ.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Didn't Paul tell us we are saved by faith alone? How comes it is a vision from Luther alone? May be you are too accustomed to WL/LSM's way of taking credit for themselves and belittling others.

Paul never said "faith alone". There is actually no verse in the whole bible which says we are saved by faith alone. I'm just stating the facts here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The spiritual reality is that there is only one church in the world and the local church in each city is a reflection of that. However in denominationalism there are many churches in each city, which is not a reflection of the Universal church.

Did the bible say that we have to believe in the Nicene creed? Who told you that? God or emperor Constantine and the Catholic Church?

Where did the Bible say that a church must be legitimized by LSM or it is not a church?

Where did the Bible say that a book publisher in Anaheim, CA is THE MINISTRY.

And where did the Bible say that this book publisher gets to determine who is "one," and who is divided?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The spiritual reality is that there is only one church in the world and the local church in each city is a reflection of that. However in denominationalism there are many churches in each city, which is not a reflection of the Universal church.

Seems like the ultimate truth is that one can be many and many can be one. When WL/LSM says it is one then it is one. When WL/LSM says it is many, it is many.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's incorrect - the LC sees itself as comprising all believers in the city. This distinguishes the LC from any non-denominational or house church group which might see itself as "individual and independent".

Yeh, you said many times already. The LC embraces other believers in the denomination - only that they need to do it the LC way if they want to be really one with Christ.

I think many denominations are more humble in this aspect. They don't think they comprise others, they think they are a part of the universal church belonging to Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did the bible say that we have to believe in the Nicene creed? Who told you that? God or emperor Constantine and the Catholic Church?

Are you saying we have to believe in the Nicene creed? I don't know about that. The LC never taught me the Nicene creed.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's a strawman that we don't see Jesus Christ as the one minister of every age. There are many ministries such a the 5-fold ministry and obviously we are talking about the human channels God uses to carry out the ministry of Christ.

Here comes one can be many and many can be one again!

If you don't want to talk about One, let's talk about more than one. How about :

2 Cor 3:6 Who has also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Besides Christ being the One Minister, there are multiple ministers of the new convenant in the same age. Didn't Paul say "us" and "ministers"?

I hope you are not implying multiple levels of ministers like the Nicolaitans that you should hate.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul never said "faith alone". There is actually no verse in the whole bible which says we are saved by faith alone. I'm just stating the facts here.

Are you saying Luther didn't get the idea from the verses in the bible and got this idea from a new vision uniquely granted to him? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to downplay Luther's ministry. He helped to make this idea known to many. I was just saying it doesn't make him the only minister of the age.

[Drake]

Unreg>"people lived in very close proximity to one another and cities were much more compact"

This is factually incorrect.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it's about both but the one accord is more important than meeting according to some formula.

Hey ... ya got it bro. Amen.

Regarding crowded, compact living situations in Paul's time...here is a description of Rome.
HOUSING - APARTMENT BLOCKS
As elsewhere, whether on a farm or in the city, daily life still centered on the home, and when people arrived in the city, their first concern was to find a place to live. Space was at a premium in a walled metropolis like Rome, and from the beginning little attention was paid to the housing needs of the people who migrated to the city - tenements provided the best answer. The majority of Roman citizens, not all of them poor, lived in these apartment buildings or insulae. As early as 150 BCE, there were over 46,000 insulae throughout the city. Most of these ramshackle tenements were over-crowded and extremely dangerous resulting in residents living in constant fear of fire, collapse, and in some areas there was the susceptibility to the flooding of the Tiber River. Initially, little concern from the city was given to designing straight or even wide streets (streets, often unpaved, could be as narrow as six feet or as wide as fifteen), not allowing for easy access to these buildings if a fire did occur. It would take the great fire under Emperor Nero, to improve this problem when streets were widened and balconies built to provide safety as well as access in time of an emergency. These “flats” were usually five to seven stories in height (over seventy feet); however, because many of these tenements were deemed unsafe, laws were passed under Emperors Augustus and Trajan to keep them from becoming too tall; unfortunately, these laws were rarely enforced.

Overcrowding and very narrow streets lead to very compressed and crowded conditions. The wealthy lived in much better conditions but, as Paul indicated, not many of the saints were of that class.

I am sure that other references can be found. We cannot saw that crowded and compact ancient cities are, as a description, factually incorrect.

[Drake]

-1

Unreg,

You are describing inside the physical wall... not the sprawl. The population inside the wall is estimated at about 15% of the population of the city of Rome. We are talking millions of citizens, not including slaves and non-citizens for the total population of the city of Rome in the first century.

Not always within walking distance or a short ox cart ride to the meeting.

That is where your explanation falls out of bed. You have a theory and are searching for facts to support it. The facts do not support your theory.

Drake

[Drake]

A little brother>"Besides Christ being the One Minister, there are multiple ministers of the new convenant in the same age. Didn't Paul say "us" and "ministers"?"

What was said that made you think someone believes differently?

Drake

For Drake:

Please supply your sources for this information about Rome and other ancient cities being spacious and spread out.

Thank you.

For Drake:

It is known and understood that there were suburbs in ancient cities but, again, the poor (of which the church was mostly comprised) would not have had the ability to range far and wide to attend meetings. The point being made here, again, is that each church was small in those days and started with family groups after one member was saved. Most of these lived in very close proximity to one another. Therefore, they could meet house to house.

It is not I who seeks information to back my theory here. It is the LC. They desperately need to show that there was ONE church per city in God's eyes and that He continues to see it this way today and desire it that way. It is the understanding of most Christians that He refers to them in this way because they just happened to be started in cities and were THE church of that city only because of their smallness in number combined with the one location enforced by the close proximity of family and neighbors at that time. No doubt today He would call them by whatever name they choose-- the name they know themselves by.

Coming back to the assertion that crowded conditions are unfactual, there are multiple references showing the crowded and compact living conditions experienced by the poor in ancient cities-- whether they lived inside the walls or out. Property was expensive and so the poor were forced to live very close together. The church was, again, largely made up of those experiencing these conditions.

[Ohio]

It is readily apparent from scripture that Rome and Colosse both had more than one assembly.

The doctrine of one church one city is a vain attempt to sustantiate all of Nee's and Lee's claims that they alone are His testimony, that these two are the latest in a series of Protestant MOTA's, that all other Christians on earth are hopelessly divided, that they alone are overcomers, etc. etc.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For Drake:

It is known and understood that there were suburbs in ancient cities but, again, the poor (of which the church was mostly comprised) would not have had the ability to range far and wide to attend meetings. The point being made here, again, is that each church was small in those days and started with family groups after one member was saved. Most of these lived in very close proximity to one another. Therefore, they could meet house to house.

It is not I who seeks information to back my theory here. It is the LC. They desperately need to show that there was ONE church per city in God's eyes and that He continues to see it this way today and desire it that way. It is the understanding of most Christians that He refers to them in this way because they just happened to be started in cities and were THE church of that city only because of their smallness in number combined with the one location enforced by the close proximity of family and neighbors at that time. No doubt today He would call them by whatever name they choose-- the name they know themselves by.

Coming back to the assertion that crowded conditions are unfactual, there are multiple references showing the crowded and compact living conditions experienced by the poor in ancient cities-- whether they lived inside the walls or out. Property was expensive and so the poor were forced to live very close together. The church was, again, largely made up of those experiencing these conditions.

Unreg - I appreciate you asking our poor brother drake for sources, but can you please provide your sources as well?

The the doctrine of one church per city is a dead doctrine created by fallen man.

2 Cor 11

Just a few of the sources:

https://www.ancient.eu/article/637/roman-daily-life/

Note, in particular, #2, 3, and 4:

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/the-seve...-city-dweller/

Note the housing of the poor/middle class (insulae): (very close together)

www.crystalinks.com/romebuildings.html

Note mention of crowded conditions inside city walls and comment regarding area just outside city walls carrying stigma of poverty:

https://globalperipheries.wordpress....amples-suburbs

m.historyextra.com/article/romans/dangerous-streets-ancient-rome

I guess my point is that due to limitations in number and means of transportation, and--one I have not mentioned before--the fact that there were still living apostles and disciples of the apostles alive to minimize intrusion of "new" doctrines, the church was "one" church. Within the city walls, Rome's area was only 5.3 square miles. Yes, suburbs existed but they were almost identical (among the poor) to those inside the walls. So, there really WAS just "one" church--but that changed as the numbers grew and as various new teachers arrived with different/unique "visions" of what the true doctrines were. Due to not having a feeling of uniqueness in location or teaching from other churches, they did not give themselves a unique name. The fact that they did not have any other name caused the Lord to call them by their city's name. I just can't see that this means it is the way God sees and counts churches today. If that were so, I think He would have said so. The only reason it happened in Revelation is because of what I stated above. He spoke to them as they were.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For Drake:

It is known and understood that there were suburbs in ancient cities but, again, the poor (of which the church was mostly comprised) would not have had the ability to range far and wide to attend meetings. The point being made here, again, is that each church was small in those days and started with family groups after one member was saved. Most of these lived in very close proximity to one another. Therefore, they could meet house to house.

It is not I who seeks information to back my theory here. It is the LC. They desperately need to show that there was ONE church per city in God's eyes and that He continues to see it this way today and desire it that way. It is the understanding of most Christians that He refers to them in this way because they just happened to be started in cities and were THE church of that city only because of their smallness in number combined with the one location enforced by the close proximity of family and neighbors at that time. No doubt today He would call them by whatever name they choose-- the name they know themselves by.

Coming back to the assertion that crowded conditions are unfactual, there are multiple references showing the crowded and compact living conditions experienced by the poor in ancient cities-- whether they lived inside the walls or out. Property was expensive and so the poor were forced to live very close together. The church was, again, largely made up of those experiencing these conditions.

The argument that churches are too big now just isn't true. Today, divisions and separate churches are existing in many cases because of denominational or doctrinal matters and not because of practicality. Today, there are towns and villages smaller or of similar size to these ancient places, and with congregations of a practical size such that could meet in one single building as they did in the early church. However they don't because they attend different denominations.

Even if true that there are multiple assemblies aka churches in the early church period, it still doesn't explain why there must be so many different denominations. There are no denominations in the bible or early church.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The argument that churches are too big now just isn't true. Today, divisions and separate churches are existing in many cases because of denominational or doctrinal matters and not because of practicality. Today, there are towns and villages smaller or of similar size to these ancient places, and with congregations of a practical size such that could meet in one single building as they did in the early church. However they don't because they attend different denominations.

Even if true that there are multiple assemblies aka churches in the early church period, it still doesn't explain why there must be so many different denominations. There are no denominations in the bible or early church.

The church of Witness Lee is also a denomination and division in the purest sense. It is the most divisive and denominational church I've ever been a part of.

What are examples of this church bearing fruit?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

A little brother>"Besides Christ being the One Minister, there are multiple ministers of the new convenant in the same age. Didn't Paul say "us" and "ministers"?"

What was said that made you think someone believes differently?

Drake

From Evangelical, "In fact it is almost comedy when people say there are MANY ministers in each age yet if they read the New Testament, almost half of it is written by Paul! Who is the other Minister of The Age on the same level as Paul? Timothy? Silas? Barnabus? James?"

[Drake]

-1

Originally Posted by A little brother

From Evangelical, "In fact it is almost comedy when people say there are MANY ministers in each age yet if they read the New Testament, almost half of it is written by Paul! Who is the other Minister of The Age on the same level as Paul? Timothy? Silas? Barnabus? James?"

Oh, I interpreted Evangelical's meaning to be there was a prominent minister, a leading one, when he said "on the same level as Paul". Not that there were no other supporting ministers. This is evident by the prominence of Paul's letters in the New Testament. No doubt Barnabas, Silas, Titus, Timothy, Apollo, and others were capable and faithful yet their contribution was not the same as Paul's.

For instance, Luther was the leading minister for that particular era in the Reformation, not that he was the only one. The Lord used Luther though others were contributors. Moses received the pattern of the tabernacle and it would have been confusing if others Interjected their own ideas about the pattern of the tabernacle.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1



Oh, I interpreted Evangelical's meaning to be there was a prominent minister, a leading one, when he said "on the same level as Paul". Not that there were no other supporting ministers. This is evident by the prominence of Paul's letters in the New Testament. No doubt Barnabas, Silas, Titus, Timothy, Apollo, and others were capable and faithful yet their contribution was not the same as Paul's.

For instance, Luther was the leading minister for that particular era in the Reformation, not that he was the only one. The Lord used Luther though others were contributors. Moses received the pattern of the tabernacle and it would have been confusing if others Interjected their own ideas about the pattern of the tabernacle.

Drake

Were John and Peter following Paul as the leading minister?

Is it confusing to read in the New Testament epistles from John, Peter and others?

Paul didn't seem to care who is the prominent leading minister. I am afraid the idea of "The Minister of the Age" came from people who wanted to establish their own authority and take credits for themselves.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The argument that churches are too big now just isn't true. Today, divisions and separate churches are existing in many cases because of denominational or doctrinal matters and not because of practicality. Today, there are towns and villages smaller or of similar size to these ancient places, and with congregations of a practical size such that could meet in one single building as they did in the early church. However they don't because they attend different denominations.

Even if true that there are multiple assemblies aka churches in the early church period, it still doesn't explain why there must be so many different denominations. There are no denominations in the bible or early church.

Which early church are you talking about? How early, for example?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Which early church are you talking about? How early, for example?

When the churches mentioned in Revelation were existing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The church of Witness Lee is also a denomination and division in the purest sense. It is the most divisive and denominational church I've ever been a part of.

After living through LSM's divisive practices with the GLA, I came to the exact same conclusion. For base gain and the lust for power, they can extract any nonsense they desire from the scripture. Ever have your house "plastered" after you have been declared a "leper?"

I also concluded that the hypocrisy at LSM in Anaheim rivals any that Jesus Himself faced in Jerusalem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, I interpreted Evangelical's meaning to be there was a prominent minister, a leading one, when he said "on the same level as Paul". Not that there were no other supporting ministers. This is evident by the prominence of Paul's letters in the New Testament. No doubt Barnabas, Silas, Titus, Timothy, Apollo, and others were capable and faithful yet their contribution was not the same as Paul's.

For instance, Luther was the leading minister for that particular era in the Reformation, not that he was the only one. The Lord used Luther though others were contributors. Moses received the pattern of the tabernacle and it would have been confusing if others Interjected their own ideas about the pattern of the tabernacle.

Drake

Moses was a type of Christ building God's house. Moses told us as much (Deut 18.15-18,) and Paul confirmed this in Hebrews 3.1-6.

Moses NEVER was a type of the many ministers and apostles in the N. T.

Moses, in giving us the Law of God with the Tabernacle of God and the sacrifices, was absolutely and uniquely a type of Christ. Moses should never be compared to another apostle or minister in the N.T. Thus Nee's basis for "deputy authority" crumbles.

[Evangelical]

Everyone accepts there is only one President of the USA at a time, but find it difficult to comprehend one minister of the age. There's really only one minister of the age at any time. Moses for example. Even though Aaron was a minister too, and others, Moses was it. Think about this logically. God is a God of order. He chose Moses, He chose Paul, He chose Luther. He's not choosing Paul and then raising up another MOTA on the side. He's not raising up 5 Paul's and hoping one of them makes it. And the minister of the age idea is not negating the elders of the church, who are ministers, or the other apostles, who are ministers, or each and every believer who is a minister in their own way. The minister of the age has a precise definition related to the specific task God has raised them up to undertake.

For example, there were 12 apostles who walked with Christ in the flesh but God only gave the special job to Paul who had a special conversion experience.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's really only one Minister of the Age at any time. Moses for example. Even though Aaron was a minister too, Moses was it.

Think about this logically. God is a God of order. He chose Moses, He chose Paul, He chose Luther. He's not choosing Paul and then raising up another MOTA on the side.

Your logic is not derived from scripture, but from Lee, Nee, and the Exclusives.

If it is so logical with God, then who is the 21st century MOTA?

If it is so logical with God, the how can both the Recovery and the Exclusive Brethren BOTH have their own lineage of MOTA's existing simultaneously.

And what shall we do with that MOTA in the Vatican who lives behind 40 foot high walls, yet condemns the U.S. for trying to build border walls? Sorry ...

The idea of there being one MOTA per age is simply laughable! It really puzzles me that people who appear to be intelligent actually fell for this one and continue to fall for it. As one as of our dear contributors above said, this was created only so that Lee could wear the crown. Our Lord, who is fully capable of speaking clearly, never once said that there would be only one preeminent Minister per age. Even if their teaching were true, should we not now be looking for the next MOTA? Where is he? Who will he be? If there is one per age and we are in a new age, should we not be expecting our new minister of the age? But, no, we see the Blended Brothers! All they do is repeat what the former minister of the age ( according to their belief) said. And surprise, surprise-- they also have a teaching that WL was the last one... the one to turn the age! Isn't that handy?

[Drake]

Alb>"Were John and Peter following Paul as the leading minister?"

This is obvious from the account in the NT... Paul had a special ministry and they recognized and honored it. Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture".

You are trying to polarize the biblical narrative, like it's all this way or that way. The biblical account is balanced but will always be twisted by those who do not understand spiritual authority.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>"Were John and Peter following Paul as the leading minister?"

This is obvious from the account in the NT... Paul had a special ministry and they recognized and honored it. Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture".

You are trying to polarize the biblical narrative, like it's all this way or that way. The biblical account is balanced but will always be twisted by those who do not understand spiritual authority.

Drake

What I see from John, Peter and also Paul is the humbleness of true ministers who respect and love each other. This is something difficult to understand and follow for people so addicted to their own "high peak truth".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>"Were John and Peter following Paul as the leading minister?"

This is obvious from the account in the NT... Paul had a special ministry and they recognized and honored it. Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture".

You are trying to polarize the biblical narrative, like it's all this way or that way. The biblical account is balanced but will always be twisted by those who do not understand spiritual authority.

Drake

I used to "understand" spiritual authority. Titus Chu would say, "the mistakes of my spiritual father are none of my business."

In other words, as long as Witness Lee was the MOTA, he could place his reprobate son Philip over all the churches and molest all the pretty office staff, but no one can say a thing since we don't want to be twisted like all those who do not understand spiritual authority.

Sorry, I just don't get it anymore.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everyone accepts there is only one President of the USA at a time, but find it difficult to comprehend one minister of the age.

This is utter nonsense. There are close to two hundred nations on earth, each with its own leader.

And besides, Hillary refuses to accept this one President, so please take your lecture to her.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

What I see from John, Peter and also Paul is the humbleness of true ministers who respect and love each other. This is something difficult to understand and follow for people so addicted to their own "high peak truth".

alb,

You are conflating "respect and love" with authority and commission.

Galatians 2:11-13

11 And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,
12 for before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision,
13 and dissemble with him also did the other Jews, so that also Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.

Your denial of the existence of spiritual authority will prevent you from making distinctions in the characteristics of the divine attributes.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Acts 26.19...Paul had the heavenly vision and therefore was the minister of the age. Its quite clear that Peter and John had not this vision.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Acts 26.19...Paul had the heavenly vision and therefore was the minister of the age. Its quite clear that Peter and John had not this vision.

Its clear.

And it was clear to Peter.. just not clear to some in this forum:

2 Peter 3:15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

alb,

You are conflating "respect and love" with authority and commission.

Galatians 2:11-13

11 And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,
12 for before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision,
13 and dissemble with him also did the other Jews, so that also Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.

Your denial of the existence of spiritual authority will prevent you from making distinctions in the characteristics of the divine attributes.

Drake

It is interesting to see you referred to these verses as well as the follow up posts from you and Evangelical. It was quite like the disciples arguing who was greater in Mark 9.

When I look at Galatians 2:11-13 and 2 Peter 3:15-16, I see the attributes of true ministers:
(1) Paul was not afraid to challenge Peter, probably not because Paul thought he had the spiritual authority but he cared about what God truly wants.
(2) Peter was not offended and still loved Paul as mentioned in 2 Peter.

I try to imagine what would happen if someone challenges WL/LSM in the way Paul did. Probably we will see "passing gas" and "poisonous" in the response.

I don't know much about spirtual authority. But I am quite certain that it goes together with truth and humility.

[Drake]

alb<"I don't know much about spirtual authority. But I am quite certain that it goes together with truth and humility"

I don't really perceive any humility in your posts brother. But maybe you are a really humble guy in real life.

Knowing spiritual authority is a non-starter if you don't know it exists.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Acts 26.19...Paul had the heavenly vision and therefore was the minister of the age. Its quite clear that Peter and John had not this vision.

Peter, James, and John saw the heavenly vision of Christ on the mountain. (Matt 16.2-5)

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Acts 26.19...Paul had the heavenly vision and therefore was the minister of the age. Its quite clear that Peter and John had not this vision.

Are you saying Peter and John didn't receive any heavenly vision? Please go revisit the bible.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

alb<"I don't know much about spirtual authority. But I am quite certain that it goes together with truth and humility"

I don't really perceive any humility in your posts brother. But maybe you are a really humble guy in real life.

Knowing spiritual authority is a non-starter if you don't know it exists.

Drake

Wow, it's getting personal, isn't it?

And you are right, I am not humble as I'd like to be. Still work in progress.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Wow, it's getting personal, isn't it?

And yes you are right, I am not humble as I'd like to be. Still work in progress.

Personal? Heavens no.

However, this is personal: alb>"Please go revisit the bible. "

Is Evangelical like some student of yours? Seriously alb, lets disagree without becoming disagreeable. okay?

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Personal? Heavens no.

However, this is personal: alb>"Please go revisit the bible. "

Is Evangelical like some student of yours? Seriously alb, lets disagree without becoming disagreeable. okay?

Thanks
Drake

Didn't I say please?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Didn't I say please?

Enough brother.

Engage without the condescension. We are all peers here.

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Enough brother.

Engage without the condescension. We are all peers here.

Thanks
Drake

Thank you for your advice. That was not my intention but if I had made you feel that way, it is time for me to reflect.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Thank you for your advice. That was not my intention but if I had made you feel that way, it is time for me to reflect.

a little brother, there was no condescension in your request to "please revisit the bible."

Shame on them for exalting Paul and Lee to some MOTA nonsense. They condemn the Catholics for elevating Peter and their Popes, yet do the same thing themselves. Shame on them for this hypocrisy. Paul said we should boast in no man. I agree!

Let him who boasts, let him boast in the Lord!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Enough brother.

Engage without the condescension. We are all peers here.

Thanks
Drake

Matthew 7

These online forums allow for discussion that some people would never have in person.

[Evangelical]

I am saying they did not receive any heavenly vision about the gospel or high-calling like Paul did. I wasn't meaning that Paul was the only person ever ever who had a vision. Just having a vision, is not what is meant by "heavenly vision".

The "heavenly vision" refers to Acts 26:13 - 18

In verse 17-18 we see God gave Paul a specific mission:

I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

The transfiguration of Christ, as miraculous as it was, did not give Peter and John any mission/purpose. Not long after Peter was denying Christ three times. There is also no indication that Peter received subsequent vision like Paul received.

Consider this: Gal 1:11-12

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.

I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Barne's notes on this says:

But by the revelation of Jesus Christ - On his way to Damascus, and subsequently in the temple, Acts 22:17-21. Doubtless, he received communications at various times from the Lord Jesus with regard to the nature of the gospel and his duty. The sense here is, that he was not indebted to people for his knowledge of the gospel, but had derived it entirely from the Saviour.



Paul's heavenly vision was not only his conversion experience but also gave Paul his purpose and mission.

We can see that this mission that God gave Paul, was unlike any given to the 12 disciples. For that reason, Paul's writings comprise much of the New Testament, and as Drake mentioned before, even Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture.

So God gave Paul the Vision, and that makes Paul the Minister of the Age.

If anyone wants to contend that Peter, James or John were also Ministers of the Age, then please present your case from the Bible where they received a heavenly vision like Paul received.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul's heavenly vision was not only his conversion experience but also gave Paul his purpose and mission.

We can see that this mission that God gave Paul, was unlike any given to the 12 disciples. For that reason, Paul's writings comprise much of the New Testament, and as Drake mentioned before, even Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture.

So God gave Paul the Vision, and that makes Paul the Minister of the Age.

If anyone wants to contend that Peter, James or John were also Ministers of the Age, then please present your case from the Bible where they received a heavenly vision like Paul received.

If you are referring to mission and purpose, how about the Great Commission personally delivered by Jesus to the eleven disciples? After what was said and done, should they still need another vision?

Mat 28 19-20 Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

If you are referring to mission and purpose, how about the Great Commission personally delivered by Jesus to the eleven disciples? After what was said and done, should they still need another vision?

Mat 28 19-20 Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age.

Why didn't Jesus just tell Paul to go and ask Peter or John about the Great Commission that He told to them personally? Why did Paul get his own special revelation that later became a major part of the New Testament?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why didn't Jesus just tell Paul to go and ask Peter or John about the Great Commission that He told to them personally? Why did Paul get his own special revelation that later became a major part of the New Testament?

May be because if Jesus did, some people would jump up and say, "See? Paul got this from Peter or John, so Peter or John must be the MOTA!"

Seems you are still in the mindset of "who is greater". I think Drake got the word right, they are "peers" (Have to admit I am quoting his word out of context though).

Seriously, there really isn't much value in the MOTA idea. There are many ministers we should respect and learn from, but upholding anyone as the MOTA diverts our focus - those One Flow, One Ministry stuff ain't true if someone stands in between us and our beloved Lord.

Dear brother,

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

I believe this is what Paul did. Even though it blinded him initially, he was a different man since then. But that didn't make him the MOTA, neither did he care about such idea.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So God gave Paul the Vision, and that makes Paul the Minister of the Age.

Well for whatever it counts, in you minister of the age paradigm, didn't Paul say he was the least of the apostles? What's that make all the others? Mincemeat? The way you are speaking Paul was greater than Jesus.

And speaking of that, I've determined that the minister of the age is short lived. Jesus as the MOTA was 3 years. Then Peter was the MOTA, for a short while, until Paul came along. And Paul's was short lived from between the 50s and 60s. Then who?

But back to Paul's conversion into the MOTA. So is the qualification of the minister of the age having a vision brighter than the sun and getting knocked to the ground, while a unidentified Jesus speaks in a voice "all heard"?

Well maybe "all heard." The three accounts of Paul's conversion contradict each other, and don't make sense if read side by side.

That aside, I wonder if something like Paul's experience happened to Nee and Lee ... and was Lee speaking from a continual revelation from Jesus Christ? That's all necessary for him to be the MOTA. Right?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

May be because if Jesus did, some people would jump up and say, "See? Paul got this from Peter or John, so Peter or John must be the MOTA!"

Seems you are still in the mindset of "who is greater". I think Drake got the word right, they are "peers" (Have to admit I am quoting his word out of context though).

Seriously, there really isn't much value in the MOTA idea. There are many ministers we should respect and learn from, but upholding anyone as the MOTA diverts our focus - those One Flow, One Ministry stuff ain't true if someone stands in between us and our beloved Lord.

Dear brother,

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

I believe this is what Paul did. Even though it blinded him initially, he was a different man since then. But that didn't make him the MOTA, neither did he care about such idea.

I think it is a mistake to assume that all books in the bible are of equal value to each other just because they are in the bible. We have to consider the authorship and the relative merits. This is also why we consider major prophets and minor prophets. What Elijah and Isaiah have to say is more significant than what Solomon has to say, for example. I mean, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes is good, but to elevate these to the status of Isaiah would be a mistake and lead astray.

For example, genuine Christianity holds Paul's teaching above all the rest. But suppose some come along and say the 4 gospels are the most important (the anti-Pauline movement), or that James is the most important book of the bible (the pro-James /salvation by works movement). We can say sorry, but Paul was the MOTA and his teaching that salvation is by faith trumps the gospels or James that indicates salvation is by works.

The MOTA is indicated by whoever's writings were in most circulation at the time, and by all accounts we can see that this was the apostle Paul, not Peter, James ,John etc.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The MOTA is indicated by whoever's writings were in most circulation at the time, and by all accounts we can see that this was the apostle Paul, not Peter, James ,John etc.

Thank you. If what you said is correct, you have just proved that WL was not the MOTA, if MOTA ever exists.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Thank you. If what you said is correct, you have just proved that WL was not the MOTA, if MOTA ever exists.

Are you sure? Whose writings are in most circulation today? it is the writing of Witness Lee. His ministry material has gone all over the world, including the radio broadcast etc. Just like Paul's writings, or Luthers writings in their time.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you sure? Whose writings are in most circulation today? it is the writing of Witness Lee. His ministry material has gone all over the world, including the radio broadcast etc. Just like Paul's writings, or Luthers writings in their time.

"In most circulation" according to what measure?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you sure? Whose writings are in most circulation today? it is the writing of Witness Lee. His ministry material has gone all over the world, including the radio broadcast etc. Just like Paul's writings, or Luthers writings in their time.

I don't know the current count for LC. In 1986, WL estimated the total number of people was 120,000 and I don't think there were any exponential growth since then. So that would be the "most circulation" you are talking about out of millions of believers.

If you are still not sure, go to youtube and compare the view count for sermons from Witness Lee with other more well known preachers and you will have a clearer idea. And if you check the sales number for "The Purpose Driven Life", you might hail Rick Warren as the new MOTA.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I don't know the current count for LC. But in 1986, WL estimated the total number of people was 120,000 and I don't think there were any exponential growth since then. So that would be the "most circulation" you are talking about out of millions of believers.

If you are still not sure, go to youtube and compare the view count for sermons from Witness Lee with other more well known preachers and you will have a clearer idea.

lol Youtube. The Lee sermons there are old and poor quality and we don't even use them in the LC, we stream direct from LSM. We are talking about millions of believers including the ones who benefit from the broadcasts and material who do not fellowship with the LC. At bible distribution events upwards of 100,000 bibles are distributed over a few days. On campuses, LC material would be the most widely distributed, in greater numbers than other on-campus Christian groups. As a personal testimony, most of my family attend denominations but most have a Recovery Version on their shelf which they purchased of their own accord, and some even use it in their denominational bible studies - it is that good. If every LC "member"'s family and friends also use the material then we are talking about multiples of those who currently attend the LC. So I think it is in the millions.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

lol Youtube. The Lee sermons there are old and poor quality and we don't even use them in the LC, we stream direct from LSM. We are talking about millions of believers including the ones who benefit from the broadcasts and material who do not fellowship with the LC. At bible distribution events upwards of 100,000 bibles are distributed over a few days. On campuses, LC material would be the most widely distributed, in greater numbers than other on-campus Christian groups. As a personal testimony, most of my family attend denominations but most have a Recovery Version on their shelf which they purchased of their own accord, and some even use it in their denominational bible studies - it is that good. If every LC "member"'s family and friends also use the material then we are talking about multiples of those who currently attend the LC.

Now you are saying WL is the author of the Holy Bible.

And the behavior of your family members represent the world.

Somehow, you used an "If" in your last sentence. So there is still hope.

BTW, I like what you said - "The Lee sermons there are old and poor quality".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I don't know the current count for LC. In 1986, WL estimated the total number of people was 120,000 and I don't think there were any exponential growth since then. So that would be the "most circulation" you are talking about out of millions of believers.

If you are still not sure, go to youtube and compare the view count for sermons from Witness Lee with other more well known preachers and you will have a clearer idea. And if you check the sales number for "The Purpose Driven Life", you might hail Rick Warren as the new MOTA.

This is in reply to Rick Warren comment (I think you edited after my last post) -

I've done the Purpose Driven Life course in a small group. I've read and studied and discussed the book. Lee said the same thing and more, while Warren was still in diapers. So while Warren is good, Lee is more MOTA material I think.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

lol Youtube. The Lee sermons there are old and poor quality and we don't even use them in the LC, we stream direct from LSM. We are talking about millions of believers including the ones who benefit from the broadcasts and material who do not fellowship with the LC. At bible distribution events upwards of 100,000 bibles are distributed over a few days. On campuses, LC material would be the most widely distributed, in greater numbers than other on-campus Christian groups. As a personal testimony, most of my family attend denominations but most have a Recovery Version on their shelf which they purchased of their own accord, and some even use it in their denominational bible studies - it is that good. If every LC "member"'s family and friends also use the material then we are talking about multiples of those who currently attend the LC. So I think it is in the millions.

"In most circulation"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Now you are saying WL is the author of the Holy Bible.

And the behavior of your family members represent the world.

Somehow, you used an "If" in your last sentence. So there is still hope.

Well I know my family and know that other people in the LC have family who also use it. So it could be a trend. I don't know who clicks on poor quality videos of Lee from 10-20 years ago, certainly not current LC members. We stream direct from LSM and so would people who are not in the LC but want to watch. So Youtube views is not an accurate way to tell.

Where did I ever say Lee was the author of the Bible? Obviously I'm speaking about the ministry /foot notes. As a translation, the revised KJV or NKJV is better. My family just love the "unlocked" version of the Bible so much they prefer it to their NIV.

Anyway where were you in the discussions here when some supported the idea that Satan wrote parts of the Bible? So it's shock and horror from you when I "implied" (which I didn't actually) that Lee authored the Bible, but not a word from you when Satan writes the Bible.

[Drake]

Alb>"If you are still not sure, go to youtube and compare the view count for sermons from Witness Lee with other more well known preachers and you will have a clearer idea. And if you check the sales number for "The Purpose Driven Life", you might hail Rick Warren as the new MOTA."

A little brother,

I don't think YouTube is representative of the circulation of ministries. Unless perhaps you mean millennials that are christians,.... a subset in music ministries may be compared. I believe Evangelical is on to a more accurate measurement.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>"If you are still not sure, go to youtube and compare the view count for sermons from Witness Lee with other more well known preachers and you will have a clearer idea. And if you check the sales number for "The Purpose Driven Life", you might hail Rick Warren as the new MOTA."

A little brother,

I don't think YouTube is representative of the circulation of ministries. Unless perhaps you mean millennials that are christians,.... a subset in music ministries may be compared. I believe Evangelical is on to a more accurate measurement.

Drake

Does Evangelical has an accurate measurement to support his point at all?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>"If you are still not sure, go to youtube and compare the view count for sermons from Witness Lee with other more well known preachers and you will have a clearer idea. And if you check the sales number for "The Purpose Driven Life", you might hail Rick Warren as the new MOTA."

A little brother,

I don't think YouTube is representative of the circulation of ministries. Unless perhaps you mean millennials that are christians,.... a subset in music ministries may be compared. I believe Evangelical is on to a more accurate measurement.

Drake

Do you agree with me that it's in the millions? That is the latest I heard anyway. To be fair, the popularity may be driven partly by the lack of bibles anywhere, and not many churches/ministries seem to do bible distribution and LSM makes up the shortfall. But I have seen denominational Christians attracted to the ministry which indicates there is something special about the ministry and we can't just look at church attendance numbers alone.

I've done courses and read books by others before like Warren, and it's good, I learn something and get some benefit, but there's nothing to keep me coming back or do it over again. There's just something extra special there with Lee's books that makes you want to read all of them or read them twice, I think you know what I mean. And no one ever coerced me or told me I have to read these books or else, I was just drawn or attracted to them.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Does Evangelical has an accurate measurement to support his point at all?

Fair question. Ask him.

I just don't think YouTube is the measurement for what we are talking about.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well I know my family and know that other people in the LC have family who also use it. So it could be a trend. I don't know who clicks on poor quality videos of Lee from 10-20 years ago, certainly not current LC members. We stream direct from LSM and so would people who are not in the LC but want to watch. So Youtube views is not an accurate way to tell.

Where did I ever say Lee was the author of the Bible? Obviously I'm speaking about the ministry /foot notes. As a translation, the revised KJV or NKJV is better. My family just love the "unlocked" version of the Bible so much they prefer it to their NIV.

Anyway where were you in the discussions here when some supported the idea that Satan wrote parts of the Bible? So it's shock and horror from you when I "implied" (which I didn't actually) that Lee authored the Bible, but not a word from you when Satan writes the Bible.

Check this out, the poor quality voice recording of A W Tozer got 180K views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_BrSislsE

Not sure about what your last statement was about. Am I supposed to participate in all threads in this forum?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Check this out, the poor quality voice recording of A W Tozer got 180K views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_BrSislsE

Not sure about what your last statement was about. Am I supposed to participate in all threads in this forum?

No, my point was that far worse things have been implied.

OK you are smart, finding a poor quality recording to counter my claim about Lee's recording. What can I say? Tozer has a clear, presidential voice and Lee is hard to understand at the best of times.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you agree with me that it's in the millions? That is the latest I heard anyway.

Yep.

Bibles for America alone has distributed over 1 million bibles and almost 3 million ministry books. That is just in America.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you agree with me that it's in the millions? That is the latest I heard anyway. To be fair, the popularity may be driven partly by the lack of bibles anywhere, and not many churches/ministries seem to do bible distribution and LSM makes up the shortfall. But I have seen denominational Christians attracted to the ministry which indicates there is something special about the ministry and we can't just look at church attendance numbers alone.

I don't know how accurate is it but you can check the following and see whether the "in the millions" for recovery version really means something.

https://brandongaille.com/27-good-bi...es-statistics/

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I've done courses and read books by others before like Warren, and it's good, I learn something and get some benefit, but there's nothing to keep me coming back or do it over again. There's just something extra special there with Lee's books that makes you want to read all of them or read them twice, I think you know what I mean. And no one ever coerced me or told me I have to read these books or else, I was just drawn or attracted to them.

Not many are like LC which keeps us coming back or do it over again on the same repackaged contents. May be that contributes to the "most circulation" you suggested.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yep.

Bibles for America alone has distributed over 1 million bibles and almost 3 million ministry books. That is just in America.

Drake

Right, and America's already a saturated market which is saying something. If we're talking bible deprived countries as well, like in Europe, it's huge, in the millions.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Right, and America's already a saturated market which is saying something. If we're talking bible deprived countries as well, like in Europe, it's huge, in the millions.

I have personally talked to pastors who treasure their Recovery Version. If they come back for another it is usually not for a second one for themselves but to get it in the hands of a loved one. Some pastors told me they get as many members of their congregation to get one as possible. They use it for personal study as well as group study.

1 Million is a milestone but it still represents less than one percent of the USA population. That is why Bibles for America is still going strong. Then as you mentioned other regions in the world are ramping up.

Just getting started really.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I don't know how accurate is it but you can check the following and see whether the "in the millions" for recovery version really means something.

https://brandongaille.com/27-good-bi...es-statistics/



Not many are like LC which keeps us coming back or do it over again on the same repackaged contents. May be that contribute to the "most circulation" you suggested.

My main point was to counter your claim that 120,000 was the "most circulation", and I think Drake and I have shown you the reality with some hard facts.

OK so Lee can't compete against the likes of CS Lewis, Tim Lahaye or maybe even Harry Potter.

With Lee we're talking over decades. Not including the markets we can't see like China. So the Chinese underground church are buying Osteen your "best life now"?

Not to mention all of Lee's material provided for free online, and who knows how many are reading that. Who does that? Can you get Osteen for free online?
I think there are even denominational pastors getting their next sermon from the LSM website and would they tell anyone? Of course not.

You're not in reality bro.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so Lee can't compete against the likes of CS Lewis, Tim Lahaye or maybe even Harry Potter.

With Lee we're talking over decades. Not including the markets we can't see like China. So the Chinese underground church are buying Osteen your "best life now"?

Not to mention all of Lee's material provided for free online, and who knows how many are reading that. Who does that? Can you get Osteen for free online?

When you include Watchman Nee circulation through Christian book stores and other outlets then that would add to the total also. The Normal Christian Life alone has exceeded 1 Million copies sold.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

When you include Watchman Nee circulation through Christian book stores and other outlets then that would add to the total also.

Drake

Right. All things considered I think the numbers would be huge. As a young Christian I knew about Nee before I ever heard about LaHaye. LaHaye I encountered when I went to a Pentecostal church, you know, all the tv evangelist stuff.

And we should note that these statistics don't feature on brandongaille.com and others because you won't find them in the likes of Zondervan etc. Well you might find Normal Christian Life in a christian bookstore as you said but the others not so much.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Right. All things considered I think the numbers would be huge. As a young Christian I knew about Nee before I ever heard about LaHaye. LaHaye I encountered when I went to a Pentecostal church, you know, all the tv evangelist stuff.

And we should note that these statistics don't feature on brandongaille.com and others because you won't find them in the likes of Zondervan etc. Well you might find Normal Christian Life in a christian bookstore as you said but the others not so much.

Sit, walk, stand. Changed into His likeness. What shall this man do?

All available in Christian book stores. That is how I started reading the ministry. Read Brother Nee but had not even heard of Witness Lee for quite awhile.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Right. All things considered I think the numbers would be huge. As a young Christian I knew about Nee before I ever heard about LaHaye. LaHaye I encountered when I went to a Pentecostal church, you know, all the tv evangelist stuff.

And we should note that these statistics don't feature on brandongaille.com and others because you won't find them in the likes of Zondervan etc. Well you might find Normal Christian Life in a christian bookstore as you said but the others not so much.

Taking a step back, it is interesting to see how the discussion is gradually carried away. We were talking about the claim of WL as MOTA and you now add the "former MOTA" Nee's works to Lee's credit.

Let me recap again:

1. You claimed MOTA is the one whose writing is in most circulation
2. I said Lee's works is not in most circulation
3. You claimed Lee is MOTA given his books is in most circulation
4. I provided estimates through available sources to show it is not the case.
5. You can't give any figures for Lee's books except for the Recovery Version Bible. Not to mention this version is just a minority among the distribution of all bible versions according to available statistics, no one should use the bible's distribution figure as credit for oneself.
6. You cannot provide me figures of a book by WL that exceeds the 30 millions copy of "The Purpose Driven Life".
7. You said Rick Warren is not the MOTA because the contents (not circulation) of his book are not as good as Lee's.
8. You referred to unknowns such as free online distribution. This cannot validate your claim they are in "most circulation". As a matter of fact, I can't either. That's why I relied on available figures in the very beginning to assess the position.

So let's get back to the discussion that MOTA is a bad idea. And Paul, Nee or WL were not MOTA.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Taking a step back, it is interesting to see how the discussion is gradually diverted. We were talking about the claim of WL as MOTA and you now add the "former MOTA" Nee's works to Lee's credit.

Well Drake introduced Nee, not me. We are different people. But I'll take it , I can't see why Nee and Lee can't be considered given their ministries were so similar, and one being a continuation of the other. Like Elijah and Elisha, one MOTA passing his mantle onto the next. +1 to me for a bible reference.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Let me recap again:

1. You claimed MOTA is the one whose writing is in most circulation
2. I said Lee's works is not in most circulation
3. You claimed Lee is MOTA given his books is in most circulation
4. I provided estimates through available sources to show it is not the case.
   

1. About brandongaille.com.
   
   I'm considering world wide, even the corners of Asia, the non-English speakers.
   
   Firstly, it only features mainstream American? popular books, of which it calls them "inspirational fiction". Maybe they never heard of Witness Lee, don't know. To me, "mainstream Christian" anything is a warning sign anyway.
   
   Secondly, it only considers America. There's some huge churches in Asia - South Korea etc. The Pope, is he considered? I think he would have sold a lot of books.
   
   But we don't need a website to know that by volume, I think Lee has all of them beat. Hundreds of books, at even 100,000 copies each is a whole lot of books. Most of these guys mentioned had one or two hits. Lee has written many many more books - both volume and numbers.
   
   
   

   Originally Posted by A little brother

   You can't give any figures for Lee's books except for the Recovery Version Bible. Not to mention this version is just a minority among the distribution of all bible versions according to available statistics, no one should use the bible's distribution figure as credit for oneself.

   First point, you're confusing the difference between ministry material and bible version. If Lee sells 100,000 recovery bibles with his footnotes in it, and the KJV sells 1 million copies without footnotes, then Lee's ministry is more widely circulated in terms of ministry circulation. I mean, Zondervan etc are not ministries, they are publishers so not a valid comparison.
   
   Second point, the key words being available statistics. When raw data is unavailable, we can do statistical inference and still arrive at a good estimate.
   
   
   
   

   Originally Posted by A little brother

   You cannot provide me figures of a book by WL that exceeds the 30 millions copy of "The Purpose Driven Life".

   If we consider all of the books Lee produced versus Warren, I think Lee would be higher. Warren was a one hit wonder.
   
   
   

   Originally Posted by A little brother

   You said Rick Warren is not the MOTA because the contents (not circulation) of his book are not as good as Lee's.

   So far we haven't considered the value of the material. Lee definitely covers more ground than any of the others. I mean, life study of every book of the bible. Because you get much more out of a Lee book than a Tim Lahaye book for example, I think we could count 1 Lee book worth 5 Lahaye books or something like that. Example, Lee's life study on Genesis versus Lahaye's "What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality".
   
   
   

   Originally Posted by A little brother

   You referred to unknowns such as free online distribution. This cannot validate your claim they are in "most circulation". As a matter of fact, I can't either. That's why I relied on available figures in the very beginning to assess the position.

We know that anything put online for free gets much more exposure than otherwise. It's just the laws of the internet. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we cannot infer.

Originally Posted by A little brother

So let's get back to the discussion that MOTA is a bad idea. And Paul, Nee or WL were not MOTA.

Why not?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so Lee can't compete against the likes of CS Lewis, Tim Lahaye or maybe even Harry Potter.

Then, why is Lee "in most circulation"?

This is such a ridiculous conversation. It is really embarrassing.

[Drake]

Evan>"Well Drake introduced Nee, not me. We are different people. But I'll take it , I can't see why Nee and Lee can't be considered given their ministries were so similar, and one being a continuation of the other. Like Elijah and Elisha, one MOTA passing his mantle onto the next. +1 to me for a bible reference. "

Indeed I did include Brother Nee because the starting point is not the minister of the Age but rather the Ministry of the Age.

"Now we have already seen clearly that the ministry spoken of in the Bible does not refer to a person, but to God’s building work. Moreover, in God’s building ministry, there are those who take the lead in that ministry in every age. May the Lord open our eyes to see that as long as we are human beings, we should be Christians; as long as we are Christians, we should enter into the Lord’s ministry in this age."

https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=01D3CC46CA


Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Evan>"Well Drake introduced Nee, not me. We are different people. But I'll take it , I can't see why Nee and Lee can't be considered given their ministries were so similar, and one being a continuation of the other. Like Elijah and Elisha, one MOTA passing his mantle onto the next. +1 to me for a bible reference. "

Indeed I did include Brother Nee because the starting point is not the minister of the Age but rather the Ministry of the Age.

"Now we have already seen clearly that the ministry spoken of in the Bible does not refer to a person, but to God’s building work. Moreover, in God’s building ministry, there are those who take the lead in that ministry in every age. May the Lord open our eyes to see that as long as we are human beings, we should be Christians; as long as we are Christians, we should enter into the Lord’s ministry in this age."

https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=01D3CC46CA


Drake

Strange stuff...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

"Now we have already seen clearly that the ministry spoken of in the Bible does not refer to a person, but to God’s building work. Moreover, in God’s building ministry, there are those who take the lead in that ministry in every age. May the Lord open our eyes to see that as long as we are human beings, we should be Christians; as long as we are Christians, we should enter into the Lord’s ministry in this age."
Drake

The Apostle Paul spoke from his heart concerning how he lived the ministry, and testified what he sincerely felt about THE MINISTRY spoken of in the New Testament in these scriptures ...

For we are not like the many who market God's message for profit. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God. (2 Cor 2.17)

Instead, we have renounced secret and shameful ways. We do not practice deceit, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by open proclamation of the truth, we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4.2)

These are the verses that exposed "the ministry" at LSM to my conscience as fraudulent and self-serving.

1. The Holy Word for Morning Revival is simply an example of a marketing vehicle used by LSM to merchandise God's word. It's use is not optional in the member LC's.

2. The way Witness Lee and his BLENDED successors have historically treated others, both within (quarantines) and without (lawsuits) their closed system, has continually enraged the consciences of men of God in the sight of God.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Strange stuff...

I understand why you feel that way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I understand why you feel that way.

Can you also understand why many former members feel as I do?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you also understand why many former members feel as I do?

Brother Ohio,

I don't often respond to your posts because I have no interest in having the same conversation over and over.

However, I read all your posts and I understand why you feel the way you do. I respect your point of view very much and I pray the day will come when we can truly fellowship in life even if we don't see eye to eye about everything.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

I don't often respond to your posts because I have no interest in having the same conversation over and over.

However, I read all your posts and I understand why you feel the way you do. I respect your point of view very much and I pray the day will come when we can truly fellowship in life even if we don't see eye to eye about everything.

Drake

I understand the difficulty it puts you in, but we never did have this conversation.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

An anonymous person has asked for reaction and input regarding the following message given by Ron Kangas.

Message 5 Standing on the Unique Ground of
the Church,Being under the Limitation of the Body of Christ,and Being Body-conscious in One Accord

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1s...xpUjhKVUU/view
-

Back to the base note....

To anon,

I listened to that message twice: Once live and then this recording.

Ron covers the first half only.... and frankly, it is a sober, sound, sweet, and biblical presentation of the oneness of the believers and the practical mechanism for fellowship in that oneness. I don't know how anyone could object to anything he said or how he said it...... and I do not think anyone can present a more compelling argument FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Back to the base note....

To anon,

I listened to that message twice: Once live and then this recording.

Ron covers the first half only.... and frankly, it is a sober, sound, sweet, and biblical presentation of the oneness of the believers and the practical mechanism for fellowship in that oneness. I don't know how anyone could object to anything he said or how he said it...... and I do not think anyone can present a more compelling argument FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

Drake

Compelling arguments from the scriptures? Yes indeed. About the "oneness of the believers and the practical mechanism for fellowship in that oneness."

Drake, where were you when LSM held the Whistler Kangaroo Court and then divided all the GLA LC's, complete with lawsuits?

Why did you not step forward and make a "compelling argument for the oneness of the believers and the practical mechanism for fellowship in that oneness?"

Doesn't the hypocrisy at LSM ever begin to trouble you?

[TLFisher]

Listening to the message. Speaking of "recovering a brother", that doesn't happen in the local churches. Turn your back to him and keep on walking.

[TLFisher]

I didn't need to hear Ron speak it when I've heard it spoken in Bellevue, Bellingham, Renton, San Bernardino, etc when you refer to other Christian assemblies as denominations, how can you as a locality be exempt from the same denominating traits? Agree or disagree the local churches are a denomination just as any other assembly they identify being a denomination.