Can "cult" members still be saved?

[ToGodAlone]

Greetings all!

It's been awhile, I'll admit. Far too long...but alas, life is busy.

I was just wondering your views on this topic. Not really specific to just the LRC, although I expect it to be the main topic of conversation and pretty much any example I use will be from them.

It is a commonly held truth that to be "saved' you must believe in Jesus Christ as your savior. That faith alone guarantees your salvation and it cannot be taken from you. Now...regarding groups such as the LRC who vehemently insist that they believe that this fact, but do something such as "teach a different Jesus" or contain beliefs that may or may not be entirely Biblical (ie one church one city/pray reading, and the like), for one who may have come to know Christ through one of these groups, are they saved by their faith or does the fact that those groups have somewhat (or totally) questionable beliefs make them not really saved in the first place?

I've seen a few arguments on both sides. Those who say no might say something along the lines of "because this group contains doctrine that is not totally Biblical, these people are not really saved" or "because their Jesus is not the same Jesus that the rest of Christianity believes (meaning something like the WL version of modalism, or straight up modalism if you see it that way, is being taught) they are not saved." Those who say yes might say something like "since they do believe in Christ as their savior and have a genuine love for Christ, but that is being twisted by that particular group, that person is still saved."

Thoughts?

ToGodAlone

[OBW]

Tough topic. No obvious answer. Yet an issue that we grappled with about once a year on the old Bereans site.

My opening answer (or more correctly, statement of uncertainty) is a definitive "I'm not sure." I figure there are extremes that we can discuss that would clearly be a "different Jesus." But at the same time, there are differences in understanding that are still the same Christ.

If our only concern is whether true modalism (beyond Lee) or even true tritheism is a different Jesus, then my starting point (from which you need to argue to change my thought) would be "same Jesus." As long as that is the only thing in question, I might argue that some positions may not be as "right" as others, but they do not necessarily seeing Jesus differently. They just differ on how to read this collection of names and characteristics to "know" what it is (if anything) that God is telling us about himself. It could be that He really didn't care if we got "the Trinity" right as long as we were following Jesus.

Now some others argue that Jesus is not God. Just the Son of God. (Isn't that, in human terms, a little like saying I am not human, just the son of a human?) I have a harder time with that. Yet, if they believe that faith in Jesus, the one who died on the cross and rose again, is the way, then I'm still not entirely sure. I would try to persuade them to understand differently. But if that is the only thing, then I would at least leave the rejecting to God.

For me, the nearest thing to a line between "in" and "out" would be whether you actually put your faith in Jesus. And actually follow and obey him. If those are correct, then not understanding the parts that seem not to have been spelled out that clearly does not cause me to want to simply reject them as not Christian.

Now those who replace faith in Jesus with something else are a different story. Like certain cult that has "Jesus Christ" in their name yet have almost cut him from their teaching and belief. Just another prophet?

Or those who sort of claim to believe everything. (The ultimate Pascal position. Don't just say you believe in Christ because if you are wrong, then there is no harm. Say you believe in all of them. Cover all the bases.) To believe in everything is to believe in nothing.

I would never suggest that those who believe in Jesus in a way that is more "orthodox" simply be silent concerning what you think is an error. Otherwise, you may inadvertently be allowing some who don't actually believe to die thinking they do.

Having said all of that, I do not believe that we are called to simply allow anyone to to believe just about anything just because they do believe in Jesus. There are systems of error that rob many of the joy of the Lord. That keep them in different kinds of bondage that they should be free of.

And the "we are superior," know-it-all, say it in a better way, but do little with it system of error that is the LRC could use some breaking of chains.

Chains be broken
Lives be healed
Eyes be opened
Christ is revealed

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Greetings all!

It's been awhile, I'll admit. Far too long...but alas, life is busy.

I was just wondering your views on this topic. Not really specific to just the LRC, although I expect it to be the main topic of conversation and pretty much any example I use will be from them.

It is a commonly held truth that to be "saved' you must believe in Jesus Christ as your savior. That faith alone guarantees your salvation and it cannot be taken from you. Now...regarding groups such as the LRC who vehemently insist that they believe that this fact, but do something such as "teach a different Jesus" or contain beliefs that may or may not be entirely Biblical (ie one church one city/pray reading, and the like), for one who may have come to know Christ through one of these groups, are they saved by their faith or does the fact that those groups have somewhat (or totally) questionable beliefs make them not really saved in the first place?

I've seen a few arguments on both sides. Those who say no might say something along the lines of "because this group contains doctrine that is not totally Biblical, these people are not really saved" or "because their Jesus is not the same Jesus that the rest of Christianity believes (meaning something like the WL version of modalism, or straight up modalism if you see it that way, is being taught) they are not saved." Those who say yes might say something like "since they do believe in Christ as their savior and have a genuine love for Christ, but that is being twisted by that particular group, that person is still saved."

Thoughts?

ToGodAlone

Let me say something contrary to what you probably expected ...

If you mean cults like JW, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. then it's hard to say. Many people are "accidentally" saved in their groups.

If you mean cults like Jim Jones or Branch Davidians, then probably many are saved. Those who have a dramatic experience of salvation are more apt to follow a guy off the cliff, than some nominal "church-goer."

Modalism apologetic discussions are a non-issue. I heard that argument for years. Years ago, I was constantly drilled about my own salvation prior to entering the Recovery. These so-called "apologetics" analyzed and scrutinized my own testimony of salvation as to ascertain whether I adequately passed their "tests." The change in my life was so dramatic, that it defied explanation.

LRC does not teach "another Jesus."

There is no such thing as a church that is "totally Biblical."

[77150]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me say something contrary to what you probably expected ...

If you mean cults like JW, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. then it's hard to say. Many people are "accidentally" saved in their groups.

If you mean cults like Jim Jones or Branch Davidians, then probably many are saved. Those who have a dramatic experience of salvation are more apt to follow a guy off the cliff, than some nominal "church-goer."

Modalism apologetic discussions are a non-issue. I heard that argument for years. Years ago, I was constantly drilled about my own salvation prior to entering the Recovery. These so-called "apologetics" analyzed and scrutinized my own testimony of salvation as to ascertain whether I adequately passed their "tests." The change in my life was so dramatic, that it defied explanation.

LRC does not teach "another Jesus."

There is no such thing as a church that is "totally Biblical."

I would agree with this.

The fact that this question is posted on this forum makes the LRC clearly the context. So if you change the question to "Can members of the LRC still be saved?" I find the question quite offensive and arrogant. On the other hand if you argue you were really talking about Jim Jones, JW's, etc. then I would feel that this doesn't belong on this forum or else is very poorly defined.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me say something contrary to what you probably expected ...

If you mean cults like JW, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. then it's hard to say. Many people are "accidentally" saved in their groups.

If you mean cults like Jim Jones or Branch Davidians, then probably many are saved. Those who have a dramatic experience of salvation are more apt to follow a guy off the cliff, than some nominal "church-goer."

Modalism apologetic discussions are a non-issue. I heard that argument for years. Years ago, I was constantly drilled about my own salvation prior to entering the Recovery. These so-called "apologetics" analyzed and scrutinized my own testimony of salvation as to ascertain whether I adequately passed their "tests." The change in my life was so dramatic, that it defied explanation.

LRC does not teach "another Jesus."

There is no such thing as a church that is "totally Biblical."

I believe I said this in the OP, groups like JW, Catholics, Mormons, and the like can be discussed, as well as those other groups that you mentioned.

The reason I bring up modalism and "another Jesus" is because there are people who hold that belief (that is, that the LRC does these things) and thus they believe that people in the LRC are not actually "truly Christian" and therefore not saved. I personally do not hold this view, but I feel as though they could have a valid point.

You bring up a very valid point that there is no church that is "totally Biblical" because we all deal with imperfection and sin at the root of our beings, so it would be very hard for us to have a church that isn't tainted with sin just purely because of who we are as humans.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by 77150

I would agree with this.

The fact that this question is posted on this forum makes the LRC clearly the context. So if you change the question to "Can members of the LRC still be saved?" I find the question quite offensive and arrogant. On the other hand if you argue you were really talking about Jim Jones, JW's, etc. then I would feel that this doesn't belong on this forum or else is very poorly defined.

Forgive me if I am being overy defensive, but what's wrong with this question? This is an honest question that I wanted to pose in the LRC context because it is relevant in my life. However, I didn't want to purely restrict it to the LRC because like you said, it is offensive. I'm not sure about arrogant, because again, this is an honest and genuine question and the actual answer to this (and by no means do I actually believe I will find it here or otherwise) is very near and dear to my heart.

I know people who are in the LRC and those who are Mormon, to name a few, and whether or not they are actually saved or not for one reason or another is very important to me. You can continue to think that it is poorly defined or arrogant or whatever, and that's fine. You don't have to participate in this particular topic.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 77150

The fact that this question is posted on this forum makes the LRC clearly the context. So if you change the question to "Can members of the LRC still be saved?" I find the question quite offensive and arrogant.

But it is interesting that for the few that continue to attempt to post a little on the new Bereans forum, they treat the LRC almost in the same category as the JWs and the Mormons. And they use the term "cult" for them all fairly freely.

Now there may be a reasonable basis for use of the term on the LRC, but it is almost entirely because of practices, not doctrines. When I made my first response, I realize that some may think I was a little soft on the JWs. And I probably was. But I do it because I have some uncertainty as to what constitutes a "different Jesus."

If someone doesn't actually put faith in Christ, then there is no question. The only question is that when they put their faith in Christ, they are actually putting their faith in someone else. If they believe in a Jesus who was not crucified, or that did not rise from the dead, then they are not talking about the same person that we call Jesus. But if they see clear references to "one God" and then Jesus calls the Father "God" and Jesus himself is referred to as the "Son" (who did die on the cross and was resurrected and is given a seat at the right hand of the Father) but they are not so sure that Jesus is actually God, but simply the "Messiah" sent by God, then I'm not sure that they are talking about someone different. Just not seeing all the facts about him clearly.

And when we talk about the RCC, despite some obvious problems, I do not agree that they teach a different Christ/Jesus. Instead, they teach that you really can't go straight to God. You need an intermediary. And they don't openly preach "believe and be saved." But do they teach in a way that ultimately results in belief? Even if they do not think of it in terms of "I started to believe on this date" is belief denied? Does the fact that they do works negate the belief they come to have in a different way from the Protestant path?

I will agree that there will be many from the RCC (and probably a lot of other places) that are going to be surprised when "the day" comes. But I also think that there are going to be a lot of Evangelicals that are going to be surprised how many of them (RCCs) that will not be surprised on that day.

For the most part, this forum is not discussing any group that is not, at its core, Christian. And especially its primary focus, the LRC. For all its problems, it is very much within Christianity, and is mostly doctrinally sound as regards the actual core of the faith. It is the peripherals, plus their additional core (the ground) in which they have trouble. But not enough to send them to cultsville.

If you believe that Jesus was a good man that lived in the early first century AD, and eventually died and was buried, then you believe in a different Christ. If you believe in a Christ who cannot save, then you believe in a different Christ. If you have all the important things down right, then I don't think that misunderstanding the vague verses about being with God and being God (could be confusing) will doom your belief to the rubbish heap. You've got the right Man. He is the one sent to save his people from their sins. It would be nice if he had been more clear about how this Trinity things works. But he didn't so we are dicing and splicing. I think that we have somewhat correctly understood God a little better. I just hope we have not instead created a Frankenstein's monster that bears no resemblance with reality.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I know people who are in the LRC and those who are Mormon, to name a few, and whether or not they are actually saved or not for one reason or another is very important to me. You can continue to think that it is poorly defined or arrogant or whatever, and that's fine. You don't have to participate in this particular topic.

Yes. Cult members can still be saved.

How do I know? The Bible says "Whosoever will may come". It says "If a man confesses, believes and asks" (The Roman road) he will be saved. It doesn't appear to matter who or what you believe, as the story of the "rich young ruler" tells us. There are lots of verses about salvation in the Gospel. The woman at the well...a glorious story of the gospel of salvation...many more. Look for your answer in the Gospels. Great testimonies!

People accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior as individuals, not as a class of people. Maybe the better question is "are" the people you are concerned about saved? There's only one way to find out: ask them. It's important to you, so you should ask.

I think God sees "people" and loves us as people. Not as Mormons, Catholics, etc. We (man, men) tend to categorize people by man-made criteria because we are not as smart as He is. :-)

Lets suppose we/you come up with an answer that satisfies the question and seems right. Does it matter? They are still either born again, or they are not. You won't know until you ask.

Pray for your friends that the Lord will provide you with an opportunity to share the gospel with them.

In addition, for questions like this, it's good (I think) to ask questions like "When did you meet the Lord?" so you can hear their testimony. If you ask yes/no questions, like "are you saved" you may get a "yes" and the conversation ends. What you want is to hear their testimony and to be convinced in your own mind that this is indeed a brother or sister. If not, you can lead them to the Lord.

I hope this helps.

Nell

[77150]

Originally Posted by OBW

But it is interesting that for the few that continue to attempt to post a little on the new Bereans forum, they treat the LRC almost in the same category as the JWs and the Mormons. And they use the term "cult" for them all fairly freely.

Now there may be a reasonable basis for use of the term on the LRC, but it is almost entirely because of practices, not doctrines. When I made my first response, I realize that some may think I was a little soft on the JWs. And I probably was. But I do it because I have some uncertainty as to what constitutes a "different Jesus."

If someone doesn't actually put faith in Christ, then there is no question. The only question is that when they put their faith in Christ, they are actually putting their faith in someone else. If they believe in a Jesus who was not crucified, or that did not rise from the dead, then they are not talking about the same person that we call Jesus. But if they see clear references to "one God" and then Jesus calls the Father "God" and Jesus himself is referred to as the "Son" (who did die on the cross and was resurrected and is given a seat at the right hand of the Father) but they are not so sure that Jesus is actually God, but simply the "Messiah" sent by God, then I'm not sure that they are talking about someone different. Just not seeing all the facts about him clearly.

And when we talk about the RCC, despite some obvious problems, I do not agree that they teach a different Christ/Jesus. Instead, they teach that you really can't go straight to God. You need an intermediary. And they don't openly preach "believe and be saved." But do they teach in a way that ultimately results in belief? Even if they do not think of it in terms of "I started to believe on this date" is belief denied? Does the fact that they do works negate the belief they come to have in a different way from the Protestant path?

I will agree that there will be many from the RCC (and probably a lot of other places) that are going to be surprised when "the day" comes. But I also think that there are going to be a lot of Evangelicals that are going to be surprised how many of them (RCCs) that will not be surprised on that day.

For the most part, this forum is not discussing any group that is not, at its core, Christian. And especially its primary focus, the LRC. For all its problems, it is very much within Christianity, and is mostly doctrinally sound as regards the actual core of the faith. It is the peripherals, plus their additional core (the ground) in which they have trouble. But not enough to send them to cultsville.

If you believe that Jesus was a good man that lived in the early first century AD, and eventually died and was buried, then you believe in a different Christ. If you believe in a Christ who cannot save, then you believe in a different Christ. If you have all the important things down right, then I don't think that misunderstanding the vague verses about being with God and being God (could be confusing) will doom your belief to the rubbish heap. You've got the right Man. He is the one sent to save his people from their sins. It would be nice if he had been more clear about how this Trinity things works. But he didn't so we are dicing and splicing. I think that we have somewhat correctly understood God a little better. I just hope we have not instead created a Frankenstein's monster that bears no resemblance with reality.

Excellent response. Amen

[ToGodAlone]

Thanks OBW and Nell for your thoughtful responses.

I figure I'll add a little background for my premise of the question. In all cases of people I know in the LRC and other groups, they have been born and raised in that context. As such, the teachings of those groups have been "ingrained" into their minds, much like those of "contemporary/regular" Christianity have been ingrained into mine.

Now the reason that these groups kind of trouble me a bit is because of these practices and teachings like pray reading and the ground and whatever else have been branded not Biblically sound or as heretical. Now heresy in the LRC context, from my experience, has always been related to the "modalist" teachings or WL as the MOTA. These may not be as "severe" as things taught by JW or Mormons, but heresy is heresy, regardless of how severe it is, if it is indeed heresy. And if they are, then all those who I know in those groups are in some deep water. Now I know I can't possibly reach all these people because of one way or another, but for those that I can, I wanted to know if it was even appropriate for me to think to suggest that they leave that group they're in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

The reason I bring up modalism and "another Jesus" is because there are people who hold that belief (that is, that the LRC does these things) and thus they believe that people in the LRC are not actually "truly Christian" and therefore not saved. I personally do not hold this view, but I feel as though they could have a valid point.

Listen ... and I think I speak for other posters also ... I was active in the LC's for 30 years. I knew hundreds of saints ... thousands more via conferences and trainings around the globe. I never met one single brother or sister, who was actively serving in the LC's, who was not solidly saved, born of the Spirit, washed in the blood of the Lamb, consecrated to God, and loving the Lord fervently. Sure there were guests, friends and family in the meetings who were not so zealous for the Lord, but I am not talking about them.

I am saying that this matter of modalism is a non-issue, and furthermore, the matter of people in the LC's not being saved because of some modalistic belief is utter nonsense.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am saying that this matter of modalism is a non-issue, and furthermore, the matter of people in the LC's not being saved because of some modalistic belief is utter nonsense.

Thanks for your response.

Again, I feel as though I must hit some sort of nerve with a few people or I did not make myself clear enough...I actually agree with you all, people in the LRC are saved through their faith in Christ as their savior.

Perhaps I will supplement yet another question. Paul wrote about false teachers during the early times of Christianity and said that they should be avoided at all costs...or at the very least avoided. I don't recall anything about the particular salvation of these said people, however, for people like Joseph Smith or Witness Lee, who may in some people's eyes be labelled as "false teachers" or the like, does that not apply? That is, should they not be avoided because of the particular nuances of their beliefs? And furthermore, such teachings like the "one church one city" doctrine which implicitly says that everyone who isn't a part of the LRC is not a part of the true kingdom of God and instead is in "fallen Christianity" or "apostate Christianity" or whatever other term you want to use, does that not teach the very thing that original question asks?

Let me explain myself, since I might be treading on thin ice here unknowingly...

WL in several footnotes and other writings of his refers to the rest of Christianity (those outside the LRC) as something like "apostate Christianity" or "Babylon" or something that would otherwise imply that these people are not actually Christian and are thus not actually saved. I recall seeing somewhere (it may have been here actually) that those in the LRC baptize those who come from a denomination in order to "ensure their salvation" or "just to make sure." There are issues of this within itself, but if you need to make sure, I'm assuming you probably weren't that convinced in the first place, am I right? Coming back to the original point, could it not be said, that through the various teachings within the LRC, people involved may be taught that other churches can be considered "cults" (of Lutherans or Methodists, or what have you) and that these people are not actually saved because they don't agree with what the LRC teaches? And is that not heresy in itself? The teaching that others are not saved, in spite of their faith in Christ as their savior, because they do not believe the same things that the LRC believes?

Now...and I know this is a very roundabout way of saying this, if all of that made any sense at all, and if it has any degree of correctness to it, doesn't that cause WL to fall under the category of a false teacher as he advocated a theology of "Jesus plus" (that is, in order to be saved you need belief in Jesus AND blank)? And as such, shouldn't those in the LRC be encouraged to leave so as to not have their minds polluted with false beliefs?

I realize this question is different than the topic, so I apologize if that annoys anyone.

[77150]

This is what makes me angry about this question. I have known very many wonderful saints, very simple and very sweet. They weren't "the sharpest knife in the drawer". They loved the Lord, they had a very sensitive conscience, but were not about to expound on the intricacies of the doctrine of the Triune God. They were clueless about the implications of "modalism versus trinitarianism". Now where in the NT does it place the ability to accurately expound on the mystery of the Triune God as a requirement for salvation? The requirement is very simple, believe that Jesus has been resurrected from the dead and call on him declaring that Jesus is Lord. Since when is a Phd in Theology required for salvation?

When I was a kid I was in Sunday school (this was a church with stained glass windows, organs and robes) and the teacher asked us to draw a picture of God. I thought this is stupid, God is invisible, so I took out a yellow crayon, scribbled a little and turned it in saying "God is glory". He asked "Well, what about Jesus, isn't He the 'image of the invisible God?'" That threw me for a loop we were always taught that we believed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I was under the impression that God was the father, Jesus was the Son of God and the Spirit was an invisible force. But how do you explain that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father? This is something we never discussed.

Since leaving the LRC I have met with another group of Christians, much more evangelical, much more charismatic. My kids were in the Catechism class and were taught something that I felt was a clear contradiction of scripture concerning God. I forget which verse now, but it was definitely regarding Christ's relationship within the Godhead. My point is that when forced to explain the mystery of the Triune God many true believers will get it wrong. What is completely ridiculous is that there is no accepted "right". We are great at pointing out what is bad doctrine concerning the Triune God, but who can give the "right" teaching. Because if you can then you are denying that He is a "mystery". So how could you make that a basis for salvation?! Only a lawyer looking for job security would do that!

[ToGodAlone]

What you say is very fair and has a lot of truth to it. I'm sorry that I worded the original question improperly for you, but you didn't have to jump all over me about it. Like I said, it's an honest question. I guess the subject riles you up more than others, or even myself, which is fine.

You're absolutely right saying that something as mysterious as the Trinity cannot be used as a means of determining salvation, since it is a mystery and who can understand a mystery? No one can give a 100% accurate description of what it is, but then how is it that tritheism and modalism are deemed as heresy? If there truly is no right, then those things should be accepted since there is no way of knowing for sure?

And again, I haven't said that believing modalism should result in that person not having salvation. It's 100% based on salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Amen? Let's move on...

[UntoHim]

Good to hear from you ToGodAlone!
Man oh man you didn’t know one little question around this place can be like taking a baseball bat to a hornets nest! You seem to have handled the barrage quite well, good for you! Most people would have just said “geeez, what’s got into you people” and disappeared back into the woodwork. I think your opening post was very well thought out, posed in the right spirit, and didn’t deserve the blitzkrieg of hostile responses you got. But such is life on LocalChurchDiscussions.Com. (sometimes)

In reading your post I thought of how the gospel was preached back in day in the Local Church. Back in the day, when the Local Church would have weekly “gospel meetings” they would commonly teach that one could be saved by simply “calling on the Lord”. This would be justified by quoting such verses such as Romans 10:13. There are several problems with how this matter was presented in the LC. One problem was representing calling on the Lord as verbalizing the word’s “oh, Lord Jesus”. There is absolutely no scriptural evidence for this. Nor is there any record in Church history of the early believers “calling on the name of the Lord” in this manner, much less teaching that one could be saved by simply verbalizing “oh, Lord Jesus”. Many times there would be little or no mention of the other side of the equation of verses 9 & 10 – “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” It seems to me that “confessing with your mouth” is only half of the equation – the other half, “believe in your heart”, is needed for the completion which is “resulting in salvation”.

Now, God is faithful and just, and honors the repentance and confession of any and all, even if they don’t verbalize it in a certain manner. I am just giving this as one example of how there may be reasons for the concerns you have expressed. When it comes to the matter of modalism, well that is a whole other hornets nest that I won’t get into right now.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good to hear from you ToGodAlone!Man oh man you didn’t know one little question around this place can be like taking a baseball bat to a hornets nest!

Haha yeah I guess I didn't know what I was getting into. Guess when it comes to certain topics, I simply don't know how they'll rub certain people. I seem to have been getting on people's nerves lately (not just here) with forum posts for some reason. What can you do?

I forgot entirely about the whole salvation by calling on the name of the Lord business. That is a great point that you're completely right about. I think in the case of that, just saying "Oh Lord Jesus" isn't going to to jack, even if you believe that saying it will with all your heart. That isn't really the same as accepting Jesus as your savior, and it's really easy to say it with no heart. I know what I said might seem harsh, but it is what it is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Thanks for your response.

Again, I feel as though I must hit some sort of nerve with a few people or I did not make myself clear enough...I actually agree with you all, people in the LRC are saved through their faith in Christ as their savior.

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

What you say is very fair and has a lot of truth to it. I'm sorry that I worded the original question improperly for you, but you didn't have to jump all over me about it.

ToGodAlone, sorry about the misunderstanding, but it is the nature of forums that makes it seem that we are "upset" about your queries. Not at all. Forceful perhaps, to make our points, but not upset with you personally.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ToGodAlone, sorry about the misunderstanding, but it is the nature of forums that makes it seem that we are "upset" about your queries. Not at all. Forceful perhaps, to make our points, but not upset with you personally.

I'll be honest, only 77150 came across as kind of condescending when I read it. But hey, it's the internet, and I know all of you are cool folk. No hard feelings.

[77150]

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I'll be honest, only 77150 came across as kind of condescending when I read it. But hey, it's the internet, and I know all of you are cool folk. No hard feelings.

Condescending -- "acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority" for example -- a Phd telling born again believers they aren't really saved because their expounding of the mystery of the Triune God borders on Modalism.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Listen ... and I think I speak for other posters also ... I was active in the LC's for 30 years. I knew hundreds of saints ... thousands more via conferences and trainings around the globe. I never met one single brother or sister, who was actively serving in the LC's, who was not solidly saved, born of the Spirit, washed in the blood of the Lamb, consecrated to God, and loving the Lord fervently. Sure there were guests, friends and family in the meetings who were not so zealous for the Lord, but I am not talking about them.

I am saying that this matter of modalism is a non-issue, and furthermore, the matter of people in the LC's not being saved because of some modalistic belief is utter nonsense.

I must agree with this assessment. And take it even further. Those who weren't so outwardly "hot" were most likely just as "saved" as anyone anywhere.

We easily think the ones who who we see as being actively serving (in the LR or elsewhere) and who we can identify outwardly as loving the Lord fervently must be saved. And we are probably right. But in such environments as the LC and some other extremes of outward practice, I would figure that few who didn't truly believe wouldn't tolerate it for too long. So I would suggest that most who at least regularly attend, even if not seen as being so "burning" are most likely saved. There are few who have not at least shared a testimony that points to their salvation, or would be inconsistent with a nonbeliever.

And while Paul may have had a lot to say to the LRC if he were still around writing letters, like all the others, I doubt he would even suggest that there is a lack of salvation. Instead a lack of continuing according to the teaching of Christ. The LRC probably looks a lot like Corinth. Stuck on the every word of one minister to the exclusion of all others. Excluding each other from their little circles, yet failing to deal with serious open sin. And overly focused on secondary (at best) things like terminology, better meetings, and ground.

Paul didn't waste the kind of words he put in the letters on the unsaved. He was speaking to those who had come to faith. We are not even close to being "Pauls," but our position is the same — speaking to other Christians who are seriously missing some point.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by 77150

Condescending -- "acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority" for example -- a Phd telling born again believers they aren't really saved because their expounding of the mystery of the Triune God borders on Modalism.

You're right, wrong word choice. How about disrespectful? Continuing to beat a dead horse and also by dismissing the original question by saying it was arrogant, out of context, and poorly defined. Did you write the question? Chill out.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by OBW

And while Paul may have had a lot to say to the LRC if he were still around writing letters, like all the others, I doubt he would even suggest that there is a lack of salvation. Instead a lack of continuing according to the teaching of Christ. The LRC probably looks a lot like Corinth. Stuck on the every word of one minister to the exclusion of all others. Excluding each other from their little circles, yet failing to deal with serious open sin. And overly focused on secondary (at best) things like terminology, better meetings, and ground.

Paul didn't waste the kind of words he put in the letters on the unsaved. He was speaking to those who had come to faith. We are not even close to being "Pauls," but our position is the same — speaking to other Christians who are seriously missing some point.

Excellent analysis OBW. I totally agree. For a group that seems to focus a lot on Paul's writings for their unique beliefs, it's a shame that few have realized that their church is acting similar to, or just the same as, a church like Corinth and have taken the necessary actions.

[John]

UntoHim reminded those of us who were in the earlier days of the Local Church of Witness Lee how we encouraged people to proclaim, “Oh Lord Jesus,” in order to get saved. Yes, that was all there was to it. Based on Mr. Lee’s messages, all one had to do to experience salvation was to call aloud that phrase as if it was magic. At least at that time, a number of people, I would guess, were supposedly saved but were not. Who knows how many stuck around and really did get saved. Some of them may have enjoyed the community and stayed on without actually being born-again.

Yes, the Oh-Lord-Jesus-only doctrine led many into an extreme belief and practice, causing them to believe that some were saved who were not. I am reminded of a prostitute that someone brought to one of our Saturday night gospel meetings in Houston. She complied with the enthusiasm to stand and “call on the Lord” and was even baptized. Afterwards, she was taken to one of the corporate living situations to become a part of the Church community. (Maybe you know the way we used to do it? This was to get her “hooked” on the Local Church.) Sadly, when asked where she was going the next day, she stated that she was going back to work (as a “working girl”). We never saw her again. I guess that it was a one-night stand.

So, there were visitors who got “saved” who didn’t stick. This does not mean, though, that all who were regulars were saved. Here’s another story: Max Rapaport said that when he went to some Local Churches in Asia that he found that many of the members were not saved. He recalled asking some of them to relate their experiences of salvation. They only related how they came into the Local Church. Everything about their talk was in relationship to the Church and nothing was about their experience of Jesus Christ. As a result, he said that he began preaching the gospel in the Asian Local Churches to get them saved.

I would also add the example of Philip Lee. Is this man saved? I only know him by reputation, so I wouldn’t even hazard a guess. Can someone live like the devil, abuse sisters and churches, and actually be a born-again child of God? Maybe he will be saved in eternity but will first be put in a little, dark closet for a time (like the one his dad taught about). Whether or not he is saved, he is an example of one who might not be. At least these examples should give some pause to those who might consider contending that all in the Local Churches spawned by the Living Stream Ministry are saved.

[ToGodAlone]

Originally Posted by John

UntoHim reminded those of us who were in the earlier days of the Local Church of Witness Lee how we encouraged people to proclaim, “Oh Lord Jesus,” in order to get saved..

Excellent post John. Perhaps this issue of salvation by "calling on the name of the Lord" business is really the question I should have been asking. I am reminded of what Nell said about it being dependent upon each person. So very true. There are probably many who declare themselves as saved only because they did this calling business, but there are probably just as many who did the same, but then eventually came to accept Christ as they spent time in the LRC. There's definitely not a way to generalize this because that would just be...silly. How many people in standard Evangelical or whatever else churches are just nominal Christians? It can go both ways.

All this being said, I think my questions have ultimately been answered. False or "bad" doctrine does not overrule true belief in Christ as one's savior, but of course, it must still be addressed.

Thanks everyone for you input on this matter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

UntoHim reminded those of us who were in the earlier days of the Local Church of Witness Lee how we encouraged people to proclaim, “Oh Lord Jesus,” in order to get saved. Yes, that was all there was to it. Based on Mr. Lee’s messages, all one had to do to experience salvation was to call aloud that phrase as if it was magic. At least at that time, a number of people, I would guess, were supposedly saved but were not. Who knows how many stuck around and really did get saved. Some of them may have enjoyed the community and stayed on without actually being born-again.

This highlights one of the major distinctions between regions of LC's. John relates how this teaching of WL was taken almost robotically by his LC and applied mechanically in the meetings. I never saw such an extreme application of this teaching, almost to the point of negating the need of faith for salvation, here in greater Ohio.

I would agree with the lack of prudence and healthy discernment when inviting folks to stay overnight. I credit some of this to those "crazy 60's and 70's," but I have seen some of this in our more recent history. I could give stories, but let's remember here that the Bible encourages us to "pursue hospitality." Let's not forget that there is a God who can protect us naivete's from "excessively" loving others. Untold miracles of God's protection have occurred in this area. Christians throughout church history have done many "foolish" things, risking even their lives, all the while loving people for the Lord's sake.

Of course, when God warns us of some careless activities, then we may forfeit some of His protection.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This highlights one of the major distinctions between regions of LC's. John relates how this teaching of WL was taken almost robotically by his LC and applied mechanically in the meetings. I never saw such an extreme application of this teaching, almost to the point of negating the need of faith for salvation, here in greater Ohio.

I would agree with the lack of prudence and healthy discernment when inviting folks to stay overnight. I credit some of this to those "crazy 60's and 70's," but I have seen some of this in our more recent history. I could give stories, but let's remember here that the Bible encourages us to "pursue hospitality." Let's not forget that there is a God who can protect us naivete's from "excessively" loving others. Untold miracles of God's protection have occurred in this area. Christians throughout church history have done many "foolish" things, risking even their lives, all the while loving people for the Lord's sake.

Of course, when God warns us of some careless activities, then we may forfeit some of His protection.

This speaks to the point that the LRC over-encouraged zeal and under-encouraged genuine brotherly love. Zeal unchecked can create all kinds of problems. Love, however, Paul teaches, "never fails."

Although there was a lot of love in those early days, I think it was to a large extent a "we're all in this together, whoop-de-do" type love and not the genuine "loving people deeply because God loves them" type love. Whoop-de-do love feeds into all kinds of extremes and turns harshly on dissidents. Genuine love can detect errors of emphasis, which is one reason it "never fails."

I was part of the group for three years, then left about a month ago.

Now I feel distressed for those that are still in there. I want to believe there are still those that are genuinely saved. But I fear that they may not be. I’ve already told some of them why I left because I knew they can still hear me out without judging me.

I want to believe there are those that are genuinely saved. But at the same time, I’m inwardly distressed.

Lord, forgive them for they don’t know what they’re doing.

[UntoHim]

Thank you, Unregistered Guest, for coming and posting on our forum.

I would like to invite you to come and give your testimony on how you found the courage to leave the Local Church of Witness Lee after three years in the group. Was there any particular teaching or practice that caused you to leave? Was there any outside influences that helped you? Please take a couple of minutes and send an email to Reg4LCD@Gmail.Com requesting forum membership. Be sure to include your desired UserName.
-