My Testimony: Olvin

[Cal]

Here's what you said, Olvin.

"Still I challenge all who post here to do this: take your biblical understanding; subtract all the revelation you have received from "the ministry" and consider what you are left with. Can you minister life with that? Do you still see God's purpose, do you yet know the mystery of the human life? I doubt."

Now, I guarantee everyone here thought that by "the ministry" you meant Lee's ministry. And if you didn't, well, it's just unreasonable to expect anyone here to have realized that. The whole point of your post seems to be to defend what you got from Lee, to say that without it you would have next to nothing.

Was that not what you were doing? By "the ministry" did you mean general Biblical truth? If so, how did you expect us to know that, given the forum you are posting on, and the history of the phrase "the ministry" among such a culture? And especially since you put the phrase in quotes. It doesn't add up.

My point was that you don't need Lee to get "the ministry" if that's what you insist on calling truth. If your point was that we wouldn't have the truth unless we had the truth, that's seems a moot point to make.

So it still seems you were saying that we'd be nowhere without Lee. Which is hogwash.

[Olvin]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's what you said, Olvin.

"Still I challenge all who post here to do this: take your biblical understanding; subtract all the revelation you have received from "the ministry" and consider what you are left with. Can you minister life with that? Do you still see God's purpose, do you yet know the mystery of the human life? I doubt."[/QUOTE]





Now, I guarantee everyone here thought that by "the ministry" you meant Lee's ministry. And if you didn't, well, it's just unreasonable to expect anyone here to have realized that. The whole point of your post seems to be to defend what you got from Lee, to say that without it you would have next to nothing.





OLVIN: Brother I did mean "the ministry" which includes the ministry of WL, and it is his portion that I am referring to (I assumed thats why YOU put it in quotes); that which came through him, a continuation of all those that preceded him. Are you getting this. You spend more time defending yourself than listening. Let me make myself clear when (I) say - ministry I am referring to the contents of the faith. I am not speaking about practices beyond that.
Igzy, why don't you answer some of the straight forward questions I asked of you, then maybe I will understand you more. Otherwise with you its endless quarreling to no profit, which I have no more time for.







So it still seems you were saying that we'd be nowhere without Lee. Which is hogwash.[/QUOTE]

[Cal]

Brother I did mean "the ministry" which includes the ministry of WL, and it is his portion that I am referring to (I assumed thats why YOU put it in quotes); that which came through him, a continuation of all those that preceded him. Are you getting this. You spend more time defending yourself than listening. Let me make myself clear when (I) say - ministry I am referring to the contents of the faith. I am not speaking about practices beyond that..

Alright then, simply a misunderstanding. Most LCers when they speak of "the ministry" are speaking of Lee's ministry. Very few people I know of use the term in the way you do. So it's confusing.

But if "the ministry" is general then your initial point was moot. If ministry simply means the ongoing revelation of God through all his ministers, then I don't understand why you asked what have we have received beyond that, because by simple definition there is nothing else.

But it's not like you can ascribe that ministry to anyone special. It comes from God. Neither do I think we can categorize ministers that easily and say "these are part of the ministry and these aren't." Sometime Lee was part of it, and sometimes he wasn't. Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not. Same with you, I'll wager.

So I hope you can see why I thought you were talking about Lee only, Lee ever, Lee all in all. Aside from that I still don't understand what your initial point was. I think everyone here thought you were lifting up Lee.

Why don't I answer those questions you asked? Because there are too many of them. Ask me one question and I'll answer it. Although try not to make them of the "are you still beating your wife" category.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Alright then, simply a misunderstanding... Very few people I know of use the term in the way you do. So it's confusing.

If we today are so easily confused about the usage, and meaning, of a word like "ministry", then how much more so if we see something like "Peter's angel" in Acts 12, or "The Spirit not yet [given]" in John 7, or the imagery to the seven churches in Asia in Revs 2 & 3, or the Great Angel of the OT. To declare a word or phrase's meaning because it fits our preconceived notions, when we have almost no idea of the shared understandings, several thousand years ago, between the writer and readers, seems presumptuous.

Beware of teachers who confidently proclaim that they have the definitive understanding, and "this means that", simply because it fits their scheme which they peddle for fun and profit. It's a confidence game and they're selling themselves and their assurance, above any objective, realized "truth", including Jesus Christ Himself. If they can convince their hearer that they are sure, this reassures and calms (read: stupefies) the mark, who then takes shelter under their ministration, even if it has little bearing on the text at hand. Thus we hear, "Our brother" told us this, or that, so relax and assume that we now have reality firmly in our sights. Beware: it's a perilous journey, and these are the hidden reefs we were warned against.

[Olvin]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Alright then, simply a misunderstanding. Most LCers when they speak of "the ministry" are speaking of Lee's ministry. Very few people I know of use the term in the way you do. So it's confusing.

Olvin: I love this saying, and believe it applies at least to you Igzy; "It is hard to get someone to understand the truth when their livelihood depends on them not understanding it" since this seems your life mission to date, to lambast the ministry of WL.
You are confused because you don't study to show yourself approved. You presume to talk about spiritual things yet you don't refer to scripture. You criticize WL for using terms like nature and metabolic saying; "there are better
definitions than he gave". Like? The scripture says; we have been made partakers of the divine NATURE in Peter. Romans 5 reminds us that we were made i.e. constituted sinners (use your Strong,s concordance if you own one) , thats WAS our nature. FYI thats what it means to be born again, we get a new life. Every life has it's own nature, God's is holy, ours was sinful - remember.
You will need your Strong's for this one too; 1Cor.15 and Romans 8 uses the word transformation i.e. metamorphoo - get it. But of course you have a better definition. You say "it's more about God changing your charACTOR".
I know you will hate this because it was taught to me by TC. He said you can tame a horse, even make him to dance, but you can't make a horse a dancer.
Get someone to explain that one to you.



But if "the ministry" is general then your initial point was moot. If ministry simply means the ongoing revelation of God through all his ministers, then I don't understand why you asked what have we have received beyond that, because by simple definition there is nothing else.


Olvin: Brother am glad the early church fathers did not have your "simple definition"; remember the line in Luther's hymn " the Lord has much more light and truth to break forth from His Word"




But it's not like you can ascribe that ministry to anyone special. It comes from God. Neither do I think we can categorize ministers that easily and say "these are part of the ministry and these aren't." Sometime Lee was part of it, and sometimes he wasn't. Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not. Same with you, I'll wager.



Olvin: Have you ever heard the name Polycarp, or Justin Martyr, or Irenaus, or Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, these and many more all of which were 1000 years before the reformers. I don't need to give a short list of them; do I?
You have to read a little church history to know these things. Pilgrim's Church, and Miller's Church History is someplace you should start if your are really concerned about understanding the ministry. We CAN ascribe that ministry to everyone special, WL included. These were all faithful men not perfect men.
Do you understand the difference?





I think everyone here thought you were lifting up Lee.




Olvin: I was lifting up Lee, along with all those other faithful men to whom the word was committed, who were able to teach others also. Are you clear now?
And just like those mentioned and unmentioned, most, most at some point became a factor of division, and scandal, even the cause of death for many precious saints.



Why don't I answer those questions you asked? Because there are too many of them. Ask me one question and I'll answer it. Although try not to make them of the "are you still beating your wife" category.

Olvin: Igzy, make it easy on yourself pick any two of the "many" I posed that had to do with scripture.




k

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Olvin

Olvin: Igzy, make it easy on yourself pick any two of the "many" I posed that had to do with scripture.

Okay, two things.

Does eating and drinking the Lord, one of WL's favorite topics yet offend you?

Not unless it depersonalizes our relationship with God, turning God into more substance than Person. When that happens I think it's being taken too far, and I think Lee did that more often than not.

Otherwise, no, it doesn't offend me in general. It's scriptural.

One.

Like? The scripture says; we have been made partakers of the divine NATURE in Peter.

It does say that. My belief is that Lee's interpretation of that went too far, and read all kinds of things into it that weren't really there. Again, I think he depersonalized God and our relationship with him, turning it into more of a process than an intimate knowing between conscious beings.

The Bible says that eternal life is knowing God. My long experience tells me I can't gain transformation by bypassing an intimate relationship with God and just imbibe his "life" and "nature." I think that way of looking at things is a mistake and I cannot see that the Bible has that perspective. To know God you have relate to God, I mean the Holy Spirit. And before all the Holy Spirit is a Person, with a mind, an opinion, an attitude and a character. All the metaphors for the Spirit--water, breath, even life--are characteristics of God's PERSON. So the less you know the Person, the less you have those things.

Lee said that Christ is life, and He is. But he also taught that knowing Christ as life and Christ as "our person" are two distinct things. I think that is nonsense. If Christ himself is life then if you know life you know him and vice versa. And if you cannot simultaneously know Christ the Person and not have him as your person. It's funny the way LCers talk about "knowing life" as if it is somehow different from knowing Christ. But it can't be. This is what I mean when I say they depersonalize our relationship with Christ. They turned "life" into something that was almost just some kind of force or energy, like they were getting the benefits of God without having to deal with his person. Can't do it and it's a mistake to want to.

Sure, the Bible uses the word "metamorphosis." But the fact is we don't know exactly how the Spirit changes us. We do know that the Spirit leads us and we are to obey. I believe real transformation happens in those acts of obedience to Him, because that is my experience. I didn't experience much change simply by "eating and drinking." It really came when I realized God wants to change the way I think about things and how I react to things. And like it or not, changes of those kind require decisions to do things in certain ways. You can call that "acting" if you want. I call it obedience.

The issue is not whether you are acting or not acting, the issue is whether you are walking in obedience to the Holy Spirit. And in my experience sometimes he tells me to act. Sometimes God tells me to act happy to see someone that I'm not really happy to see. He tells me to love people I really don't want to love. And guess what? Like C.S. Lewis said, the more you act like you love someone, the more you start to genuinely love them. I believe it's part of the way God created us to work. Imagine that.

So your mocking of the word character by spelling it "charACTOR" is pretty short-sighted. I'm reminded of the true story of the elder who came home from a meeting to the sight of his sick wife washing the dishes. He went upstairs and didn't help her. Later, when their marriage was falling apart, she asked him why he didn't help her that night. He said he wasn't sure doing so was "of life." It probably would have been better for that elder if he had just "acted" like helping his wife was "of life," because God commands us to cherish our wives, even when we don't feel like it, and when we don't feel like it we should act like we do anyway because that's what a cherishing person does! Get it? He doesn't wait around for "life" to "transform" him. It's just that kind of nonsensical ungodly behavior that Lee's ministry often led to.

So I genuinely think that a lot Lee's ministry led us away from knowing God and into some kind of pseudo spiritual "inner life" experience that was not of God. Now I believe that God is known inwardly, as the Holy Spirit. I just think that Lee focused so much on his carefully constructed "inner life" theology that he missed the point, which was to know God. I think all his errors spring from that.

And I don't believe that anyone who truly knows God would abuse authority the way Lee and Titus and all those guys did. I've had the privilege to get to know some very godly men since I left the LC, and one thing they all have in common is they respect the authority of the Holy Spirit in each person. They would never presume to usurp it the way LC leadership does.

Two.

Okay, I've done what you asked. Trust me, Olvin, I know the Bible and Church history. Just because I don't interpret it as you do doesn't mean I don't.

I don't hate Lee and it is not my mission in life to lambaste him. My mission in life is to help people know God. And in my experience and observation, many of Lee's teachings are actually a hindrance to that. I'm sorry if that offends you, but if your main perspective on Christian truth is still Lee's version then you only see one side of the story. I see your perspective, because I've lived it, and I see the one I have now. You only see your perspective.

You don't have to agree with me, but I'm satisfied that my conclusions line up with the Bible, and they also match my experience.

[Friedel]

Olvin:

You stuck to what you believe. I admire you for that.

I wish you well in your further endeavors to spread the Word of Life.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Olvin:

You stuck to what you believe. I admire you for that.

I wish you well in your further endeavors to spread the Word of Life.

I agree. I like people who have the courage of their convictions. It is too, too easy to be what we think the group consensus is looking for.

[Olvin]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, two things. Not unless it depersonalizes our relationship with God, turning God into more substance than Person. When that happens I think it's being taken too far, and I think Lee did that more often than not.

You then would also have to say the Jesus was taking it too far. He referred to Himself as bread 12 times in John, HE said, "unless we eat and drink Him we have no life", HE said, "all who thirst come to Him and drink", HE breathed the Holy Spirit into the disciples, HE said, "He would be a well in us springing up..." I think its not taken far enough, and I think Jesus did that more often than not.

Otherwise, no, it doesn't offend me in general. It's scriptural.
One.
It does say that. My belief is that Lee's interpretation of that went too far, and read all kinds of things into it that weren't really there. Again, I think he depersonalized God and our relationship with him, turning it into more of a process than an intimate knowing between conscious beings.

The Bible says that eternal life is knowing God. My long experience tells me I can't gain transformation by bypassing an intimate relationship with God and just imbibe his "life" and "nature." I think that way of looking at things is a mistake and I cannot see that the Bible has that perspective. To know God you have relate to God, I mean the Holy Spirit. And before all the Holy Spirit is a Person, with a mind, an opinion, an attitude and a character. All the metaphors for the Spirit--water, breath, even life--are characteristics of God's PERSON. So the less you know the Person, the less you have those things.

Yes, Jesus in scripture says that: "you search (and research) the scripture for in them- you think- you have eternal life". They testify of Him. "Yet refuse to come to me that you may have life". How do you come to Him? He says: come eat the bread life, and come drink the water of life. This is by no means "bypassing and intimate relationship" but pursuing and developing one based on the way the One who loves us has spoken to us. I'd rather learn His love language than yours.

Lee said that Christ is life, and He is. But he also taught that knowing Christ as life and Christ as "our person" are two distinct things. I think that is nonsense. If Christ himself is life then if you know life you know him and vice versa. And if you cannot simultaneously know Christ the Person and not have him as your person. It's funny the way LCers talk about "knowing life" as if it is somehow different from knowing Christ. But it can't be. This is what I mean when I say they depersonalize our relationship with Christ. They turned "life" into something that was almost just some kind of force or energy, like they were getting the benefits of God without having to deal with his person. Can't do it and it's a mistake to want to.

You contradict yourself, first you categorize "even life as a metaphor, a characteristic of God", then you say, "if you know life you know God and vice versa". So all those who take the Lord at HIS word to eat, drink, and breath Him for life, according to you have His person also? So to me it boils down to your way (whatever that is) or His. I think I'll go with His.

Sure, the Bible uses the word "metamorphosis." But the fact is we don't know exactly how the Spirit changes us. We do know that the Spirit leads us and we are to obey. I believe real transformation happens in those acts of obedience to Him, because that is my experience. I didn't experience much change simply by "eating and drinking." It really came when I realized God wants to change the way I think about things and how I react to things. And like it or not, changes of those kind require decisions to do things in certain ways. You can call that "acting" if you want. I call it obedience.

Think about this as you are thinking about obedience. Scripture says: But thou, son of man, HEAR WHAT I SAY UNTO THE, be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth and EAT that which I give the. Ezekiel 2:8.
Hungry yet? I am.

The issue is not whether you are acting or not acting, the issue is whether you are walking in obedience to the Holy Spirit. And in my experience sometimes he tells me to act. Sometimes God tells me to act happy to see someone that I'm not really happy to see. He tells me to love people I really don't want to love. And guess what? Like C.S. Lewis said, the more you act like you love someone, the more you start to genuinely love them. I believe it's part of the way God created us to work. Imagine that.

God NEVER tells us to act; He tell us to deny ourselves, to take up our cross and follow Him. Replace the word "act" with deny yourself and I fully agree. Thats the way God works!

So your mocking of the word character by spelling it "charACTOR" is pretty short-sighted. I'm reminded of the true story of the elder who came home from a meeting to the sight of his sick wife washing the dishes. He went upstairs and didn't help her. Later, when their marriage was falling apart, she asked him why he didn't help her that night. He said he wasn't sure doing so was "of life." It probably would have been better for that elder if he had just "acted" like helping his wife was "of life," because God commands us to cherish our wives, even when we don't feel like it, and when we don't feel like it we should act like we do anyway because that's what a cherishing person does! Get it? He doesn't wait around for "life" to "transform" him. It's just that kind of nonsensical ungodly behavior that Lee's ministry often led to.

You blame a grown man's selfish behavior on Bro.Lee? When all is said and done we all will give account. Strange how that works. God gave us all the Bible and the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all reality. Yet somehow you seem to have laid this responsibility for the saints in the LCs on one man.
Some saints never mature no matter how old they are or what type of position they hold, elder or otherwise.

So I genuinely think that a lot Lee's ministry led us away from knowing God and into some kind of pseudo spiritual "inner life" experience that was not of God. Now I believe that God is known inwardly, as the Holy Spirit. I just think that Lee focused so much on his carefully constructed "inner life" theology that he missed the point, which was to know God. I think all his errors spring from that.

Well, WL surely made some very serious mistakes, but where all his errors spring from were not all errors. He labored with the talent given to him by the Lord. I am not ashamed to say that my book shelves are lined with the fruit of his labor.

And I don't believe that anyone who truly knows God would abuse authority the way Lee and Titus and all those guys did. I've had the privilege to get to know some very godly men since I left the LC, and one thing they all have in common is they respect the authority of the Holy Spirit in each person. They would never presume to usurp it the way LC leadership does.

Brother, let me say from experience you never know what a man will do other than sin, even "godly" men.

Two.

Okay, I've done what you asked. Trust me, Olvin, I know the Bible and Church history. Just because I don't interpret it as you do doesn't mean I don't.

I don't hate Lee and it is not my mission in life to lambaste him. My mission in life is to help people know God. And in my experience and observation, many of Lee's teachings are actually a hindrance to that. I'm sorry if that offends you, but if your main perspective on Christian truth is still Lee's version then you only see one side of the story. I see your perspective, because I've lived it, and I see the one I have now. You only see your perspective.

Let me say after much reflection, it is you ALSO Igzy, who are actually in serious danger of being a hindrance. There are many many saints who are seeking encouragement, comfort and direction because of the pain they experienced leaving the LCs. Even children of abusive parents need to be able to salvage childhood joys. Abusive parents my have taken there children on wonderful vacations, celebrated all the special days of the year, the home movies may not show one hint of the abuse. Parents who punch, and slap their children may also have read them bed time stories and taught them to ride a bike or swim. No counselor would ever suggest that the children reject or try to forget all those normal, pleasant, childhood memories because of the horrific ones. Even the counselor knows that is something for the child to reconcile within themselves. Brother what I see you doing in this forum causing saints to question the faithfulness of God in their lives. Do you believe that all things work together for good? Do you believe that his word will no return void. Do you believe that we have an anointing and no need to be taught. But the anointing that is in us is true and is no lie...?
My point is Igzy: You only have YOUR perspective, you still presume to see mine. I was abused, but in my LC family as well as many who post here, there were many wonderful times had with brothers and sisters. I can separate the good from the bad, the ugly from the glorious.

I have said in a number of ways that at some point you must be able to separate the man from his work. Only in the person of Christ can perfection be found. Consider this verse: John2:25 'because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.

You don't have to agree with me, but I'm satisfied that my conclusions line up with the Bible, and they also match my experience.

Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness shall be filled.
Do be satisfied or you'll just be full of yourself.

[UntoHim]

To Orin and anybody else interested:
Please review YouTube video on how to post quotes in Vbulletin

I think this will end up saving you some time and frustration when providing and answering multiple quotes on the forum.

Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrqLv__bFzk

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Olvin

You then would also have to say the Jesus was taking it too far. He referred to Himself as bread 12 times in John, HE said, "unless we eat and drink Him we have no life", HE said, "all who thirst come to Him and drink", HE breathed the Holy Spirit into the disciples, HE said, "He would be a well in us springing up..." I think its not taken far enough, and I think Jesus did that more often than not.

Not necessarily, because you don't have to conclude that Jesus' statements mean we should commoditize Him the way Lee did. Jesus certainly used these pictures to point out how we could experience him. I'm not saying he didn't say these things, I'm just saying that the way the LC chose to think about them is not healthy. They depersonalize our relationship with the Lord so much that it becomes no more about relating to him as a Person, but imbibing stuff. And that's not what God intended, in my opinion.

Yes, Jesus in scripture says that: "you search (and research) the scripture for in them- you think- you have eternal life". They testify of Him. "Yet refuse to come to me that you may have life". How do you come to Him? He says: come eat the bread life, and come drink the water of life. This is by no means "bypassing and intimate relationship" but pursuing and developing one based on the way the One who loves us has spoken to us. I'd rather learn His love language than yours.

Again nothing wrong with eating and drinking. But if that's all you have, if you are not actually get to know him, then you don't really know life, because eternal life is knowing him. Are you getting to know him, is the question.

You contradict yourself, first you categorize "even life as a metaphor, a characteristic of God", then you say, "if you know life you know God and vice versa". So all those who take the Lord at HIS word to eat, drink, and breath Him for life, according to you have His person also? So to me it boils down to your way (whatever that is) or His. I think I'll go with His.

When I say even life is a metaphor, I mean that all things divine, even life, are expressions of God's Person. Our life and nature are different, more basic, than our person. But his life and nature are just his person. It all begins and ends with his conscious personality, his mind, emotion and will. You can't get his life or nature without getting his person. And if you get his person, you are getting his life and nature. In my experience the LC had this thought that you could get his life without getting his person. No, you can't.

I think my way is his, properly interpreted. I don't think the LC really wanted people to develop their own relationships with God. I think they wanted a kind of mindless experience by which they could exercise group control. I'm not saying your experience is mindless. I'm saying what I was taught in the LC was pretty mindless.

God NEVER tells us to act; He tell us to deny ourselves, to take up our cross and follow Him. Replace the word "act" with deny yourself and I fully agree. Thats the way God works!

Sorry, I believe that is imbalanced. There are all kinds of commandments, Old and New, which require action. Repenting is action. When I say act I don't mean being pretentious, but I do mean sometimes we have to step out and try to do things that we don't think we can do, and in fact it does often start out with a little "pretending." A simple example is just being nice to someone we can't stand. That requires an initial act of faith. Sure we need grace too, but we don't wait around for grace to fall on us before we are nice. We just obey God's commandment to be kind and tender, even when we don't feel like it. Sometimes it requires, initially at least, acting. That's just our experience.

You blame a grown man's selfish behavior on Bro.Lee? When all is said and done we all will give account. Strange how that works. God gave us all the Bible and the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all reality. Yet somehow you seem to have laid this responsibility for the saints in the LCs on one man. Some saints never mature no matter how old they are or what type of position they hold, elder or otherwise.

I'm saying that your prescription that we never need to act ultimately leads to these kinds of experiences. Either you are completely transformed, or you sometimes need to "act" to fulfill God's commandments. This brother thought he shouldn't do that, and the result was he offended his wife. Let's be clear: the brother didn't leave his wife with the dishes because he hated her. He left her because he thought by doing so he might be more spiritual. And that idea came straight from Lee's teaching. Now, when I act in faith and fellowship with God, my experience is God's grace rushes in to empower me to fulfill his commandments in a life-filled way. But if I just waited around for grace to fall on me to do what I should I wouldn't even get out of bed to go to work half the time.

Well, WL surely made some very serious mistakes, but where all his errors spring from were not all errors. He labored with the talent given to him by the Lord. I am not ashamed to say that my book shelves are lined with the fruit of his labor.

I don't mind if you appreciate Lee. But if you think he is at the front rank of those ministering the truth I think that is a big mistake. This goes back to your original assertion, which was basically that your view of the purpose of life culminated in Lee's characteristic synopsis. My point is that "express God by being filled with his life and nature" has a big, big hole in it. And the hole is that it doesn't mention knowing God's person, and it doesn't mention obedience to the personal conscious leading of a Person. Lee's life-and-nature model leaves too much to spontaneity and unconsciousness. I.e. we eat and transformation happens. In my experience, eating leads to being more aware of God's presence, which causes me to be more aware of his personal leading, which (hopefully) leads to CONSCIOUS obedience, and it's in that obedience that transformation really happens.

I don't think transformation is about getting your "nature" magically changed. Nowhere does the Bible actually say that. There may be something like that going on, but the Bible doesn't tell us to focus on that. Transformation, in my experience, is about God teaching you, through his personal leading to think, feel and act in a completely different way. Transformation happens with the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2), that is learning to think differently. Now it is a learning that we could not get without the Spirit teaching us, but it is still a conscious learning. It's not just an unconscious changing of our "nature."

Brother, let me say from experience you never know what a man will do other than sin, even "godly" men.

Fair enough.

Let me say after much reflection, it is you ALSO Igzy, who are actually in serious danger of being a hindrance. There are many many saints who are seeking encouragement, comfort and direction because of the pain they experienced leaving the LCs. Even children of abusive parents need to be able to salvage childhood joys. Abusive parents my have taken there children on wonderful vacations, celebrated all the special days of the year, the home movies may not show one hint of the abuse. Parents who punch, and slap their children may also have read them bed time stories and taught them to ride a bike or swim. No counselor would ever suggest that the children reject or try to forget all those normal, pleasant, childhood memories because of the horrific ones. Even the counselor knows that is something for the child to reconcile within themselves. Brother what I see you doing in this forum causing saints to question the faithfulness of God in their lives. Do you believe that all things work together for good? Do you believe that his word will no return void. Do you believe that we have an anointing and no need to be taught. But the anointing that is in us is true and is no lie...?
My point is Igzy: You only have YOUR perspective, you still presume to see mine. I was abused, but in my LC family as well as many who post here, there were many wonderful times had with brothers and sisters. I can separate the good from the bad, the ugly from the glorious.

I can appreciate that, and I can take that word. I don't want people to lose faith in their genuine experiences of God. I want them to have the freedom to question any teacher. And LCers are taught to feel guilty about questioning Lee. And that, Olvin is a doctrine of demons. There is just no other way to put it.

We've come full circle. My initial objection was that you said we could not know the meaning of life without "the ministry" and the best definition of that meaning was Lee's version. This showed me that you were still influenced to think you had to revere Lee. There is a seed in what he put in us that causes us to feel distress when we consider doubting him. That is of the devil.

Please read and pray over 1 Corinthians 3. My thought is that the whole chapter is about one main point: Don't revere and lift up leaders. The "standards of this age," the "foolishness" Paul is talking about is the practice of believing you have to identify yourself with the best human leader and then wear that identification like a badge of honor.

Everyone has their job. Teachers teach. Our job is not to revere them, our job is to decide whether or not they are worth listening to. Good teachers just echo what God is already saying to us. All things are ours. It's all for us. And we are all us, even the teachers.