Ron Kangas Message

[UntoHim]

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

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

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

[aron]

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

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

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

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

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

Just smile and walk away.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

[JJ]

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

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

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

[awareness]

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curious.

Nell

[aron]

Politics and the identity of self

Originally Posted by Nell

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

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

Curious.

Nell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Yup.

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

Yup.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

No, of course not.

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

Says so right in the Life Studies.

[Meribah]

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

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

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

[Meribah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could not agree more.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Meribah

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

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

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

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Meribah

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

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

I vote for making this a featured post.

[Drake]

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

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

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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Evangelical,

But just wait.

All your arguments will crumble once R2D2 quotes are deployed.

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

[Meribah]

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

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

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

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

May the Force be with you all!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Meribah

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

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

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

[Meribah]

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Meribah

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

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

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


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

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


Dr. Vincent goes on to explain,

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

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


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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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


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

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


Dr. Vincent goes on to explain,

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

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


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

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

[Drake]

-1

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1



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

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

Drake

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

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

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

Drake

-5?

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

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

Drake

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

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

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

[Meribah]

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

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

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

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

Again, a little brother, superb response!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

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

Back to the base note....

To anon,

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

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

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Back to the base note....

To anon,

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

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

Drake

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

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

[TLFisher]

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