Quotes and Quips

[JJ]

I’ve often had a reaction to the Quotes and Quips post of the day on these boards.

Today’s Witness Wednesday quote really got me riled up because I used to believe this stuff. Here’s the quote:

“Our spirit is connected to the heavens by God as the Spirit. In spirit we are therefore in the heavens, in ascension. To live in ascension requires that we live, act, move, and do everything in our spirit. Thus, we must learn how to discern our spirit. If we do not know our spirit, if we do not know how to discern our spirit from our soul, we cannot be a spiritual person. When we live in our spirit, we are in ascension as the new creation in resurrection. We are a new person living in a new universe.”

I have a number of problems with the part in bold:

1. It makes us work for something “being ascended with Christ” that is already a given (see Ephesians 2 where we have been raised up together with Christ and seated together with Him in the heavens). What a waste of time!
2. It ends up being so self centered (I count eight “we”s) instead of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit centered.
3. This type of thinking leads to comparing oneself to other believers (“I know my spirit better than you” or “I don’t know my spirit like he or she does”) which leads to division.
4. What has this type of ministry produced in 50 years that makes us think there isn’t a problem with it, and head back into scripture instead of reading this stuff?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

3. This type of thinking leads to comparing oneself to other believers (“I know my spirit better than you” or “I don’t know my spirit like he or she does”) which leads to division.

Good point. Lee commonly made statements like his one about how we need to learn to do everything "in our spirit." I guess maybe it sounds good, but when people attempt to practice it, the first thing they look for is an example. Who knows how to live by their spirit? Who doesn't? Such considerations arise and everyone gets categorized accordingly.

[JJ]

Right. When I read the end of 1 Corinthians 2 in which Paul talks about what it is to be spiritual, he says the spirit of man knows the things of man, but The Spirit knows all things, and that we have the mind of Christ. I don’t see a place for Lee’s type of thinking in it. http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/2.htm

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Right. When I read the end of 1 Corinthians 2 in which Paul talks about what it is to be spiritual, he says the spirit of man knows the things of man, but The Spirit knows all things, and that we have the mind of Christ. I don’t see a place for Lee’s type of thinking in it. http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/2.htm

There are reasons why Lee's minions elevated him above all. Part of it was teaching the impossible, e.g. "Living the god-man life for the building of the one body of Christ without opinion consummating in the New Jerusalem by being absolutely one with God's New Testament Economy." gasp!

Another part was his constant condemnation of all things Christian. In others words, Lee was supposedly living in the stratosphere and everyone else was a dismal failure. Then I learned about all the corruption at LSM, and the Wizard behind the curtain got exposed by a dog.

The lesson to learn is that all of us are accountable, and righteousness is the foundation of His kingdom.

[JJ]

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

You need both. When I was in High School my brother and I decided to put a new stereo into the family car. We installed it ourselves and for hours could not get it to work. We went over the instructions repeatedly. Finally I asked my brother "what is this wire here?" He said "oh that is just the ground wire". I said "well let's attach it anyway, what do we have to lose?" Immediately the car filled with music.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You need both. When I was in High School my brother and I decided to put a new stereo into the family car. We installed it ourselves and for hours could not get it to work. We went over the instructions repeatedly. Finally I asked my brother "what is this wire here?" He said "oh that is just the ground wire". I said "well let's attach it anyway, what do we have to lose?" Immediately the car filled with music.

Need both what?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Need both what?

12 volt power and ground.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

Lee made it scientific. Remember all of his talk about "flipping the switch" of our spirit? His methodology needed neither God nor our faith, just open your mouth and shout.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JJ

Need both what?

You quoted Heb 4, you also need to balance that with the verse "you search the scriptures but won't come to Me".

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

2. It ends up being so self centered (I count eight “we”s) instead of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit centered.

I completely agree with the point. This has been one of my biggest problems with Lee the expositor. His message is self-focused. And he tries to get you to focus on self, on 'making it'.

Only Jesus Christ 'made it'. Lee's grave is with us to this day (cf Acts 2:29).

The unwavering core of the gospel is about ''this Jesus'' being raised to life (Acts 2:32). If we focus on this Jesus we get the Father. The Holy Spirit testifies about him, not about the 'NT believer enjoying grace'. If you focus on this Jesus you'll enjoy grace. If you focus on enjoying grace you'll delude yourself; you'll seek vain sensations, and get entangled in theoretical cobwebs, flipping imaginary "switches".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I completely agree with the point. This has been one of my biggest problems with Lee the expositor. His message is self-focused. And he tries to get you to focus on self, on 'making it'.

Good observation.

I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.

Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observation.
I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.
Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

In spite of the lack of tongue-speaking and healings, the LC is experientially charismatic: it whips members into an excited and altered state. Initially this provides some transformation as the participant's consciousness & behaviours are altered by the subjective orientation. Suddenly, heaven isn't far away but is in the next church meeting!

But eventually it becomes a dry cycle of meetings, training and conferences, and recruiting others for the same cycle. And the transformation process tails off.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observation.
I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.
Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

I felt like Jesus failed me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I felt like Jesus failed me.

Based on my decades of experience, I think your feelings are failing you, not the Lord Jesus. Sometimes it seems like you are badmouthing Him, and perhaps you hurt His feelings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In spite of the lack of tongue-speaking and healings, the LC is experientially charismatic: it whips members into an excited and altered state.

I had a few memorable "charismatic" experiences before contacting the LC, and many after. If they are truly of the Lord, then they will be life-changing and transformational. I wish every believer's experience was filled with these.

Unfortunately, like tongue-speaking and other charismatic experiences, it becomes our tendency to replicate them without the Lord. This can be very dangerous to our faith, because as soon as we face fiery trials, we may only know feelings, and before we know it, can have become spiritually bankrupt.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I had a few memorable "charismatic" experiences before contacting the LC, and many after. If they are truly of the Lord, then they will be life-changing and transformational. I wish every believer's experience was filled with these.

Unfortunately, like tongue-speaking and other charismatic experiences, it becomes our tendency to replicate them without the Lord. This can be very dangerous to our faith, because as soon as we face fiery trials, we may only know feelings, and before we know it, can have become spiritually bankrupt.

Another thing that is interesting about the development of thought in the LC: I notice that they're not terribly interested in the actual person of Jesus Christ. Instead, "Christ" is some feeling like "peace" or "joy". So they chase sensations, hoping that it brings transformation and eternal reward.

Secondly, and related, are abstract concepts like "consummation" and "processed". Like if you jump up and down excitedly, wave your arms, and shout today's theology you'll make it.

And the person of Jesus, the person that Peter knew so well, the "This Jesus" that Peter saw suffering and triumphant in Acts 2:36, the actual person who Peter said "went around doing good works" in Acts 10:38, slowly recedes from view.

Instead, they'll sit in a circle in someone's living room and go over today's theological template. Instead of a person they get a concept.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Another thing that is interesting about the development of thought in the LC: I notice that they're not terribly interested in the actual person of Jesus Christ. Instead, "Christ" is some feeling like "peace" or "joy". So they chase sensations, hoping that it brings transformation and eternal reward.

I'm sure Lee and his future Blendeds had much "peace and joy" when those who called for justice against Philip Lee were all silenced. The endless quest for "peace and joy" can cause our ruin.

That's quite a bit different from the "peaceable fruit of righteousness" in Heb 12.11.

Originally Posted by aron

Instead, they'll sit in a circle in someone's living room and go over today's theological template. Instead of a person they get a concept.

That "concept" can contain endless doctrines, and many from the Bible.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You quoted Heb 4, you also need to balance that with the verse "you search the scriptures but won't come to Me".

Yes, great verse. I don't get how that balances Heb 4 on the topic of discerning soul from spirit though.

I understood the antennae and ground wire thing though. Heard that quite a few times in TLR

I'm loving what the rest of you are saying on this topic

[JJ]

“Why do so many Christians pray such tiny prayers when their God is so big?”
Today’s quote can be taken as encouragement to pray “big things” to our big God. But does it also have a spirit of superiority over fellow believers in it?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by W. Nee

Why do so many Christians pray such tiny prayers when their God is so big?

This quote of Nee also caught my attention. Nee makes two faulty assumptions: 1) Christians only pray simplistic or 'tiny' prayers and 2) There is something wrong with praying for the more trivial things.

I remember as I was growing up in the LC, we were always told that we need to develop a relationship with the Lord through prayer. However, those leading us would always come in and try to qualify things. They told us not to pray "help me" prayers, because the Lord doesn't want to help us, he wants to be our all. They told us not to pray for trivial things because it didn't advance God's economy. It thus left us in a state of wondering what we could pray for. One of the things that this resulted in is that we developed a tendency to try to come up with prayers that would 'impress' everyone, especially in large gatherings.

I am reminded of what Jesus said:
Matt 6:5-7 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

The Bible would suggest that what some in the LC might call 'weighty' prayers are nothing more than vain prayers. I'm not saying that all such prayers are vain, however, it could be a lot more than people in the LC realize. I remember attending prayer meetings, we would pray for an hour or more - God's economy this, Lord's move that. Most of the time I had no clue what specifically anyone was praying for. But it did sound impressive.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JJ

Yes, great verse. I don't get how that balances Heb 4 on the topic of discerning soul from spirit though.

I understood the antennae and ground wire thing though. Heard that quite a few times in TLR

I'm loving what the rest of you are saying on this topic

In the gospels Jesus said they searched the scriptures but didn't come to Him. The warning being that simply reading and studying the Bible might not lead you to a closer walk with the Lord.

Hebrews says that the word of God is a sharp two edged sword that is able to discern the thoughts and intents and separate the soul from the spirit.

Being able to do something doesn't presuppose that it will do it. A tuned piano is able to play very beautiful music, doesn't mean it will.

The word of God is the sharp two edged sword able to do this, but just because you are handling the Bible doesn't mean you will discern the spirit (just like those who didn't come to Jesus). We need to understand that this is a goal for us.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember attending prayer meetings, we would pray for an hour or more - God's economy this, Lord's move that. Most of the time I had no clue what specifically anyone was praying for. But it did sound impressive.

I think most of it is acculturation - "Blah blah blah BLAH!!" ("Ayyeeemeeen") blah blah blah blah BLAH!!" ("Ayyeeemeeen").

Acculturation is participation in, and assimilation of, group culture. The LC is subjective at its core, and this allows members to experience group dynamics via conscious participation. Just do the group prayer mode, with sing-song tonality and ministry verbiage. And then you are "in".

For example, if you use the word "economy" or "process" or "vital" in LC group prayer, you are not praying a tiny prayer but are being expansive. Nee and Lee were your portals into a supposedly larger realm.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the gospels Jesus said they searched the scriptures but didn't come to Him. The warning being that simply reading and studying the Bible might not lead you to a closer walk with the Lord.

Hebrews says that the word of God is a sharp two edged sword that is able to discern the thoughts and intents and separate the soul from the spirit.

Being able to do something doesn't presuppose that it will do it. A tuned piano is able to play very beautiful music, doesn't mean it will.

The word of God is the sharp two edged sword able to do this, but just because you are handling the Bible doesn't mean you will discern the spirit (just like those who didn't come to Jesus). We need to understand that this is a goal for us.

OK. Thanks for helping me understand your point, which is well taken.

I reread Hebrews 4 http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm, and note there is an exhortation to come forward with boldness to the throne of grace through Jesus immediately following the part I had quoted. That supports your point.

[aron]

Today's quote by Hudson Taylor: "God's work done God's way will never lack God's supplies". I wonder why the LSM always has an "urgent need" somewhere? This seems to be a minstry of need.

Look at a HWMR some time, in the outline. "We need to do this" and "We must do that". Always the imposition of need.

[Freedom]

The food we eat does a constituting work within us. This is a picture of our Christian life. We need to eat Christ as the living bread from heaven embodied in His words of eternal life, as the tree of life. By eating Christ we can be constituted and supplied with Him as our life element so that we can grow in life and be transformed in life.
Witness Lee
From AllinclusiveChrist.Org

WL often spoke about eating Christ, and this topic was one of the major themes of his ministry. More and more, however, I can't help but notice how much he misrepresented the context of this subject. WL taught that to eat Christ is to become constituted with Christ, or later on he taught that to eat Christ is to become Christ. Consequently, when discussing the subject of eating Christ, LCers will often say things like "you are what you eat." That is hyperbole, however, and it is the context under which they intend to understand the concept of eating Christ.

Peter's words in John 6 to provide a bit of context as to what Jesus was really talking about: "But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Like everyone else, the disciples didn't really understand what Jesus was talking about, but at least Peter already understood that by following Jesus, they had found eternal life. So when Jesus said that by eating Him, they would have life, I’m sure Peter must have picked up on the fact that Jesus wasn’t speaking about cannibalism, but it was related to eternal life.

Jesus was clear that eternal life is gained by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He was also clear that to eat Him is to abide in Him, which would suggest a metaphorical view of eating Christ for sustenance/growth. What He never spoke about was eating for the mere sake of constitution - what I would call “eating for the sake of eating.” Simply put, LCer have the wrong goal in mind.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

...will often say things like "you are what you eat." That is hyperbole, however, and it is the context under which they intend to understand the concept of eating Christ.

And yet... Today we know from science that organically speaking, we are in fact, what we eat...

And the same principle is found in spiritual matters...

You even say this in your below speaking...

Originally Posted by Freedom

...He was also clear that to eat Him is to abide in Him, which would suggest a metaphorical view of eating Christ for sustenance/growth. What He never spoke about was eating for the mere sake of constitution - what I would call “eating for the sake of eating.”

But both sustenance and growth are matters/aspects of constitution.

Nothing I have read in WL's ministry says or even suggests that eating Christ is only for the "...sake of eating...".

And more...

There is no such thing as "...eating for the sake of eating...".

Eating has a spontaneous result regarding its effect on the person doing the eating.

A person cannot eat Christ without a result of being both sustained by Christ in doing so and growing by Christ by doing so.

And this from my experience is fairly common understanding among believers who meet as the local church.

Originally Posted by Freedom

...Simply put, LCer have the wrong goal in mind.

Oh Lord...

Is there any end to this nonsense speaking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Steel

And yet... Today we know from science that organically speaking, we are in fact, what we eat...

Isn't eating Jesus partaking of the Eucharist?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Steel

And yet... Today we know from science that organically speaking, we are in fact, what we eat...

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by JJ

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

In let's also use the God given gift of sound reasoning.

With that we can clearly see that transubstantiation is nonsense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

Agreed!

I remember one training meeting, huge audience, and a young brother was all excited to prophesy "we are what we eat!"

He then went on saying, "If you eat chicken, you become ..."

He caught himself at that point, and stopped momentarily. The audience chuckled.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus told his disciples, "He who eats Me, shall also live by Me."

Jesus did not say, "He who eats Me, shall also become Me."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Steel

But both sustenance and growth are matters/aspects of constitution.

Nothing I have read in WL's ministry says or even suggests that eating Christ is only for the "...sake of eating...".

And more...

There is no such thing as "...eating for the sake of eating...".

Eating has a spontaneous result regarding its effect on the person doing the eating.

A person cannot eat Christ without a result of being both sustained by Christ in doing so and growing by Christ by doing so.

And this from my experience is fairly common understanding among believers who meet as the local church.

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution. It is a matter of necessity. That is why we eat. WL seemed to have ignored that fact. In the LC, they will make declarations like "eating is the way!" Or the lyrics of a song come to mind "eat, eat more of Jesus..." They make such declarations all the time, encouraging people to 'eat'.

But absent from the equation is the 'why' part of it all. That is why I called it eating for the sake of eating. If someone literally had a motto of "eating is the way" then it would be safe to assume that they have an eating disorder. That is what I'm trying to get at here. All WL's talk about eating was imbalanced. He claimed other Christians didn't understand or pay attention to the matter of eating. I would argue instead that he was overly focused on it, thus creating the illusion that others didn't give it any thought.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution. It is a matter of necessity. That is why we eat. WL seemed to have ignored that fact. In the LC, they will make declarations like "eating is the way!" Or the lyrics of a song come to mind "eat, eat more of Jesus..." They make such declarations all the time, encouraging people to 'eat'.

But absent from the equation is the 'why' part of it all. That is why I called it eating for the sake of eating. If someone literally had a motto of "eating is the way" then it would be safe to assume that they have an eating disorder. That is what I'm trying to get at here. All WL's talk about eating was imbalanced. He claimed other Christians didn't understand or pay attention to the matter of eating. I would argue instead that he was overly focused on it, thus creating the illusion that others didn't give it any thought.

Freedom, I remember a song in the Supplement, with the words "eating, eating, eating." We sang it with great gusto and enthusiasm -> "Oh Lord Jesus!"

The way to eating Jesus was : "Calling on the Lord," and "Prayreading the scripture."

And we were told that by doing those things we would be transformed into the image of Christ.

I was excited about that. I was becoming divine! And all I had to do was call on the Lord, and prayread the Bible! Yea! Lord! Amen!

Spoiler alert: It didn't work. All it did was make me look and act silly. It was grasping at vapors.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Freedom, I remember a song in the Supplement, with the words "eating, eating, eating." We sang it with great gusto and enthusiasm -> "Oh Lord Jesus!"

The way to eating Jesus was : "Calling on the Lord," and "Prayreading the scripture."

And we were told that by doing those things we would be transformed into the image of Christ.

I was excited about that. I was becoming divine! And all I had to do was call on the Lord, and prayread the Bible! Yea! Lord! Amen!

Spoiler alert: It didn't work. All it did was make me look and act silly. It was grasping at vapors.

Freedom is right: it is unbalanced. "Eating is the way" is not the way.

Luke 16 has the parable of the steward. Repeatedly uses the word 'oikonomiea', or economy. Not translated as 'dispensing but rather 'management's or 'stewardship'. You think Jesus didn't know about God's economy, here? It's about obedience, not eating.

Jesus was obedient, we weren't. Now our faith in his obedience restores us.

Jesus said, "My food is to do the Father's will." It's about obedience.

The disciples asked, "What work can we do" to please the Father. Jesus said, "Believe". It's still about obedience. Just as he obeyed the Father, now we obey him. John 14:21; 15:10.

Remember Aaron's oldest sons? They sat in front of God, they ate and drank, they got halfway down the mountain & were vaporized. Eating wasn't sufficient.

The children of Israel ate heavenly manna for 40 years in the wilderness. But they died there. Eating wasn't sufficient; eating wasn't "the way".

[Steel]

Originally Posted by awareness

It didn't work. All it did was make me look and act silly. It was grasping at vapors.

Or maybe you simply stopped a day early and therefore came up a dollar short.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution.

Oy vey.

If the above quoted response is indicative of your growth in life, then perhaps the matter of eating the Lord is a bit too much meat for you.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by JJ

Our objection, Steel, is that eating chicken, or carrots, or wheat don’t make us chicken, carrots, or wheat. Neither does eating Jesus make us Jesus. We need to be careful about what scripture actually says and doesn’t say. And stick with that.

No... Eating chicken won't make you a chicken.

In the organic realm, that's what DNA is for.

But according to scripture...

In a spiritual sense, the more time we spend before the Lord considering the Lord... And doing so in and through the life of the Lord... We will be like Him.

Which is the reality that the following scripture verse is speaking to...

1 John 3:2... "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is."

To "...see Him..." is akin to our eating Him.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Eating is not done for the purpose of constitution.

uh ....Freedom,

Stop eating. After 40 days let us know what happened to your genetic constitution.

thanks,
Drake

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Agreed!

I remember one training meeting, huge audience, and a young brother was all excited to prophesy "we are what we eat!"

He then went on saying, "If you eat chicken, you become ..."

He caught himself at that point, and stopped momentarily. The audience chuckled.

Actually...

What is contained in the chicken we eat actually becomes a part of us.

Perhaps you should take some time to check out the science behind nutrition and how it affects the human body.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Drake

uh ....Freedom,

Stop eating. After 40 days let us know what happened to your genetic constitution.

thanks,
Drake

LOL...

Okay... That made me laugh.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by awareness

In let's also use the God given gift of sound reasoning.

With that we can clearly see that transubstantiation is nonsense.

I don't know what you've been reading... But nothing I've read even hints of the folly religious doctrine of transubstatiation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Stop eating. After 40 days let us know what happened to your genetic constitution.

Stop obeying the Lord for 3 days and let us know what happens to your "sense of life".

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Stop obeying the Lord for 3 days and let us know what happens to your "sense of life".

That too, aron!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Steel

To "...see Him..." is akin to our eating Him.

I find this amusing. On par with "Riding on a boat in the Tennessee River is akin to listening to Frank Sinatra". Um, yeah. . . okay.

To see is not enough. To obey is necessary. "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" implies that it's possible to be disobedient to the heavenly vision. Otherwise the author wouldn't have written that.

The two sons of Aaron sat there, ate and drank, with the 70 elders, and Dad, and Uncle Moses. They saw the blue expanse, the sapphire stones. They saw all the divine sights, just like everyone else. But they never made it off the mountain.

Seeing is not enough. Just like eating is not enough. Obedience is the way - not our obedience, but Jesus'. Our faith is not in ourselves but Him, in His obedience. When you get that, you get saved. Until you get that, you strive in vain, including your "eating".

(when I say 'you' here, of course I'm speaking of my own subjective experiences and impressions. Others may have other experiences).

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Steel

Actually...

What is contained in the chicken we eat actually becomes a part of us.

Perhaps you take some time to check out the science behind nutrition and how it affects the human body.

Not really. The protein gets broken down into amino acids, the lipids get broken down into fatty acids, the carbohydrates get broken down into sugars, the nucleic acids get broken down into phosphate groups and nucleotides. None of these are chicken-specific, they all come from the corn and grains the chicken eats. But, when we contact the Lord Jesus in our spirits by prayer somehow he sanctifies us and transforms us; which occurred before WN/WL/LSM and continues today and tomorrow with or without LSM. LSM may play a part, but it is not essential to what God is doing on the earth today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not really. The protein gets broken down into amino acids, the lipids get broken down into fatty acids, the carbohydrates get broken down into sugars, the nucleic acids get broken down into phosphate groups and nucleotides. None of these are chicken-specific, they all come from the corn and grains the chicken eats. But, when we contact the Lord Jesus in our spirits by prayer somehow he sanctifies us and transforms us; which occurred before WN/WL/LSM and continues today and tomorrow with or without LSM. LSM may play a part, but it is not essential to what God is doing on the earth today.

Thanks for the nutritional science info, HERn.

Contrary to Lee and his Blindeds, the Bible never says that we become God by PSRPing outlines from LSM.

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Steel

Or maybe you simply stopped a day early and therefore came up a dollar short.

I would never doubt it if someone said they experienced the Lord's presence through pray reading- because it's not my place to judge their experience.

I also think, this "practice" of corporate pray-reading falls suspiciously and too close for comfort, next to thought reform techniques and group think strategies.

Even if that wasn't the intent, it comes down to a personal preference. MANY people (myself included) tried this for years with no fruitful experience.

I think we should (as bro and sis's in Christ) give each other the benefit of the doubt and not call it a "user error" by saying we may have stopped a day early and came up a dollar short. That's just not fair.

If pray reading was talked about in the Bible- fine. But, it's not. To push this practice just isn't right. It's not going to work for everyone and every personality- and that's ok.

If some people like it, fine. I personally don't- and that's fine too.

My issue is mainly on the practices being forced in a group setting. It caused more harm to me spiritually than it ever helped me!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If pray reading was talked about in the Bible- fine. But, it's not. To push this practice just isn't right. It's not going to work for everyone and every personality- and that's ok.

If some people like it, fine. I personally don't- and that's fine too.

My issue is mainly on the practices being forced in a group setting. It caused more harm to me spiritually than it ever helped me!

I think that Ray Graver's book on Pray reading does a good job of presenting the Biblical practice of praying the word. I think it is also telling that LSM has chosen not to publish this book because it does nothing to support the practice as it is done in the LRC. I was there when Ray was researching this book (he was using the library at my University so I saw him on numerous occasions). This took place prior to the practice of "pray reading the ministry".

Shortly after this the plans for Irving center were being made, Ray would be in charge of that, and the "gold bars" would be ready at that time. Publishing the "gold bars" took special printers that we did not have at the time. The "gold bars" were nicknamed that in part because getting the saints to pay $50 to $100 for a recovery version, perhaps several per family, would be a cornerstone to the economic viability of LSM.

Ed Marks was the first to really promote the practice in Houston. This, in my mind, was a marketing ploy. Many saints had copies of the various RV versions in their book bags from trainings, and they had other Bibles perfectly suitable for the meeting. But if you are going to pray read footnotes you have no choice, you have to have the RV to participate and the more expensive $100 one at that.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by aron

Stop obeying the Lord for 3 days and let us know what happens to your "sense of life".

To stop obeying the Lord is the same as to stop eating the Lord.

So in the manner that there will be a negative effect that will happen to your body's constitution if you stop eating for forty days... There will be a negative effect if you stop obeying (eating) the Lord for three days.

[Freedom]

Old Testament narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden meanings

The above quote caught my attention, and got me thinking as to just how much WL's view of Bible interpretation differed from how most people would approach the Bible.

Anyone could allegorize a story, but just because there is the potential for that doesn't mean the allegory is correct or that an allegory was ever intended.

Those who follow Lee's ministry operate upon the notion that he had some sort of insight that others didn't. Whether they will admit it or not, they believe that there is something esoteric about the Bible which prevents the average person from being able to understand or interpret the Bible.

I think this notion was largely due to the fact that WL introduced all kinds of allegories that seemingly made sense of complex passages. No one else would have thought of these allegories, simply because they were unique to WL. So that is what made his teachings seem so 'unique'. But had people sought to question what he was doing in the first place, maybe they might have realized that he could just have easily been making all those allegories up.

[Ohio]

Great points.

Who knew that all those verses in Leviticus about leprosy could one day be allegorized by Lee and the Blendeds and then applied to Midwest LC's for playing drums and electric guitars?

[UntoHim]

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.

I think many people have a tendency, if even subconsciously, to replace character with "spirituality". Replacing character for spirituality can all too easily get us off the hook for our words, actions and especially treatment of others. Maybe this is why Jesus taught that the second greatest commandment is "love your neighbor as yourself", and not "lock yourself in your room and pray and read your Bible all day".

Billy Graham surely valued character over spirituality. Maybe, just maybe, this is why God blessed his ministry so much, and maybe this is why he lived until the age of 99. Just me thinkin out loud.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.

Billy Graham surely valued character over spirituality. Maybe, just maybe, this is why God blessed his ministry so much, and maybe this is why he lived until the age of 99. Just me thinkin out loud.
-

Here's another BG quote I love:

“It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict, God's job to judge and my job to love.”

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

It is a fact that God wants to destroy every work of our flesh, but He never desires to destroy our personality. He takes no pleasure in transforming us into an automaton; Rather He delights in having us cooperate with Him.

According to what the LCM teaches, what they will refer to as "the flesh" is something synonymous with personality. Individuality is frowned upon, and for a rank and file member to initiate anything is out of the question.

This is something I found to be utterly frustrating in the LCM. On the one hand, the elders would make us feel insignificant, claiming that we were all too passive. Then, when anyone tried to initiative anything, they were there waiting to shoot down the initiative.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The above quote caught my attention, and got me thinking as to just how much WL's view of Bible interpretation differed from how most people would approach the Bible.

No doubt about it... Most people approach scripture from the POV of whoever/whatever they hold to... Such as is related to institutionalism, examples of which are Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, and Luthereanism, or related to following people, examples of which are Creflo Dollar, Charles Stanley, and Rick Warren. And Lee would have been no different.

And scripture even speaks to this matter of humans holding to things... And doing so in and out of our natural affinities... Truth be told, I believe this is even clearly exposed in your own above quoted speaking.

Tell me... Who exactly were you referring to with your use of the phrase "...most people..."?

There are 8 billion people in the world... Were you thinking of 90% of these eight billion people?... Or perhaps, were you thinking of those people who share your own social environment?

See how that works... Even in simple things like our speaking.

Now I agree with you that most people will approach scripture from a different POV than Lee... And do so for this reason... Scripture has been hijacked by folly religion of almost two thousand years, and as a result, most people have been influenced by what religion has to say about scripture... Which differs in many things from what Lee says in his ministry.

And I am confronted by this almost every day... First within the speaking of unbelievers, who think they know something of scripture because they've picked up bits and pieces of speaking on it as they experienced their life... And second, within the speaking of believers who hold to/participate in the profusion of denominations/non-denominations found within Christianity, and think they know something of scripture because they've picked up bits and pieces of speaking as they've experienced the mutitude of differing speaking found in the environment they meet within.

Shoot... I even encounter this within my own extended family.

Natural affinity is a very powerful infuence Freedom... Which is why we read in scripture... John 3:30... "He must increase, but I must decrease."

Originally Posted by Freedom

Anyone could allegorize a story, but just because there is the potential for that doesn't mean the allegory is correct or that an allegory was ever intended.

Again... No doubt about it.

Which is why God, in His infinite wisdom... Gave us the Spirit in our regenerated spirit... 1 Corinthains 3:16... "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"

And why did God do this? . . . John 16:13... "But when He, the Spirit of reality, comes, He will guide you into all the reality; for He will not speak from Himself, but what He hears He will speak; and He will declare to you the things that are coming." . . . Romans 8:14... "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God."

You want to know the reality of all that you are hearing/reading/experiencing... Turn to the Spirit of God, who is in your regenerated spirit.

And BTW... The above speaking is a foundational pillar in Witness Lee's ministry... And is not so much a foundational pillar in many of the more recognized religions in Christianity.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those who follow Lee's ministry operate upon the notion that he had some sort of insight that others didn't.

I certainly appreciate Lee's ministry... And reference it many times each day in my own speaking... But not because of the person of Lee... But because I am fully convinced that the Lord leads me to do so.

Scripture tells us that God can make a rock praise Him... That God can form an army out of dry bones... That God can cause a donkey to speak... Tell me... What "...insight..." did the rocks have... Or the dry bones have... Or the donkey have... In order for God to cause any of these things to carry out what He desired? . . . And... Is it not true to say that in each case, God caused each of these things to "...have insight..." that others didn't?

Tell me... Why is it that I can see this, and speak it to you... But you seem to not be able to do either... Is it because I have insight that you don't have?

Originally Posted by Freedom

Whether they will admit it or not, they believe that there is something esoteric about the Bible which prevents the average person from being able to understand or interpret the Bible.

Do you believe what scripture says... If so... Tell us what the following scripture verse is saying... 1 Corinthians 12:4-11... "But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit;... And there are distinctions of ministries, yet the same Lord;... And there are distinctions of operations, but the same God, who operates all things in all... But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is profitable... For to one through the Spirit a word of wisdom is given, and to another a word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit;... To a different one faith in the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing in the one Spirit,... And to another operations of works of power, and to another prophecy, and to another discerning of spirits; to a different one various kinds of tongues, and to another interpretation of tongues... But the one and the same Spirit operates all these things, distributing to each one respectively even as He purposes."

As sctripture clearly tells us, Freedom... It is not a matter of a believer either being "...average..." or not "...average..." . . . It is a matter of God's "... distributing to each one respectively even as He purposes."

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think this notion was largely due to the fact that WL introduced all kinds of allegories that seemingly made sense of complex passages.

Or maybe... As scripture tells us... God simply chose to distribute a gift according to His purpose.

Originally Posted by Freedom

No one else would have thought of these allegories, simply because they were unique to WL. So that is what made his teachings seem so 'unique'. But had people sought to question what he was doing in the first place, maybe they might have realized that he could just have easily been making all those allegories up.

Years before I started reading the Ministry of Witness Lee I had been studying the first two chapters of Genesis... And came to see that the speaking on creation was a perfect allegory to the manifestation of God's economy as it relates to the full salvation of man.

I didn't come by this because I read it or heard it in someone's ministry... I was simply doing my own study before the Lord and saw it on day... Then years later when reading Witness Lee's ministry I saw that he had pretty much a similar revelation... And that was revelation of just one of a few other matters that I found in his ministry that I had experienced myself many years before touching Lee's ministry.

So... As one of those people who reads and speaks from Lee's ministry... I don't do so because "...No one else would have thought of these allegories, simply because they were unique to WL..."... I do so because I believe/know that in Lee's speaking is much help regarding the unveiling of the infinite revelation of God that is within scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is something I found to be utterly frustrating in the LCM. On the one hand, the elders would make us feel insignificant, claiming that we were all too passive. Then, when anyone tried to initiative anything, they were there waiting to shoot down the initiative.

You are not the only one. In this regard, living with Cleveland was the same as with LSM in Anaheim. All the time we heard that we each had a ministry to build up, yet we were also told we cannot "use the church" to build it up.

What??? Let's look at this for a minute.

Firstly, how did W. Lee and Titus Chu build up their own ministries, if not on the back of the LC's?

Secondly, why can't a local church, under the guidance of her elders, and with the support of her saints, help to build up one's ministry? Does any one really think that when the Head of the body "gave gifts," (Eph 4.11-12) that these ones would be entirely self-sufficient?

Why not be helped by one's church? Because that ministry would then be a "threat" to headquarters, to the established ruling hierarchy.

At my 2nd LC in Columbus, we had a gifted minister named Philip Comfort. He was passionate, loved the word of God, and loved to teach the church. But unwittingly he became a "threat" to TC, and so TC demanded that he relocate to Cleveland where he could receive "further perfecting." In plain words, TC mercilessly beat poor Phil into submission, accusing him of a host of shortcomings and flaws, all the while shaming him in front of all the other Midwest leaders. Poor Phil returned to Columbus a broken man, and all the leaders there lost all respect for TC. 25 years later one of these elders was instrumental in successfully suing both Columbus and Mansfield for their meeting halls for LSM. TC has this way of producing more "enemies" than "perfected" brothers. The last I heard Phil's name in the LC, TC was shaming an elder brother in Hanover Park, IL for not restoring him to the "fellowship," as if it was all his fault.

Slowly Phil Comfort and his gift got "recovered" by the Lord, but not in the LC's. He went back to school, honing his writing and teachings skills, and today Dr. Philip Comfort has become a Wheaton College professor, an established author, and a well-respected Greek scholar, benefiting the entire body of Christ. To God be the glory.

[A little brother]

Steel, sorry that I would be off-topic here. I think brother Igzy also asked earlier about your use of the ellipsis. May be you would like to refer to the following link:

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.html

Specifically, "Like the exclamation point, the ellipsis is at risk of overuse."

I did a rough count, there are about 78 ellipses in your previous post.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Steel, sorry that I would be off-topic here. I think brother Igzy also asked earlier about your use of the ellipsis. May be you would like to refer to the following link:

http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.html

Specifically, "Like the exclamation point, the ellipsis is at risk of overuse."

I did a rough count, there are about 78 ellipses in your previous post.

No problem... I write for a living, and have done so fairly successfully for some 20 years... And have the website you give above bookmarked... As well as have a library of books on English grammar.

But I'm certainly open to the Lord's perfecting in all that I do... And I'll check with Him regarding your thoughts... As I did regarding Igzy's.

Maybe you could do the same regarding my thoughts towards your own speaking... And Igzy as well.

Praise the Lord for fellowship in life that builds.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Slowly Phil Comfort and his gift got "recovered" by the Lord, but not in the LC's. He went back to school, honing his writing and teachings skills, and today Dr. Philip Comfort has become a Wheaton College professor, an established author, and a well-respected Greek scholar, benefiting the entire body of Christ. To God be the glory.

Do you think God allowing this brother to go through the experiences He allowed him to go through... Including his LC experience... Benefitted him... And has by extension benefitted "...the entire body of Christ..." as a result?

Or do you think that all that God allowed our brother, Phillip Confort, to experience before God "recovered" him after his experience with the LC, was of no value... And just a loss of time to his growth in the life of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Steel

Do you think God allowing this brother to go through the experiences He allowed him to go through... Including his LC experience... Benefited him... And has by extension benefited "...the entire body of Christ..." as a result?

Or do you think that all that God allowed our brother, Phillip Comfort, to experience before God "recovered" him after his experience with the LC, was of no value... And just a loss of time to his growth in the life of God?

We have a great, wise, and loving Father who is able to make all things work together for good.

We also have a righteous, just, and avenging Lord who says, "vengeance is mine," when God's children are stumbled.

Stories like PC's, and so many others on this forum, show us both aspects of our God.

PC would probably say that he loved studying the Word and ministering to us. He would not agree with TC's abusive ways towards many brothers, supposedly a way of "perfecting" the brothers, "recovered" and passed down from Margaret Barber via W. Nee and W. Lee.

I would ask you where is the scriptural support for these ministerial abuses, i.e. shaming, belittling, and humiliating brothers and sisters, which is far too common in the LC's. Have you read the Thread of Gold book by a loving and devoted sister in the Texas LC's? Please read chapter 1 and then answer your same questions for us.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would ask you where is the scriptural support for these ministerial abuses, i.e. shaming, belittling, and humiliating brothers and sisters, which is far too common in the LC's.

In 1989 my sister, older than me by one year+, drank Draino in an attempt to commit suicide. She was born again, but had become involved with an older man if Indian (from India) heritage. In their relationship she gave up most everything to become acceptable to him and his family. Then one Christmas he said that he had to go on a business trip to India. But my sister found out that he had gone to meet women and their families who his parents had set up meetings with regarding their arranging a marriage for him as was their custom. My sister was devastate, and in a moment of utter weakness sought to take her life. But she didn't succeed.

At least, not for two weeks. You see, she didn't die right away, it took the acid in the Draino two weeks to eat through all of her vital organs. She died early one morning... Having said to me the day before that she didn't want to die.

And I had had been at her side as she went through this.

How can I love a God who would allow this to happen to His own child... My sister who was just 27 years old.

Some seven years before the above happened, I was at home with my family. We had gone to bed. Then around one in the morning I heard a loud shattering of glass and my parents scream out. Gunmen/robbers had broken through the window in their bedroom. I instinctively ran from my room up to their room and was confronted by a man pointing a gun at me. He fired it from maybe ten feet away. The bullet missed, by for an hour my mother, step-father, and myself suffered beatings — my mother was raped. I was just seventeen, and couldn't for the life of me understand why this would happen to people who just tried to live good, simple lives.

Should I continue with my experiences?

What is the scriptural support for the way God allowed my sister to die, even though all she was doing was trying her best to love someone?

What is the scriptural support for God allowing my mother to be raped and myself to be beaten, even though all we ever tried to do was treat others in a proper manner?

Life... That which we live out daily on this earth... According to the time God has given us on it... Is often a "...far too common..." horrible experience for many.

You ask me for scriptural support for what people go through... Even believers when among other believers...

Most of the time I simply have to turn to this scripture verse...

Matthew 22:37... "And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.''

Why?

Because apart from my doing so... There will never be any expression of the following scripture verse in or through me...

Matthew 22:39... "And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.''

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Steel

How can I love a God who would allow this to happen to His own child... My sister who was just 27 years old.

The Bible is filled with the stories of God's people suffering horrible things. The same can be said about all the posters here. Who has not know unexplainable tragedy?

These earth suits we wear are just disposable outfits. This earth is not our home. Everything we can see with our eyes is temporary, and is passing away.

Read what Paul says at the end of Romans 8:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Steel

In 1989 my sister, older than me by one year+, drank Draino in an attempt to commit suicide. She was born again, but had become involved with an older man if Indian (from India) heritage...

Dear beloved brother Steel: What you have written is very sad and troubles me. Please don't be offended if I suggest that you talk with a Christian therapist. I know that I have benefited and my family has benefited several times. I guess I have learned that God is not my sugar daddy. Sometimes I think God can be brutal. God the Father allowed His Son to suffer such horrible physical, psychological, and spiritual pain that I cannot imagine. But, our Christ took it on for our benefit. I don't know why God allows "bad" things, but He does. Somehow He works all things together to our benefit. I am still struggling in this area, and have found that members of the Body have greatly helped me. May our Lord love you.

[OnHisPath]

Originally Posted by Steel

No... Eating chicken won't make you a chicken.

In the organic realm, that's what DNA is for.

But according to scripture...

In a spiritual sense, the more time we spend before the Lord considering the Lord... And doing so in and through the life of the Lord... We will be like Him.

Which is the reality that the following scripture verse is speaking to...

1 John 3:2... "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is."

To "...see Him..." is akin to our eating Him.

Steel, since you said "But according to scripture..." could you please list some of those scriptures which speak to spending time before the Lord and considering the Lord causing us to be like Him? I am not challenging the concept, just would like to see some verses. As an aside, "considering" is something we do with our minds and yet the LC seems to put our mind as being at odds with our spirit (which no doubt can happen but I do not believe the mind/spirit relationship to be exactly as the LC puts forth).

Also, what support do you have for the statement to "'...see Him...' is akin to our eating Him."? 1 John 3:2 does not hint at the aspect of "eating" Christ.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

To say that we are the same as God in His Godhead is a great blasphemy, but if we say that we cannot be the same as God in life, nature, expression, and function, this is unbelief.

WL frequently made statements like this, that is, he would insist that not accepting his position is the equivalent of something like 'unbelief'. It put his followers in the awkward position of both having to accept his claim and also having to automatically discredit those who didn't hold that view. I don't know many Christians who would accept the claim that Lee made about becoming the same of God. Thus, when such statements are accepted uncritically, it leads to the disparaging view of Christianity that exists in the LCM.

[Sons to Glory!]

To say that we are the same as God in His Godhead is a great blasphemy, but if we say that we cannot be the same as God in life, nature, expression, and function, this is unbelief. - WL

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL frequently made statements like this, that is, he would insist that not accepting his position is the equivalent of something like 'unbelief'. It put his followers in the awkward position of both having to accept his claim and also having to automatically discredit those who didn't hold that view. I don't know many Christians who would accept the claim that Lee made about becoming the same of God. Thus, when such statements are accepted uncritically, it leads to the disparaging view of Christianity that exists in the LCM.

I'm glad you mentioned this, since it was on the homepage quote for the day (or whatever it's called). So yes, you are right. But it does get one thinking, does it not? And this is where WL got into trouble with some Christians as it seems to be making us too much like God.

But if we break it down what he said - "the same in God's life, nature & expression" - and add relevant verses, is it far-fetched? I don't think so. (nonetheless still astounding and amazing beyond description!)

• Life - "He came that we might have (zoe - God's eternal) life." (too many verses on this)
• Nature - "That we might become partakers of the divine nature"
• Expression - "The glory Father you have given to Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one."

Christians are always wondering if something has gone too far, which they rightly should. But then often fall prey to not going far enough! "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it come up in the heart of man what God has in store for them that love Him." WL did push those accepted boundaries.

[JJ]

Today’s quote from Watchman Nee: “How true it is that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit intellect not only is undependable but also extremely dangerous, because it often confuses the issue of right
and wrong.”

Where did this quote come from, Unto Him?

I don’t want to say anything about it without context.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by JJ

Today’s quote from Watchman Nee: “How true it is that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit intellect not only is undependable but also extremely dangerous, because it often confuses the issue of right
and wrong.”

Where did this quote come from, Unto Him?

I don’t want to say anything about it without context.

I'll go ahead and say something about it without context because it reminded me of a section in A Timely Word that I came across recently that I really revolted about:

Question: Some of the saints may hear some rumors or some gossip. They may not become negative themselves or cause some trouble, but the symptom in many cases is that they become discouraged. They lose their heart for the church life. They lose their confidence in the Lord’s recovery. There are many cases where this causes them to question the leadership in their church or the ministry among us. This last training on Leviticus was a real medicine, a real balm, and a real help. But I am concerned that many of us may have certain cases in our church where brothers or sisters are not negative, but they heard some gossip or rumor, which may be totally unfounded. There may be some element in what they heard that causes them to question. They themselves are not opposing, and they do not form a party. But they lose all their enjoyment, they lose all their heart, and they lose all their confidence. In many cases they do not even express what they heard, but there is a kind of withdrawing from the church life and a withdrawing from the service. This is a real weakening to these saints. How can we help this kind of brother or sister either in a public way or a personal way?

Answer: In 1942 there was a big turmoil in the church in Shanghai. That caused the church in Shanghai to close its doors and also caused Brother Nee to stop his ministry for six years. When that turmoil occurred, I was not in Shanghai. After the war in 1946, I went back to Shanghai, and the church there opened its doors. But there was a very small number of saints meeting together compared to their number before 1942. There were only about eighty or ninety saints at the Lord’s table. Many saints were offended in this turmoil, and all the arrows were being shot at Brother Nee. He was the target of the attacks. Because I was not there and I am not a person who wants to hear negative things, I am still not fully clear concerning all the problems in the church in Shanghai at that time. When I returned to the church in Shanghai in 1946, I had just recovered from a very serious illness. During the two and a half years of my sickness and recovery, I learned a lot. Mainly, I learned about the two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some of the saints in Shanghai had been very dear to me in the Lord for years. They came to me and checked with me in this way: “Brother Lee, do you believe that Brother Watchman Nee has never made any mistake?” What should my answer have been? Yes or no?

I was not bothered about this question because I learned in my sickness some lessons concerning the two trees. I checked with the saints who came to me in this way: “Before you condemned Brother Nee as being wrong in certain things, how was your spiritual life?” They responded in a very positive way that their spiritual life was wonderful. They were living and absolutely for the church. Then I asked, “How about now?” Many times they would weep and tell me that they felt lost and that they had lost their heart. They said that the Lord was still with them but that they had lost interest. In other words, their experience after condemning Brother Nee was altogether negative. Then I responded, “Brother, if your saying that Brother Nee is wrong and your condemning of him are something proper, your spiritual life should be better than it was before. Why is it that after condemning him and saying negative things about him, your spiritual life has become so poor?” This kind of fellowship was able to rescue a great number of saints in Shanghai. The saints there came to me one by one in this way. I simply checked with them how their spiritual life was before this negative speaking and how it was afterward. They all saw that there was a great difference, and they repented.

I think that we can help the saints in the same way. We can ask them if what they heard helped them in their spiritual life. If it helps them, they should take it. If it does not help them, it must be something of the enemy. Whether the thing you heard is true or not, as long as your hearing has a negative influence on your spiritual life, you should not take it. It was not the saints’ business to judge whether Brother Nee was wrong or not wrong. Even if what they did was right, what was the result of their doing? The result was to deaden people. Even a little talk about something negative will deaden you. We must help the saints to go along with their inner life and to keep their spiritual life from becoming deadened, hurt, or poisoned by anything. We should help the saints to avoid anything that would deaden, hurt, or poison their spiritual life. This kind of fellowship that I had with the saints in Shanghai from 1946 to 1948 issued in the repentance of hundreds of saints. Hundreds repented and came back to the church life. Many went to Brother Nee and repented to him directly.

I know saints who would read something like that and do the audible groaning thing that shows they are really touched about something, whereas I read it and see a big dancing game with smoke and mirrors trying to get saints to be distracted away from a real problem. "Whether the thing you heard is true or not, as long as your hearing has a negative influence on your spiritual life, you should not take it."?? Excuse me? If something immoral or improper happens, the logical impact of it would be to affect you and often as a side effect affect your spiritual life and send you spinning. To tell people they should not take anything negative REGARDLESS OF IF IT IS TRUE OR NOT is just an insane statement that makes me grieve for everyone reading this stuff who don't see the reality of what they are reading. Argh!!

[UntoHim]

The quote from Nee was taken from here:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/597...uidance-of-the

Many times I will pull a quote from Nee which was posted by a reliable source. If it is a quote like the one put up yesterday, I have never seen the need for context because it is extremely representative of what the man taught throughout his ministry. Same goes for Witness Lee.

In doing some further checking, it seems that this quote was pulled from "The Spiritual Man". Not sure of what page or paragraph.

Hope this helps.
-

[awareness]

We were warned not to read The Spiritual Man. So I had to read it. Prolly my beginning of troubles.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The quote from Nee was taken from here:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/597...uidance-of-the

Many times I will pull a quote from Nee which was posted by a reliable source. If it is a quote like the one put up yesterday, I have never seen the need for context because it is extremely representative of what the man taught throughout his ministry. Same goes for Witness Lee.

In doing some further checking, it seems that this quote was pulled from "The Spiritual Man". Not sure of what page or paragraph.

Hope this helps.
-

Thanks Unto Him. Yes, it is from The Spiritual Man (in Chapter 3 about 6 pages down from header “Spirit, Soul, and Body after the Fall”).

After reading it in context there seems to be a seed in there “confuses the issue of right and wrong” that grew and bore a lot of bad fruit because it was taken to mean “it doesn’t matter if someone does wrong”... i.e. righteousness doesn’t matter.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At my 2nd LC in Columbus, we had a gifted minister named Philip Comfort. He was passionate, loved the word of God, and loved to teach the church. But unwittingly he became a "threat" to TC, and so TC demanded that he relocate to Cleveland where he could receive "further perfecting." In plain words, TC mercilessly beat poor Phil into submission, accusing him of a host of shortcomings and flaws, all the while shaming him in front of all the other Midwest leaders. Poor Phil returned to Columbus a broken man, and all the leaders there lost all respect for TC. 25 years later one of these elders was instrumental in successfully suing both Columbus and Mansfield for their meeting halls for LSM. TC has this way of producing more "enemies" than "perfected" brothers. The last I heard Phil's name in the LC, TC was shaming an elder brother in Hanover Park, IL for not restoring him to the "fellowship," as if it was all his fault.

Slowly Phil Comfort and his gift got "recovered" by the Lord, but not in the LC's. He went back to school, honing his writing and teachings skills, and today Dr. Philip Comfort has become a Wheaton College professor, an established author, and a well-respected Greek scholar, benefiting the entire body of Christ. To God be the glory.

Reading this was so encouraging. As someone who has been inexplicably turned against, lied to, cut out, tossed aside and then bewilderingly had blame put on me for those very horrible actions by saints I cared very much for, hearing that there is the possibility of a brighter future is like aloe on a sunburn. Thanks for posting Dr. Comfort's story.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This quote of Nee also caught my attention. Nee makes two faulty assumptions: 1) Christians only pray simplistic or 'tiny' prayers and 2) There is something wrong with praying for the more trivial things.

I remember as I was growing up in the LC, we were always told that we need to develop a relationship with the Lord through prayer. However, those leading us would always come in and try to qualify things. They told us not to pray "help me" prayers, because the Lord doesn't want to help us, he wants to be our all. They told us not to pray for trivial things because it didn't advance God's economy. It thus left us in a state of wondering what we could pray for. One of the things that this resulted in is that we developed a tendency to try to come up with prayers that would 'impress' everyone, especially in large gatherings.

I am reminded of what Jesus said:
Matt 6:5-7 And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

The Bible would suggest that what some in the LC might call 'weighty' prayers are nothing more than vain prayers. I'm not saying that all such prayers are vain, however, it could be a lot more than people in the LC realize. I remember attending prayer meetings, we would pray for an hour or more - God's economy this, Lord's move that. Most of the time I had no clue what specifically anyone was praying for. But it did sound impressive.

This is all so true. Lee condemns prayers where you bring your situation to the Lord and ask Him for help. He condemns "heal my son who is sick" prayers. There is a portion where Lee talks about coming to the Lord and waiting in silence and then tentatively asking for permission to pray, and then only praying what the Lord would like us to pray. While I do not dispute that respect for the Lord in prayer is a good thing, the sum total effect of hearing all these kinds of things was to shut my mouth from praying anything because there was nothing left and no way left to be able to pray, and left me waiting on a "now you are allowed to pray" from the Lord that never came.

I have come to appreciate more the "standard" Christian way of praying, say as a pastor ends his sermon by saying "let's pray" and then he prays with the utterance that helps the audience, as opposed to the prayer-cadence in the LC's followed by an amen after every sentence. What that type of prayer does is drags, or at least splits, the pray-er's focus to being on the saints around them rather than on the Lord Himself.

Having said that, I have not yet gone to a prayer meeting of a non-LC church, but will do so soon. I never found the LC way of praying helpful for me.

Regarding praying "tiny" prayers, I have heard it said (not in the LC of course) that God has everything to do with your life. If we think God is too busy for me, or that He only wants to hear the "big stuff", then we've actually shrunk Him down to only dealing with the big things in the world and not your small things that you spend your energy/life/money trying to hide from other people. The reality is, Jesus is the king who sees the needs of the people, empathizes with their weakness, stops to heal the pain of someone most of us wouldn't give a second glance to. The Lord WANTS us to bring everything, big and small, to Him.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Lee condemns prayers where you bring your situation to the Lord and ask Him for help. He condemns "heal my son who is sick" prayers. There is a portion where Lee talks about coming to the Lord and waiting in silence and then tentatively asking for permission to pray, and then only praying what the Lord would like us to pray.

I don't know the whole extent of his teaching on prayer. But being around people who pray I see the prayer pendulem swing way on the other side. Don't beat me up or stone me here. My observation is there is way, way too much prayer on healing. Not that it is wrong. IT IS NOT!! For the record, my body has been riddled with RA for 18 lonnng, lonng years so I know about healing prayers etc. From James 5:16b pray for one another so that you may be healed.

I will give more of my thoughts in a bit.

I have come to appreciate more the "standard" Christian way of praying, say as a pastor ends his sermon by saying "let's pray" and then he prays with the utterance that helps the audience, as opposed to the prayer-cadence in the LC's followed by an amen after every sentence.

Personally, I don't like the 'standard' Christian way of praying. The pastors / preachers are not teaching people how to pray. I have a small intimate bible study group of friends. I try to help them spiritually and practically speaking. Not boasting here, just letting you know what I do practically, I text, call, make meals for those who are sick..worst than ME! We have game nights every other week which includes munchies. We are friends not just 'congregants'. This bible study group which is made up of about 8-12 people are my 'church' family.

After every weekly study, we pray and every prayer is about healing...healing for our group and for their loved ones.

What that type of prayer does is drags, or at least splits, the pray-er's focus to being on the saints around them rather than on the Lord Himself.

I learned how to 'pray read' God's Word back in the day. While I don't 'pray read' like we did back in the 70's, I pray God's Word all the time. I have a 'funny' and I may have mentioned it here in past posts. It is John 10:10b I AM COME THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE AND HAVE IT MORE ABUNDANTLY.

On physically challenging days, I have yelled at the LORD 'YOU SAID YOU CAME THAT I WOULD HAVE LIFE AND HAVE IT MORE ABUNDANTLY! WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS THIS??!!! After my body relaxes and settles down, I apologize to God for yelling at Him. I have a one on One conversation and all is good.

Most of my prayers consist of Thanksgiving, Praise, Worship, Honor, Glory and Blessing the LORD with all my heart.

When I am stressed out, I pray FATHER. MAY YOUR PERFECT WILL BE DONE IN THIS MATTER. Thank You for listening to the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart. Bless Your Holy Name. Praise You Dear Lord Jesus. etc..

When I am discouraged, I pray 'Thank You Lord You will never leave me or forsake me. You began a MOST EXCELLENT WORK in me and You are going to complete it. That is Your promise to me and I am holding You to it! Thank You..Bless You.. Praise You Lord Jesus.

When I need guidance and counseling, help, I address God, the HOLY SPIRIT.
"Holy Spirit, I need You to help me find my keys.. help me get a good parking place... I need guidance, understanding etc.. He always comes through!! I then Thank Him. Thank You Holy Spirit for helping me find my keys or whatever it is I have asked Him.

The best prayer I have been 'enjoying' though is praying 'Father God. MAY YOUR PERFECT WILL BE DONE IN THIS MATTER! Wow.. what peace I get from praying like this!!

Having said that, I have not yet gone to a prayer meeting of a non-LC church, but will do so soon. I never found the LC way of praying helpful for me.

All of the prayer meetings I attended when I was going to 'church' were praying in 'tongues'. Here is how it went: The pastor would tell us we were going to pray for certain things or people, our country etc. He held a bell and then would say "For the first 15 minutes we are going to pray for people's finances. START! Then everyone would break out in 'tongue' praying. It was AWFUL imho! You think the LC way of praying was not helpful??!! Wait till you are around 'tongue praying' people!!

Then at the end of the 15 minute segment, the pastor would ring the bell signaling everyone to stop 'praying' and then he would announce the next concern to pray about. START! And everyone would burst out once again in 'tongue praying' for 15 minutes till the pastor would ring the bell.

This went on for an hour. Then the prayer meeting would end. I went to these 'prayer meetings' for about 2 months until I could NOT STAND IT any longer!

Hope you find a great prayer meeting that suits your liking!
At my bible study group, we pass around a prayer journal. People write down prayers ... mostly healing prayers. Then the facilitators pray over the requests. They start like this 'GOD, we pray for so and so to be healed from cancer. We pray O God for so and so who has a heart condition. O God so and so needs help financially.. O God help them in the Name of Jesus.
And we all say 'AMEN'.

The reality is, Jesus is the king who sees the needs of the people, empathizes with their weakness, stops to heal the pain of someone most of us wouldn't give a second glance to. The Lord WANTS us to bring everything, big and small, to Him.

This is TRUE. The LORD supplies all of our needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:19

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I don't know the whole extent of his teaching on prayer. But being around people who pray I see the prayer pendulem swing way on the other side. Don't beat me up or stone me here. My observation is there is way, way too much prayer on healing. Not that it is wrong. IT IS NOT!! For the record, my body has been riddled with RA for 18 lonnng, lonng years so I know about healing prayers etc. From James 5:16b pray for one another so that you may be healed.

I will give more of my thoughts in a bit.

I definitely understand your point about the over-emphasis on praying for healing, or, rather the only praying for healing and never praying for anything else or for God's interests. Both are good. Witness Lee just came down so hard on the anti-healing side that he ended up, as usual, making something that is lawful to be almost sinful.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Personally, I don't like the 'standard' Christian way of praying. The pastors / preachers are not teaching people how to pray. I have a small intimate bible study group of friends. I try to help them spiritually and practically speaking. Not boasting here, just letting you know what I do practically, I text, call, make meals for those who are sick..worst than ME! We have game nights every other week which includes munchies. We are friends not just 'congregants'. This bible study group which is made up of about 8-12 people are my 'church' family.

I was sloppy in my comparison of LC versus non-LC praying. I compared the LC group prayer to the non-LC single person pastor prayer, which are two different settings and were bad examples to compare to each other.

A better example could have been something like a family Thanksgiving gathering where they sit down to pray before the meal. LC prayer involves a certain cadence with "amens" after each sentence or phrase. Non-LC prayer involves everyone being silent and listening until the person praying finishes, and then the "amen" comes. I prefer the latter, even though I lived the former my whole life. To me the latter seems more reverent, sacred, and God-honoring. The former is more "showy".

[aron]

"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us taht no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." ~Alexander Sozhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago

[OBW]

So the end of the matter is this: Live for God. Obey the Scriptures. Think of others before yourself. Be holy. Love Jesus. And as you do these things, do whatever else you like, with whomever you like, wherever you like, and you’ll be walking in the will of God.

I like this last one. I have followed Kevin DeYoung with mixed feelings for over 10 years. It started with reading one of his first books on the emerging church movement.

I say that my feelings are mixed because he is often too tied to the dogma of The Gospel Coalition, which is a somewhat strong reformed/Calvinist group. And that link is pretty strong since he is both a pastor and a professor at a significant seminary in the movement.

But I still at least glance at his blog to see if there is anything new because he is not just some half-baked, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants numbskull.

And today's quote, while not referenced as being his or a quote of another, is among the reasons I keep reading him. If the latter part of the quote was all we had, there would be much to worry about. But given the constraints that "Live for God. Obey the Scriptures. Think of others before yourself. Be holy. Love Jesus" puts on us, then "do whatever else you like . . ." has nowhere evil or even questionable to go.

[UntoHim]

Mike, when I ran across this quote, one of the first things I thought of was "I bet Mike would like this one...or at least have something to say about it".

Just to be clear, Kevin DeYoung is not, and has never been associated with the "emergent church" movement. In fact he co-authored a book entitled Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be DeYoung is indeed associated/affiliated with the Gospel Coalition, and at some point was identified with younger teachers/pastors/church planters known as "The New Calvinist". Some others coined these young Christian leaders as "The Young, Restless and Reformed". While I don't consider myself strictly "reformed", I would say the resurgence of reformed theology and teachings have been a very positive influence among our younger brothers and sisters. (probably a subject for another thread!)

And today's quote, while not referenced as being his or a quote of another...

I just always assumed that If there is a name below a quote people would know that it is from that person. Should I be putting quotation marks around the quote to make it more clear?

Thanks for all your valuable contributions to the forum my brother!
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

While I don't consider myself strictly "reformed", I would say the resurgence of reformed theology and teachings have been a very positive influence among our younger brothers and sisters. (probably a subject for another thread!)

Interesting.

I remember years ago Ron Kangas once saying that their biggest opposition came from "Reformed Theology."

I hear about "HyperCalvinism" yet little more about the benefits of Reformed Theology.

[UntoHim]

Well, actually all protestants are reformed by definition. Of course many exclusive groups, like the Local Church of Witness Lee, don't consider themselves "protestants", but this belies the facts of reality and history.
-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . Some others coined these young Christian leaders as "The Young, Restless and Reformed".

I didn't feel it necessary to identify DeYoung's position on Emergence or give the title, but you are correct. I also note that in his own blog he refers to himself as "DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed."

For any who care, I was encouraged by the issues raised and direction generally taken by those who were merely "emerging" while generally to greatly concerned about those who were under the mantle of the Emergent Village. I liked DeYoung's book, but note that it was written almost entirely to the errors and direction of the Emergent while written as if it applied equally to anything called emerging.

On a separate note, it is interesting that the term "reformed" is not simply a variation of Presbyterian or even Calvinist in general. It dates back to groups that were clearly NOT Calvinist and is used currently by both Calvinist and non-Calvinist (or marginally Calvinist) groups.

The Bible churches are not strictly Calvinist but would probably classify as reformed. And they are not all the same on many issues. I have attended two where the pastors were raised Presbyterian but the congregations would only be somewhat Calvinist. And they differ strongly on the issue of women teaching/preaching.

[JJ]

The quote of Watchman Nee on Wednesday bothered me:

“Emotion must go through the cross in order to destroy its fiery nature, with its confusion, and to subject it totally to the spirit. The cross aims to accord the spirit authority to rule over every activity of emotion.”

Where is any mention of what Christ has already done through his death to crucify I and I recognize and stood with through His circumcision of my heart in baptism. Where is any mention of the Holy Spirit and His lordship in my life. Where is any mention of how the love of God has been poured out into my heart through His Spirit because I have been adopted as His son, and that it is His love that leads me to love and serve others. Watchman Nee’s “spiritual man” is missing key ingredients to help produce full, complete, and mature members of the one new man.

[JJ]

From page 129 of"Bonhoeffer Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy" by Eric Metaxis,
A wonderful gift I received for Christmas:

"Bonhoeffer was not interested in intellectual abstractions. Theology must lead to the practical aspects of how to live as a Christian. Karding (one of his students at Berlin University) was surprised when Bonhoeffer asked his students whether they sang Christmas carols. Their answer was noncomittal, so he said, 'you must sing Christmas carols.' For him, music was not an optional part of Christian ministry, but de rigeur (translation: befitting, correct, decent, decorous, genteel, nice, polite, proper, respectable, seemly). He decided to tackle this deficiency head on. On the first day of Advent, he said to her, 'we will meet each other at noon... and we will sing Christmas carols.' She remembered that he played the flute wonderfully' and that he 'sang magnificently.'

Joachim Kanitz remembered that once Bonhoeffer told them that they should not forget that 'every word of Holy Scripture was a quite personal message of God's love for us.' Bonhoeffer then 'asked us if we love Jesus'.

Taking students on weekend trips into the country for retreats was another element of his practical instruction method... On one hiking trip, Bonhoeffer had them meditate on a Bible verse after breakfast... He taught us that the Bible goes directly into your life, [to] where your problems are.'

Bonhoeffer was working out the ideas that would find their way into the illegal seminaries of the Confessing Church in a few years (during the Nazi’s so called Third Reich). For him, such things as meditating on Bible verses and the singing formed integral parts in a theological education. Bonhoeffer's recurring theme of incarnation -- that God did not create us to be disembodied spirits, but flesh-and-blood human beings -- led him to the idea that Christian life must be modeled. Jesus did not only communicate ideas and concepts and rules and principals for living. He lived. And by living with His disciples, he showed them what life was supposed to look like, what God had intended it to look like. It was not merely intellectual or merely spiritual. It was all these things together, it was something more. Bonhoeffer aimed to model the Christian life for his students. This led him to the idea that, to be a Christian, one must live with Christians.

One student said he learned about the concepts of guilt and grace from the way Bonhoeffer treated them. On one retreat in 1933, Bonhoeffer and a group of students were hiking in some woods when they came upon a hungry family looking for food. Bonhoeffer approached them warmly and asked if the children were getting any hot food. When they replied 'Not much,' Bonhoeffer asked if he could take two of them along. 'We're going home now to eat,' he said 'and they can get something to eat with us, and then we will bring them right back.'"

I'm interested in your thoughts on this quote and how it compares to the "Watchman Wednesday" quote I commented on before this post. I note they (Watchman Nee and Deitrich Bonhoeffer) were from the same generation.

[Freedom]

Calling on the Lord’s name solves all our problems. -Witness Lee

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic, in the same way that some people might find a get-rich-quick scheme appealing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic...

WL would often say that the Bible revelation was "simply this" or "simply that", which has some appeal, perhaps even utility. But the prime effect was to pare away other thoughts, groups, ministers. WL gave you this one simple thing.

Then would come all the extras. Suddenly you're "migrating for the new way", or you find yourself in Taiwan getting your sock drawers inspected. And you realize it's not so simple after all.

[Sons to Glory!]

Calling on the Lord’s name solves all our problems. -Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic, in the same way that some people might find a get-rich-quick scheme appealing.

Okay, I get it. But to be fair to that statement by itself, what I hear in this is that if we walk in spirit, then we allow Christ's life to live through us, which gives life and peace and causes problems to flee away.

[Ohio]

Calling on the Lord’s name solves all our problems. -Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's ministry is full of statements like this. I think that some find it appealing just because it is so simplistic, in the same way that some people might find a get-rich-quick scheme appealing.

Simplistic, mechanical, robotic, scientific ... goes back to that "perfecting training" and Lee's scientific analysis of Romans 8 about "flipping the switch" and "turning on" your spirit. It was all some get-spiritual-quick-scheme unfolding before our eyes.

But where was love? Where are relationships with God or man? Where is faith? To be blunt, it really all was about the volume. Louder meant more spirit. Louder meant more "amens."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, I get it. But to be fair to that statement by itself, what I hear in this is that if we walk in spirit, then we allow Christ's life to live through us, which gives life and peace and causes problems to flee away.

I remember one brother, whom I thought was spiritual, stand and gave a little demonstration. He said to walk by the spirit, is to say "Oh Lord Jesus" as he took 3 steps. Huh? So simple an unbelieving caveman could replicate this.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember one brother, whom I thought was spiritual, stand and gave a little demonstration. He said to walk by the spirit, is to say "Oh Lord Jesus" as he took 3 steps. Huh? So simple an unbelieving caveman could replicate this.

Yes, that's what "walk in the spirit" got reduced to in the LC. They had all the books, all the outlines. But when it got boiled down, it was "turn to your spirit" which meant "open your mouth and shout loudly and repetitively". Lee taught, "Your mouth is connected to your spirit". If you shouted Lee's slogans over and over you were "walking in spirit".

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory! View Post
Okay, I get it. But to be fair to that statement by itself, what I hear in this is that if we walk in spirit, then we allow Christ's life to live through us, which gives life and peace and causes problems to flee away.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Simplistic, mechanical, robotic, scientific ... goes back to that "perfecting training" and Lee's scientific analysis of Romans 8 about "flipping the switch" and "turning on" your spirit. It was all some get-spiritual-quick-scheme unfolding before our eyes.

But where was love? Where are relationships with God or man? Where is faith? To be blunt, it really all was about the volume. Louder meant more spirit. Louder meant more "amens."

I remember one brother, whom I thought was spiritual, stand and gave a little demonstration. He said to walk by the spirit, is to say "Oh Lord Jesus" as he took 3 steps. Huh? So simple an unbelieving caveman could replicate this.

Let's just be careful that we don't convey that faith in Christ is complex. Rather it is "the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Cor 3:11) It is us - our thinking, practices and traditions that try to make it complex!

[JJ]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s speech on “The Fuhrer Principle” or “The Leader Principle” delivered two days after Adolph Hitler was elected President of Germany:

“If [the leader] understands his function in any other way than as it is rooted in fact, if he does not continually tell his followers quite clearly of the limited nature of his lack and of their own responsibility, if he allows himself to surrender to the wishes of his followers, who would always make him their idol – then the image of the leader will pass over into the image of the misleader, and he will be acting in a criminal way not only towards those he leads, but also towards himself, the true leader must always be able to disillusion. It is just this that is his responsibility and his real object. He must lead his following away from the authority of his person to the recognitions of the real authority of orders and offices….He must radically refuse to become the appeal, the idol, i.e. the ultimate authority of those whom he leads…. “

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s speech on “The Fuhrer Principle” or “The Leader Principle” delivered two days after Adolph Hitler was elected President of Germany:

“If [the leader] understands his function in any other way than as it is rooted in fact, if he does not continually tell his followers quite clearly of the limited nature of his lack and of their own responsibility, if he allows himself to surrender to the wishes of his followers, who would always make him their idol – then the image of the leader will pass over into the image of the misleader, and he will be acting in a criminal way not only towards those he leads, but also towards himself, the true leader must always be able to disillusion. It is just this that is his responsibility and his real object. He must lead his following away from the authority of his person to the recognitions of the real authority of orders and offices….He must radically refuse to become the appeal, the idol, i.e. the ultimate authority of those whom he leads…. “

Good ol' Bonhoeffer! Man has such a propensity to allow himself to be exulted. This is because Adam is of his father, the prideful devil.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good ol' Bonhoeffer! Man has such a propensity to allow himself to be exulted. This is because Adam is of his father, the prideful devil.

Right!

Before the quote previously posted Bonhoeffer said:
“the good leader serves others and leads them to maturity. He puts them above himself, as a good parent does a child, wishing to lead that child to someday be a good parent. Another word for this is discipleship.”

And after it he said

“Only when a man sees that office is a penultimate authority in the face of an ultimate, indescribable authority, in the face of the authority of God, has the real situation been reached. And before this Authority the individual knows himself to be completely alone. The individual is responsible before God.

But this submission to the eternal authority is destroyed when the authority of the leader or his office becomes the ultimate authority. The true leader sees himself as a creature before his creator. This humility sets him free but at the same time commits him to be responsible in his position.”

Bonhoeffer concludes his address with a dire warning for a leader who refuses to submit to God:

“ anyone who lays violent hands on man here is infringing eternal laws and taking upon himself superhuman authority which will eventually crush him. The eternal law that the individual stands alone before God takes fearful vengeance where it is attacked and distorted . . . Leaders or offices which set themselves up as gods mock God and the individual who stands alone before him, and must perish.”

I hope you also find this quote relevant today.

[Sons to Glory!]

So I had to look up the word "penultimate" used in his quote - it means: last but one in a series of things; second last, next to last.

As I read this quote I kept thinking "servant leader." To be a proper leader, one must first be a servant to the ones being lead. This, of course, was the fine example Jesus gave us - always looking out for what was truly best for the healthy growth and development of others.

[Nell]

Lt. Col. Robert Lee "Bull" Wolverton was the commander of the American 3rd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, from 1942 until his death on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Wolverton's legacy endured, particularly on the strength of this prayer, prayed with the 750 men in his battalion hours before the D-Day parachute drop behind enemy lines. Wolverton's words were cited by President Ronald Reagan in a 1984 speech from Normandy on the 40th anniversary of the invasion, and in numerous other places. Following is a recounting of his prayer as he said:

"Men, I am not a religious man and I don't know your feelings in this matter, but I am going to ask you to pray with me for the success of the mission before us. And while we pray, let us get on our knees and not look down but up with faces raised to the sky so that we can see God and ask his blessing in what we are about to do:

'God almighty,
in a few short hours we will be in battle with the enemy.
We do not join battle afraid.
We do not ask favors or indulgence but ask that,
if You will,
use us as Your instrument for the right,
and an aid in returning peace to the world.
We do not know or seek what our fate will be.
We ask only this,
that if die we must,
that we die as men would die,
without complaining,
without pleading
and safe in the feeling that we have done our best
for what we believed was right.

O Lord, protect our loved ones
and be near us in the fire ahead,
and with us now as we pray to you.'

All were silent for two minutes, as the men were left--each with his individual thoughts. Then the colonel ordered, "Move out."

A few hours later, Robert Wolverton was killed by German machine gun fire in an orchard outside Saint-Come-du-Mont, Normandy, France.

Can you just see those 750 American soldiers...dressed in combat gear and a parachute on their backs...on their knees with their faces lifted to the heavens...talking to God? I'm sure I can see those guys...

I found this prayer engraved on the outside wall of the "D-Day Experience" museum in Carpique, France on my D-Day 75 trip this summer. I think about it from time to time and I always think about what's going on in the world today, what's going on among God's people, what's going on in Washington DC. This prayer is my "quote" and it puts things into a perspective that I think the world badly needs.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

The quote stated on the homepage of LC Discussions today is: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God." (From CS Lewis' Mere Christianity)

This is a much better way to state this mystery than, "God became man so that man could become God." The relationship of father and son is a close one, to be sure, but the Bible doesn't say that sons become the Father. Jus' sayin'

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The quote stated on the homepage of LC Discussions today is: "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God." (From CS Lewis' Mere Christianity)

This is a much better way to state this mystery than, "God became man so that man could become God." The relationship of father and son is a close one, to be sure, but the Bible doesn't say that sons become the Father. Jus' sayin'

Very true. I've always felt that often times WL said things mostly for shock value. In other words, he could of expressed certain things in much more meaningful ways.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Very true. I've always felt that often times WL said things mostly for shock value. In other words, he could of expressed certain things in much more meaningful ways.

I don't think the example would be just for shock, though it initially does that.

And it is not "less meaningful." More like just plain wrong.

But it sounds nice . . . especially if you already think you are headed for special treatment in the coming age.

[OBW]

I'm a little perplexed. That Ravi Zacharias quote is so void of context that I cannot figure out why it was said or what it really means.

Am I missing something?

[UntoHim]

Well I took the context to be that Moses and Paul "were both well-versed in the language, the thinking, and the philosophy of their cultures".

I wouldn't presume to speak for Ravi Zacharias, but I think the general point is that Moses and Paul were not just "spiritual", and unengaged with the culture (including the language and philosophy) around them. I think this dynamic is clearly shown with Paul's interactions with the various cultures in the book of Acts, and even in the various epistles that went out to various churches with different cultures (Jewish, Greek, etc.)
-

[Trapped]

For the sake of those reading this thread in the future after today's Q&Q has changed, the RZ quote is:

Two of the chief defenders of the faith in the Old Testament and in the New - Moses and Paul - were both well-versed in the language, the thinking, and the philosophy of their cultures.

I don't know if UntoHim does this intentionally, but it happens enough that I have assumed he does: Oftentimes the Q&Q on the right matches up in some way to the verse reference on the left.

Those verses currently are:

1 Corinthians 9:20-22
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

That illuminates Ravi's quote for me.

[UntoHim]

Darn it Trapped! I was hoping that people noticed, but not say anything. Now the pressure is on.

Seriously though, whenever possible, I do try to come up with some verses that match the general theme of the quote. In the case of this quote by Zacharias, these verses came to me right away. I wish that I had enough grasp of the Word for this to happen on every quote, but let's all thank God that every once in a while he leads this old blind squirrel to find a big, fat nut.
-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well I took the context to be that Moses and Paul "were both well-versed in the language, the thinking, and the philosophy of their cultures".

It just seems like stating something too obvious. Is there somewhere that people suggest that Moses or Paul were aloof relative to their human surroundings? It is just too unimpressive or meaningful without a reason to have made the statement.

Sort of like just saying that Jesus was a Jew. It is true. But without something questioning his heritage or something like that, just saying it and nothing else sort of elicits a "and your point is?" response.

[UntoHim]

Mike, I'm sorry that you were not impressed with this quote. Due to time and space contraints I'm rather limited on how much I can fit into the little box on the right hand side of the homepage. Over the course of a year, I try to be as eclectic as I can with the hundreds of quotes and quips, but there is simply no way that I'm going to find something that is going to catch even the slightest interest of, much less impress, every forum member or lurker who happens to be stopping by on any given day.

Most of the time I try to find a quote that might have some sort of application to the interests and concerns of current and former Local Churchers. In the case of this particular quote from Ravi Zacharias, it kind of struck me as applicable to the Local Church because of their noticable disengagement with the culture and society around them. I've never been to Taiwan, China or anywhere else in Asia, so maybe this dynamic applies more to those of us in North America.

All this being said, I was able to dig up the passage in Zacharias' book (Byond Opinion: Living the Faith that we Defend) that might give the wider context you are seeking:
https://books.google.com/books?id=3N...tures.&f=false
-

[Trapped]

UntoHim: beautiful pairing of the Quotes and Quips today on the right with the verse on the left!

So Lee can have opinions and speak up about what he has seen, heard, and experienced in the light of God's Word and call it "the moving of the Spirit", but when others do it it is death, dissension, negative, rebellious!



From the Preface Of Reconsideration Of The Vision

Not to have an opinion and to keep silent cannot be accepted by this writer. To do so would be unfaithful to the moving of the Spirit. The writer must record what he has seen, heard and experienced in the light of God's Word and Nee's original vision in his book. Those who read can come to their own conclusions.

New International Version
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Freedom]

Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the "four-in-one God".
These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated
or confused.

Whenever I see statements like this one Lee made, I have to ask whether the intention was to convey some Biblical truth or to deliver something for shock value. All too often it was the latter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Whenever I see statements like this one Lee made, I have to ask whether the intention was to convey some Biblical truth or to deliver something for shock value. All too often it was the latter.

If it was just for "shock value," then did Lee really believe what he was saying?

Remember the conversation Don Rutledge recorded about a ranking brother who just returned from Taipei back in the 80's? Basically, "The Father is first, then the Son, then the Spirit, then Witness Lee." One of the startled hearers then asked, "and who then is #5?"

Whether Lee believed what he taught or not, many of his followers did. Some of them even believed that Philip Lee was #5. Imagine that! By all accounts the guy was unsaved, profligate, and totally obnoxious, yet he was considered by those senior-Blendeds-to-be as Lee's must "loyal and faithful co-worker." Crazy!

Was Philip then mingled, blended, and incorporated into the Triune God like his dad?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

For years in the Midwest region we were taught that Witness Lee was Titus Chu's "spiritual father" and that all the goofs surrounding him in Anaheim or Taipei during his last 30 years just "messed things up" and distorted his message because they were all "childish boys."

That was as foolhardy as these teachings themselves.

[Freedom]

That's the thing though, I think it's more a question of whether or not they are afraid to express disagreement with something. Did they really believe that Philip Lee was #5, or were they too afraid to say otherwise? Certainly they believe some of it. It's just the more outlandish things I tend to look at as a question of why it's being said rather than if it's even something legitimate.

For example, I remember being in a meeting where they were making people stand up one by one and declare "I am a godman." I didn't do it, but most others did. As far as I was concerned, what was really going on was the elders were testing people's compliance. Maybe some of them really do believe what they declare or hear others say. I just don't know that everyone really does.

[Trapped]

I'mmmmmm not sure I agree with G.K. Chesterton's quote on the side of the LCD main page today:

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."

The ones hearing accusations against elders are charged to be impartial, which certainly is the appropriate thing to do. Maybe Chesterton is speaking of remaining impartial even in the face of facts? I suppose impartiality is the correct way when hearing the details of a situation, but once you know the facts, it's THEN that continued impartiality is indifference? But in that case, if you are still impartial in the face of facts, then that seems by default to actually be PARTIAL, because rather than side with the truth you are remaining "impartial", which is de facto siding with the lie, which is by definition partiality. In that case impartiality is actually partiality, which to the victim's side is experienced as indifference. Which means I do partially agree with GKC. Maybe.

Not sure if I thought myself off a cliff there or if that sounds right.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'mmmmmm not sure I agree with G.K. Chesterton's quote on the side of the LCD main page today:

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."

The ones hearing accusations against elders are charged to be impartial, which certainly is the appropriate thing to do. Maybe Chesterton is speaking of remaining impartial even in the face of facts? I suppose impartiality is the correct way when hearing the details of a situation, but once you know the facts, it's THEN that continued impartiality is indifference? But in that case, if you are still impartial in the face of facts, then that seems by default to actually be PARTIAL, because rather than side with the truth you are remaining "impartial", which is de facto siding with the lie, which is by definition partiality. In that case impartiality is actually partiality, which to the victim's side is experienced as indifference. Which means I do partially agree with GKC. Maybe.

Not sure if I thought myself off a cliff there or if that sounds right.

I agree. Great analysis.

Impartiality is a positive action to treat others fairly, without being a respecter of persons. God Himself has promised to treat us accordingly. Church elders were exhorted to do the same.

Not sure what GKC was referring to. Perhaps some language nuance?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree. Great analysis.

Impartiality is a positive action to treat others fairly, without being a respecter of persons. God Himself has promised to treat us accordingly. Church elders were exhorted to do the same.

Not sure what GKC was referring to. Perhaps some language nuance?

I googled the quote to see if there was some context, and couldn't find any. It seems to be a standalone quote. I came across a webpage or two of people giving their thoughts on the quote, and this is part of what one person said: "...Chesterton clearly points out that impartiality is really indifference. Indifference means lack of interest, concern, or sympathy, or unimportance. This is just a way of saying that to not have an opinion is still an opinion. Lack of interest is not being impartial it is being irresponsible."

I gotta say once again, I just don't agree here. What immediately comes to mind is a judge presiding over a case in court. They have to be impartial, but that by no means indifference in any conceivable way. You can be impartial and yet highly concerned and interested in the outcome.

The only thing I can think of where impartiality is a pompous name for indifference is, as stated earlier, in the face of clear injustice or wrongdoing. Claiming some kind of high-minded "impartiality" (or, could we say "we don't care for right or wrong") is then indeed a pompous form of indifference.

[Nell]

He lived from 1874 to 1936. The meaning and usage of words 100 years ago likely explains the discrepancy. A language nuance as Ohio said.

Today:
im·par·ti·al·i·ty
/imˌpärSHēˈalədē/
noun
equal treatment of all rivals or disputants; fairness

in·dif·fer·ence
/inˈdif(ə)rəns/
noun
lack of interest, concern, or sympathy.
"she shrugged, feigning indifference"

Even “pompous” and “elegant” seem overstated. Clearly not related by today’s standards.

Unto is trying to trick us...again...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Unto is trying to trick us...again...

He learned those "tricks" from ole King James.

"Suffer the little children."

[Sons to Glory!]

QUOTE FROM "WATCHMAN WEDNESDAY" today: Please remember, God's Word tells us that our Christian living is based on an inner life, not an outward standard of right and wrong. Christians are different from non-Christians because we do not live by an outward standard or law. Our subject is not human morality or concepts. We do not determine whether something is right or wrong by subjecting it to human criticism or opinion.

Okay, I'll "take the bait" on this one. I can see where someone might abuse this saying, especially the last part (I'll let others elaborate on that, if they care to). But I see nothing wrong with the opening sentence. It says, "God's word tells us that Christian living is based on an inner life, not an outward standard of right and wrong." This is 100% right. Now one might measure the manifestation or fruit of this inner life by what a person does, and that is certainly applicable I think. But trying to live the Christian life by outward right & wrong instead of the indwelling Christ, is pure folly, and a trap the enemy would surely like to see us all fall into more.

Without the inner life of "Christ in us, the hope of glory," the Christian life is unequivocally impossible. And that is the point I think Nee is making.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, I'll "take the bait" on this one. I can see where someone might abuse this saying, especially the last part (I'll let others elaborate on that, if they care to). But I see nothing wrong with the opening sentence. It says, "God's word tells us that Christian living is based on an inner life, not an outward standard of right and wrong." This is 100% right. Now one might measure the manifestation or fruit of this inner life by what a person does, and that is certainly applicable I think. But trying to live the Christian life by outward right & wrong instead of the indwelling Christ, is pure folly, and a trap the enemy would surely like to see us all fall into more.

Without the inner life of "Christ in us, the hope of glory," the Christian life is unequivocally impossible. And that is the point I think Nee is making.

John 14:15 - “If you love me, keep my commands.

John 15:10 - If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

Christian living is in no way NOT not an outward standard of right and wrong. All I see is a young big-headed kid (Nee, not you, StG) wanting to create a moving line of right and wrong, and wrapping it up in spiritual sounding language to justify himself.

"Christians are different because we do not live by an outward standard or law"? No, Christians are different because they have been shown the mercy of God and granted the free gift of eternal life. We still live by all the outward standards and laws non-Christians do.

If the point that Nee is making is that without having the life of Christ inside of us, the Christian life is impossible, he sure missed an incredibly easy way of saying that!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

John 14:15 - “If you love me, keep my commands.

John 15:10 - If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

Christian living is in no way NOT not an outward standard of right and wrong. All I see is a young big-headed kid (Nee, not you, StG) wanting to create a moving line of right and wrong, and wrapping it up in spiritual sounding language to justify himself.

"Christians are different because we do not live by an outward standard or law"? No, Christians are different because they have been shown the mercy of God and granted the free gift of eternal life. We still live by all the outward standards and laws non-Christians do.

If the point that Nee is making is that without having the life of Christ inside of us, the Christian life is impossible, he sure missed an incredibly easy way of saying that!

Christian living is the outward manifestation. Christian life is Christ and Him in us. The new covenant is all about the life of Christ in us and being lived through us.

Some read everything of Nee with suspecting eyes it seems . . . and perhaps he could have said it more simply. Do you have any issue with the 1st sentence in that quote?

[Trapped]

Sorry, StG, I was too myopic in my response and didn't include a "granted" or an "I can see that xyz" anywhere. I'm very, very tired so if this doesn't quite make sense.....please have mercy and don't blast me.

If what Nee is trying to say by that first sentence is something like "the success of our Christian life is not determined by whether we do everything right" or "we are not justified by keeping right and wrong" or "the Christian life is not based on law-keeping" (I think you get the thrust of what I'm trying to say), then yes, I agree. If that's what he meant, again, he needs to work on his communication skills, but if I squint my eyes, I can grant that he may have meant that.

If I have to follow Nee's structure, I would edit the first sentence to say "Our Christian living is based on an inner life, which guides us to live in submission to His commands." Or something like that, my brain fails me at the moment. I know I'm emphasizing the commandments, and it's a little knee-jerk in response to Nee's wholesale tossing them aside, but they are a guide for us, to be sure.

Christian living is to know God and love God, and to love people. Christian living is not all inner and it's not all outer either. Nee and Lee sometimes liked to uplift one side of things and completely soak in oil and light on fire the other side of things.

I personally have always had trouble with vague spiritual language, and something like "live Christ" doesn't mean much to me. In other words, it's too ethereal. Too mystical. Too "what does that mean in actuality?" I can't chase after "living Christ". What I CAN do is talk to God, trust God, put the next minute/hour/day/week/month/year in God's hands, throw myself at the mercy of God, try to grasp who He is from what creation and the Bible speaks of Him, listen to His voice, etc......and in so doing, live in step with Him in my human life. And all this is done and is only possible through Christ. That I can grasp and try to do. But I can't go off and "live Christ" and have any idea what that looks like or entails (unless someone explains it to me in a way that turns the lightbulb in my head on and I come to understand what it means better than how I understand it now.)

For the record, I googled "what does it mean to "live Christ"". Note that I put "live Christ" in quotation marks so that specific two-word phrase would have to be present on any returned page. In other words, not the phrase "to live is Christ" but the phrase "live Christ". From the first two pages of results:
-some sites did not have the phrase on them, but had "to live is Christ" instead.
-some sites had "live Christ" but were just noting that that's the literal Greek...."for me to live Christ and to die gain". Not the usage we are dealing with.
-two sites were a personal blog that used the phrase but did not handle it the way Nee/Lee did.
-other sites had the phrase "live Christ-centered" or "live Christ-like" which is not what I was looking for.
-the sites that actually said "live Christ" were BfA, agodman.com, holdingtotruth.com, ministrybooks.org, and ministrysamples.org. In other words, all LC saints or LSM related sites.

(As an unrelated aside, in looking at the Greek for that verse, I think it's better rendered "For me, to live is Christ and to have died is gain." The verb forms for "to live" and "to die" are both infinitives, but are different tenses of infinitives. "To die" is a tense that indicate something that has happened, which I think is better said "to have died". Not related, but just something I noticed.)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sorry, StG, I was too myopic in my response and didn't include a "granted" or an "I can see that xyz" anywhere. I'm very, very tired so if this doesn't quite make sense.....please have mercy and don't blast me.

If what Nee is trying to say by that first sentence is something like "the success of our Christian life is not determined by whether we do everything right" or "we are not justified by keeping right and wrong" or "the Christian life is not based on law-keeping" (I think you get the thrust of what I'm trying to say), then yes, I agree. If that's what he meant, again, he needs to work on his communication skills, but if I squint my eyes, I can grant that he may have meant that.

If I have to follow Nee's structure, I would edit the first sentence to say "Our Christian living is based on an inner life, which guides us to live in submission to His commands." Or something like that, my brain fails me at the moment. I know I'm emphasizing the commandments, and it's a little knee-jerk in response to Nee's wholesale tossing them aside, but they are a guide for us, to be sure.

Christian living is to know God and love God, and to love people. Christian living is not all inner and it's not all outer either. Nee and Lee sometimes liked to uplift one side of things and completely soak in oil and light on fire the other side of things.

I personally have always had trouble with vague spiritual language, and something like "live Christ" doesn't mean much to me. In other words, it's too ethereal. Too mystical. Too "what does that mean in actuality?" I can't chase after "living Christ". What I CAN do is talk to God, trust God, put the next minute/hour/day/week/month/year in God's hands, throw myself at the mercy of God, try to grasp who He is from what creation and the Bible speaks of Him, listen to His voice, etc......and in so doing, live in step with Him in my human life. And all this is done and is only possible through Christ. That I can grasp and try to do. But I can't go off and "live Christ" and have any idea what that looks like or entails (unless someone explains it to me in a way that turns the lightbulb in my head on and I come to understand what it means better than how I understand it now.)

For the record, I googled "what does it mean to "live Christ"". Note that I put "live Christ" in quotation marks so that specific two-word phrase would have to be present on any returned page. In other words, not the phrase "to live is Christ" but the phrase "live Christ". From the first two pages of results:
-some sites did not have the phrase on them, but had "to live is Christ" instead.
-some sites had "live Christ" but were just noting that that's the literal Greek...."for me to live Christ and to die gain". Not the usage we are dealing with.
-two sites were a personal blog that used the phrase but did not handle it the way Nee/Lee did.
-other sites had the phrase "live Christ-centered" or "live Christ-like" which is not what I was looking for.
-the sites that actually said "live Christ" were BfA, agodman.com, holdingtotruth.com, ministrybooks.org, and ministrysamples.org. In other words, all LC saints or LSM related sites.

(As an unrelated aside, in looking at the Greek for that verse, I think it's better rendered "For me, to live is Christ and to have died is gain." The verb forms for "to live" and "to die" are both infinitives, but are different tenses of infinitives. "To die" is a tense that indicate something that has happened, which I think is better said "to have died". Not related, but just something I noticed.)

You did really, very well for being tired! I appreciate all that you said and what you looked up.

One thing that came to me while reading your post was Hebrews 10:25 - "Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together . . ." This is one of those commandments that returns to me over and over. The NT is loaded with them, like love one another as you pointed out. All of them are nigh impossible to do on our own (in the flesh) apart from His life in us. And I think that's the point of the new covenant - we are not meant to live properly without His life, and we are shown repeatedly what folly it is to try and live the Christian life without Christ's life living in and through us!

Back to Hebrews 10:25 . . . I don't know completely where I'm going with this, but this is just one of those foundational verses to me. As members of His body, we were meant to gather and this one of those basic things in the Christian life. It's not just because we should (although it's true), but it's more like the branch will die if not attached to the vine. So whether I feel like it or not so much, I know I need to get with other believers. And when I do, and we sing, fellowship and pray, I feel recharged and encouraged - Jesus is there among us!

But you could also say that I wouldn't even have the awareness or sensation that I need to get with other believers, if His life wasn't operating in me. Therefore He is so wise to give us both - the outer requirement that only His life can supply us to do!

[Nell]

From church bulletins (typos and misplaced modifiers):

Don't let worry kill you--Let the church help.

Thursday night--potluck supper. Prayer and medication to follow.

Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our church and community.

For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.

Wednesday, the Ladies Liturgy Society will meet. Mrs. Jones will sing "Put Me In My Little Bed" accompanied by the pastor.

[OBW]

I see this thread was created a few years ago to track through comments on the general Quotes and Quips. So I'm bringing it forward to comment on today's quote by J.I. Packer:

Adoption is the highest privilege of the gospel. The traitor is forgiven, brought in for supper, and given the family name. To be right with God the Judge is a great thing, but to be loved and cared for by God the Father is greater.

Adoption. One item that Lee seemed determined to eliminate from the record of the NT. But a term that carries very important information about our relationship with God. And isn't that what the Bible is — the revelation of God and his relationship with man?

There is much to be said for the aspects of salvation that describe us as obtaining the life of Christ. That we are actually "blood brothers" in a sense. And those aspects cannot be described by reference to adoption. But in the same way, adoption tells us a lot that simply being blood brothers cannot.

For starters, no one chooses who is part of the family in terms of the natural progression of things. If you are born to Bill and Nancy Jones, you are a Jones. No choices on the part of the child or the parents. They can't predetermine gender, hair color, ultimate height and physique, etc. Yes, the DNA of the parents provides much of what will be, but it is still not evident because of all the possibilities from those joined DNA sequences and the fact that they don't get to decide which will prevail. In short, blood birth is what it is.

But with adoption, someone starts elsewhere, the child of other parents. He/she (they) may not be entirely the adoptive parents want. If the child's history is known, it might be that they are the offspring of a conquering army that destroyed the family home of the adoptive parents, or even was responsible for the death of one or more of their extended family.

Yet at this moment, all of that is ignored and the child is intentionally brought in to be a full part of the family. All the rights and privileges of a blood birth.

Adoption is a very informative descriptor for the relationship of God with man. He not only put his life into us, but he also did it despite the fact that without it we were already his enemy. Yet he chose to take us anyway.

To miss or dismiss this aspect of our relationship with God would be a travesty.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Adoption is a very informative descriptor for the relationship of God with man. He not only put his life into us, but he also did it despite the fact that without it we were already his enemy. Yet he chose to take us anyway.

To miss or dismiss this aspect of our relationship with God would be a travesty.

Excellent point, one that I never considered. Thank you.

[UntoHim]

Romans 9:4 - They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.
vr8 - This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
11:17 -But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree..

According to the apostle Paul, this concept of adoption was not a new concept at all, but goes back to what God wanted to accomplish in and for his people from the beginning. As gentiles, we were "grafted in", and as a result we not only gained a "share in the nourishing root", we were adopted as sons by God himself. In a very real sense, this adoption is just as significant as "the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises."

As J.I. Packer has pointed out, this adoption is not just some dry and sterile "doctrine", but a "privilege of the Gospel". Witness Lee downplayed, and at times even mocked this notion of adoption. Lee claimed that receiving God's life was "the higher gospel", and relegated adoption to "the lower gospel". It took me decades and being away from this unbiblical and absurd notion to come to a proper understanding and appreciation of our adoption as sons. Praise God for brothers like J.I. Packer that the Lord has provided to the Body of Christ!
-

[OBW]

Helen Keller, 6/8/2021

I do not want the peace that passes understanding, I want the understanding that brings peace.

(modernized)

Sounds nice. I initially thought this was really kind of a big idea.

Then I looked at verses about peace. There is one that says something about the peace that passes (or transcends) understanding (Phil 4:7). But no verse concerning peace indicates that understanding brings peace.

A person that can only be held in high esteem in today's way of thinking says something that sounds holy and spiritual but not mentioned in the scripture while essentially despising something actually stated in the scripture. Is this a good way to make a point? Seems almost Lee-like. State the unsupportable and argue that it is superior to what is fully supported.

In this case we have an appeal to a false authority because the status of Hellen Keller as a significant person of intellect and learning does not qualify her as a person of theological intellect or authority. Yet I am sure that there is more than one list of spiritual quotes that includes this one.

Do we grab this with gusto take it to our next Bible study? I'm sure she meant well. I don't think she was anti Christ or religion.

But are we sure that understanding brings peace? It seems that we are prone to studying the scripture with the goal of finding eternal life but failing to actually turn to the One that is eternal life. The one that the scriptures testify of. (John 5:39-40) The same could be said of peace. I realize that this is no more clearly stated in the scripture than what Ms. Keller said — which is not at all in plain words. But I believe it is consistent with what is found there.

In any case, while I cannot say with certainty that understanding simply does not bring peace, I would be hesitant to highlight such a statement as an important spiritual concept since its proponent is holding it out as superior to what the scripture actually states. That seems to diminish its importance to me.

[UntoHim]

Thanks Mike for your input. At least I know you're paying attention!

To Mike and everyone: Please take special note that the title of the module is "Quotes and Quips" and not "Biblically sound and theologically correct Quotes and Quips". Most of the time I do try to put up a quote or quip that is indeed biblically sound and theologically correct, but sometimes I like to break up the monotony with something that is simply thought provoking (in the sense of provoking a novel view or way of interpreting a biblical or spiritual concept or passage) Sometimes I like to thrown in a little humor as well.

Also, in quoting any mortal human being, I am not promoting or even recommending all their views and understanding of the Bible, their interpretation of the Bible, their overall worldview, or approve or condone everything they have ever said or done throughout their lifetime. This should go without saying.....but I guess I need to say it anyway.

I consider Helen Keller to be one of the most amazing human beings in recent history. She also happened to be a believer. To be sure, she was not a "conventional" Christian. She apparently was a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, who was anything but a conventional Christian. That being said, the fact that she was blind, deaf and mute since 2 years old, and became one of the most renown lecturers and writers of the 20th century, and was a believer, makes her quoteworthy in my view.

Finally, I think the quote in question should be taken as it was given - no more or no less than her own personal interpretation and take on Philippians 4:7.
-

[OBW]

I had my suspicions.

[aron]

There was a moment when 2 Cor 8 and 9 suddenly came alive to me. Paul was going on about giving, not taking. Look at Jesus - he gave everything. "He was rich, and he became poor on your behalf" (8:9) I was reading that "collection for the Lord's people" (8:4) in the context of Paul's repeated reminders (Rom 15:25-28, 1 Cor 15:1-3) elsewhere. And I remembered the charge of the Jerusalem Pillars to Paul: "remember the poor" which he said he'd eagerly do (Gal 2:9,10). And Paul and Silas 'dispensing' (RecV) in Acts 12:25 - foodstuffs, clothing, to the Jerusalem poor, brought from Antioch. And then Paul declaring boldly that he'd come back to Jerusalem with 'alms for my nation' in Acts 24:17 - gifts from the gentile churches far abroad.

Then I remembered Jesus repeatedly teaching, "give, and it shall be given to you" and "give to those who can't repay you" and suddenly it all connected - so THAT was God's economy that Paul was telling Timothy to promote in Ephesus! Because that's what Paul was promoting everywhere else: Galatia, Corinth, Rome - God's economy. Give to others - that is love. Love isn't words, or even feeling, it is doing, specifically it is giving. Give with a joyful heart. That is God's economy.

Suddenly it all gelled in my mind. Suddenly there was an understanding, congealed from disparate sources. It was the most spiritual, serene, and free-from-mind-control moment. God touched my mind and my thoughts, no longer was I passive receptacle for someone else's doctrine shoveled in. Understanding brought freedom from bondage, freedom and inexpressible peace.

The above isn't a doctrine or teaching but a story of experience. But then everyone else has experience too, and interpretation per 1 Cor 14:26, and so I don't push mine as objective truth. But still, it was pretty cool. It was very much like that moment when the teacher was tracing a 'W' across Helen Keller's palm, holding her other hand under the spigot. Suddenly a synaptic connection was made, and a God-given brain fired to life.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

The above isn't a doctrine or teaching but a story of experience.

Anectdotal evidence eh? You know what they say about anecdotal evidence? Nothing, because anecdotes are not evidence. A page or tape full of anecdotes is not data.

Now, dislodging my tongue from the inside of my cheek, I move on.

All joking aside, while I suspect that God's economy was far broader than that, or than "just dispensing himself into man," I also suspect that what you just said was at least a part of that broader economy. Meanwhile, Lee would have nothing to do with that kind of economy because he labeled it as "works." And to him, all works are dead.

[Ohio]

This is not exactly a GKChesterson quote, rather a distortion ascribed to Pres. JFK:

Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations says that the quotation, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up,” was ascribed to Chesterton by John F. Kennedy in a 1945 notebook.The quotation you’re looking for is from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing, in the chapter entitled, “The Drift from Domesticity”:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

[UntoHim]

Thanks Ohio! Always nice to see someone is actually paying attention! Hey, just goes to show you that one can't believe everything they see on the Internet!

Anyways, I thought this quote is quite applicable for us current and former members of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Lee and his followers have forever made it their mission to tear down all the fences erected by "poor, poor Christianity" with little to no care for the safety and guidance they have provided over the centuries.

When one goes about tearing down the theological fences erected over the centuries without any regard for the reasons and purposes for which they were erected, one can easily find themselves teaching and believing all sorts of heretical and crazy things. You know, like believing your church is the only legitimate church, and that all other Christian churches are illegitimate daughters of the Great Whore. That Protestantism is christless. That your "apostle" is the only person speaking as God's oracle on earth. That you are becoming God in life and nature. That Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit. And of course the list goes on. May God have mercy.
-

[Ohio]

Agreed. It's amazing how often we were so easily deceived by Lee's "new and improved" teachings long ago trashed as heretical. Time was needed to test these teachings and practices emanating out of LSM. All of WL's so-called "recovered" teachings, tearing down long-established orthodox "fences," which appeared to us at the time to be the long lost "holy grail of God's economy," have failed to measure up.

Reminds me of the "writing on the wall" seen by Balshazzar, King of Babylon, who also spent his time trashing the "degraded and hopeless" people of God, the Jews of Judah and their Temple. Daniel made it clear that he has been "weighed in the scales and found wanting." (Daniel 5)

[Nell]

"The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before.

The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view.

Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation that follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged."

B. B. Warfield
1851-1921

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Nell

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before.

The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view.

Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation that follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

B. B. Warfield
1851-1921

Great quote, Nell. Thanks for sharing it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by JJ

Great quote, Nell. Thanks for sharing it.

Thanks JJ. UntoHim shared it first on the front page. I liked it too and didn’t want it to get lost.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Mercy detached from justice grows unmerciful - C.S. Lewis
I've seen many quotes comparing/contrasting Truth and Love and Truth and Grace, but rarely Mercy and Justice. We worship and serve a God who is graceful and merciful, yet he is also a God of justice and righteousness. This notion brings a whole new light to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"(Matt 5:48). In recent years, I have taken "perfect" (Gk τέλειός ) here to have the meaning and implication of "complete". A better translation here might be "be perfectly complete as your heavenly Father is perfectly complete". If we as God's people only exemplify and show forth God's grace and mercy without also exemplifying and showing forth his justice and righteousness, we are incomplete, we are imperfect.
-

[Nell]

Some levity from UntoHim & FB:

“I grew up with Bob Hope, Steve Jobs and Johnny Cash. Now there’s no jobs, no cash and no hope. Please don’t let anything happen to Kevin Bacon.”

😁

[Ohio]

The remarkable thing about God is that when you fear God, you fear nothing else, whereas if you do not fear God, you fear everything else. -- Oswald Chambers

This is really true. The other day I saw someone driving alone with a mask on, and I was reminded of how scary this world is without God.

[Trapped]

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - G.K. Chesterton

Has this concept of "original sin" been discussed anywhere here on the forum?

I'm not sure what Chesterton means by original sin.....but I'm also not sure how much I agree with it either. I believe it means things like:

1) we inherited Adam's sin nature and thus cannot help but sin
2) we are guilty of Adam's sin

But neither of these make sense to me in light of a just God. If we were born with an inherent sin nature and are thus unable to not sin, then how can we say God is just for judging us for things we could not help but do?

If we are guilty of Adam's sin (in the local church I heard things like "well if you were there, you would have done the same thing, therefore we are all guilty") then, again, God is not just for pronouncing guilt upon party B for what party A did thousands of years prior. And we cannot accept "you are guilty because you WOULD HAVE done it too".....even our messed up courts don't pronounce guilt for "would have" crimes!

The Bible is clear that "all have sinned" and thus death spread to all men. In other words, we are judged because we truly have all committed a sin. But I'm not sure if I agree that we are born into a situation in which we cannot help but sin. After all, for example, in the Old Testament God is patient for centuries, admonishing His people to turn back and cease from their sins......this makes no sense if God didn't expect them to be able to do it in the first place. God sending destruction upon them isn't reasonable if He knows they are born with a nature that makes them incapable of obeying.

Not sure how popular my thoughts here will be. But I think this is another important topic because there are some very angry people out there who grew up in a Christian church who hate God because he condemns people to hell for eternity for having them born in a condition where they could not help but commit sins in the first place. It's a legitimate issue to wrestle with, and I'm not sure there is much support for it.

Things like David lamenting that "in sin did my mother conceive me" are the exclamations of a man swimming in the guilt of his horrific actions and overwhelming shame......they are not defined teachings.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - G.K. Chesterton

Has this concept of "original sin" been discussed anywhere here on the forum?

I'm not sure what Chesterton means by original sin.....but I'm also not sure how much I agree with it either. I believe it means things like:

Original sin is a Catholic concept, namely that sin was passed down genetically to all newborns. That's why they rush to baptize infants when young, so they will not perish due to "original sin."

[UntoHim]

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
G.K. Chesterton


My goodness, I would never have imagined that such a light-hearted quip would cause such a stir! I like to occasionally throw in a quote from people like Chesterton, who was not a trained theologian per se (He was a Christian philosopher/critic/comedian) because sometimes it really helps to look at Biblical/theological concepts and ideas from a more pragmatic, even cynical, point of view.

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car! Sometimes it takes a little standing back from the actual black and white of Scripture, and then combine scriptural concepts and ideas with our common human experiences and observations, and thereby come up with an axiom that expresses a biblical truism, and at the same time matches our human experience.

Whether or not the term "original sin" is a Catholic concept is not as relevant, I believe, as the fact that it is based upon a scriptural/historical event - the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their abject disobedience to God. The apostle Paul clearly and strongly teaches that the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin were as devastating as they were enduring - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Coming back to Chesterton, he was simply making a claim based upon his human experience and observation.
-

[UntoHim]

One's orthodoxy cannot be purchased, finessed, or teased out. Neither can it be demonstrated by sleight of hand, where some cards are shown while others are cleverly withheld. Someone will always discover and trumpet the rest of the story. Given the Movement’s continued efforts to get attention though, eventually investigators will discover its errors and begin to write about them. They will not merely deal with alleged mistakes in Trinitarian doctrine, but with the appalling arrogance and sectarian spirit that exist inside of LC environs.
John Myer
A Future and A Hope
Excerpts from A Future and A Hope Chpt 15 Church Life Beyond the Movement

-----------------------------------------------------------

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
G.K. Chesterton


My goodness, I would never have imagined that such a light-hearted quip would cause such a stir! I like to occasionally throw in a quote from people like Chesterton, who was not a trained theologian per se (He was a Christian philosopher/critic/comedian) because sometimes it really helps to look at Biblical/theological concepts and ideas from a more pragmatic, even cynical, point of view.

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car! Sometimes it takes a little standing back from the actual black and white of Scripture, and then combine scriptural concepts and ideas with our common human experiences and observations, and thereby come up with an axiom that expresses a biblical truism, and at the same time matches our human experience.

Whether or not the term "original sin" is a Catholic concept is not as relevant, I believe, as the fact that it is based upon a scriptural/historical event - the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their abject disobedience to God. The apostle Paul clearly and strongly teaches that the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin were as devastating as they were enduring - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Coming back to Chesterton, he was simply making a claim based upon his human experience and observation.
-

I didn't mean for my one post to be considered a stir, but I have been thinking about this topic since then.

Serious question: where do people point to in the Bible to justify the belief that Adam's nature changed from whatever it was prior to sinning to whatever it was after sinning? That Adam acquired a sin "nature"? I mean, specifically, is there a place that references a kind of change in "nature" of Adam and Eve when they sinned against God? Or were they simply people who's nature did not change, but who chose of their own free will to disobey God's word......nature unchanged?

Death spread to all men because all sinned doesn't mean "all sinned in Adam", or any kind of guilt by lineage like that. Death spread to all men because we all actually sinned, as in....committed a sin.

The problem with some kind of inherent or inherited sin nature is that it is typically paired with the thought that we are already guilty or that we "cannot help but sin"......which means to the careful listener, we are speaking of a God who is just and holy, and who yet finds no problem judging man for acts that he cannot help but commit through no fault of his own, and through no role he had in his own creation. This doesn't work in the light of a righteous God. I think the issue is with the concept of an in-born sin nature. If there is already a thread on this topic, well, I couldn't find it.

Trapped

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car!

Did he really say this? Or is this something that fits into his thoughts without actual connection? Like when we make some comment about the internet and attribute it to Abraham Lincoln.

[UntoHim]

Upon further review, it looks like this quote was originally attributed a contemporary of Chesterton, evangelist Billy Sunday.

https://www.facebook.com/G.K.Chester...0907815561143/

-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Original sin is a Catholic concept, namely that sin was passed down genetically to all newborns. That's why they rush to baptize infants when young, so they will not perish due to "original sin."

That makes no sense to me....to believe that an infant with absolutely no awareness of right and wrong and who, ostensibly, would not have actually committed a sin, would perish/be judged by God. For what exactly? What offense did they commit? Being born? That's not a just God....but that concept of God is what fuels some of the anger of some people who reject Him.

Additionally, it makes no sense to me that we would be born with an inherent sin nature, a tendency or drive to sin that we have no control over, and then Jesus, who is supposed to be like us in every way, has a completely different human nature than us....one without inherent sin. This is not "like us in every way"; this is, rather, a massive leg up on the problem! His not ever committing a sin, given his distinct advantage in that regard, ends up being more of a cop out than an encouragement or amazing feat. It's only if His and our human natures are the same that His being sinless is actually meaningful. If His and our human natures are the same, then either He had a sin nature like us, or we do not have a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He not only did not have a sin nature, He also did not commit acts of sin, so the former option goes out the window. So......that leaves the latter, and this puts the thought that WE have an inherent sin nature up for question.

(Note: in case it is not clear, I am making a distinction between a sin nature versus actually committing acts of sin.)

I think, honestly, that we are the same as Adam and Eve, pre-fall. They had a human nature that was granted free will to sin or not sin, to obey or disobey. And we have the same choice. I don't recall some kind of "nature change" of Adam and Eve in the Bible, or a "nature change" that ever came over me when I willfully sinned for the first time.

As an aside, I get a kick out of the fact that Jesus making a whip and driving them all out of the temple and overturning tables.......was not a sin! In the local church you end up apologizing for intangible things like being "too much"!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

That makes no sense to me....to believe that an infant with absolutely no awareness of right and wrong and who, ostensibly, would not have actually committed a sin, would perish/be judged by God. For what exactly? What offense did they commit? Being born? That's not a just God....but that concept of God is what fuels some of the anger of some people who reject Him.

Additionally, it makes no sense to me that we would be born with an inherent sin nature, a tendency or drive to sin that we have no control over, and then Jesus, who is supposed to be like us in every way, has a completely different human nature than us....one without inherent sin. This is not "like us in every way"; this is, rather, a massive leg up on the problem! His not ever committing a sin, given his distinct advantage in that regard, ends up being more of a cop out than an encouragement or amazing feat. It's only if His and our human natures are the same that His being sinless is actually meaningful. If His and our human natures are the same, then either He had a sin nature like us, or we do not have a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He not only did not have a sin nature, He also did not commit acts of sin, so the former option goes out the window. So......that leaves the latter, and this puts the thought that WE have an inherent sin nature up for question.

(Note: in case it is not clear, I am making a distinction between a sin nature versus actually committing acts of sin.)

I think, honestly, that we are the same as Adam and Eve, pre-fall. They had a human nature that was granted free will to sin or not sin, to obey or disobey. And we have the same choice. I don't recall some kind of "nature change" of Adam and Eve in the Bible, or a "nature change" that ever came over me when I willfully sinned for the first time.

As an aside, I get a kick out of the fact that Jesus making a whip and driving them all out of the temple and overturning tables.......was not a sin! In the local church you end up apologizing for intangible things like being "too much"!

Trapped

I think this post is “too much!” lol

And we in the Midwest were at one time quarantined for the intangible sin of being “ambitious.” Yikes! To which one brother replied, “without a healthy dose of ‘ambition’ I would not even get out of bed in the morning.”

But back to the topic. It seems there is a definite connection between the Catholic error of “original sin” and WL’s of being “poisoned” by eating the forbidden Tree. Both emphasize inheriting a corrupted human nature rather than defining sin resulting from free will and disobedience.

[Paul Vusik]

I had this quote saved for a while, and figured that I’ll go back and find the actual link to it. Well, I did find it, but it has been edited by LSM to read different than it was before. I guess they just keep modifying their statements, as soon as they get caught.

This is the original one:

“We do not need the Bible study classes; we need the weeping classes to weep for the spiritual poverty and deadness.* We must listen to the Spirit--not just read what is written.* We must listen to the present, instant speaking of the living Spirit.
Why have Christians been divided?* It is simply because of the different teachings and doctrines.* The more teachings there are, the more divisions there will be.* All the various teachings and opinions have done much damage to the recovery of the church.* I fear that some of us are still under the influence of the Babylonian doctrines.* May the Lord have mercy upon us that we may forsake all of those teachings, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.* Le us go back to Jerusalem with the Spirit.* We all must have our "heads cut off."

And this is the new version of it:

“Instead of Bible study classes, we need weeping classes to weep for the spiritual poverty and deadness. We must listen to the Spirit—not just read what is written. We must listen to the present, instant speaking of the living Spirit. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” To read the writings is not sufficient. The age has been turned to the Spirit.
Why have Christians been divided? It is simply because of the different teachings and doctrines. The more teachings there are, the more divisions there will be. All the various teachings and opinions have done much damage to the recovery of the church. I fear that some of us are still under the influence of the Babylonian doctrines. May the Lord have mercy on us that we may forsake all those teachings, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Let us go back to Jerusalem with the Spirit. Our mentality has done much damage to the Lord's recovery. We simply need to turn to the Spirit.”


https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=3A56CFEF28

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

And this is the new version of it:

“Instead of Bible study classes, we need weeping classes to weep for the spiritual poverty and deadness. We must listen to the Spirit—not just read what is written. We must listen to the present, instant speaking of the living Spirit. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” To read the writings is not sufficient. The age has been turned to the Spirit.
Why have Christians been divided? It is simply because of the different teachings and doctrines. The more teachings there are, the more divisions there will be. All the various teachings and opinions have done much damage to the recovery of the church. I fear that some of us are still under the influence of the Babylonian doctrines. May the Lord have mercy on us that we may forsake all those teachings, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Let us go back to Jerusalem with the Spirit. Our mentality has done much damage to the Lord's recovery. We simply need to turn to the Spirit.”

This "regardless of right or wrong" stuff just hacks me off. So Witness Lee's ministry can be full of poisonous stuff, and we are just supposed to apply the "chicken versus bones/feathers" principle, but with other non-ministry things, we are supposed to forsake EVERYTHING, REGARDLESS of the right parts or not.

Why on earth would anyone forsake something that is actually right? That's ridiculous. What happened to "test all things, hold fast to what is good, reject what is evil"?

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This "regardless of right or wrong" stuff just hacks me off. So Witness Lee's ministry can be full of poisonous stuff, and we are just supposed to apply the "chicken versus bones/feathers" principle, but with other non-ministry things, we are supposed to forsake EVERYTHING, REGARDLESS of the right parts or not.

Why on earth would anyone forsake something that is actually right? That's ridiculous. What happened to "test all things, hold fast to what is good, reject what is evil"?

Trapped

Have you not read that both “right and wrong” are both from the same tree? Or so we were told. It all made so much sense when I was there.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you not read that both “right and wrong” are both from the same tree? Or so we were told. It all made so much sense when I was there.

I remember when I was in LC, I once tried to explain this “Babylonian teaching” to my mother who was Christian her whole life. She taught I was from another planet. Thank God she had some discernment and didn’t bite the apple.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This "regardless of right or wrong" stuff just hacks me off. So Witness Lee's ministry can be full of poisonous stuff, and we are just supposed to apply the "chicken versus bones/feathers" principle, but with other non-ministry things, we are supposed to forsake EVERYTHING, REGARDLESS of the right parts or not.

Why on earth would anyone forsake something that is actually right? That's ridiculous. What happened to "test all things, hold fast to what is good, reject what is evil"?

Trapped

You have to trust them to tell you what is good, which for the most part doesn’t mean it’s right, and it’s all part of your fallen nature, you soulish man! (Sarcasm) They will also surely identify what is evil, and wrong! Remember, they have the spirit, and we are just under the influence! And even writing those questions, requires some mental acuteness, so your causing damage by posting things in this forum. LOL, what a maze of nonsense!

[Paul Vusik]

“Some Christian teachers said that our human body is real and that the Body of Christ is just a figure of speech. They were wrong. Actually, our body is a picture, a figure, and a type of the real body, which is Christ's Body (Rom. 12:4-5). For us to understand what the Body of Christ is, God created a human body. The human body is a figure. It is not the real body. The real body is Christ's Body. The Body of Christ is not a figure or a type but a reality. Since our human body is a mystery, how much more is the Body of Christ a mystery! No one can fully explain it.”
https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=1F9ED91DCC


Anyone want to take a shot at putting this in plain English? So I can’t figure out if my body is real or not. I had a very bad back ache this morning, probably not real, just probably as I was told once, “pain is just weakness leaving your body”!

[UntoHim]

Go live somewhere in something with somebody or nobody. But put aside the passivity and the quest for complete fulfillment and the perfectionism and the preoccupation with the future, and for God's sake start making some decisions in your life. Don't wait for the liver-shiver. If you are seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, you will be in God's will, so just go out and do something!

Kevin DeYoung

[Zezima]

“So many things in Christianity are leaven. These include Christmas, Easter, idols, pictures, images, rock music, drama, and the entire Y.M.C.A. system”

Life Study of Matthew ch. 38 section 3

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

“So many things in Christianity are leaven. These include Christmas, Easter, idols, pictures, images, rock music, drama, and the entire Y.M.C.A. system”

Life Study of Matthew ch. 38 section 3

That leaven has also leavened the entire Recovery.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That leaven has also leavened the entire Recovery.

“We do not want the divisive practice of the Protestant denominations, and neither do we want the pagan customs, such as Easter or Christmas. Today what most Christians preach is a shallow gospel”

- CWWL, 1994–1997, vol. 2, "Talks with a Seeking One," ch. 2: The Way of the Church and the Practice of the Lord's Recovery

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

“We do not want the divisive practice of the Protestant denominations, and neither do we want the pagan customs, such as Easter or Christmas. Today what most Christians preach is a shallow gospel”

- CWWL, 1994–1997, vol. 2, "Talks with a Seeking One," ch. 2: The Way of the Church and the Practice of the Lord's Recovery

Having lived thru the horribly divisive practices of the LSM for the past 50 years, I can only laugh at Lee’s proclamations. And how ironic it became in the Recovery when the only holiday our LC could celebrate were the pagan customs of Chinese New Years. Today what most LSM ministers preach is a shallow, perverted, and leavened gospel exalting the writings of WL himself.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Zezima

“So many things in Christianity are leaven. These include Christmas, Easter, idols, pictures, images, rock music, drama, and the entire Y.M.C.A. system”

Life Study of Matthew ch. 38 section 3

No bigger idol in the Local Churches than Witness Lee. The Bible is treated as a mere supplement to whatever Witness Lee had to say.

[Zezima]

“Christianity is filled with the divisive differences among the various peoples. For this reason, it is impossible for Christians outside the recovery to have the church life.”

-Life-study of Ephesians, msg. 23: The Breaking down of the Middle Wall of Partition

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Zezima

“Christianity is filled with the divisive differences among the various peoples. For this reason, it is impossible for Christians outside the recovery to have the church life.”

-Life-study of Ephesians, msg. 23: The Breaking down of the Middle Wall of Partition

Do Christians outside the LC have a goal of “having the church life” as defined by Witness Lee?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Nell

Do Christians outside the LC have a goal of “having the church life” as defined by Witness Lee?

What an interesting thought, I have not considered. Short answer, from my experience no. Though, not entirely sure how WL would define it apart from attending meetings every day and having dinner with other members of the Recovery.

[OBW]

“Christianity is filled with the divisive differences among the various peoples. For this reason, it is impossible for Christians outside the recovery to have the church life.”

-Life-study of Ephesians, msg. 23: The Breaking down of the Middle Wall of Partition

You mean divisive differences like only learning from the Oracle of the age? Believing that churches named according to cities are the only legitimate ones?

I guess my general understanding of the church as the body of Christ and the assembling of those that comprise that body was wrong. I need a new Bible that teaches their way.

But the thing that is missing in quotes like this one is: "What is the church life?" How is it defined such that not being all-in with whatever the LRC is selling constitutes a "divisive difference" that denies that there is a church with any kind of life, therefore "impossible . . . to have . . ."?

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by OBW

You mean divisive differences like only learning from the Oracle of the age? Believing that churches named according to cities are the only legitimate ones?

I guess my general understanding of the church as the body of Christ and the assembling of those that comprise that body was wrong. I need a new Bible that teaches their way.

But the thing that is missing in quotes like this one is: "What is the church life?" How is it defined such that not being all-in with whatever the LRC is selling constitutes a "divisive difference" that denies that there is a church with any kind of life, therefore "impossible . . . to have . . ."?

A lot of really interesting questions, but before engaging I’d ask you to pray. The question mark is an upside down serpent, and critical thoughts are darts from satan.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of really interesting questions, but before engaging I’d ask you to pray. The question mark is an upside down serpent, and critical thoughts are darts from satan.

Hummmm......where have I heard that before?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of really interesting questions, but before engaging I’d ask you to pray. The question mark is an upside down serpent, and critical thoughts are darts from satan.

Dodging the question(s) are we? You realize that the standard method of study and teaching for a rabbi, including Jesus, was to ask questions of those who came with answers.

I make no pretense of being at the level of either a rabbi or Christian theologian, but if either wants to convince me, they need to answer some questions, not make bare statements like "Christianity is filled with the divisive differences" or "impossible for Christians outside the recovery."

And the first questions to come to mind are:

1. What are the divisive differences?
2. If differences must be qualified by the word "divisive," are there differences that would not be divisive?
3. Are you sure they are divisive in the way you mean it?
4. Are your differences any less divisive (or possibly even more so)?
5. Are you sure that the declarations of your leadership, both past and present, is not fully divisive when they declare all of the rest of Christianity to be mooing cows and the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon?
6. How do you define this "church life" that you declare no others can have?
7. Are you sure that it is the goal of the life of a true church?
8. If so, are you sure that no one else has it?

Maybe the real issue is that lack of critical thinking is the result of darts from Satan.

Originally Posted by OBW

Dodging the question(s) are we? You realize that the standard method of study and teaching for a rabbi, including Jesus, was to ask questions of those who came with answers.

I make no pretense of being at the level of either a rabbi or Christian theologian, but if either wants to convince me, they need to answer some questions, not make bare statements like "Christianity is filled with the divisive differences" or "impossible for Christians outside the recovery."

And the first questions to come to mind are:

1. What are the divisive differences?
2. If differences must be qualified by the word "divisive," are there differences that would not be divisive?
3. Are you sure they are divisive in the way you mean it?
4. Are your differences any less divisive (or possibly even more so)?
5. Are you sure that the declarations of your leadership, both past and present, is not fully divisive when they declare all of the rest of Christianity to be mooing cows and the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon?
6. How do you define this "church life" that you declare no others can have?
7. Are you sure that it is the goal of the life of a true church?
8. If so, are you sure that no one else has it?

Maybe the real issue is that lack of critical thinking is the result of darts from Satan.

Actually living and being under a spell of men, who are just tools of the powers at be, prevents people from asking questions.

Just a fresh example from Message 1 of summer feast of the local church.

He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy in order for us to be God in nature (Eph 1:4).

He predestinated us unto sonship even before we were created in order for us to become God in life (Eph 1:5).

Ephesians 1:4-5.
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,


Nether of these verses references men becoming God in life and nature, but becoming holy and without blame before Him in LOVE. When you replace inspired Word of God, with the uninspired word of men, and replace something that’s attainable like growing in love with something unattainable like becoming God, you create movement like local church.

Did someone question these men after the message? Absolutely not!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Dodging the question(s) are we? You realize that the standard method of study and teaching for a rabbi, including Jesus, was to ask questions of those who came with answers.

I make no pretense of being at the level of either a rabbi or Christian theologian, but if either wants to convince me, they need to answer some questions, not make bare statements like "Christianity is filled with the divisive differences" or "impossible for Christians outside the recovery."

And the first questions to come to mind are:

1. What are the divisive differences?
2. If differences must be qualified by the word "divisive," are there differences that would not be divisive?
3. Are you sure they are divisive in the way you mean it?
4. Are your differences any less divisive (or possibly even more so)?
5. Are you sure that the declarations of your leadership, both past and present, is not fully divisive when they declare all of the rest of Christianity to be mooing cows and the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon?
6. How do you define this "church life" that you declare no others can have?
7. Are you sure that it is the goal of the life of a true church?
8. If so, are you sure that no one else has it?

Maybe the real issue is that lack of critical thinking is the result of darts from Satan.

OBW,

From time to time Zezima is given to a bit of sarcasm, wit, or some such, in an attempt to see who would bite. This time you win.

Nell

[OBW]

From time to time Zezima is given to a bit of sarcasm . . . .

I haven't seen enough of Zesima's posts to have an opinion on the subject, so I'll take your word for it.

I remember years ago when I made a comment about something on the other forum (before this one had started) in which I quoted a line from a song by The Who, and one of our Philippino hosts responded with something like "we don't get our theology from songs."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I haven't seen enough of Zesima's posts to have an opinion on the subject, so I'll take your word for it.

I remember years ago when I made a comment about something on the other forum (before this one had started) in which I quoted a line from a song by The Who, and one of our Philippino hosts responded with something like "we don't get our theology from songs."

That's right! We won't get fooled again!

Some of the latest, from the summer training:

“ Many prophets and righteous men have desired to perceive the things you see, and have not, and* to hear what you hear, and have not.”*- Matt 13:17
#treasureTheTwelveOutlines
#CentralBurden m3”

“ It took 500 years for God to bring His people to a point where they could answer these in a deep, biblical, intrinsic manner. The source of this is God Himself. I hope you all in awe of these things. Never treat any of them in a light way.
#CentralBurden m3”

“Expect to be raptured, but we need to be faithful in our daily duties, living a properly balanced human life, while simultaneously living in the divine and mystical realm of the consummated Spirit and the pneumatic Christ”
#conclusion #CentralBurden m2

“ We should be apparently physical, but invisibly divine and mystical, living simultaneously in two realms.*
#CentralBurden m2”

“Even in your church service, You may have done it correctly, but the *way* you did it was not. Was it you, or God in you?*
#CentralBurden m2”

“We become part of the divine and mystical realm through the divine birth; through regeneration we were born into the divine and mystical realm—Jn 3:5-6.
#theFact
#CentralBurden m2”

“ True growth in life depends upon our receiving the word directly from God; only his speaking has true spiritual value.*
#CentralBurden m1”

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Some of the latest, from the summer training:

I’m curious, did the local church actually use May 13:17 to equate their Lee permeated hyperbole teachings to the words of Jesus while he was walking this earth? If so, that’s a pretty bold move.

[UntoHim]

Hey Onlooker,
Not sure what version you are using, but I'm not aware of any book in the Bible called "May"? Probably a typo?
-

[ACuriousFellow]

A particular quote with implications that drove me up the wall.

Some today would argue concerning whether we are right or wrong. But we would rather be livingly wrong than dead right. Whether we are wrong or not is questionable, but one thing is sure: those who argue about right and wrong are really dead. As long as you are dead, what is the value of being right? Sometimes I have said that the most right persons are those who are buried in the cemeteries. They can never do anything wrong. From the first day of the year to the last, they are always so dead right.

(The Seven Spirits for the Local Churches, The Collected Works of Witness Lee, 1969, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3, ministrybooks.org)

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey Onlooker,
Not sure what version you are using, but I'm not aware of any book in the Bible called "May"? Probably a typo?
-

You right UntoHim, just a typo. It was meant to be Matt 13:17.

Here is a quote for those whose local church experience just felt flat, or even worse. It’s all your fault, at least according to the Lee’s Superlatives Machine, or LSM.

“If we claim that we are calling on the Lord and releasing our spirit, yet month after month and year after year there is no sanctification, transformation, conformation, or building up, we need to consider whether our calling and releasing our spirit are genuine. If our calling and releasing our spirit are genuine, the Lord will come into us as life to save us by sanctifying, transforming, conforming, and building us up.”

We were just not genuine brothers and sisters, just faked our way around for decades! 😷
Don’t ever question his tactics or prescriptions, question your own genuineness and your personal beliefs, because the gold standard of spiritual expertise has spoken!