LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

Nigel has certainly done a yeoman's job at assessing what WL has presented over the years. However, WL was viewed as God's Apostle of the day which gave him some license to do things his way. During the migrations because of WL's personal request to me while we were riding in a car together (I was not in LA) I left one LC on the west coast and went to another in the Midwest to build it up so obviously at the time I gave a lot of credence to what he had to say along with many others. Voice in the Wilderness from the Great Lakes indicates that they have rejected certain things because Titus taught them to do so. Of course, Titus was kicked out the LC along with John Engels, Bill Mallon among others for various reasons some of which went back to the poor judgment of Lee regarding his son. That Lee cut corners regarding Greek and Hebrew translations doesn't surprise me. His book of Hebrews training in Anaheim was amazing which I attended along with Song of Songs which I did not attend but we went through it at our LC. There were some great moments but in the overall picture it left many disillusioned asking the question, "what just happened?" I like zeek's question about what is going on today if any one knows...are they growing, shrinking etc?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Guest said that Titus was expelled along with John Ingalls and Bill Mallon. Ingalls and Mallon were expelled in 1988. Titus and Nigel were expelled around 2007, after brother Lee went to be with the Lord, because they spoke against the new doctrine of One Publication.
-----------------------

Continuing my previous post:

I am covering Nigel's points in order, but the important ones to me are Oikonomia, Ginosko, Laodicea & Logos/Rhema.

3. Ekklesia - I agree with Nigel because of the way the word is used in the NT when not referring to the church.

4. Hebrews - I think the word does mean what WL said it means, and that it is relevant to us today because our God said he is the God of the Hebrews. I think WL's use of etymology here, and in most places, brings out more richness of meaning, and brings out a truth that may be overlooked otherwise.

5. parakletos - Nigel's criticism seems unfair too me. Brother Lee did not say the Holy Spirit was like a waiter in a restaurant answering our every whim. He said that in some aspect the HS is like a waiter. Also, I personally, don't care for statements like, "NT scholars conclude that, “Parakletos does not mean ‘one called alongside’.” Some NT scholars say that and some disagree. I understand that BDAG is the top NT Gk lexicon. BDAG gives the original meaning of word as ‘one who is called to someone’s aid’. The main meaning it gives is "one who appears in another’s behalf, mediator, intercessor, helper"

6. dunamis - I agree with Nigel. I found Nigel's description of the reverse etymological fallacy helpful because I think I have been guilty of it.

7. proginosko - I agree with Nigel and appreciate his description of "Illegitimate totality transfer".

8. Oikonomia - I agree with Nigel and appreciate his explanation. The problem here is not use of etymology but of "cherry picking" what one wants from an etymology. God's dispensing of Himself into us is prominent in the Bible, but WL used this cherry picked etymology to over-emphasize it as the only thing God cares about, to the extent that if something doesn't have to do with God's dispensing of Himself into man, drop it. I think most of WL errors are in the over-emphasis of some things.

9. 7 churches. - I agree with WL and WN. The meaning of the city names are meaningful. Revelation is a book of prophesy, and prophesy is often given as a puzzle. The interpretation of the city names should not be as strong as the actual words to the churches, but the city names add meaning to the direct words. I think WL observed this rule except for Laodicea, which is covered separately.

10. Laodicea - A terrible teaching in LR is that no one should have an opinion except the human leader. Where is this in the Bible? Laodicea does mean "opinion" or "judgment of the laity". It can be + or -, but from the context of the epistle, it is clearly negative. It means an absence of leadership. There may be a supreme leader at the top, but no leader in the local church thinking for himself and giving constructive criticism. According to the epistle to Laodicea, what was the opinion of the laity? It was that everything is great, we are rich and have need of nothing. No one is pointing out that they may be blind, naked, wretched and poor. This kind of fellowship requires leadership. 1Cor14, which is what we base our meetings on, says that the prophets should judge what the others say, and not just confirm it. WL's problem here was not the use of etymology, but making it supersede what the actual text says.
There are LC leaders who seem to think that they should not listen to any constructive criticism. To do so, they think would be Laodicea. If you say anything out of the flow, they raise their voice and don't let you talk. They think they should only listen to God, but do they hear God? How do you know if someone loves God? He loves those begotten by God. How do you know if someone listens to God? He listens to those begotten by God.


11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

12. Oida vs Ginosko - This is another of the worst teachings in LR, the despising of knowledge. It is right to differentiate synonyms, but in this case WL did not do it fairly. This is an especially terrible teaching for young people. Ginosko is usually a positive word in the NT, but WL taught that it was bad, ignoring the + verses in the NT, which is the majority of them.

13. Apapao vs Phileo - I agree with WL based on 2Pet 1:5-7.

14. Logos vs Rhema - This is another very damaging teaching in LR. WL simplified the difference between these 2 words, and over emphasized the importance of Rhema over Logos. The thought here, which was implied rather than expressly taught by WL, is that you don't need to obey every word of God, but only that which is instantly spoken to you by the Spirit. To do otherwise would be to follow the law or to put someone under the law. But the apostle John in his mending ministry emphasized that we need to keep God's commandments. "Commandment" means not optional.
In the church in Detroit we had at 1 time 2 parties: LSM and non-LSM. Our leadership was non-LSM. Before the actual split, my good friend in the church was of the LSM view. Every Lord's day he would come to the church meeting very angry that the church was not one with the ministry enough. So I shared with him some verses from Ps 37 that we should drop anger lest it lead to evil. He replied, How do you know that these are the right verses for me at this time? In other words, his concept was that, I only have to obey the words of the Bible that are the right ones for me at this time. This is not an isolated example.
This teaching is also very damaging to young people.

15. Holy, holy, holy implies the Triune God. I agree with WL.

Thank you again, Nigel, for your diligent service.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thank you again, Nigel, for your diligent service.

Amen VoiceInWilderness. Each of Nigel's writings, I am thankful he hasn't remained idle.
Myself in particular would have wanted Nigel to write something on the practices that has resulted in division, but I receive Nigel's writings coming from a high level view. He sees something I ordinarily would not see.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Amen VoiceInWilderness. Each of Nigel's writings, I am thankful he hasn't remained idle.
Myself in particular would have wanted Nigel to write something on the practices that has resulted in division, but I receive Nigel's writings coming from a high level view. He sees something I ordinarily would not see.

That would be a good topic, Terry. Nigel covered that a bit on the ground of the church - a doctrine that was supposed to be God's unique way of preserving the oneness. One topic I would like to see is the human spirit and the Holy Spirit.

I realized the difference in dates when John and Bill were kicked out and when Titus was kicked out. The material on the web is extensive. I have heard of Nigel but was unfamiliar with his relationship with the "brothers'. I knew John and Bill but I never met Titus although many brothers I worked with in the LC knew him well. Titus was never part of the LC in crowd and was visited by WL infrequently. The in crowd were mostly in Anaheim and Texas. The two who migrated to Detroit in 1971 (Ron Kangas and the other escapes me) became two of the three elders in Detroit. I knew Ron Kangas quite well and from my perspective he was always more a "spiritual" type of person even though he was very bright as reflective of his Princeton U. background. The elders in Detroit were more heavy handed (mostly from the Anaheim influence) than I had experienced elsewhere but I never desired to be a part of the inner circle myself since I was more involved in "recruitment" on campuses and of other groups in the area to put it in its simplest terms. I read some of what Nigel said about the Song of Songs and I quite agree although it kinds of breaks my bubble of what I experienced back in the day.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I realized the difference in dates when John and Bill were kicked out and when Titus was kicked out. The material on the web is extensive. I have heard of Nigel but was unfamiliar with his relationship with the "brothers'. I knew John and Bill but I never met Titus although many brothers I worked with in the LC knew him well. Titus was never part of the LC in crowd and was visited by WL infrequently. The in crowd were mostly in Anaheim and Texas. The two who migrated to Detroit in 1971 (Ron Kangas and the other escapes me) became two of the three elders in Detroit. I knew Ron Kangas quite well and from my perspective he was always more a "spiritual" type of person even though he was very bright as reflective of his Princeton U. background. The elders in Detroit were more heavy handed (mostly from the Anaheim influence) than I had experienced elsewhere but I never desired to be a part of the inner circle myself since I was more involved in "recruitment" on campuses and of other groups in the area to put it in its simplest terms. I read some of what Nigel said about the Song of Songs and I quite agree although it kinds of breaks my bubble of what I experienced back in the day.

Hey Dave. The elders back then in Detroit were Ron Kangas, Harry Ahlers, and Tim Scroggins. They replaced the elders that had taken the ground in Detroit, who had come out of The Assemblies of God.

I hung with 'em all, including RK, in his living room, who I loved dearly. I saw up close that his wife didn't love him like I did. She obviously saw him differently than I. I wonder why?

It was then, when I discovered that Lee had sent in his elders, that pushed out the existing elders, that I saw Witness Lee was acting hypocritical to his own teaching on the autonomy of the local ground.

But I was so gong-ho back then I just shelved that in the back of my mind.

Then Lee ordered migrations. And another one was added to the shelf.

There were more revelations of Lee hypocrisies along the way. My self was getting heavy.

The one that resulted in me getting the boot was the claim that Lee was The One And Only Apostle on the earth. And that's okay, the cognitive dissonance built up til I couldn't take it any more. My shelf was about to break, anyway. And I needed to throw it all out, and use my mental shelf for better, more true, things, perchance.

So thinks Nigel for lending a hand, to that end.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey Dave. The elders back then in Detroit were Ron Kangas, Harry Ahlers, and Tim Scroggins. They replaced the elders that had taken the ground in Detroit, who had come out of The Assemblies of God.

I hung with 'em all, including RK, in his living room, who I loved dearly. I saw up close that his wife didn't love him like I did. She obviously saw him differently than I. I wonder why?

It was then, when I discovered that Lee had sent in his elders, that pushed out the existing elders, that I saw Witness Lee was acting hypocritical to his own teaching on the autonomy of the local ground.

But I was so gong-ho back then I just shelved that in the back of my mind.

Then Lee ordered migrations. And another one was added to the shelf.

There were more revelations of Lee hypocrisies along the way. My self was getting heavy.

The one that resulted in me getting the boot was the claim that Lee was The One And Only Apostle on the earth. And that's okay, the cognitive dissonance built up til I couldn't take it any more. My shelf was about to break, anyway. And I needed to throw it all out, and use my mental shelf for better, more true, things, perchance.

So thinks Nigel for lending a hand, to that end.

Awareness,
Here is a different take on the church in Detroit history.

Titus said that Harry Ahlers was never appointed as an elder. Harry assumed the leadership due to the leadership vacuum.
Brother Lee probably never intended to replace the original leaders of the church in Detroit, but to add RK to bless them with the rich word that he had at that time.

Paul Onica, Sr. was one of the original leaders. Paul told me that he did not like that brother Lee had sent Harry Ahlers to Detroit, and told me how Harry ordered him around. Paul submitted to Harry because he thought that WL had sent him to be a leader there, but never was told anything about that. Harry one day ordered Paul to pick up a young sister and drive her to the meeting. Paul refused to do that because his wife could not go with him. Harry did not like Paul valuing his own integrity higher than submitting to authority and told Paul he may as well leave then. Paul said, Fine, I've been kicked out of better. So Paul left.

I told Paul what Titus had said about Harry, and Paul said that makes a lot of sense. He was very happy to know that. He also asked me about Tim Scroggins, but I didn't know, and he said that was fine, it doesn't matter. He said that it was really the main leader's failure to let things happen like that. I understood he meant RK.

Regarding the migration of Detroit to Ft. Lauderdale, Titus said that brother Lee was against it. It didn't make sense. Harry was the one promoting it.
RK said pretty much the same thing. In messages in the trainings, RK said that when Detroit migrated to Ft Lauderdale, he was the only one who asked bro Lee what he should do, and bro Lee told him to come to Anaheim.
He implied that the others went to Ft Lauderdale without seeking bro Lee's will.
(RK didn't seem to think that as the leader he should have thought about more than just himself.)

I know the church in Detroit had a phone conference with bro Lee. Most of the saints think that bro Lee was encouraging them to migrate, but I haven't heard a quote or an approximate quote to that effect. What they recall is wild stuff said by Harry.

Alta Shakespeare wrote to Titus after the church migrated and told him that if he had sent Dick Coleman instead of Harry Ahlers to Detroit, the church would still be there. Dick was a level-headed, plain-spoken, virtuous, down-to-earth, mature human Christian. Titus apparently listened because when we tried to retake Detroit in 1976 and then successfully in 1979, Titus send Rick Coleman, Dick's son, both times.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

Titus was never part of the LC in crowd and was visited by WL infrequently. The in crowd were mostly in Anaheim and Texas.

Here's part of the problem. When there's an "in-crowd", the result is almost always factions and parties. A particular in-crowd of Texas and Anaheim may have a certain agenda that is to the exclusion of other co-workers and elders. This where brothers such as John, Bill, and Titus became persona non-grata. They did not conform to the agenda of the in-crowd.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I knew Ron Kangas quite well and from my perspective he was always more a "spiritual" type of person even though he was very bright as reflective of his Princeton U. background.

So you were one of the ones I was hangin' with in Detroit. I know you, and knew you quite well. Ha ... cool.

So maybe you can tell us about Nigel's elephant in the room, that maybe only Ohio gets, or has expressed somewhat, in his initial response to this Etymological treatises.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

10. Laodicea - A terrible teaching in LR is that no one should have an opinion except the human leader. Where is this in the Bible? Laodicea does mean "opinion" or "judgment of the laity". It can be + or -, but from the context of the epistle, it is clearly negative. It means an absence of leadership. There may be a supreme leader at the top, but no leader in the local church thinking for himself and giving constructive criticism. According to the epistle to Laodicea, what was the opinion of the laity? It was that everything is great, we are rich and have need of nothing. No one is pointing out that they may be blind, naked, wretched and poor. This kind of fellowship requires leadership. 1Cor14, which is what we base our meetings on, says that the prophets should judge what the others say, and not just confirm it. WL's problem here was not the use of etymology, but making it supersede what the actual text says.
There are LC leaders who seem to think that they should not listen to any constructive criticism. To do so, they think would be Laodicea. If you say anything out of the flow, they raise their voice and don't let you talk. They think they should only listen to God, but do they hear God? How do you know if someone loves God? He loves those begotten by God. How do you know if someone listens to God? He listens to those begotten by God.


11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

The funny thing about these two words is that according to LC interpretation they are really at odds. Nicolaitans seems to say don't lord it over the people, which in practice would seem to mean to respect people's opinions. (How else would you practically apply not lording??)

But Laodicea means "opinion or rule of the people," which the LC took mean (in practice) that they should rule over the people.

So you have to put both together. No lording over the people, and no opinion of the people. So Laodicea probably has nothing to do with human leadership. It probably just means the people were following their own preferences, rather than submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is definitely a sign of degradation.

Of course, this assumes we are to take meaning and guidance from these words. I agree with ViW that these words have meaning. There is just too much of a logical pattern in the names of the cities, and if we don't interpret the meaning of Nicolaitans then we can extract little if any meaning from its usage at all.

But trying to extract meaning from the etymology of every word in Bible seems overboard. Again, stick to the plain, clear message. Everything else is a bonus. I think anyone can mount a great Christian life just sticking to the basics. There are going to be lots of overcomers who didn't have a clue about the names of these cities but had the reality because they understood and obeyed the basics.

We spend a lot of time here worrying about graduate school subjects, which when you get right down to it are often superfluous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The funny thing about these two words is that according to LC interpretation they are really at odds. Nicolaitans seems to say don't lord it over the people, which in practice would seem to mean to respect people's opinions. (How else would you practically apply not lording??)

But Laodicea means "opinion or rule of the people," which the LC took mean (in practice) that they should rule over the people.

So you have to put both together. No lording over the people, and no opinion of the people. So Laodicea probably has nothing to do with human leadership. It probably just means the people were following their own preferences, rather than submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is definitely a sign of degradation.

The Lord Jesus, in many instances while He walked with His disciples, warned them about "ruling like the Gentiles." Peter calls this "lording it over" the flock. The Bible is filled with instructions about proper shepherding oversight and warnings to the contrary.

If we want to look at the etymological meaning of the word "Nicolaitans," i.e. conquering the common people, then we must conclude that the plain and obvious teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets are addressed in this word.

But Nee, and subsequently Lee, did the old "bait and switch." They used these teachings to attack the leadership in the body of Christ. They condemned all pastors, ministers, teachers, evangelists, etc., yet it was the Head of the body "who gave gifts" to men, and via the apostles, established church offices.

If Nee and Lee had given us a "purer" form of leadership and an ecclesiastical paradigm, as they promised us, then we would continue to listen to them. On the contrary, however, what they gave us was every bit as abusive and lording over as the one they condemned. In fact, it could be argued that the system of Nee and Lee was worse. The Blendeds for sure have done no better.

After being "restored" to his ministry, apparently without repentance for the reasons he was disciplined, Nee's first act of leadership was to demand that all the faithful "hand over" their lives and possessions to him. Even worse acts of abuse have been reported about Lee frequently on this forum. These acts of hypocrisy and corruption have caused their reputations to suffer, and not some unwarranted persecution as we have long been told.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus, in many instances while He walked with His disciples, warned them about "ruling like the Gentiles." Peter calls this "lording it over" the flock. The Bible is filled with instructions about proper shepherding oversight and warnings to the contrary.

If we want to look at the etymological meaning of the word "Nicolaitans," i.e. conquering the common people, then we must conclude that the plain and obvious teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets are addressed in this word.

But Nee, and subsequently Lee, did the old "bait and switch." They used these teachings to attack the leadership in the body of Christ. They condemned all pastors, ministers, teachers, evangelists, etc., yet it was the Head of the body "who gave gifts" to men, and via the apostles, established church offices.

If Nee and Lee had given us a "purer" form of leadership and an ecclesiastical paradigm, as they promised us, then we would continue to listen to them. On the contrary, however, what they gave us was every bit as abusive and lording over as the one they condemned. In fact, it could be argued that the system of Nee and Lee was worse. The Blendeds for sure have done no better.

After being "restored" to his ministry, apparently without repentance for the reasons he was disciplined, Nee's first act of leadership was to demand that all the faithful "hand over" their lives and possessions to him. Even worse acts of abuse have been reported about Lee frequently on this forum. These acts of hypocrisy and corruption have caused their reputations to suffer, and not some unwarranted persecution as we have long been told.

Right, Lee and the church elders were clergy in everything but name. Still, interpreting the passage in terms of etymology is doubtful in view of the historical facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaitanes#Attribution

[OBW]

I can appreciate that people have different ideas about things. But on these two I find either no basis to understand your agreement, or little reason to care. In order, they are:

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

Hard to agree with such targeted, but unstated, error that would seem to fly in the face of the very system of order and structure that the church was born into and then was more directly commented on by both Jesus and Paul.

Jesus never disparaged the existence of structure and leadership. He even instructed his disciples in how they were to be as leaders. Just because they were to be servant leaders did not remove their place as leaders. When Jesus complained about the Pharisees wanting to be exalted and demanding the best places, he did not say to his disciples to not be leaders, but to not be as the Pharisees. Jesus never said that the actual teachings of the Pharisees were bad. In fact, he seemed to suggest that they should be followed.

In the meantime, most of the kinds of "clergy" that Nee and Lee complained about were essentially equivalents to apostles, evangelists, elders, etc. I would agree that there is the potential for problems with hieracrchies of leadership, just as was effectively instituted just a generation later, but the potential for problem was never the reason provided for avoidance. Jesus did not tell his disciples to not be leaders because it was a slippery slope that would get them to be like Pharisees. He pointed to the errors of the Pharisees and said point-blank what was wrong.

Now he gets really heated about it in the midst of talking about the deeds of Balaam and then covers this old item in code?

I seriously doubt it. Seems more like a specific and localized problem that there was no reason to clarify for everyone else. Given the nature of all the other problems for all of the 7 churches, it is relatively safe to say that none of the others were anything actually new or unexpected. They were problems that were spelled-out and would have been understood as in contradiction to the living of Christ's followers.

So the omniscient God of the universe gave us a coded message for the one thing that Lee was sure was the biggest problem of modern-day Christianity? Doesn't add-up.

Seems that if this was about bossy leaders ordering people around, they would have been likened to Pharisees. If there was ever a class of Israelites lording it over the rest of them, it was the Pharisees. Creating some phrase that never otherwise meant what Lee claims it to have meant is a stretch when nothing in the vicinity provides any such hint at the problem he wants to find.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

15. Holy, holy, holy implies the Triune God. I agree with WL.

"Implies" is such a weak word that it is hard to disagree that it could be true. God is triune. So many things are in threes. Probably a decent chance of being right.

But what does it mean if it does imply the Trinity? That there is a symmetry in much of the writing surrounding the person of God? If it does or does not imply the Trinity, is there anything of real importance in it that should change our living here and now? That is one of the most important things for us to be finding in the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus never disparaged the existence of structure and leadership. He even instructed his disciples in how they were to be as leaders. Just because they were to be servant leaders did not remove their place as leaders. When Jesus complained about the Pharisees wanting to be exalted and demanding the best places, he did not say to his disciples to not be leaders, but to not be as the Pharisees. Jesus never said that the actual teachings of the Pharisees were bad. In fact, he seemed to suggest that they should be followed.

Lee's teachings on the clergy-laity system now rank right up there with the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

Both Christianity and the Recovery have their structure and hierarchy. Much of Protestant Christianity, however, does have a major improvement. The ministers / pastors there must be accountable to their local elders, while the full-timers are only accountable to headquarters.

[awareness]

Okay I've let this slide long enough.

Originally Posted by Me

But this is not how Nigel paints it, er. ah Lee paints it. He quotes Lee:

So God Himself must not have been directing him. Or why seek out the scholars? Do these "authoritative" scholars speak for God? And how would Lee even know what's, or who, are, is, authoritative?

Originally Posted by Zeek

No. It was God Himself.

In "W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 4: Other Crucial Matters Concerning...the Lord's Recovery, Chap. 11, Sect. 2." WL states:

Quote Lee:
"Then the Lord brought us into contact with some top missionaries. Through them we were brought into the Christian books, including the classical books, church history, and biographies from the second century until that time. All these writings further confirmed us.
End Quote

and furthermore:

Quote Lee:
Brother Nee took the lead to say that since the Lord had given us the truths in this age, we must go out and send this truth to the denominations. I was the one who probably did this work the most.
End Quote

Originally Posted by Zeek

It seems that the Christian books they read simply confirmed what they received directly from God.

That's true if Lee was telling the truth. And we know Lee's word(s) can't be trusted.

If you ask me Lee was BSing. Cuz if the Lord was leading Nee and Lee to faulty missionaries, and then to faulty and outdated Bible scholars, then the Lord was playing funny games with them, at their expense, and in the end, with us too, and me, at our expense.

Is that the way the Lord moves? Of course not. Lee just said the Lord was moving them just to trick us into thinking it was the Lord that designated him the MOTA.

Or Nee and Lee, when thinking the Lord was leading them (down the proverbial primrose path, or rather, down the garden path), were just delusional. That is more likely the truth.

Next Nigel, and his linguistic work ...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

If you ask me Lee was BSing. Cuz if the Lord was leading Nee and Lee to faulty missionaries, and then to faulty and outdated Bible scholars, then the Lord was playing funny games with them, at their expense, and in the end, with us too, and me, at our expense.

Is that the way the Lord moves? Of course not. Lee just said the Lord was moving them just to trick us into thinking it was the Lord that designated him the MOTA.

I feel a Princese Bride moment coming on:

"Fezzik, you just did something right"

"Don't worry. I won't let it go to my head."

Just kidding. You do/say plenty right all the time. But this one was really good.

As many off-center, out-of-favor, unaccelpted teachings as Nee and Lee kept coming up with, why do we think that they would actually read good stuff and find that it agreed with them? Either they weren't really reading the good stuff, but stuff that was already of their flavor, they were delusional about how consistent with their teachings those books were, or they were feed us horse manure.

Doesn't matter which one. The result is the same. The stuff they teach is still off-center, out of favor, and unacceptable.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's teachings on the clergy-laity system now rank right up there with the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

Both Christianity and the Recovery both have their structure and hierarchy. Much of Protestant Christianity, however, does have a major improvement. The ministers / pastors there must be accountable to their local elders, while the full-timers are only accountable to headquarters.

yeppers Ohio! And that's why I stopped going to 'church'.. I had to go for a time to get the LC gar bash out of me. But THEN i fell into the clergy-laity Nicolaetan trap !.. UGH.. that's what I get for listening to people tell me "YOU NEED TO GO TO CHURCH!!"

LIVE AND LEARN !!!

HOLY SPIRIT IS MY TEACHER/OUR TEACHER... JESUS IS FATHER GOD'S WORD...AND YOU GUYS are the hands and legs of the Lord's Body. I'm the stomach... cause I stomach a lot that is said here.

All that said, I welcome all good Spirit Filled teaching from whomever the Lord uses to wake me up !

LOVE Y'ALL!
Carol

[awareness]

BTW, Besides this LCD version Nigel sent this pdf to me in email. Synchronicity led me to discover that my copy didn't match this one on LCD.

Plus the copy here, if you haven't noticed, doesn't number the footnotes. So it's nigh to impossible to follow Nigel's references.

So last night I sent email about it to Nigel. He responded pretty quickly, and sent the latest greatest copy. It matches this one here, but with numbered footnotes.

I encourage anyone seeking to research Nigel's treatises to download it. And maybe Untohim can clean up the one in the OP of this thread.

It really helps when seeking the context of a quote.

Get it, read it, or download it here:
http://imnothere.org/Tomes/LSMsEtymologicalErrors.pdf

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

yeppers Ohio! And that's why I stopped going to 'church'.. I had to go for a time to get the LC gar bash out of me. But THEN i fell into the clergy-laity Nicolaetan trap !.. UGH.. that's what I get for listening to people tell me "YOU NEED TO GO TO CHURCH!!"

LIVE AND LEARN !!!

HOLY SPIRIT IS MY TEACHER/OUR TEACHER... JESUS IS FATHER GOD'S WORD...AND YOU GUYS are the hands and legs of the Lord's Body. I'm the stomach... cause I stomach a lot that is said here.

All that said, I welcome all good Spirit Filled teaching from whomever the Lord uses to wake me up !

LOVE Y'ALL!
Carol

Sister Carol,
the Holy Spirit does not teach differently than the word.
I think you know the verses that say you need to meet with other Christians and remember the Lord with them as He commanded.

We need to obey what the Lord commanded.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Christianity and the Recovery have their structure and hierarchy. Much of Protestant Christianity, however, does have a major improvement. The ministers / pastors there must be accountable to their local elders, while the full-timers are only accountable to headquarters.

I would take it a step further and say Christinaity elders for example in a Community Church, the elders are accountable to the assembly as is the pastor. In some cases pastors are removed and elders resign.

In the recovery there is no accountability. This probably stems from the Deputy/Delegated Authority doctrine and practices that isn't prevalent in Christianity. When you're the delegated authority there can be an aura of superiority that presumes there is no relationship of deference nor accountability to the rest of the assembly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus never disparaged the existence of structure and leadership.

...

So the omniscient God of the universe gave us a coded message for the one thing that Lee was sure was the biggest problem of modern-day Christianity? Doesn't add-up.

OBW, who said anything about there being no need for leadership? The kind of leadership the discused interpretation of Nicolaitans is talking about is exactly the kind Jesus and Paul warned us against. Nicolaitans is the antithesis of servant-leadership.

The message about not lording over laity is not just in the Nicolaitans references in Revelation. It's all through the NT. Jesus spoke about it, so did Paul.

Revelation is full of coded messages. If you are going to get bothered about interpreting Nicolaitans you might as well get bothered about interpreting beasts out of the sea, prostitutes named Mystery, and horses and riders and cisterns.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, who said anything about there being no need for leadership? The kind of leadership the discused interpretation of Nicolaitans is talking about is exactly the kind Jesus and Paul warned us against. Nicolaitans is the antithesis of servant-leadership.

So you agree that Lee was right to turn this obscure reference into a diatribe on clergy laity? Why the coded message when the subject had been discussed in detail out loud for the disciples by Christ himself?

Why create a named term for something like that? I recall that there has been found some evidence of a person named Nicolas that was leading people into some forms of idolatry or something like that. (It's been too long to recall the details.) It may not have been some huge thing, but it makes sense. If it is instead a reference to leadership lording it over the flock, it takes too few words to be explicit. Everything else is pretty well stated in clear terms. Why hide this one?

Besides, when some of us did some digging into the various commenters on this passage a few years back, my memory is that virtually every one of those who claimed it was about "clergy-laity" were generally declaring that only people who were true apostles should be leaders (always them, just Like Nee and Lee), and they were leading yet another exclusivist, extremist, remnant-theology group or something like that. The scholars of repute over the years have basically shunned this teaching.

Of course, everyone, no matter how they come down on this argument, agree that there needs to be leadership. Just seems odd that the ones that claim it is about leadership are almost unanimously in violation of the rule they claim it states. They also want leadership. Theirs. And only theirs. They need to invalidate all other leaders so that all other groups which are shepherded by those leaders will become disbanded (theoretically) and only their little sect with them at the helm be left.

It is the fact that only those who violate the alleged rule so strongly work so hard to declare that it is there that makes the finding hard to accept.

It is much easier to accept that there was something unusual going on in Pergamum that did not require open discussion for the rest of the world. Besides, the errors of the Nicolaitans are "in the same way" as the teaching of Balaam (putting up a stumbling block, eating things sacrificed to idols, and committing acts of immorality). That does not mean identical to, but it does imply (to me) a connection beyond the fact that something bad was being taught. I would need some hint of how to call "clergy-laity" as being "in the same way."

I honestly believe that we have been bracketed into accepting this. It was the first time anyone said anything about this to us and so it is the standard that must be dethroned. Never really proved. Just inferred. No context. No evidence that it was anything like true. Just a raw word study by the best cherry-picker around. Well, that particular cherry had already been picked by others before. But their methods were not much better. And the cherry that was picked fit their theology. And kept them in charge. Meanwhile, people not trying to be in charge don't find it credible. I trust people who are not gaining from their interpretation above those who are.

[HERn]

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

I was waiting for someone to point out that one.

Brethren. Whether or not exclusive, they were of a peculiar teaching. It is true that many of their teachings have influenced the teachings of Evangelicals in general. And out of that came a rather exclusive group led by an iron-fisted man — Darby.

Don't know which side Scofield was on, but the link to the exclusivist theology is still there. He didn't dream these up on his own. They came mostly from Darby.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

Well he probably wouldn't buy Nike shoes ... I don't know. But good catch HERn.

Still, Scofield is prolly in the list of Lee's outdated Bible scholars, that Nigel mentions.

I'm keeping an eye open. I have yet to see anyone touching upon Nigel's fatal error.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

Scofield took his Nicolaitan teachings right out of the exclusive Brethren playbook.

You know where we are all "brothers," but some are more "brotherly" than others. John Darby loved such theology, which he could manipulate as needed. George Muller and Henry Craik, the two elders in Bristol who stood up to Darby's abuses, stood solely on God's word to resist his advances. As a result, George Muller became the most hated man in all the Darby Brethren kingdom.

Darby hated all church offices because they placed restrictions and boundaries on his power structure. Nee and Lee were the same. Historians have said that Darby had become a far worse pope than the one in Rome he regularly condemned. His lineage of successors -- Raven, Taylor Sr, Taylor Jr, Symington, Hales -- have definitely proven that. They call Hales "the first among equals." Only the exclusives could invent such hypocritical expressions to fool the faithful.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by HERn

Not that Scofield's comments are the "cat's meow", but here's what's in his 1917 version:

---
2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelation 2:15 .

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15, contra, ; 1 Peter 5:2 1 Peter 5:3 ; Matthew 24:49 .
-----

WL made reference to this somewhere and during my "due diligence" early days I found it, which helped me swallow the whole thing "hook, line, and sinker".

Does anyone know if Scofield was anti-cleric?

Here is the Recovery Version note on Revelation 2:6 for comparison:

The Greek word is composed of two words, one meaning conquer or be victorious over and another meaning common people, secular people, or laity. Thus , it means conquering the common people, being victorious over the laity. Nicolaitans, then, must refer to a group of people who esteem themselves higher than common believers. This was undoubtedly the hierarchy adopted and established by Catholicism and Protestantism. The Lord hates the works, the behavior, of these Nicolaitans, and we must hate what the Lord hates. God in His economy intended that all His people be priests serving Him directly. In Exo. 19: 6 , God ordained the children of Israel to be a kingdom of priests. This means that God wanted them all to be priests. However, because they worshipped the golden calf ( Exo. 32: 1-6 ), they lost the priesthood, and only the tribe of Levi, because of its faithfulness to God, was chosen to replace the whole nation of Israel as priests to God ( Exo. 32: 25-29 ; Deut. 33: 8-10 ). Hence , there was a mediatorial class between God and the children of Israel . This became a strong system in Judaism. In the New Testament, God has returned to His original intention according to His economy, in that He has made all believers in Christ priests ( 1: 6 ; 5: 10 ; 1 Pet. 2: 5 , 9 ). But at the end of the initial church, even in the first century, the Nicolaitans intervened as the mediatorial class to spoil God’s economy. According to church history, this became a system that was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and has been retained by the Protestant churches. Today in the Roman Catholic Church there is the priestly system, in the state churches there is the clerical system, and in the independent churches there is the pastoral system. All these are a mediatorial class, spoiling the universal priesthood of all believers. Thus, there are two distinct classes — the clergy and the laity. But in the proper church life there should be neither clergy nor laity; all believers should be priests of God. Because the mediatorial class destroys the universal priesthood in God’s economy, the Lord hates it. Among the seven serving ones in Acts 6: 5 , one was named Nikolaos (Gk.). There is nothing in church history to indicate that this Nikolaos was the first of the Nicolaitans.

... said the MOTA, Oracle of God, Pope and Chief Clergyman of the "Lord's Recovery" a church of his own conception and control who broached no other doctrine, teaching or opinion under his domain but his and his alone. He was the last of the Nicolaitans, at least for me.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Guest

I like zeek's question about what is going on today if any one knows...are they growing, shrinking etc?

Having lived almost exclusively in the Western United States, my view is skewed. In the Pacific NW, I would say growth is addition by subtraction.
In the locality I was spent many years of my youth, growth is by the young people having families of their own.
In principle it's not much different than any other congregation or denomination; where you meet is according to your comfort zone. If you were raised as a Baptist, you're going to meet with a Baptist assembly. Those raised in the local churches are more likely to meet with a Local Church assembly.