The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

If Titus was "condemned" for "promoting his own publication" then why shouldn't we condemn LSM for promoting their own publication?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Sorry brother. According to your posts, their content and frequency, and the continual citing of decades old offenses.... you have not moved on, you have not forgiven those that offended you, and your approach of besmirching others for their failures, sins, and shortcomings of others is not "contending for the faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you have examined yourself and found yourself to be without sins, failures, or shortcomings on what basis do you flip the Apostle's charge to examining others day in and day out?

Drake

Why is it that when you take the stand you do you are "being faithful to the vision the Lord has given you"?

Yet when others "are faithful to the vision the Lord has given them" you set yourself up to judge them that they aren't?

I will stand before the Lord. My stand will be on the Lord's blood. I am not examining others, I am examining the teachings, the doctrines, the damnable heresies.

Yes, it is true I continually cite sins that are decades old, but that is because they are decades old and still have not been dealt with.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is it a basis for excommunication that you are not seeking to "be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"?

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Quarantine? Bahahahaha. Like those churches can't go on with the Lord without LSM. Bahahahaha ... how utterly absurd ... and incompatible with the ground of oneness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Drake

That's right. It's worse than excommunication.

It's more like a Mafia hit job -- whack the competition, anyone who stops paying "protection" money, i.e. buying books and sending young people to FTTA for programming.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is it that when you take the stand you do you are "being faithful to the vision the Lord has given you"?

Yet when others "are faithful to the vision the Lord has given them" you set yourself up to judge them that they aren't?

I will stand before the Lord. My stand will be on the Lord's blood. I am not examining others, I am examining the teachings, the doctrines, the damnable heresies.

Yes, it is true I continually cite sins that are decades old, but that is because they are decades old and still have not been dealt with.

Bible readers for centuries have been citing David's sins.

Better to be cited in this age than the next.

Should not we also learn from all the failures of Witness Lee and his sons?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bible readers for centuries have been citing David's sins.

Better to be cited in this age than the next.

Should not we also learn from all the failures of Witness Lee and his sons?

3 Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.

It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.

They accuse me of having an agenda based on "The content, frequency and citing of decades old offenses". Perhaps they should look at the letter they wrote concerning the quarantine of Titus.

[ZNPaaneah]

The scribes were doctors of the law, who read and expounded the Scripture to the people. They were possessed of the key of knowledge, and occupied the seat of Moses. The Pharisees were a kind of separatists among the Jews, as their name indeed denotes. (http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/wil...harisees_2.htm)

He [Jesus] points out to the people the crimes with which they were chargeable, and the hypocrisy of their conduct. It is worthy of notice that He does not content Himself with speaking to the guilty parties alone. He unveils their character before the face of the world. They were deceiving the people by their pretences, and therefore the people must he warned against them. The same thing is true of all pretenders in religion. Truth and justice, and love for the souls of men, alike demand that such pretences should be made manifest. (http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/wil...harisees_2.htm)

(Luke 11:52): "Woe unto you lawyers, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye enter not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." The first thing they do is take away the key of knowledge. So when you make many of these claims concerning the sins of these doctrines they ask for facts, evidence. If you provide it then they claim you have an agenda. Anyone in the LRC knew that you were not to talk about anything, to do so was indicative of a “poisoned mind”. This is how they take away the key of knowledge. This is why the internet is so important and this forum is important.

The answer to the question of MOTA is to be found in the fact, not that they withheld the word of God, but that they made the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition. This doctrine denies the fact that God is the only teacher and director of His Church. They added to His word their own instructions. They made the redemption of Christ of none effect.

[Drake]

-2>”It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.”

ZNP,

That is not what I said and this is a good example of how you change what I said to fit a narrative of your own creation.

First, my comments about “imagination” were not about the letter .... what was I referring to when I made those comments ZNP?

Second, I never objected to anyone responding, asking questions, or putting forth of a defense of the letter..... exactly what was my objection?

Third, you quoted me wrong and you quoted me out of text... we were not discussing if it were a response from the Lord. Quote me correctly and what was the context?

You are a person that demands righteousness from others.... then how about accurately representing what I stated.

Thanks,
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3 Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.

It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.

They accuse me of having an agenda based on "The content, frequency and citing of decades old offenses". Perhaps they should look at the letter they wrote concerning the quarantine of Titus.

During the quarantine, one day in the mail I anonymously received LSM's 28 book "Attack Pack" on Titus Chu. Pretty much the entire contents of afaithfulword dotcom. And LSM does not meddle in the "content, frequency and citing of decades old offenses?" Huh?

Here is the definition of hypocrisy:

If LSM does it, it is right.
If anyone else does it, it is wrong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.”

ZNP,

That is not what I said and this is a good example of how you change what I said to fit a narrative of your own creation.

First, my comments about “imagination” were not about the letter .... what was I referring to when I made those comments ZNP?

Second, I never objected to anyone responding, asking questions, or putting forth of a defense of the letter..... exactly what was my objection?

Third, you quoted me wrong and you quoted me out of text... we were not discussing if it were a response from the Lord. Quote me correctly and what was the context?

You are a person that demands righteousness from others.... then how about accurately representing what I stated.

Thanks,
Drake

Always accusing others of what you regularly do. Just sayin' ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.”

ZNP,

That is not what I said and this is a good example of how you change what I said to fit a narrative of your own creation.

First, my comments about “imagination” were not about the letter .... what was I referring to when I made those comments ZNP?

You did not give any details, nor did you point to a specific post. You mentioned the "frequency" which doesn't make sense since I have virtually stopped posting on this side of the forum except for this particular thread. You mentioned the content, again does not make sense since you can see in none of my posts do I even refer to anything that was a personal offense.

However, this response of yours popped up after I referenced the quarantine letter, which was the context of your response. Unless it was a non sequitur, in which case how is anyone to know what you are talking about?

Originally Posted by Drake

Second, I never objected to anyone responding, asking questions, or putting forth of a defense of the letter..... exactly what was my objection?

Don't know, why don't you clear that up for us.

Originally Posted by Drake

Third, you quoted me wrong and you quoted me out of text... we were not discussing if it were a response from the Lord. Quote me correctly and what was the context?

You are a person that demands righteousness from others.... then how about accurately representing what I stated.

Thanks,
Drake

I think it is clear that I did not understand your post.

This is the post in question:

"Sorry brother. According to your posts, their content and frequency, and the continual citing of decades old offenses.... you have not moved on, you have not forgiven those that offended you, and your approach of besmirching others for their failures, sins, and shortcomings of others is not "contending for the faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you have examined yourself and found yourself to be without sins, failures, or shortcomings on what basis do you flip the Apostle's charge to examining others day in and day out? "

1. Content of my posts does not in any way refer to past offenses that I have. Therefore your conclusion does not makes sense.

2. Frequency -- I have virtually stopped posting on this side of the forum because I have moved on. This thread is different, it relates to contending for the faith. Again, this does not make any sense with your conclusion.

3. Yes, I have agreed that I do cite decades old offenses. Imagine the hypocrisy in complaining about this.
A. Letters requesting a meeting on this were ignored, including Fed Ex and registered mail.
B. phone calls were ignored.
C. When I do meet with Ed privately it is deemed inappropriate -- and they say "he doesn't want to deal with this now". So the plan is to ignore this long enough and then claim "that is decades old". The fact remains, it has not been dealt with.
D. Many complaints about Titus were also decades old. Pure hypocrisy.


I have already given the scriptural basis to examine others. Teachers are held to a higher standard. Jesus, set an example for us, and in that example he publicly castigated the Pharisees for similar sins.

Matthew 18 says if you are offended go privately to the the party (for 20 years several saints did this -- letters, phone calls, et.). If they refuse to hear take two or three with you -- I learned of this through the forum and so I am one of the "two or three" that approached Ed. If they still refuse to hear you (which they did and I document) tell it to the church.

So you have the authority to "tell it to the church" about Titus, and that is contending for the Faith, but if I "tell it to the church" it is beyond imagination that this is contending for the faith. The hypocrisy.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP>”You did not give any details, nor did you point to a specific post....... However, this response of yours popped up after I referenced the quarantine letter, which was the context of your response. Unless it was a non sequitur, in which case how is anyone to know what you are talking about?”

The specific post was your post plainly quoted in my post #490.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP>”You did not give any details, nor did you point to a specific post....... However, this response of yours popped up after I referenced the quarantine letter, which was the context of your response. Unless it was a non sequitur, in which case how is anyone to know what you are talking about?”

The specific post was your post plainly quoted in my post #490.

Drake

Post #490 -- the content does not reference any offense, on the contrary I say that there is no offense. When I say you did not give any details I am referring to the offenses you claim I have and that you can see in the content of my posts.

You reference the frequency -- how can a single post be a reference? Also, you are posting at a higher frequency than I am. What does this say about your motives?

You say I cite decades old sins -- this post did not cite any sins.

This is why I say you did not give any details or refer to any post that I can understand what you are talking about.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

This conversation is getting wrapped around the axle.

For clarification ... when I used the word "imagination" what was the context and what was I referring to?

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro awareness,

Brother Née did a really thorough explanation of that... I try to find the link...

Drake

Awareness,

Here you go.

Go to lsm.org and in the table on the left click on "Online Publications"

Then in the search string paste in this phrase:

Watchman Nee in Shanghai in January 1934, during the third Overcomer Conference.

The second hit is "What Are We?".... Brother Nee provides a good summary of highlights of leaders that Lord raised up. A more comprehensive list is likely found in the pages of Broadbent's "Pilgrim Church" or Miller's Church History.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

It is a matter of the work. I love and respect Brother Titus and he has helped me personally and some of the things he ministered decades ago have stuck with me all these years.

Yet, there was something going on there that was not in coordination and fellowship as a co-worker with other co-workers. That never works out and it didn't then either. In the NT the work needed a lot of fellowship and oftentimes it just did not work out as the accounts of contention in the work clearly demonstrate. Titus was not opposed to Brother Lee, nor with the role of Brother Lee's ministry, rather..... there was a disagreement between Titus and the other brothers regarding the work and frankly a schism was festering that could have damaged all the churches. It had to be addressed and many attempts were made to do just that.

Drake

Where did Apostle Paul ever demand that the other Twelve coordinate with him?

When did Apostle Paul demand that the other Twelve fellowship with him or be quarantined?

In what way did Apostle Paul ever hinder the Twelve from writing their own epistles?

Your vague references to other instances in the N.T. have no basis whatsoever for what LSM has done over the years. Contrary to the views of every LCer, the way LSM so easily deceives its adherents really proves how little they actually know the scriptures.

Oh sure, they may know Lee's doctrines, but they don't know the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Working definition of MOTA -- "The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age."

As this relates to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee LSM states:

“Through the labor of our senior brothers, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, we have received a spiritual inheritance of all of the crucial revelations in the Bible that have been opened to the Lord's seekers in the last twenty centuries. But that is not all. Brother Nee and Brother Lee stood on the shoulders of those who had gone before to see more.”

Least asked for “the Bible record of MOTA” [please note we use the Acronym MOTA in this thread to refer to “The Minister of the Age” as defined by LSM.

I feel there are many relevant verses to this doctrine and think it is a reasonable request. Therefore I thought this thread could be started. Please — any post that does not relate to the goal of presenting the Bible record of MOTA will be off topic.

I realize that this definition ignores certain actions and events that took place under the guise of MOTA. Therefore Bible verses concerning those events are relevant as well since history has shown us that the way to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it.

[Drake]

ZNP>”If possible I hope we can stay away from Vision of the Age and Ministry of the Age since I think we can all agree there is a vision presented in the NT and there is a NT ministry. No one is questioning the basic fact of either of those two points. This thread is not the place to debate whether WL was or was not the MOTA, or if he had the "Vision of the Age" or even the "Ministry of the Age". This thread is simply the place to lay out the Biblical support and warnings about any and all "Minister's of the Age".

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are. For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age. Under those conditions we would all be asking ....Noah was a minister according to what?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Working definition of MOTA -- "The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age."

Jesus was the one singular Christ. There cannot be, by definition, any more than one. Jesus was, is, and remains evermore the Christ of God, the Lord of lords and King of kings.

There's one Messiah, one singular Son of David, one "Holy One of Israel" (Mark 1:24; cf Isa 43:3). God has revealed this to us all, by raising His Son Jesus from the dead. The record is only too plain, and clear.

Any speculation about who's #2, while on this earth in the flesh of sin, is most deluded. Better to take the least place. Otherwise you risk being sent down in shame. ~Luke 14:8-11

I know that such MOTA speculations jive well with Chinese cultural expectations of group leadership and cohesion, but it has no place in the NT record. Casting back for OT scenes of Moses and Noah are vain. Jesus is the new Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:27); Jesus is the true Noah.

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age.

Noah was pointing to Jesus. Peter was pointing to Jesus. Inasmuch as I see others pointing to Jesus, I align. "As I imitate Christ, imitate me"; the implied corollary is that as one doesn't imitate Christ, then I've no burden to imitate them (1 Cor 11:1).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are. For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age. Under those conditions we would all be asking ....Noah was a minister according to what?

The Bible says that "without a vision the people perish". No one on this forum has disputed that. The NT says that "we have received this ministry". No one on this forum disputes that there is a NT ministry. No one disputes that there are many ministers, servants, slaves of the Lord.

The question that we have asked repeatedly is for a Biblical basis to say that there is "The Minister of The Age".

What is the Biblical basis to divide the NT Age of grace into a bunch of mini ages? It is one way to interpret the 7 churches of Asia, so perhaps you could infer 7 ages. The problem with that is that WL's teaching is that the last 4 churches all occur simultaneously. So then the last 2,000 years could be broken into 4 ages.

So then what we are asking for in this thread is a scriptural reference for "The Minister of the Age".

For example, I think it is fair to say that Moses was "The Minister of the Age". In that age they were releasing the truth concerning the law. However, it is also explicitly clear from Moses himself that he was a type of Christ. In the NT it is explicitly clear that Moses is nothing compared to Christ and that we are to hear Jesus, not Moses.

Likewise you can claim that Elijah was a lead prophet in the age of the prophets. The vision in that age was to establish righteousness in the Kingdom. Once again it is explicitly clear that compared to Jesus Christ Elijah is nothing and we should listen to Jesus, the beloved Son.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The question that we have asked repeatedly is for a Biblical basis to say that there is "The Minister of The Age".

I think ZNP, and maybe some others, have made a good case that these three terms, Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age and Minister of the Age are simply man-made constructs that are being misapplied to a mere human minister and to his personal vision and ministry.

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament. The Ministry of the Age is the New Testament Ministry, which does not belong to any one particular person per se. The apostle Paul clearly says "We have this ministry" (2 Cor 4:1). It is THIS ministry that Paul refers to that should be considered The Ministry of The Age. The Minister of the Age is none other then our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Author and perfecter of our faith, our Great High Priest.

All this being said, I think it is incumbent upon the followers to Witness Lee to show how the human constructs concerning a man and his personal vision and ministry should be put on an equal plane with the descriptions I have given above. The authors of the website article have provided a truckload of quotes of Nee and Lee as their main support for these human constructs. Very convenient. Very self-referential. Very unscholarly. When it comes to strong biblical support the brothers at afaithfulword.org are found wanting. They are found wanting because the man who taught them these human constructs was found wanting himself.
-

[least]

Proverbs 29:18
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Romans 10: 4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Luke 1: 1-2
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

II Corinthians 4: 1
Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

II Corinthians 4: 5
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

*****
After the discussions in this thread, I accept the findings below.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament. The Ministry of the Age is the New Testament Ministry, which does not belong to any one particular person per se. The apostle Paul clearly says "We have this ministry" (2 Cor 4:1). It is THIS ministry that Paul refers to that should be considered The Ministry of The Age. The Minister of the Age is none other then our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Author and perfecter of our faith, our Great High Priest.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think ZNP, and maybe some others, have made a good case that these three terms, Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age and Minister of the Age are simply man-made constructs that are being misapplied to a mere human minister and to his personal vision and ministry.

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

The implication of having a doctrine that is simply a man made construct that is then used to set aside the Lord's word for oneness in the Body. It is with this tradition that the LRC sets aside the word of God.

The reason we are all one is because we all partake of one bread, but according to the LRC tradition that is not sufficient.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

When it comes to strong biblical support the brothers at afaithfulword.org are found wanting. They are found wanting because the man who taught them these human constructs was found wanting himself.
-

No bro Untohim, he was found dead. And with Nee already gone, his death means the death of The Vision of the Age, The Ministry of the Age, and The Minister of the Age ... especially the Minister.

Those doctrines have now fallen down, like the house of cards that they were all along.

Some are slow to catch on. Let's pray for them.

[JJ]

I’ve been reading the book, I’m linking here to learn more about Martin Luther:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mar...781101980019#/

The parallels between the Roman Catholic’s Religious system and its reaction to Luther’s genuine attempts to point out and seek changes to its unscriptural teachings and practices and LSM churches are remarkable!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament.
-

This came up in another thread so posting here for further discussion as the more appropriate thread. I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?


“The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves......”

Grace to you,
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This came up in another thread so posting here for further discussion as the more appropriate thread. I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?


“The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves......”

Grace to you,
Drake

Here you are equivocating.

You say "the vision is not about a man," yet immediately go on to say that you are "always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision."

No one on this form disparages the N.T. vision.

We only point out the failures of leaders at LSM who have damaged the children of God.

Sorry that you are not honest enough to distinguish these.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here you are equivocating.

You say "the vision is not about a man," yet immediately go on to say that you are "always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision."

No one on this form disparages the N.T. vision.

We only point out the failures of leaders at LSM who have damaged the children of God.

Sorry that you are not honest enough to distinguish these.

I do distinguish these... but apparently you don't. Here is what I mean.

You (collectively) disparage both vision and channel making no distinction. In the process of condemning everything related to Witness Lee, a man hated by most on this forum in person and deed, you also make no defense of the NT vision.... not so much as to even articulate what it is or confirm what about it you agree with when it is defined as I have done with my viewpoint. Brother Ohio, you do not speak for everyone in this forum when you say no one disparages the NT vision. Most will not even acknowledge it exists because of some apparent psychology that suggests to agree with the NT vision is to agree with Witness Lee... and what a tragedy that would be!

Your objections are about circumstantial matters, things temporal. Yet, the NT vision is not circumstantial or temporal. Ministers will come and go, ages will begin and end. Local churches will pass away.... for they are procedural. But the NT vision belongs to God, it is His desire, His purpose, His creation. It fulfills what He is after. It is an eternal matter. That is why Witness Lee detractors can carry on and on for years complaining about him, his son, and Blended brothers, and all the bad things that happened to them and others, ad nauseum, and yet never realizing that the thing that guides the members in the local churches by and large, is not a man, but a God-given vision. Some have said when Witness Lee died so did the NT vision..... what a concept! Did you defend the eternal integrity of the NT vision when that was stated or were you in the crowd that considers the best place for the NT vision is nailed in the coffin with Brother Lee? Where is your line in the sand on that matter? Do we stand on truth or do we permit profaning of our Lord's words by secularists to enjoin our narrative just because someone uses it as a point of attack on Brother Lee? Where is our line in the sand on that?

This is what I mean Brother Ohio. Ephraim is a cake un-turned. It is burnt on one side and uncooked on the other. Your argument about the NT vision was just that.... I asked you if you disagree with the description of the NT vision imparted to me and you immediately flip the cake over to the burnt side to burn it some more. I opened the door for you to agree or disagree with some or all of the NT vision I have received but the burnt side of the cake is preferable because heaven forbid if we find some points of agreement, some truth we can stand side by side on, lines we both agree to not cross... well, that would not fit the dominant narrative of this forum that if Witness Lee believed it must be bad for you and if you disagree with Witness Lee then any fallacious argument will do.

So, no, I am not equivocating, I am not being dishonest, and I am not delusional. those are all ad hominem attack tactics.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do distinguish these... but apparently you don't. Here is what I mean.

You (collectively) . In the process of condemning everything related to Witness Lee, a man hated by most on this forum in person and deed, you also make no defense of the NT vision.... not so much as to even articulate what it is or confirm what about it you agree with when it is defined as I have done with my viewpoint. Brother Ohio, you do not speak for everyone in this forum when you say no one disparages the NT vision. Most will not even acknowledge it exists because of some apparent psychology that suggests to agree with the NT vision is to agree with Witness Lee... and what a tragedy that would be!

Brother Drake, we have ex-LC-members on this forum who no longer esteem scripture as the word of God, so you can't classify everyone together. That's a bogus assertion you make about those on the forum not defending the N.T. vision. You claim "the vision" is unique to Lee, and that we "disparage both vision and channel making no distinction." I disagree with this on at least two counts.

Firstly, Lee's unique teachings do not constitute a "vision." At most he should be considered a minister or a teacher, regardless of the many claims he made for himself. His teachings go way outside the bounds of the scripture and Christian orthodoxy, despite your many protests. LC teachings are filled with "extras," which our Lord calls "leaven," and some of these teachings are heretical to the greater body of Christ.

What I learned from W. Lee that is Biblical, sound, and orthodox I will always appreciate. Because of all the leaven, however, I have been forced to examine everything against scripture, as Paul says "prove all things, hold on to the good." I was wonderfully saved thru a dear brother I worked with, who later wanted to return to the RCC. I have always lovingly appreciated him, but I refuse to be obligated to also return to the RCC. Likewise with W. Lee. I love him, appreciate all the good, but I do not "owe him my very existence," as Titus Chu once wrote to John Ingalls. I can say the same about TC -- I love him, appreciate all the good, but I do not owe him my very existence.

Secondly, W. Lee elevated himself to the apostolic status which Paul once had. But Paul lived a life far beyond any reproach. He exercised his conscience to be right with God and man. Half of the N.T. confirms that this "channel of the vision" was established a pattern by God to all God's children for two millennia. Lee may have claimed the same for himself, but the facts of history prove otherwise. This forum is filled with the sins, failures, and unrighteousness of Lee and his sons, which he never once repented of. That is simply inexcusable. So many children of God have been hurt by LSM.

Due to his own behavior and teachings, we must now compare his ministry and work to that recorded in the Bible. We have to apply the many tests of scripture to the ministry of WL, just as the early churches had to apply these tests to the many ministers they had. 2 Corinthians, for example, enumerates many standards for these ministers. I have posted a few notable verses myself, such as LSM's practice of "peddling the word of God." The Lord commended Ephesus (Rev 2.2) for trying those who called themselves apostles and are not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Your objections are about circumstantial matters, things temporal. Yet, the NT vision is not circumstantial or temporal. Ministers will come and go, ages will begin and end. Local churches will pass away.... for they are procedural. But the NT vision belongs to God, it is His desire, His purpose, His creation. It fulfills what He is after. It is an eternal matter. That is why Witness Lee detractors can carry on and on for years complaining about him, his son, and Blended brothers, and all the bad things that happened to them and others, ad nauseum, and yet never realizing that the thing that guides the members in the local churches by and large, is not a man, but a God-given vision. Some have said when Witness Lee died so did the NT vision..... what a concept! Did you defend the eternal integrity of the NT vision when that was stated or were you in the crowd that considers the best place for the NT vision is nailed in the coffin with Brother Lee? Where is your line in the sand on that matter? Do we stand on truth or do we permit profaning of our Lord's words by secularists to enjoin our narrative just because someone uses it as a point of attack on Brother Lee? Where is our line in the sand on that?

This is what I mean Brother Ohio. Ephraim is a cake un-turned. It is burnt on one side and uncooked on the other. Your argument about the NT vision was just that.... I asked you if you disagree with the description of the NT vision imparted to me and you immediately flip the cake over to the burnt side to burn it some more. I opened the door for you to agree or disagree with some or all of the NT vision I have received but the burnt side of the cake is preferable because heaven forbid if we find some points of agreement, some truth we can stand side by side on, lines we both agree to not cross... well, that would not fit the dominant narrative of this forum that if Witness Lee believed it must be bad for you and if you disagree with Witness Lee then any fallacious argument will do.

So, no, I am not equivocating, I am not being dishonest, and I am not delusional. those are all ad hominem attack tactics.

Drake

Brother Drake,

To examine the facts of LC history are not "ad hominem attack tactics," as you suggest. If that was true, the entire Bible would not record the numerous failures of the men of God. Neither should any historian write of church history. You demand special exempt status for W. Lee, where he is entitled to critique all others, and no one can ever examine his failures, especially when the children of God were hurt.

What privileges you ascribe here for Witness Lee are only to be enjoyed by the Firstborn Son of God, our Creator, our Savior, and our Lord.

If man's sins were all "circumstantial matters, things temporal," then why would the Bible speak of them? Why are there historians? In I Cor. 10, Paul says these things were "written for our admonition." You complain that we are obsessed with temporal things, and we "never realize that the thing that guides the members in the local churches by and large, is not a man, but a God-given vision." This is just LSM double-speak. Out of one side of your mouth you claim the vision is of God, the same God who ministers to all the body of Christ. Yet out of the other side you claim only W. Lee has brought this vision to us. Apparently you are unable to see the contradiction and hypocrisy here.

Sorry, but all the claims by WL, which I once believed, remind me of this classic video clip:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

[Drake]

Ohio>”Due to his own behavior and teachings, we must now compare his ministry and work to that recorded in the Bible. We have to apply the many tests of scripture to the ministry of WL, just as the early churches had to apply these tests to the many ministers they had.”


Brother Ohio, that sounded scholarly and scriptural and for a moment you had me. Then this mockery and derision...

Ohio>”Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE”

... confirming my assessment that you have no interest in comparing or examining Brother Lee’s teachings with scripture. Furthermore, your last post indicates something very different... it is all about sport, perhaps some kind of entertainment. In that regard, there is no distinction between those in this forum who have departed the faith and those who still claim it. Both behave the same and have found an alliance in each other against a common enemy... Brother Lee and anyone who refuses to accept the charges against him no matter how frivolous or unfounded.

I have never asked nor will ask for a pass for myself or Brother Lee. For you to suggest I have is simply another diversion. In fact, it is I that have pressed for a scriptural examination again and again on allegation after allegation. No takers. Rather, the arguments offered to my requests appear to pivot on irrelevant things.... like Wizard of Oz movie clips.

I understand the purpose of this forum is not seek out and establish truth, but I can only hope.

Drake

[Indiana]

http://lordsrecovery.us/uploads/3/4/...rychurches.pdf

EXCERPT

Global Authority of the Blended Co-workers

In conjunction with their concept that they are the true church on a proper ground of oneness, possessing and ministering the “up-to-date speaking” of the Lord, the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”, having received the mantle personally from Brother Lee. However, when the blending brothers took the unprecedented step in “the Lord’s recovery” to draw a line in the sand with the One Publication Proclamation, the Body of Christ reacted and a big turmoil ensued.

David Canfield

The Present Turmoil in the Churches, 2006

“I beseech you therefore, I, the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the
calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with
longsuffering, bearing one another in love, being diligent to keep the oneness
of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace: One Body and one Spirit, even as
also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all
(Eph. 4:1-6). These items alone are the factors of the genuine oneness.

The Practical Result of “Publication Work”: A Sectarian Oneness

“In contrast, by making such a great issue of their “one publication” theory and attempting to monopolize the ministry in the Lord’s recovery, the blending brothers are indeed seeking, whether intentionally or not, to make us a sect according to their ministry. How can we say otherwise if, in practice, that is the only ministry we are allowed to receive? Regardless of what we call it, it is still a sect.

Watchman Nee states:

What havoc has been wrought in the Church because so many of her ministers have sought to bring the churches under their ministry, rather than by their ministry serve the churches. As soon as the churches are brought under any ministry, they cease to be local and become sectarian….

“The worker to whom God has given fresh light upon His truth should encourage all who receive that truth to swell the ranks of the local church, not to range themselves around him. Otherwise, the churches will be made to serve the ministry, not the ministry the churches, and the “churches” established will be ministerial “churches,” not local ones.

The sphere of a church is not the sphere of any ministry, but the
sphere of the locality. Wherever ministry is made the occasion for the forming of a church, there you have the beginning of a new denomination.” (The Normal Christian Church Life, p138-139, Nee).

D. Canfield continues,

“Closely related to this matter is that of becoming a sect according to a particular teaching. Even the best teachings, including the “high-peak” doctrines, can make us a sect if we overly stress them. In the same book Watchman Nee warns us of this very thing:

“The whole thought [of the Greek word for “heresies” in Galatians 5:20; “sects” in the RcV] is not of the difference between truth and error, but of division based upon doctrine. My teaching may be right or it may be wrong, but if I make it a cause of division, then I am guilty of the “heresy” spoken of here….God forbids any division on doctrinal grounds…. If a group of believers split off from a local church in their zeal for certain teaching according to the Word of God, the new “church” they establish may have more scriptural teaching, but it could never be a scriptural church.

If we wish to maintain a scriptural position, then we must see to it that the churches we found in various places only represent localities, not doctrines. If our “church” is not separated from other children of God on the ground of locality alone, but stands for the propagation of some particular doctrine, then we are decidedly a sect, however true to the Word of God our teaching may be… (Normal Christian Church Life, pp. 113-114).

“And in another statement that seems almost prophetic in light of today’s situation, he says:

"Whenever a special leader, or a specific doctrine, or some experience, or creed, or organization, becomes a center for drawing together the believers of different places, then because the center of such a church federation is other than Christ, it follows that its sphere will be other than local. And whenever the divinely-appointed sphere of locality is displaced by a sphere of human invention, there the divine approval cannot rest. The believers within such a sphere may truly love the Lord, but they have another center apart from Him, and it is only natural that the second center becomes the controlling one…. The center always determines the sphere, and the second center creates a sphere which divides those who attach themselves to it from those who do not. Anything that becomes a center to unite believers of different places will create a sphere which includes all believers who attach themselves to that center and excludes all who do not. This dividing line will destroy the God-appointed boundary of locality, and consequently destroy the very nature of the churches of God…. There are no other churches in Scripture but local churches! (The Normal Christian Church Life, pp. 92-93) END (Excerpts from The Present Turmoil among the Churches November 9, 2006)


Distinguishing Themselves

But, such vision only lasted until the leadership “sought to bring the churches under the ministry” of a special leader and to establish his ministry stations in several key localities.

This took place in 1974, and began a more secure uniting of the “believers of different places” under one ministry. Brother Lee chose a brother, Max Rapoport, to assist him in the coordination of the churches into one new man.

Then in 1986 a pledge was signed by elders and co-workers world-wide to follow this special leader: n
“…We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth….
Further, their message in print in 2005 about having one publication – composed only of
materials by Nee and Lee – delineates them, creating “a sphere which divides those who
attach themselves to it from those who do not.” (The Normal Christian Church Life, pp. 92-93)

The “local churches” have distinguished themselves from the rest of the Body of Christ and
have brought the churches under the ministry of a special leader to form their church life.
And, “Wherever ministry is made the occasion for the forming of a church, there you have the
beginning of a new denomination.” (The Normal Christian Church Life, p138-139, Nee)
.
Again, Nee’s statement, “What havoc has been wrought in the Church because so many of
her ministers have sought to bring the churches under their ministry, rather than by their
ministry serve the churches. As soon as the churches are brought under any ministry, they
cease to be local and become sectarian… (The Normal Christian Church Life, p138-139, Nee).

What havoc indeed! “And, the ‘churches’ established will be ministerial ‘churches,’ not local ones.” (pp138-139, Nee)

The “ministry materials” given in all the above references was to be a safeguard for the churches from turmoil and a guideline to keep them in the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. But the leadership has paid no attention to the safeguard, the guideline, or the warnings by Nee, and also by Lee, trampling underfoot such fellowship and, thus setting up the conditions for, and the causes of, turmoil and division.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

"[I]Whenever a special leader, or a specific doctrine, or some experience, or creed, or organization, becomes a center for drawing together the believers of different places, then because the center of such a church federation is other than Christ, it follows that its sphere will be other than local.

When T. Austin Sparks took this position Witness Lee said he was passing gas.

Thanks for your post bro Indiana. It's still current today, and on message.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

... confirming my assessment that you have no interest in comparing or examining Brother Lee’s teachings with scripture. Furthermore, your last post indicates something very different... it is all about sport, perhaps some kind of entertainment. In that regard, there is no distinction between those in this forum who have departed the faith and those who still claim it. Both behave the same and have found an alliance in each other against a common enemy... Brother Lee and anyone who refuses to accept the charges against him no matter how frivolous or unfounded.

I have never asked nor will ask for a pass for myself or Brother Lee. For you to suggest I have is simply another diversion. In fact, it is I that have pressed for a scriptural examination again and again on allegation after allegation. No takers. Rather, the arguments offered to my requests appear to pivot on irrelevant things.... like Wizard of Oz movie clips.

I understand the purpose of this forum is not seek out and establish truth, but I can only hope.

Drake

Your reaction here actually shows the opposite is true, and now you project your feelings on me. Sorry but it is you now playing games.

That video clip is a classic piece depicting those held in gripping fear suddenly realizing they were had by a con.

Sorry if you can't handle our personal experiences of being released out thru the Door of the sheep. (John 10.7)

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?

I came across the following web site today... an entire site talking about spiritual delusion. Seems to have some valid points. Probably worth spending time to further read...

http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-i...itual-delusion

Understanding of delusion among the Holy Fathers
.
.
St. Ignatius believed that there are different kinds of delusion corresponding to passions, by which they are generated. Pride is an indication of any kind of delusion. "Terrible pride, like the pride of demons”, St. Ignatius wrote, “is the main feature of those who assimilated one or another delusion" (Ibid, pp. 233).
.
.
Another more extensive kind of delusion is connected to this one; St. Ignatius called it "conceit". A person in this state does not excite the imagination, but he focuses on the experience of a variety of "heart sensations" and erroneously attributes them to the action of grace. Dreaminess also operates in such a man, but "acts solely in the abstract field" (Ibid, pp. 232). The deluded person makes up "false spiritual state, close fellowship with Jesus, the inner conversation with Him, the mysterious revelation, voices of pleasure ..." (Ibid). In addition to striving for grace feelings, people exposed to this error have a high opinion of themselves and attribute to themselves the gifts of grace and spiritual virtues, " they seem to be intoxicated with themselves, with their state of self-delusion, seeing it as the state of grace" (Ibid, pp. 230) . On this basis, St. Ignatius believes that heresies, schisms, impiety, blasphemy originated from this "conceit" (Ibid, pp. 235). Interconnection of both types of delusion is that the mind and the heart, not purified from the passions and not renovated by the Holy Spirit, aspire to see God and to experience His presence in the soul, but, not being able to this, make up imaginary grace gifts for the purpose of enjoyment. Thus, such states "are the actions of subtle vanity and lust"
.
.

[Drake]

Indiana>“the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,

This is false.

Yet, please provide a reference where the blended coworkers “assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,”

The reference to include the bold points above.

You know Indiana, it is my observation that few here lend an ounce of credibility to Watchman Nees teaching on the church....his stock goes up slightly if you use him to bash Witness Lee or fellow coworkers. Are you currently in a local church that follows his teachings concerning the church? Are you a theorist or a practitioner?

Drake

[Drake]

-2

Alb,

Totally irrelevant. I could apply the same quotes to this forum.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your reaction here actually shows the opposite is true, and now you project your feelings on me. Sorry but it is you now playing games.

That video clip is a classic piece depicting those held in gripping fear suddenly realizing they were had by a con.

Sorry if you can't handle our personal experiences of being released out thru the Door of the sheep. (John 10.7)

Brother Ohio,

If you also tell me you were captured by hordes of flying monkeys I can handle that. Nevertheless, I will harbor doubts about what really happened to you.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

If you also tell me you were captured by hordes of flying monkeys I can handle that. Nevertheless, I will harbor doubts about what really happened to you.

Drake

So funny. Looks like you have recovered from your little Oz "setback."

When I was little, those monkeys were the scariest things I ever saw.

To this day I'm still traumatized when surrounded by flying monkeys.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Alb,

Totally irrelevant. I could apply the same quotes to this forum.

Drake

On the contrary, I think it is relevant for every follower of Christ.

But I am not surprised by your response. Yeh, why would someone led by God's divine vision for 40 years fall into such simple trap of delusion?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>“the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,

This is false.

Yet, please provide a reference where the blended coworkers “assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,”

The reference to include the bold points above.

Drake, you are so silly!

Ron Kangas graduated from Princeton. He knows better than to put that stuff in writing. Why do you think no one was ever permitted to record the meetings?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So funny. Looks like you have recovered from your little Oz "setback."

When I was little, those monkeys were the scariest things I ever saw.

To this day I'm still traumatized when surrounded by flying monkeys.

For me, it was the singing munchkin trio that caused me to sit straight up in bed in a cold sweat at two in the morning. To this day, I shoo them away whenever they come around.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

On the contrary, I think it is relevant for every follower of Christ.

But I am not surprised by your response. Yeh, why would someone led by God's divine vision for 40 years fall into such simple trap of delusion?

Alb,

It is relevant for every follower of a Christ, just not relevant as part of an argument the way you were using it.

The delusion in this case would be accepting the Fallacy in Argumentum (aka the False Analogy) as being valid.

Your Ad Hominem argument requires no further explanation.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, you are so silly!

Ron Kangas graduated from Princeton. He knows better than to put that stuff in writing. Why do you think no one was ever permitted to record the meetings?

Brother Ohio,

Let me make sure I got this down accurately.

An assertion by the coworkers to establish and maintain their global authority over the local churches is not actually published in written or audio form .....anywhere?

How about you Indiana, is that your understanding also?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

It is relevant for every follower of a Christ, just not relevant as part of an argument the way you were using it.

The delusion in this case would be accepting the Fallacy in Argumentum (aka the False Analogy) as being valid.

Your Ad Hominem argument requires no further explanation.

Drake

I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.

Pardon my ignorance. I have to look up Ad Hominem from wikipedia. I don't think that's what I intended. But anyway, interesting definition, especially the last part...

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

Let me make sure I got this down accurately.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.

a little brother,

LSMers like Drake are known for their wordsmithing and lawyering. It's all part of the game that is played to silence critics online, since we cannot be sued like normal publishers. They have almost a century long history of shooting the messenger, shaming and slandering whistleblowers who dare to speak their conscience. Their vacuum-sealed closed system allows nothing to penetrate their bubble.

Notice that he now wants me to research LSM's vast online inventory of messages, all polished and sanitized from recordings of their meetings, as if hundreds of eye-witness accounts are insufficient. There is not a brother in their program who does not know that LSM's senior Blendeds maintain a global authority over the local churches. Titus Chu and others tried to buck the system, and we saw what LSM is capable of. Made me sick.

LSM, like the Pharisees of old, make void the word of God to maintain their Lee-established traditions. For example, they expelled Titus Chu and others for publishing their own books, yet they filed lawsuits in many GLA cities for meeting halls and bank assets. One of those cities was Columbus, Ohio where I once migrated to help found that church. The Bible tells us to go publish the word of God, but no verse ever said that only LSM could do that. The Bible tells us specifically not to sue our brothers, yet LSM feels that verse is for everyone else and not for them. Pathetic!

Drake should be more concerned about violating God's word and stumbling His children, than some supposed "ad hominem" that hurt his feelings.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.

Pardon my ignorance. I have to look up Ad Hominem from wikipedia. I don't think that's what I intended. But anyway, interesting definition, especially the last part...

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Correct alb.

When you say that the person you are debating is delusional , that is an ad hominem attack having nothing to do with the argument itself. You are attacking the person, not the argument. Other ad hominem include but not limited to saying someone is dishonest, unintelligent, a liar, devious, bad motives, etc. all intended to dismiss the person rather than create a compelling argument.

You may think those things about someone, and you may even say them but they are fallacies in argument. When fallacies in argumentum are used it often indicates that the person advancing them has run out of convincing points in an argument. In other words, unable to convince others of their point of view they resort to attacking the motives, intelligence, truthfulness, or sanity of their opponents. Thinking their arguments were compelling yet still ineffective it must then be a problem with the person who remains unconvinced. Therein lies the fallacy. When you charged me with being delusional, though you may believe it, it was a fallacy in your argument and remains such until you can first prove I am delusional or was at some point in the past. My not accepting your argument is in and of itself insufficient to establish my being delusional.

Hope that helps.

Drake

[Drake]

-2>”Drake should be more concerned about violating God's word and stumbling His children, than some supposed "ad hominem" that hurt his feelings.”

Brother Ohio

Don’t concern yourself about my feelings. I can assure they are not hurt.

However, I am very concerned about the brazen violation of Gods Word on display in this forum in attacking brothers and sisters in the Lords Recovery. I am also concerned about the stumbling of His children that also goes on here day by day. Case in point, someone accuses coworkers of making assertions to establish and maintain global control over the local churches and cannot provide a single instance of the so-called assertion!

Now, that is pathetic!

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I came across the following web site today... an entire site talking about spiritual delusion. Seems to have some valid points. Probably worth spending time to further read...
http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-i...itual-delusion

Interesting link bro *A little brother*. Thanks. I had lots of spiritual experiences in the local church. One that stands out is: The Vision. I eventually found out that it was a delusion.

The problem with those that are deluded is the same problem as with addicts ; only they can free their minds. All the talking from others won't do the job. Most that are deluded are too far out there for a lifeline to reach them.

We can only look at them with hope and prayers. Reason won't reach them. They didn't get there with reason, and reason won't pull them out.

Maybe love will.

But then, I also found out that even love in the local church is a delusion. Don't toe the line and the love vanishes in thin air. It's the kind of love found in all cults. Matthew 5:46.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”Drake should be more concerned about violating God's word and stumbling His children, than some supposed "ad hominem" that hurt his feelings.”

Brother Ohio

Don’t concern yourself about my feelings. I can assure they are not hurt.

However, I am very concerned about the brazen violation of Gods Word on display in this forum in attacking brothers and sisters in the Lords Recovery. I am also concerned about the stumbling of His children that also goes on here day by day. Case in point, someone accuses coworkers of making assertions to establish and maintain global control over the local churches and cannot provide a single instance of the so-called assertion!

Now, that is pathetic!

Drake

I'm not attacking any bro/sis in the Recovery. You are delusional just like a little brother said. Besides, are you asserting that Philip Lee was saved? Can you prove it? He molested multiple sisters and Daddy protected him. And you want us all to be silent?

Concerning the global takeover and control of LC's: Read the accounts. The Lord said 2 or 3 witnesses establish these words. We have hundreds of witnesses. Yesterday I posted John So's testimony. I have testified of LSM takeovers in Ohio and Canada. John Ingalls' account is another. Don Rutledge spoke of Lee's initial takeover in the Jan 1974 elders meetings with Lee and Lee's intimidation tactics. The Feb 1986 Loyalty Pledge where all were coerced to sign under threat of expulsion. The list goes on.

OK, maybe we should not call you delusional. But your posts sure are.

[Drake]

-1

Ohio,

Okay, you don’t have a reference. Therefore, it is what it is. Just another example of an accusation made without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

Indiana>” the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,

But then, why would you want or expect proof of the accusation? Why would you care whether one was provided or not? Is it a standard in the forum that posters provide references to substantiate their accusations? No, it is not and no, you wouldn’t care. You have the results you say. and that validates the accusation. Circular reasoning.

Sorry brother. It does not validate the accusation. That does not even meet the minimum standard.

Perhaps Indiana has the reference. Let’s see.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Okay, you don’t have a reference. Therefore, it is what it is. Just another example of an accusation made without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

Dear Drake,

Do you have any idea how arrogant this sounds? Let me get this straight -- If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?

Obviously you have so long been removed from the scriptures and from the reality, that the Bible itself has no more authority over you. Only Lee's books will do for you.

The Bible says accusations against leaders require witnesses. (I Tim. 5.19) This forum has hundreds of witnesses, but that means nothing to you because you must read it in an official Lee-and-Blended-sanctioned book, only available thru LSM's standing order.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry brother. It does not validate the accusation. That does not even meet the minimum standard.

Brother Drake - may I suggest you take the weekend and collect yourself? James 1:19

[Drake]

Ohio>”If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?”

Brother Ohio,

It is not about whether it is in a ministry book, it is whether it exists anywhere!

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Brother Drake - may I suggest you take the weekend and collect yourself? James 1:19

LofT,

Hmmmm...

So if I take the weekend off, collect myself, then after the weekend i look at this again, then I will see things differently, maybe the way you do..... then all will be well.

Nah... I think it is reasonable for someone to provide a reference for an accusation involving world domination.

Thanks and have a calm, collective, and safe weekend,
Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Hmmmm...

So if I take the weekend off, collect myself, then after the weekend i look at this again, then I will see things differently, maybe the way you do..... then all will be well.

Nah... I think it is reasonable for someone to provide a reference for an accusation involving world domination.

Thanks and have a calm, collective, and safe weekend,
Drake

I think it would serve you well

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?”

Brother Ohio,

It is not about whether it is in a ministry book, it is whether it exists anywhere!

Drake

I understand completely!

Just call them all lepers, and you don't have to listen to these witnesses.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by awareness

We can only look at them with hope and prayers. Reason won't reach them. They didn't get there with reason, and reason won't pull them out.

Maybe love will.

Thanks Awareness for reminding me about love.

Have to confess that I sometimes use this forum to let off some steam. I used more direct and provocative words here than in meetings with brothers and sisters in the LC.

It's just so irritating seeing how fast fellow brothers and sisters switch to denial mode when discussing truth not from the LC Messages or problems in the LC. I just hope one day they can break out of their shell. For the meantime, I put the blame on the LC leadership.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I came across the following web site today... an entire site talking about spiritual delusion. Seems to have some valid points. Probably worth spending time to further read...
http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-i...itual-delusion

The site even says which saints to pray to....

When recovering from spiritual delusion and mental illness, Orthodox Christians resort to the powers of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Saints and Angels: the Mother of God, Michael the Archangel, Saint Nicolas and other Saints, to the Grace of the Sacred Mysteries: Holy Communion, Confession and Unction. Also it is helpful to pray to the Saints that already helped the particular person in other situations. Also it is necessary to take the medications prescribed by the doctor. Often a natural mental disease originate from the passion of pride and is also accompanied by spiritual delusion. An example is the ancient king Nebuchadnezzar who got mad because of his pride.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The site even says which saints to pray to....


When recovering from spiritual delusion and mental illness, Orthodox Christians resort to the powers of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Saints and Angels: the Mother of God, Michael the Archangel, Saint Nicolas and other Saints, to the Grace of the Sacred Mysteries: Holy Communion, Confession and Unction. Also it is helpful to pray to the Saints that already helped the particular person in other situations. Also it is necessary to take the medications prescribed by the doctor. Often a natural mental disease originate from the passion of pride and is also accompanied by spiritual delusion. An example is the ancient king Nebuchadnezzar who got mad because of his pride.

Do not quench the Spirit; Do not despise prophecies, But prove all things. Hold fast to what is good; Abstain from every kind of evil.

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in full knowledge and all discernment, So that you may approve by testing the things which differ and are more excellent, that you may be pure and without offense unto the day of Christ, Being filled with the fruit of righteousness, which is through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The site even says which saints to pray to....


When recovering from spiritual delusion and mental illness, Orthodox Christians resort to the powers of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Saints and Angels: the Mother of God, Michael the Archangel, Saint Nicolas and other Saints, to the Grace of the Sacred Mysteries: Holy Communion, Confession and Unction. Also it is helpful to pray to the Saints that already helped the particular person in other situations. Also it is necessary to take the medications prescribed by the doctor. Often a natural mental disease originate from the passion of pride and is also accompanied by spiritual delusion. An example is the ancient king Nebuchadnezzar who got mad because of his pride.

Alb,

You don’t actually believe all this stuff, do you?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Often a natural mental disease originate from the passion of pride and is also accompanied by spiritual delusion. An example is the ancient king Nebuchadnezzar who got mad because of his pride.

Originally Posted by Drake

You don’t actually believe all this stuff, do you?

Drake

Drake, do you believe what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel, or not?

Seems to me that if Lee said that, then you would believe it and defend it.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

You don’t actually believe all this stuff, do you?

Drake

Do I have to in order to agree with what I quoted? That site contains contents from different sources. What Evangelical quoted is from a different section.

BTW, did you yourself look into it? Or just reading those quotes from me and Evangelical?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do I have to in order to agree with what I quoted? That site contains contents from different sources. What Evangelical quoted is from a different section.

BTW, did you yourself look into it? Or just reading those quotes from me and Evangelical?

Nope. You do not have to believe those things to quote the reference you did.

That is why I am asking. Do you believe what was written in that section?

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do I have to in order to agree with what I quoted? That site contains contents from different sources. What Evangelical quoted is from a different section.

BTW, did you yourself look into it? Or just reading those quotes from me and Evangelical?

The irony is that the person you quoted about delusions believes that prayer to saints is a cure for delusion...which in itself is delusional. Prayer to saints is delusional because dead saints arent listening only demons.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nope. You do not have to believe those things to quote the reference you did.

That is why I am asking. Do you believe what was written in that section?

I do not believe in prayer to saints.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The irony is that the person you quoted about delusions believes that prayer to saints is a cure for delusion...which in itself is delusional. Prayer to saints is delusional because dead saints arent listening only demons.

Does the person's belief in something we don't agree with prevent him/her from presenting other facts we can agree with?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I do not believe in prayer to saints.



Does the person's belief in something we don't agree with prevent him/her from presenting other facts we can agree with?

It depends, it is relative. For example I disagree with sabbath keeping but that would not invalidate what a sabbath keeper says about Jesus.

In this case they believe in saint veneration and prayers to the dead which to me is a stronger delusion and superstition than the type they claim to be able to discern or prevent. This to me invalidates their ability to discern delusion given that saint worship is one of the biggest and clearest and most unbiblical delusions of all.

Prayer to saints is not merely a different belief that we can disagree with like whether or not we should keep sabbath. These people regularly commune with demons masquerading as dead saints, through prayer. They are basically clairvoyants.

By quoting this website you are trusting those who pray to demons and are deluded into thinking they are truly in touch with Mary and the saints when those demons respond with counterfeit signs and wonders, feelings,visions etc.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By quoting this website you are trusting those who pray to demons and are deluded into thinking they are truly in touch with Mary and the saints when those demons respond with counterfeit signs and wonders, feelings,visions etc.

Didn't WL quote ideas from the RCC and Protestants? He must be trusting the evil religious Babylon, right?

Brother, think twice before deploying your shoot the messenger tactics.

Last but not least, didn't I indicate I just went into that web site and hadn't spent further time on the details? I don't quite understand why you are in such a haste to try deny delusion. Are you afraid that it might be true?

----------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9-10 Who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin? Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are an abomination to Jehovah.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Didn't WL quote from the RCC too? He must be trusting the evil religious Babylon, right?

Brother, think twice before deploying your shoot the messanger tactics.

Last but not least, didn't I indicate I just went into that web site and hadn't spent further time on the details?

----------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9-10 Who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin? Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are an abomination to Jehovah.

I'm not aware of Lee quoting the RCC. He did acknowledge its positives and that there are genuine believers in it.

[Drake]

Alb>” I don't quite understand why you are in such a haste to try deny delusion. Are you afraid that it might be true?”

Alb, I didn’t say it did not exist, I just said it was irrelevant to your argument. Evangelical did not say it did not exist, he just said the group you cited are under a stronger delusion themselves and that invalidates their ability to discern delusion in others.

Hopefully the strong evidence presented above will steer you away from your mistaken belief that we are denying that delusion exists.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Didn't WL quote ideas from the RCC and Protestants? He must be trusting the evil religious Babylon, right?

Brother, think twice before deploying your shoot the messenger tactics.

Last but not least, didn't I indicate I just went into that web site and hadn't spent further time on the details? I don't quite understand why you are in such a haste to try deny delusion. Are you afraid that it might be true?

----------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9-10 Who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin? Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are an abomination to Jehovah.

I am not denying delusion Im disagreeing with what that site says about it.

If I came across such a website I would know they are not relible to speak of delusion for the aforementioned reasons..they clearly dont have the solution as they are all praying to dead ones.

A better resource is Nees the spiritual man.

Tip- the cause and solution for delusion is not sin and repentence but the inability to discern between the soul and spirit. Catholic and orthodox are repenting all the time even whipping themselves but they still pray to the dead.

When a person lives by the soul they get counterfeit spiritual experiences. This is what saint worship is.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not denying delusion Im disagreeing with what that site says about it.

If I came across such a website I would know they are not relible to speak of delusion for the aforementioned reasons..they clearly dont have the solution as they are all praying to dead ones.

A better resource is Nees the spiritual man.

Tip- the cause and solution for delusion is not sin and repentence but the inability to discern between the soul and spirit. Catholic and orthodox are repenting all the time even whipping themselves but they still pray to the dead.

When a person lives by the soul they get counterfeit spiritual experiences. This is what saint worship is.

Thank you Evangelical. This is an excellent summary of the subject “delusion” and as was discussed here. Your due diligence sourcing reference material is commendable.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not aware of Lee quoting the RCC. He did acknowledge its positives and that there are genuine believers in it.

Does this justify your false allegation saying I am trusting those who pray to demons?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Thank you Evangelical. This is an excellent summary of the subject “delusion” and as was discussed here. Your due diligence sourcing reference material is commendable.

Drake

You like Spititual Man? Let's see what Nee said...

Often Satan injects pride into the believer’s spirit, evoking in him an attitude of self-importance and of self-conceit. He causes him to esteem himself a very outstanding person, one who is indispensable in God’s work. Such a spirit constitutes one of the major reasons for the fall of believers: “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16.18).

Seems quite applicable to the MOTA.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not denying delusion Im disagreeing with what that site says about it.

If I came across such a website I would know they are not relible to speak of delusion for the aforementioned reasons..they clearly dont have the solution as they are all praying to dead ones.

A better resource is Nees the spiritual man.

OMG!!! You didn't say that! When I was in the LC they warned against reading that book. They claimed that some brothers had actually become demon possessed by reading it.

I read it anyway, and agree. It should come with a skull and crossbones on the cover.

Originally Posted by EvanG

When a person lives by the soul they get counterfeit spiritual experiences.

That explains my LC experience. We were living by the soul. Lee was living by the soul, and eventually admitted it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You like Spititual Man? Let's see what Nee said...

Often Satan injects pride into the believer’s spirit, evoking in him an attitude of self-importance and of self-conceit. He causes him to esteem himself a very outstanding person, one who is indispensable in God’s work. Such a spirit constitutes one of the major reasons for the fall of believers: “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16.18).

Seems quite applicable to the MOTA.

Yes it does. And good job sourcing that from Nee. Obviously Nee was describing himself. And it fits Lee too.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You like Spititual Man? Let's see what Nee said...

Often Satan injects pride into the believer’s spirit, evoking in him an attitude of self-importance and of self-conceit. He causes him to esteem himself a very outstanding person, one who is indispensable in God’s work. Such a spirit constitutes one of the major reasons for the fall of believers: “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16.18).

Seems quite applicable to the MOTA.

I do like the Spiritual Man. However, your post reminded me of the warning the author issued with it.

“The reader of this book should also be careful that he does not take the knowledge he has acquired from this book as a tool for criticizing others. It is easy for us to say that this person is soulish and that person is fleshly. But it is difficult to know if we ourselves are the same. The truth is given to set men free; it is not given to criticize others. I am afraid that some who are naturally inclined to show themselves off will not change after receiving the truth in this book, but will use the truth in this book to criticize their brothers and sisters. This book is meant to lead men on the right path; it is not meant to judge men. If we do this, it means we are no less soulish than the ones we criticize, only a bit more fleshly. This danger is the greatest, and we should guard against it carefully.”

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

OMG!!! You didn't say that! When I was in the LC they warned against reading that book. They claimed that some brothers had actually become demon possessed by reading it.

I read it anyway, and agree. It should come with a skull and crossbones on the cover.


That explains my LC experience. We were living by the soul. Lee was living by the soul, and eventually admitted it.

Maybe the book triggered the demons already in them to react.

[A little brother]

****Incomplete post. Please delete.****

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do like the Spiritual Man. However, your post reminded me of the warning the author issued with it.

“The reader of this book should also be careful that he does not take the knowledge he has acquired from this book as a tool for criticizing others. ...
Drake

Drake, great point. I also pulled in an extract of your post from the other thread because I think it is logical to consolidate my viewpoint here.

Originally Posted by Drake

...
The vision that governs me is not Brother Lee’s vision or any elder’s vision. It is the vision imparted to me by the Holy Spirit.
...
This vision carried me through turbulence in the church life not unlike that found in the Corinthian church. Outwardly, it a mess, nevertheless, the vision speaks it is still the church of God in Corinth. All in Asia forsook Paul yet Paul was faithful to the heavenly vision.
...
And just to calm any angst about what I mean, I condemn and have condemned the actions of Philip Lee and have stated that someone should have called the cops but he does not define what LSM is or their total contribution to the work of ministry. Still, even if a LSM were to publish Harry Potter books it does not affect the vision that guides me because I did not receive it from LSM.
...

I absolutely agree the criteria are for self reflection rather than for criticizing others. I did not make any conclusion that your vision is delusion (frankly though, I suspect it is) . No one else except yourself can discern whether it is true vision. But it doesn't mean you cannot use some external references to help.

I offered the web site link as kind of checklist for self-assessment applicable to all believers who think they have received a vision from God. From your response probably you don't think it is necessary. So for the time being, let's say your vision is true.

I like your analogy of the Corinthian church. How do you see your position in the LC when comparing with the Corinthian church? Are you one of the members in the church who tolerated or even covered up the unrighteousness or Paul who directly pointed out what was wrong?

What did Jesus do when he saw the Holy Temple became a den of robbers? Did He say it is still God's Temple and forgive them 70x7?

When you say you condemned the actions of Philip Lee, did you step up to fellowship with Lee or other elders? If yes, what was the outcome?

I asked you months ago when you first shared your vision in this forum. Now I ask again. How much closer is the LC now to the vision you received 40 years ago?

Jesus told us long ago where true worship should be in. But we keep building up new temples as if they were something worthy to be kept at all cost. History told us God destroyed the first and second temple, no matter how grand or precious they were.

Back to the vision/delusion topic, I believe the greater the vision one receives, the greater caution one should take. The fine line between faith and pride can be crossed so easily especially for people with leadership position in the church. Even Paul can sometimes sound proud in his letters. I am not saying he was, but not anybody can be Paul.

Fortunately I am just a little brother. I don't have the grand vision to change the nations or the church. I just speak truthfully what I believe. If incidentally, it can turn one person slightly closer to God, it would already be a great achievement for me. Could I be deluded as well? Definitely! I have to check from time to time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe the book triggered the demons already in them to react.

Quite possible bro Evangelical. I read it and didn't get any demon. Still the elders frowned upon me reading it.

You can thank Jessie Penn-Lewis for the book ; the Jezebel that killed the Welsh Revival. She taught that born again believers can be possessed by demons. She thought at least some of the phenomena of the Welsh Revival was the work of Satan.

But after learning what she did to Evan Roberts I wondered if she herself had one, or maybe seven like Mary of Magdala..

And then, after learning of Nee's sexual promiscuity, I wonder if he had one.

Demons here, demons there, demons everywhere. You can't even be a whole person, of flesh, soul, and spirit, without being possessed by demons. And I thought Jesus had power over them, and protected his followers from them.

I guess at the time of reading the book my faith in Jesus kept me from becoming possessed ... maybe my ignorance protected me.

Either that, or the demons had no interest in me. I am a difficult fellow. As you surely know by now. So I'm no stranger to rejection. I feel hurt that the demons didn't want me. What's wrong with me?

Then again, what do I know about demons? Satan never wrote a book. I guess the Satanic Bible came close. I read that too, before the LC, and wrote and did an oral speech on it in college. Maybe that inoculated me from the demons in The Spiritual Man.

What protected you bro Evangelical? Question. If you don't believe in Satan does that make you an atheist?

[Drake]

-1
Bro awareness,

If it was to be avoided under any and all circumstances then the 3 volume work would have been excluded from the collected works. All three volumes are there.

However, similar to cautions about using the book, the Normal Christian Church Life, as a manual so also did the Spiritual Man come with its own precautions. The issue is not with the book or its content, it is rather our own inclinations... in this case, introspection. It is possible to become too occupied self-examining how you match up to the descriptions in the book. In reality, we will eventually read things and teachings from the Bible that extend well beyond our experience. That is the precaution, you read it, start gazing at yourself, and lose sight of Christ, the One and only One, who enables us to overcome and become an overcomer well pleasing to Him.

Drake

[awareness]

And I thank him for it. Or thank my lack of introspection. Maybe both kept me from catching a demon.

Good point(s) bro Drake. Thanks.

[Indiana]

[COLOR="black[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>“the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches"......

This is false.]

Yet, please provide a reference where the blended coworkers “assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,”

The reference to include the bold points above.

You know Indiana, it is my observation that few here lend an ounce of credibility to Watchman Nees teaching on the church....his stock goes up slightly if you use him to bash Witness Lee or fellow coworkers. Are you currently in a local church that follows his teachings concerning the church? Are you a theorist or a
practitioner?

Drake

Hello brother Drake.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I hadn't considered the extended meaning, the more inclusive aspect of the term "Brother We".

You actually help me to know the truth you speak of, that the "Brother We" reference made by a blending brother was actually referring to all the saints, in part. I can confirm that aspect of their meaning of "we", because I saw in my last video training Ron Kangas did share in an intimate ending to S of S fellowship, that "Brother Lee" is no longer with us, now it is up to the Shulamite, all the saints, the little ones, pursuing the Lord together (we).

Sounds very good to me and good to see Ron blended in the Body.

He was as soft and humble and pleasant as could be for those precious minutes of his sharing in the Son with all the little members, including himself as one of them.

In that rather moving scene there was no one lifted up but the One, the Lord Jesus, together with members of His Body.

HOWEVER, soon enough leaders "Brother We" would be back into movement mode according to the "vision of the age", as the collective "minister of the age" as global authorities, uplifting "Brother Lee" and "Brother Nee", in "the ministry of the age" - producing, to be sure, ministry churches of the age with those who survived the purge, and the cookie cutter.leadership of the age.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Hello brother Drake. Thank you for pointing out my error.

You actually help me to know the truth you speak of, that the "Brother We" reference by a blending brother was actually referring to all the saints. I can confirm that aspect of their meaning of "we", because I saw in my last video training Ron Kangas did share in an intimate ending to S of S fellowship, that "Brother Lee" is no longer with us, now it is up to the Shulamite, all the saints, the little ones, pursuing the Lord together (we). Sounds very good to me.

Ron Kangas was as soft and humble and pleasant as could be for those precious minutes of his sharing in the Son with all the little members, including himself as one of them, and all the leaders of the churches. In that rather moving scene there was no one lifted up but the One, the Lord Jesus, with members of His Body. But that was Brother Ron talking (theoretically, as a theorist).

Soon "Brother We" would be back into their movement according to the "vision of the age", as the collective "minister of the age" as global authorities, uplifting "Brother Lee" and "Brother Nee", in "the ministry of the age" - producing, to be sure, ministry churches of the ages of those surviving the purge and the cookie cutter.

Bro Indiana: I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, condescending, or genuine.

[Indiana]

http://youtu.be/BKv4n_0ond0

It has been 10 years to the day, January 18, 2018, since Ron Kangas exercised his GLOBAL AUTHORITY at an international elders conference, speaking against several people (former leaders, internet contributors, ME BY NAME, current "independent" workers), thinking that speaking covertly in a faraway place would be safe place for him. A LOCAL CHURCH BROTHER, however, had this message (in the link above) on his server and notified me. I became aware in THIS WAY, (not by RON contacting me), and I LET HIM KNOW several times I AM OPEN TO HEAR HIS SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS AGAINST ANYTHING I have written beginning with IN THE WAKE OF THE NEW WAY, and including my book refuting Ron's slanted and disingenuous book on former prominent elder, John Ingalls.

If anyone listening in today is supportive of LSM, I am also, but not when they lie, hide details, displace blame, cover over sin and anything and everything else detrimental to the name of Lee, Nee, or their handsome yearly salary of $80 to $100,000. ("Don't think that it is not a part of it"), says Don Hardy (2001), who was a former elder in Los Angeles and elsewhere for many years.

I have been speaking the truth regarding division since 2001, and LSM does nothing, AND CAN DO NOTHING, intelligently, or formally, to discount me.

RON KANGAS WHO IS HEAVILY ASSOCIATED WITH LSM, POSTURES HIMSELF AS A PURVEYOR OF TRUTH, but HAS LIED ABOUT ME IN PUBLIC AT AN INTERNATIONAL LEADERS CONFERENCE and elsewhere, AND WILL NOT REPENT AND MAKE THINGS RIGHT BEFORE GOD and Man in the Body of Christ!


“Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live
and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”
(Deut, 16:18-20)


Witness Lee

"We have to know that today in the church we don’t exercise autocracy, a dictatorship; or democracy, according to people’s opinion; but we like to honor God’s authority as our government, and this is what we call theocracy, Gods government.

"Firstly, you must have the judges in order to keep God’s justice. The divine government pays attention firstly to justice. Even today, any government on this earth that does not practice justice, that government will sooner or later be over, right? A strong government must be one that is built upon justice. Everything must be just. Everything must be fair. Everything must be right. This is justice." (LSM radio transcription)


Three LSM books examined

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

[Indiana]

1. The LSM group that passes over the falsehoods in three books of fiction about former leaders lay claim to A falsehood by "certain dissenting ones".

2. A poster, Drake, has pointed out A false statement made by me.

3. I point out a thousand false statements made by two blending brothers and Witness Lee that seriously damaged the oneness in the churches; and the "dissenting ones" that Unfaithful Witness.org refers to have made more true statements than false ones.

Drake, there are huge questions looming over your leaders and their claims to church authenticity. They have clearly deviated from the path they began on and will not answer questions put to them. They will not come outside their insular group; they hide their sins; and they lift up their demigods, while routinely putting down "dissenters', as if dissenting to sin and division and false witness is an ignoble characteristic for believers.

In the link is an expose' of the blending brothers who have become deluded to the point of not caring for right and wrong and cling to their ministers of the age, who they have made, in reality, their base of oneness - not Christ alone - which creates a distinct division in the body of Christ.

Three LSM books examined

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

[Drake]

Indiana>"They have clearly deviated from the path they began on and will not answer questions put to them."


Indiana,

If that is your objective then maybe your approach is wrong.

Just saying.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>"They have clearly deviated from the path they began on and will not answer questions put to them."

Indiana, If that is your objective then maybe your approach is wrong.

Just saying.

Drake

Perhaps, Drake is right, since Indiana is using the instructions given by the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 18, and the Ron Kangas and the Blendeds can only respond according to Lee's instructions.

And since Lee is gone ...

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps, Drake is right, since Indiana is using the instructions given by the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 18, and the Ron Kangas and the Blendeds can only respond according to Lee's instructions.

And since Lee is gone ...

No, I don't believe the brother's approach remotely meets the spirit, attitude, or procedure in Matthew 18. Nor does it meet the 70 X 7 forgiveness threshold.

In any case, I said if his objective was to get answers then apparently his approach is not working. Isn't that obvious?

But your last point is very important. Lee is gone and any opportunity to reconcile while both are on the way is now past. The co-workers are alive still and so are we so there is time to reconcile if that ever occurs to someone still holding an offense.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, I don't believe the brother's approach remotely meets the spirit, attitude, or procedure in Matthew 18. Nor does it meet the 70 X 7 forgiveness threshold.

In any case, I said if his objective was to get answers then apparently his approach is not working. Isn't that obvious?

I already explained why Indiana's approach would never work. LSM leaders behave like the Gentiles. (Matt 18.15-17) They rule the LC's as the Gentiles do. (Matt 20.25-26)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I already explained why Indiana's approach would never work. LSM leaders behave like the Gentiles. (Matt 18.15-17) They rule the LC's as the Gentiles do. (Matt 20.25-26)

I don't see it that way at all.

There are ways to approach and then there are other ways. Some work and some don't. So far, it hasn't.

Drake

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't see it that way at all.

There are ways to approach and then there are other ways. Some work and some don't. So far, it hasn't.

Drake

My approach to the brothers has been many and varied. They are afraid of the truth, which they will have to face when their running stops. They have had plenty of time and opportunity to leave their pre-occupation with Nee and Lee and come to Christ alone. And to make things right in the Body.

That is the issue. Making things right in the Body. It's not a matter of me "holding onto an offense", but of holding Ron Kangas accountable in the Body - to me and to all who heard such slanderous and debasing words from him, as he spoke in Ecuador, in Seattle, and how many other places? This is to take care of the Body, and all the members, including Ron Kangas himself, the perpetrator. Do you understand, brother Drake? It's not a small thing to blow up a small member, and the truth he brings; then to ignore him, as if he and his message is nothing.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Do you understand, brother Drake? It's not a small thing to blow up a small member, and the truth he brings; then to ignore him, as if he and his message is nothing.

Indiana, don't know if you have realized that "fellowship" in the LSM local churches only flows from the greater brother to lessor brother. One way the maximum brothers defend themselves from fellowship is by "see no evil, hear no evil ". Now if the would only practice "speak no evil" things would be healthier.

[Drake]

Indiana>* Do you understand, brother Drake? It's not a small thing to blow up a small member, and the truth he brings; then to ignore him, as if he and his message is nothing.”

I absolutely agree Indiana. What I am saying is that the One you need to tell this to and the One you need to turn it over to once and for all is the Lord. The incident has greatly affected you Brother and you need to be unshackled from it.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I absolutely agree Indiana. What I am saying is that the One you need to tell this to and the One you need to turn it over to once and for all is the Lord. The incident has greatly affected you Brother and you need to be unshackled from it.

Great point, this is also what I have seen from the NT.

Matt 18 -- "If he won't hear you" -- the Lord realizes this is one possible outcome. You have fulfilled your requirement, tell it to the church and move on.

Rev 3 -- Church in Philadelphia -- "go out no more" -- it is very clear that before you can arrive at Philadelphia you will need to "go out". It is part of the process. We learn to empathize with others by going through these experiences.

Church in Laodicea -- Jesus is outside knocking calling on those still there to come out and sup with Him. Yes, you may have entered the church in Laodicea because of the Lord's calling, but you can also leave because of His calling as well.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>* Do you understand, brother Drake? It's not a small thing to blow up a small member, and the truth he brings; then to ignore him, as if he and his message is nothing.”

I absolutely agree Indiana. What I am saying is that the One you need to tell this to and the One you need to turn it over to once and for all is the Lord. The incident has greatly affected you Brother and you need to be unshackled from it.

Drake

Brothers! You speak as if I have NOT experienced what you are now saying I should do.

This case with Ron Kangas is not just about he and I; it is on another level and manifests the deep-rooted problem of LSM inspired authoritarian leadership whose debilitating ways ought to be broadcast and confronted.

Some have the following perspective.

"In some limited sense, I'm not so sure Isitt and Luther are so different. Luther did have other options, joining others outside the RCC, but like Isitt, he grew up with the belief that his church was the only true church, standing on the proper ground of truth and oneness, with a leader who had the proper lineage of authority.

Both Luther and Isitt, when examining their core ideology, had no intention of leaving their roots. Both worked tirelessly to reform apparent errors and return their church back to its former days of "glory." We can stand back and look at both of them and "laugh," knowing that they are fighting an overwhelming and hopeless battle, but frankly it's none of our business.

Personally, I like to let each one man serve God according to conscience. Who am I to know whether or not the Lord is not directing their very steps? I am convinced that the Lord does direct some to stay in the LC in relative silence, He has directed others to leave the LC in silence, and He has directed some others to speak out long and loud to expose the errors of their ways. Who are we to judge? God's ways are higher than our ways."
(Ohio, 2011)

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brothers! You speak as if I have NOT experienced what you are now saying I should do.

This case with Ron Kangas is not just about he and I; it is on another level and manifests the deep-rooted problem of LSM inspired authoritarian leadership whose debilitating ways ought to be broadcast and confronted.

Some have the following perspective.

"In some limited sense, I'm not so sure Isitt and Luther are so different. Luther did have other options, joining others outside the RCC, but like Isitt, he grew up with the belief that his church was the only true church, standing on the proper ground of truth and oneness, with a leader who had the proper lineage of authority.

Both Luther and Isitt, when examining their core ideology, had no intention of leaving their roots. Both worked tirelessly to reform apparent errors and return their church back to its former days of "glory." We can stand back and look at both of them and "laugh," knowing that they are fighting an overwhelming and hopeless battle, but frankly it's none of our business.

Personally, I like to let each one man serve God according to conscience. Who am I to know whether or not the Lord is not directing their very steps? I am convinced that the Lord does direct some to stay in the LC in relative silence, He has directed others to leave the LC in silence, and He has directed some others to speak out long and loud to expose the errors of their ways. Who are we to judge? God's ways are higher than our ways."
(Ohio, 2011)

Brother Indiana,

I’m sorry it has been 10 years of waiting for Ron Kansas to respond to your reasonable request. I believe you have followed the process of confronting a sinning brother that the Lord Jesus spelled out in Matthew 18:15-17 http://biblehub.com/blb/matthew/18.htm
You have gone together with other brothers to ask for repentance (look how many have joined you in the request!) and being rebuffed, have you have told it to the church.
Unfortunately, it is time to treat Ron as a pagan and taxgatherer.... pray for his salvation.
Be in peace brother!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

The co-workers are alive still and so are we so there is time to reconcile if that ever occurs to someone still holding an offense.

That's been my prayer and hope for many years. Perhaps the blended co-workers are unwilling to let go of offenses which explains lack of reconciliation and an absence of grace.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

This case with Ron Kangas is not just about he and I; it is on another level and manifests the deep-rooted problem of LSM inspired authoritarian leadership whose debilitating ways ought to be broadcast and confronted.

Apostle John addressed that in 3 John.
Like 3 John, the matter of receiving becomes too political. The Church in Spokane won't receive you unless things are made right in Seattle. That in itself is a catch 22 when the responsible brothers there won't even respond. In your writing Hear the Cases the matter of brother Mario's inability to be received in Vista is just as similar. The matter of receiving becomes a political matter.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Indiana

That is the issue. Making things right in the Body.

Indy,

I continue to understand your thought here. And it does not address the Body, but instead a rather small collection of assemblies within a tremendously larger body of Christ. From this perspective, you would seem to be perpetually taking exception with the nature of a particular bushel of corn found in all the grain elevators in Wichita, KS put together. (I use Wichita because as I flew into that city several times many years ago, it had the appearance of being the grain elevator capital of the U.S. Might not be technically true, but there was one particular section that appeared to be a solid mile of collected storage elevators along a rail line.)

My point is that the Body of Christ is huge and diverse in both its doctrines and practices, as well as frailties. The LRC is but a minute part of that whole. You continually seek to have that small group mend its ways, but for what purpose? Do you really think that there is something so special about them that you cannot survive outside of their acceptance of you? If you do, then they are "the church" to which you are required to tell it and they have rejected you. The record in Matthew does not continue on to state that if the church does not hear you, or rejects your claim of wrong that you set up shop across the street from them and shout at them with a bullhorn. And if that is what has happened, then I cannot imagine that being back on the "inside" with them is actually a healthy place to be.

For the LRC to admit to the errors you raise is to undermine the claim of super-authority of Nee, Lee, and now the LSM cadre. It will undermine the claim of being under the unique speaking of God and with it the claim that so many special doctrines are actually in the scripture.

In short, even though I appreciate all the research you did into the various problems that exist within the system, it is probably time to (mostly) abandon them and seek to be established within a good Christian assembly. Almost any will do. I know that you are not just isolated as a Christian. But your constant desire to return to the LRC suggests that you are not really one with whoever it is you are meeting with. Your heart is elsewhere.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by OBW

Indy,

...In short, even though I appreciate all the research you did into the various problems that exist within the system, it is probably time to (mostly) abandon them and seek to be established within a good Christian assembly. Almost any will do. I know that you are not just isolated as a Christian. But your constant desire to return to the LRC suggests that you are not really one with whoever it is you are meeting with. Your heart is elsewhere.

Hi OBW, I have been meeting with an assembly in Seattle for three years. They receive me and I receive them because we are all fellow members in the one Body. Whenever I use the term, the Body of Christ, it is with the whole Body in mind, never meaning the Local Churches only. And, this assembly where I meet, and many others have a similar heart-attitude of receiving others. And, they may or may not have a Local Church background or have even heard of Nee or Lee.

I think Henry Hon's fellowship is excellent and his example right. He is not interested in a following but is very exercised to go out and meet and to encourage others in their relationship with the Lord - and with members within and outside their particular sphere of fellowship. This creates the right atmosphere, one of love and acceptance, and induces the "morale" in THE BODY OF CHRIST among believers all around the globe.

Henry and Sylvia returned yesterday from the Philippines where they attended two pastor's conferences. There were twenty pastors present in Tagaytay, which is located two hours outside Manila, and all were to have read Henry's book before the conference.

Afterwards, based on the word, the fellowship in the book, and the Lord's prayer in John 17, a brother who is considered a "bishop" among 70 churches, announced that they all agreed to drop their names and just care for Christ alone.

This, assuredly, is a call into the oneness among fellow believers for the building up of the one Body of Christ. (They're all encouraged also to take care of the unbelievers and invite them to their meeting, and to go to visit Catholics and other groups of believers without expecting them to come into their fellowship. This, in fact, was how the Local Church brothers were encouraged by W. Lee in the beginning - to go out to seek others meeting in that city who were also seeking the oneness of the Body according to the New Testament charge - and the Lord's prayer, "that they all may be one".)

Henry has also been invited to Africa to be with brothers there, who will then take him by bus to visit assemblies in seven cities. The bus ride and time in the homes will afford them much opportunity for fellowship on this ground of oneness, which is Christ alone.

[ZNPaaneah]

Great! I think many of us on this forum wondered what the error was? Some take the view that every word from WL's ministry is suspect.

Instead I would recommend taking the attitude of the church in Ephesus, test the prophets and determine which are false. But, and this is the big but, do not leave your first love. Jesus went to the cross so that we might all be saved, regardless of how "clear our vision is". We need to follow the Lord to the cross with the same attitude.

To me, when we accepted the condemnation of other Christians and gatherings that was the fork in the road where we left our first love.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Drake

Drake, Your use of QUARANTINE is such a farce. Wikipedia says this ...

A quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of people; it is a 'state of enforced isolation'. This is often used in connection to disease and illness, such as those who may possibly have been exposed to a communicable disease. The term is often erroneously used to mean medical isolation, which is "to separate ill persons who have a communicable disease from those who are healthy".

Supposedly Lee was isolating "ill persons" from the other saints because they were sick. He really didn't even know what the word "quarantine" really meant. Quarantine is used for healthy people in order to determine if they are sick. So he got the whole thing backwards, as usual, in some twisted attempt to label his actions other than "excommunication."

In reality, Lee copied his heretical practice of expelling potential rivals and whistle-blowers from Amish shunning and the Exclusive Brethren.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, Your use of QUARANTINE is such a farce. Wikipedia says this ...



Supposedly Lee was isolating "ill persons" from the other saints because they were sick. He really didn't even know what the word "quarantine" really meant. Quarantine is used for healthy people in order to determine if they are sick. So he got the whole thong backwards, as usual, in some twisted attempt to label his actions other than "excomunication."

In reality, Lee copied his heretical practice of expelling potential rivals and whistleblowers from Amish shunning and the Exclusive Brthren.

Quarantine versus excommunication. What the difference? If you go by scripture it's not intended to be permanent. In local church practice quarantine and excommunication are the same thing. Otherwise, how come no one ever checked up on the brothers who were quarantined?
Real or imagined, when FTTA trainees allegedly knocked on the door of a quarantined brother and when word allegedly reached Ron Kangas, why should he be upset about it? Instead of reacting with anger, he should have reacted with joy.
I do believe the real issue quarantine is used instead of excommunication is legal. Concerns of being sued for slander.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

I do believe the real issue quarantine is used instead of excommunication is legal. Concerns of being sued for slander.

WL expressed that very concern, and I do believe he had reason to be concerned about being sued, since he made a number of slanderous statements about various brothers.

He was used to people accepting anything he said as fact without having to provide any proof. If WL really felt that his so-called quarantines were legitimate, then there is no reason that he couldn't have called it an excommunication like it really was.

We must see, however, that to make a public announcement of a kind of excommunication involves a person’s name, position, and status in today’s society. This is serious and very risky. This involves families and human relationships. In this matter we have been under the influence of the tradition of Christianity, but in my experiences over the past fifty years I have surely learned that to make a public announcement, especially in a matter concerning immorality, is not so safe and profitable. If we announce a certain person’s being excommunicated in a public meeting, he could appeal to a court of law and say that we are spoiling his name. He would claim that since you said he committed immorality, you must provide the evidence in a court of law. This would cause much trouble. This one may have committed that sin, but according to law you must present the evidence. This sinning one may not have that much growth in the Lord, but he may bold a high position in society. He would vindicate himself by bringing this case to the law court to clear up his name. This shows us the turmoil that such a public announcement could cause…

Witness Lee, Elders’ Training, Book 4, Ch 7

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Quarantine versus excommunication. What the difference? If you go by scripture it's not intended to be permanent. In local church practice quarantine and excommunication are the same thing. Otherwise, how come no one ever checked up on the brothers who were quarantined?
Real or imagined, when FTTA trainees allegedly knocked on the door of a quarantined brother and when word allegedly reached Ron Kangas, why should he be upset about it? Instead of reacting with anger, he should have reacted with joy.
I do believe the real issue quarantine is used instead of excommunication is legal. Concerns of being sued for slander.

According to definitions, quarantines are for healthy people, so that their health can be monitored for a time, usually 21 days.

Excommunication is for the morally repugnant ones like Philip Lee, according to I Cor. 5.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to definitions, quarantines are for healthy people, so that their health can be monitored for a time, usually 21 days.

Excommunication is for the morally repugnant ones like Philip Lee, according to I Cor. 5.

In every sense of the word by definition it was Phillip Lee who was treated as if quarantined. Having someone to check up on him providing care until he was "restored". While it was the quarantined brothers who were treated as if they were excommunicated.

If we use scripture as a picture regarding quarantines, Miriam was put outside the camp during her quarantine and the Israelites did not move until she was healthy to be brought back in.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

In every sense of the word by definition it was Phillip Lee who was treated as if quarantined. Having someone to check up on him providing care until he was "restored". While it was the quarantined brothers who were treated as if they were excommunicated.

If we use scripture as a picture regarding quarantines, Miriam was put outside the camp during her quarantine and the Israelites did not move until she was healthy to be brought back in.

Is there a NT analog to this story? The brother who was excommunicated in 1Cor was also put outside the camp temporarily, repented, was forgiven, and then brought back in.

LSM's use of the terms "quarantine" and "discipline" to my understanding have a very flimsy spiritual basis.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

LSM's use of the terms "quarantine" and "discipline" to my understanding have a very flimsy spiritual basis.

Or none at all. Quarantines and discipline are more based on one's opinions and concepts than it being a matter of gross sin.
When one is apt to "overturn the apple cart" or is not kowtowing the brothers, he cannot be trusted to be "one with the brothers".
For sake of the rest of the assembly those ones must be put out so they don't infect the rest of the assembly with their poisonous concepts.
Just think of the dilemma would happen if deputy authority teaching is no longer accepted and each one is deemed accountable to one another. Even if you're a conference speaker, you're accountable to each one in attendance.
Core issue in LC terminology regarding quarantines and discipline always is trust.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Or none at all. Quarantines and discipline are more based on one's opinions and concepts than it being a matter of gross sin.

Looking back at the LSM Office during the "New Way," Philip Lee was rightly excommunicated by the elders in Anaheim for molesting the sisters and corrupting the young brothers.

These victimized young men and women should have been temporarily quarantined to make sure they had not become sick due to their contact with Philip Lee.

Since Philip Lee never repented, nor had he shown any remorse over his actions, he should never have been restored to the fellowship by those toadies appointed by his father to replace the rightful elders.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great! I think many of us on this forum wondered what the error was? Some take the view that every word from WL's ministry is suspect.

Instead I would recommend taking the attitude of the church in Ephesus, test the prophets and determine which are false. But, and this is the big but, do not leave your first love. Jesus went to the cross so that we might all be saved, regardless of how "clear our vision is". We need to follow the Lord to the cross with the same attitude.

To me, when we accepted the condemnation of other Christians and gatherings that was the fork in the road where we left our first love.

ZNP, as usual you say some thought provoking things!

For me the final test of Nee, Lee, and all things LSM is “rotten fruit, rotten tree”. The more I learn about the about the sources and means of this movement, rather than thinking “where did we (being them, me, and all of their followers) go wrong?” It is now “we were all off from the beginning”.

I’m chucking all of their books (finally!) and am looking for ministers and ministries that have borne the fruits of the Spirit. In another analogy, throw out the leavened lump, get rid of the leaven and start making a new unleavened loaf.

[Indiana]

Ron Kangas says,"There is no successor to this wise master builder [Witness Lee], but there is an open group of being-blended brothers who are absolutely consecrated to the Lord to continue the work begun by this wise master builder. (Ron Kangas, "The Builders of the Divine Building, The Ministry Magazine, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 150)

In other words the "being-blended brothers" are indeed, Brother We, who wield the axe freely to cut off such ones as Henry Hon and Nigel Tomes, et al (100s), just as Brother LEE cut off (100s). We hear a few names officially, but they have families and brothers close to them who got the leprosy and really "they are all cut off" as I was told by an elder who informed me when he cut me off.
WHAT A BRAZEN BUNCH THEY ARE IN MANIFEST DELUSION OF BEING GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY.

And, this is done in the age of "the little ones", no more giants, supposedly. You are the giant, Brother We, issuing orders from Head Quarters in Anaheim. We understand the assertion that all those who follow you are included in the "Brother We"; but as far as church authority goes, you are following the blueprint of a giant, Witness Lee; and since Henry Hon did not line up with the blueprint, he got cut off, under your direction and full approval and confirmation, and by his own brother, Paul Hon!

[JJ]

Indiana, I recently reread the first chapter of 1 Corinthians http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/1.htm in which Paul chides the Corinthians who were picking their favorite apostle (including him, Peter, and Christ) to meet in their names and exclude others who didn't, and were boasting of their wisdom.

In the middle of the chapter Paul says "The foolishness of God is wiser than man". He also says "He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord".

It sickens me to hear such boasting "Witness Lee the wise master builder". Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord!

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by JJ

Indiana, I recently reread the first chapter of 1 Corinthians http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/1.htm in which Paul chides the Corinthians who were picking their favorite apostle (including him, Peter, and Christ) to meet in their names and exclude others who didn't, and were boasting of their wisdom.

In the middle of the chapter Paul says "The foolishness of God is wiser than man". He also says "He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord".

It sickens me to hear such boasting "Witness Lee the wise master builder". Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord!

Lifting up a man and a ministry has caused turmoil and division in the churches. They need to back off and be found boasting in the Lord alone. A people rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ will have the man and ministry as their ground of meeting. And will be unable to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with other believers. The sectarian oneness in the Local Churches is not what pleases God's heart the most. They are not lined up with their own teachings meant to protect them within the sphere of the New Testament oneness of the Body of Christ.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Lifting up a man and a ministry has caused turmoil and division in the churches. They need to back off and be found boasting in the Lord alone. A people rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ will have the man and ministry as their ground of meeting. And will be unable to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with other believers. The sectarian oneness in the Local Churches is not what pleases God's heart the most. They are not lined up with their own teachings meant to protect them within the sphere of the New Testament oneness of the Body of Christ.

Many people downplay the major expose' unfolding in Washington D. C. about certain government leaders and officials, past and present; And spiritually,, the well-documented record of divisive behavior in Anaheim has been downplayed vigorously by governing authorities in Anaheim for decades.

Clean up D. C. and clean up Anaheim, the fountainhead of both good and evil in the Local Churches.

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Many leaders in our nation's Capitol downplay the seriousness of a major expose' involving them, the leaders of our nation, past and present; and spiritually, on a much higher level, the well-documented serious record of divisive behavior by LSM has been downplayed vigorously by governing authorities in our own D. C., (Anaheim).

As a reminder to Ron Kangas I have some things against you:

www.leadersofthelordsrecovery.us/index.html

Take it from me. Ron Kangas is not all that. He's just a scribe of Witness Lee.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Take it from me. Ron Kangas is not all that. He's just a scribe of Witness Lee.

Ron Kangas said he can scan or read the saints. Not much different from the corner palm reader.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Ron Kangas said he can scan or read the saints. Not much different from the corner palm reader.

Are you also disputing those legendary stories about Ray Graver?

He was called "X-Ray" Graver because he could just look at the brothers and know they were "in the flesh."

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Looking back at the LSM Office during the "New Way," Philip Lee was rightly excommunicated by the elders in Anaheim for molesting the sisters and corrupting the young brothers.

These victimized young men and women should have been temporarily quarantined to make sure they had not become sick due to their contact with Philip Lee.

Since Philip Lee never repented, nor had he shown any remorse over his actions, he should never have been restored to the fellowship by those toadies appointed by his father to replace the rightful elders.

Whatever happened to Phillip Lee and the other brother? What about their wives and WL grandkids?

[Steel]

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m chucking all of their books (finally!) and am looking for ministers and ministries that have borne the fruits of the Spirit. In another analogy, throw out the leavened lump, get rid of the leaven and start making a new unleavened loaf.

So you will not be eating from the tree of life anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

And what about prophesying — speaking for the Lord and speaking forth the Lord — will you not be prophesying anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

If a believer is constituted with Christ... Then this believer is constituted with truth.

And there is without a doubt... Much truth being revealed in the ministry of Witness Lee.

And to say there isn't is to deny what scripture tells us... And to deny the work of the Spirit of God.

And these are two things no believer should endeavor to pursue.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Steel

So you will not be eating from the tree of life anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

Witness Lee does not own the truth.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you also disputing those legendary stories about Ray Graver?

He was called "X-Ray" Graver because he could just look at the brothers and know they were "in the flesh."

i never met him. I think satan is pretty good at scanning people, so I don't think having that ability is something to preach to hundreds in a conference,

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Lifting up a man and a ministry has caused turmoil and division in the churches. They need to back off and be found boasting in the Lord alone. A people rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ will have the man and ministry as their ground of meeting. And will be unable to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with other believers. The sectarian oneness in the Local Churches is not what pleases God's heart the most. They are not lined up with their own teachings meant to protect them within the sphere of the New Testament oneness of the Body of Christ.

Dear Ron, I want to respond to your conference message in New York which was apparently engendered by someone(s) on the internet you feel are not speaking the truth. Actually, you or some on the internet, such as myself, might be in darkness (as you say), and not realize it. As for me, I like to correct myself, when needed. And, I hope you will be open one day to capitulate to the truths I or others unveil about you or brothers Nee and Lee, and admit that you or they have been wrong.

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



The blending brothers shared this word and Watchman Nee's fellowship on When We Cannot Follow Those Who Deviate from the Truth

Blending Brothers Teach
We Cannot Follow Those Who Deviate from the Truth

“First, we must be very clear that when a leader violates an essential truth either in teaching or in practice, we cannot follow him. If the path that leader is taking leads us into division from the Body of Christ or from the proper standing of a local church, we cannot go along with him. In some cases, the assertion of authority compromises the standing of a local church, making it instead a local sect. This is because the leaders' claims to authority become the basis of receiving believers into fellowship.

afaithfulword.org/articles/DiscerningAuthority.htm


Afaithfulword.org says, quoting Nee,

“If anyone thinks that he should not be divisive, he should first bear in mind what it means to be divisive. Being divisive means being divided from the Body. The division in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to a division from the Body (v. 25), not a separation from a group which is not according to the Body." The Collected Works of W. Nee, vol. 50, p. 820)

“Thus, to depart from a sect is not an act of rebellion.

“A man can revolt only against a legitimate government; he cannot revolt against a government which is itself not legitimate. It is rebellion to separate oneself from a legitimate government, but it is not rebellion to separate oneself from a government that is not legitimate. (Nee, vol. 50, p. 824)



Are the blending brothers conducting a legitimate church government? Or not? Are they inclusive or exclusive of fellow believers? What does their track record say?


The Ground of Oneness Becomes
the Receiving of and Obedience to Deputy Authority

Introduction

The local churches have long been under the influence of the teaching of deputy authority beginning in China with Watchman Nee. When I first heard the related terms, the oracle of God, the minister of the age, the acting God, the one wise master-builder, the commander-in-chief - terms being applied to Witness Lee in the 1980s – I was in full agreement. I was in one accord with the brothers who were campaigning for the churches to line up with Witness Lee, as a universal leader, as men were swept up in full abandon to him and with strict resolve to follow him in “the Lord’s new move”. This “new move”, though, unwittingly established a new ground for meeting.

Ironically, the blending brothers describe this mutant condition “Some transmute the basis of the oneness of the believers by the assertion of their own authority to the point where the actual ground of oneness becomes acceptance of and obedience to their authority.” (Properly Discerning Spiritual Authority, DCP)

The collaboration of church members to “hand over” themselves to an apostle figure took place earlier in China under the direction of brother Nee, in full-scale manner, as it was later with Witness Lee in Taipei and the US. The church environments at these times became heavily ministry centered and focus on a leader was to the point that coming under his authority and following his leadership was “indispensable” to the oneness; their oneness, which included oneness with a man and a ministry.

A book by Lily Hsu, My Unforgettable Memories of Watchman Nee and the Shanghai Local Church (2013) is a transparent fellowship concerning brother Nee and his influence in the church, most notably the development of his spiritual authority in Shanghai and throughout China. A review of Watchman Nee’s dramatic rise in supremacy helps in understanding Witness Lee’s similar ascent and the path of the blending brothers since, as global leaders of the “local churches”. These movements engaged in by brothers Nee, Lee, and We (blending brothers) were assertive to the point where the actual ground of oneness they established was acceptance of and obedience to their authority. Standing on this narrow ground forfeited the inclusive ground of oneness in the Body and erected a high wall of division instead.


Steve Isitt

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Steel

So you will not be eating from the tree of life anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

And what about prophesying — speaking for the Lord and speaking forth the Lord — will you not be prophesying anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

If a believer is constituted with Christ... Then this believer is constituted with truth.

And there is without a doubt... Much truth being revealed in the ministry of Witness Lee.

And to say there isn't is to deny what scripture tells us... And to deny the work of the Spirit of God.

And these are two things no believer should endeavor to pursue.

Are you implying that to continue your walk with the Lord that you must involve the ministry of Witness Lee?

I fully believe I can read the Bible, and the Bible ALONE and be constituted.

Many believe this.

We don't need WL's ministry. If parts of it help you, fine. But there's no denying the accusations against him might make you carefully examine what you're reading from him. I'm not here to judge whether or not he did or didn't contribute. But, no one is without sin- Abraham, Moses, David, even Paul. Witness Lee fell short in some areas, as we all have. His ministry is not the word of God, the Bible is. If he helps some believers, great! But so do many other people.

Did he contribute? Maybe... But to hang your Christian walk on a man is wrong.

Jesus is the way, not WL.

If he contributed, that's great. But reading his ministry is not NEEDED for Christians to 1) have a relationship with Jesus 2) allow HIS leading 3) fellowship with other Christians and preach the gospel.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Witness Lee does not own the truth.

I never said or suggested he did... Nor have do I think he does.

But I certainly enjoy reading his ministry... And have profited from it in spirit.

Which is of the Lord.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Are you implying that to continue your walk with the Lord that you must involve the ministry of Witness Lee?

Not at all. Based on my own experience of walking with the Lord I know that a believer's walk is by the leading of the Spirit in our spirit. My point was simply that you can "...chuck..." out whatever books you like... Your chucking them out doesn't prove that they contain nothing regarding the truth that is revealed in scripture. All it says is that you're making a choice to try and find much of what is said in LSM resources... In other non-LSM resources.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I fully believe I can read the Bible, and the Bible ALONE and be constituted.

To a point, I know from my own experience that this is true. But... There is also the fellowship of the body to be considered. No believer is called to be a believer unto themselves. And a part of this fellowship is related to the gifts that are given to various members of the body in and through a measure of grace that these ones have received from God to carry out the purpose of their given gifts... A measure of grace that you might not have received from God.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Many believe this.

Again... I know... It was even my own experience for a time. But what we believe is not always according to the Lord's reality. And this we can know because scripture tells us that we know in part.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

We don't need WL's ministry.

Well... Only if God has willed it as such. Obviously Balam didn't think he needed his donkey to speak to him... But God had a different view. Over the years I've learned to be very careful regarding what I think I know I need.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If parts of it help you, fine.

Many parts have, and do. And, although you may deny it, I would tend to think that many parts have also helped you.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

But there's no denying the accusations against him might make you carefully examine what you're reading from him.

I've been reading about Witness Lee, the Living Stream Ministry, and the Local Church from I first came in contact with all three... A part of my professional requirement is research, and I'm very good at it... One of the reasons being that I am, and have always been, very detailed oriented. It's one of the things people have a love/hate relationship with me for... I have always been able to spot what others miss. Which often makes me very hard to deal with on forums like this.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I'm not here to judge whether or not he did or didn't contribute. But, no one is without sin- Abraham, Moses, David, even Paul.

That is a good start. But when you use phrases like "...chucking out..." you tend to certainly sound judgemental. There is an old saying... The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Witness Lee fell short in some areas, as we all have.

Absolutely no doubt in my mind that he did... Like we all do. And one doesn't need to know a thing about Witness Lee to know this... As scripture is clear that it is foolish to think any natural human can be trusted. When I came in contact with his ministry I never once thought to think Witness Lee or his minstry with infallible.

Shoot... I don't even think the scripture that I read is infallible. And I'm certainly not alone (which is why there are so many versions of it). This is why I have dozens of resources (beyond WL's ministry) that I use to consider scripture before the Lord. Scripture tells us that the Lord is building His church, and that He is doing this in and through His growth in life in all believers... And our fellowship with one another in love. That's about as clear as the matter gets. I wonder as you read the comments on this website if you can say without question that this way of the Lord's building is being expressed?

Originally Posted by kumbaya

His ministry is not the word of God, the Bible is.

I've never though of WL's ministry as scripture... I've only though of it as a resource that can help open up scripture... Much like any other resource that the Lord gives us and uses to do so. But I wonder...Can you tell me which version of scripture do you think is God's word... Seeing that there are so many different versions available?

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If he helps some believers, great! But so do many other people.

No doubt on both matters. And this is even clear in WL's ministry... Just a week or so ago I was reading a ministry footnote to scripture and only realized it wasn't actually from the ministry but was all Darby if I remember correctly. So even in WL's ministry we can see that other people can help believers.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Did he contribute? Maybe... But to hang your Christian walk on a man is wrong.

In my experience... His ministry is certainly a help. But I absolutely do not hang my hat on the man, or even His ministry. I try my best to hang my hat — abide in — Jesus Christ. He, not Witness Lee, or any other man, is my Lord and Savior.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Jesus is the way, not WL.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If he contributed, that's great. But reading his ministry is not NEEDED for Christians to 1) have a relationship with Jesus 2) allow HIS leading 3) fellowship with other Christians and preach the gospel.

I never said or suggested it was/is in any of matters... 1, 2, or 3... But you "...chucking out..." his ministry isn't either. But on the matter of "...If he contributed..." I know from my own experience that his ministry has... And I fully believe that if you're honest... You will admit that, in one way or another, and to one degree or another, it's the same for you.

And if so... Knowing inwardly that you did gain something — even a little something — from his ministry... To use the phrase "...If he contributed..." would be a bit dishonest. Maybe you had expectations that were not met. Over the years I learned to try and not have expectations. Slaves shouldn't have expectations... As we do not belong to ourselves.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Steel

I know from my own experience that his ministry has... And I fully believe that if you're honest... You will admit that, in one way or another, and to one degree or another, it's the same for you.

Why would kumbaya, or anyone for that matter, lie to themselves about something like this?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Steel

I've been reading about Witness Lee, the Living Stream Ministry, and the Local Church from I first came in contact with all three... A part of my professional requirement is research, and I'm very good at it... One of the reasons being that I am, and have always been, very detailed oriented. It's one of the things people have a love/hate relationship with me for... I have always been able to spot what others miss. Which often makes me very hard to deal with on forums like this.

In Psalm 68, the psalmist says that God will crush the head of His enemies, and the psalmist will bath his feet in their blood (vv 21,23). The footnote says, "We enjoy Christ's victory over the enemies."

But usually the psalmist is panned for being "natural" in expressing such sentiments, even in milder form. In the NT we're supposed to love our enemies, and forgive them! Never wish them ill.

See e.g., Psalm 3 footnote in v 7 "Oh that you would strike all my enemies on the cheek; and break the teeth of the wicked". Lee says that "David's prayer for vengeance against his enemies is contrary to the NT. . . yada yada".

Yet why dd David throw a rock at Goliath? Not so nice, was he? Why did Samuel smite Agag? Etc?

Why the disparity in exegetical approaches? Witness Lee never explains it. It's like one moment he decides that David is a picture of Christ, the next that he's just being "himself". Old David.

I find this to be arbitrary and inconsistent, and don't think it would stand up in an undergraduate paper, much less something published by Oxford U. Press. The whole thing smacks of a self-obsessed vanity project. No wonder Lee wouldn't subject himself to critical review.

How could several hundred or a few thousand sit quietly and uncritically while the 'minister of the age' whipsawed through scripture like this? Mesmerised, perhaps? Cowed into silence? Waiting for the cheer-leaders to start braying today's slogan? Incredible.