Do you think Christianity is degraded?

Evangelical · 10-10-2016, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again, Witness Lee is not the authority, nor is this thread talking about his ministry. We have rebuked and repudiated much of what Witness Lee taught, you responded "what about you"? That is what this thread is about, it is a response to your question.

On this thread it is the apostle's fellowship that is the authority.

There are 6 mentions of the word. Two in the book of Acts, two in Galatians, and two in James. None of them support Witness Lee's definition. His definition is not according to the fellowship of the apostles and I reject it. This is a New Testament term and I will stick to the New Testament definition.

I'm confused ZNPaaneah. When I post something not related to Lee or Nee, I am told that this forum is about Lee or Nee's ministry. Now when I post something in reference to Lee, I am told by you that it is not about Lee. It seems this forum has some sort of identity crisis. Or at least, it is convenient for some members to decide when it is about Lee and when it is not about Lee, to suit their own purposes.

You said

It is very alarming to me that Witness Lee felt it necessary to denigrate this term.

I was not talking about his ministry but refuting what you said. My post showed you that he did not "denigrate a term". He spoke positively of religion, even saying Judaism is the true religion. He spoke of religion for what it was - a system of beliefs and rituals. He said that systems of beliefs and rituals do not give life. If we are a Christian we would have to agree with that. Religion does not give life, and from this point of view religion is a negative thing. Even your pet verse in James - taking care of orphans and widows, does not give life. It is a good thing to do, but cannot give life.
You seem to be twisted Lee's words to mean that he was against taking care of orphans and widows. That is not the meaning of being "against religion".

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2016, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm confused ZNPaaneah. When I post something not related to Lee or Nee, I am told that this forum is about Lee or Nee's ministry. Now when I post something in reference to Lee, I am told by you that it is not about Lee. It seems this forum has some sort of identity crisis. Or at least, it is convenient for some members to decide when it is about Lee and when it is not about Lee, to suit their own purposes.

I defined the thread with the first post. If you want to persuade me you will need to do it with the fellowship of the apostles. That is my requirement. You asked me this question, I have started this thread in response to you, and I am willing to discuss this. However, my requirement is that I will submit to the fellowship of the apostles. I will recognize that as having the authority. This is fully in line with Witness Lee's ministry as he also said that the ultimate authority in the New Testament is the fellowship of the apostles. You can quote Witness Lee all you want, but if you cannot make your argument from the fellowship of the apostles it just proves that "degraded Christianity" is a false construct of Witness Lee and not a New Testament truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said

It is very alarming to me that Witness Lee felt it necessary to denigrate this term.

I was not talking about his ministry but refuting what you said. My post showed you that he did not "denigrate a term". He spoke positively of religion, even saying Judaism is the true religion. He spoke of religion for what it was - a system of beliefs and rituals. He said that systems of beliefs and rituals do not give life. If we are a Christian we would have to agree with that. Religion does not give life, and from this point of view religion is a negative thing. Even your pet verse in James - taking care of orphans and widows, does not give life. It is a good thing to do, but cannot give life.

I'm sorry but your credibility is already at rock bottom. Your contention now is that Witness Lee did not denigrate the term "religion"?

“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion” (Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion, Chapter 12, Section 6)

"Religion is a human invention, a product of the fallen human mind." (Witness Lee, Life Study of John, Chapter 14, Section 1)

"religion is anything done for Christ but not having the presence and reality of Christ." (Witness Lee, Enjoying Christ as the All-inclusive Spirit for the Practical, Genuine, and Real Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3).

"Religion is to try to worship God but without God, Christ, or the Spirit." (Witness Lee, The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 1, Section 2)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be twisted Lee's words to mean that he was against taking care of orphans and widows. That is not the meaning of being "against religion".

Oh my bad, did I twist Witness Lee's words? Here, let Witness Lee respond:

"Religion is something formed by the human mentality under Satan's instigation and inspiration in order to oppose God's economy. Apparently, religion is for God, but in actuality, it is fully against Him." (Witness Lee, The Lord's Recovery and the Present Situation of Religion, Chapter 2, Section 1)

We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2).

Honestly Evangelical, do you even know Witness Lee at all? Witness Lee claimed that according to the New Testament religion in not a good word.

"Of course, I realize that this word does not sound well to religious ears. But if we read our Bible in Galatians, we can see that religion is not a positive word." (Witness Lee, The Indwelling Christ in the Canon of the New Testament, Chapter 11, Section 2).

So go ahead, use the Bible and prove that the word Religion is not a positive word.

I have already discussed the letters to the churches in Ephesus and Smyrna in Revelation 2. In this portion you can see those who claim to be Jews and are not. They are nominal, pretending to be believers, but actually they are the synagogue of Satan. You can call them a false religion, followers of a false Christ, a different gospel, another Jesus, fruit of a cursed tree, etc. But when you denigrate all religion because of the false ones it is as though you are cutting cancer out with a butter knife. Witness Lee equated the Judaizers in the book of Galatians with all religion. That is clearly not the New Testament understanding of the word. As I have said there are references to religion in Acts, Galatians and James. The only way you can get Witness Lee's definition is to ignore 2/3 of the uses, and then to equate Judaizers with the Jewish religion in the book of Galatians, which Paul does not do. He gives his testimony of leaving the Jewish religion, and then he gives his experience of Judaizers damaging the church. These Judaizers were acting according to their own opinion and not according to revelation.

But that cannot and does not mean that everyone who was ever in the Jewish religion was lacking in Revelation. Such claim would be idiotic. But, yes, that idiotic claim is Witness Lee's claim.

Evangelical · 10-10-2016, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I defined the thread with the first post. If you want to persuade me you will need to do it with the fellowship of the apostles. That is my requirement. You asked me this question, I have started this thread in response to you, and I am willing to discuss this. However, my requirement is that I will submit to the fellowship of the apostles. I will recognize that as having the authority. This is fully in line with Witness Lee's ministry as he also said that the ultimate authority in the New Testament is the fellowship of the apostles. You can quote Witness Lee all you want, but if you cannot make your argument from the fellowship of the apostles it just proves that "degraded Christianity" is a false construct of Witness Lee and not a New Testament truth.

I'm sorry but your credibility is already at rock bottom. Your contention now is that Witness Lee did not denigrate the term "religion"?

“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion” (Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion, Chapter 12, Section 6)

"Religion is a human invention, a product of the fallen human mind." (Witness Lee, Life Study of John, Chapter 14, Section 1)

"religion is anything done for Christ but not having the presence and reality of Christ." (Witness Lee, Enjoying Christ as the All-inclusive Spirit for the Practical, Genuine, and Real Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3).

"Religion is to try to worship God but without God, Christ, or the Spirit." (Witness Lee, The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 1, Section 2)

We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2).

Honestly Evangelical, do you even know Witness Lee at all?

ZNPaaneah, you defined the thread in the first post in which you made reference to Witness Lee twice. You then proceeded to say that this thread is not about Witness Lee's ministry, yet you continue to quote and reference him, which is, lo and behold, his teaching and ministry. I personally am fully able to talk about this matter without referencing Lee, which I have done when I described my personal experiences in degraded Christianity. It seems you are unable to prove Christianity is not degraded without making counter-arguments to Witness Lee's teachings.

Others, such as testallthings has already picked up your inability to quote and reference on topic, when you provided a quote to me in another thread from Watchman Nee's book that was nothing to do with what you said it meant. So you are not the best person to be defining the context of threads. It is not my credibility in question here, but rather your rationality and consistency.

Further, your insistence that it is about nominal Christianity versus degraded is frankly, idiotic (to use a term you used previously). Nominal means "in name only" therefore you are saying these churches in Revelation are "in name Christians" only and not real churches. That is worse than saying they are degraded. You are not the expert of the English language and logic that you think you are, ZNPaaneah.

I thought this thread would be about people's personal experiences of why Christianity is not degraded. Perhaps it is the great church you currently attend, perhaps a great one you attended in the past. Perhaps there is an entire country with no degraded churches at all, that I know nothing about and would love to visit. So far no one has been able to provide anything to support the idea that Christianity is not degraded, except counter-arguments to Witness Lee's doctrine.

Even if I agree with you that Lee was wrong about Christianity being degraded, doesn't change the fact that the majority of churches established in most cities and towns around the world, are full of Sunday Christians promoted by a religious organisation and structure that runs counter to the new testament blueprint that Christ established with his closest 12. That is an observation that not just Lee, but many church leaders and lay people in the past have made. That is why institutionalised Christianity is on the decline in many areas of the world, and house or community churches are growing.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2016, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Further, your insistence that it is about nominal Christianity versus degraded is frankly, idiotic (to use a term you used previously). Nominal means "in name only" therefore you are saying these churches in Revelation are "in name Christians" only and not real churches. That is worse than saying they are degraded. You are not the expert of the English language and logic that you think you are, ZNPaaneah.

Obviously those that say they are Jews and are not, but are of the "Synagogue of Satan" are nominal, not genuine. That is very clear. Also they are clearly worse. You cannot refer to them as "degraded" because they were never a genuine church to begin with.

Nor are they referred to as the church in Smyrna, rather they are the ones persecuting the church.

The analogy I use is of a childhood disease. If the disease were a virus, the virus would be the false teacher, the false prophet, Balaam, Jezebel, etc. That virus is not a "degraded church", it is not nor has it ever been a church. However, when a child gets the disease and is sick, that is what I understand by the term "degraded church". You are referring to a sick church.

My argument is that these childhood diseases are crucial, our immunity to them is our defense. This is why civilizations that have many domesticated animals are the dominant civilizations, they have a number of these childhood diseases. This is why the American Indians (North America, Central America and South America) were wiped out by Europeans. Therefore, I see that being exposed to these "diseases" and developing an immunity to them is a crucial step in the maturation of Christians. We need to overcome them, and we can't overcome them if we are not exposed to them.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2016, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I thought this thread would be about people's personal experiences of why Christianity is not degraded.

That is because you don't listen to what others say, only to what you assume they will say. Yes, there are false prophets, false Christs, nominal Christians, false churches, Judaizers, Cults, etc.

But when you confuse them with backsliders and Christians who are weak in the faith you cannot accurately discern what is going on. As a result Witness Lee slanders and defames all believers. That is his error.

Evangelical · 10-10-2016, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is because you don't listen to what others say, only to what you assume they will say. Yes, there are false prophets, false Christs, nominal Christians, false churches, Judaizers, Cults, etc.

But when you confuse them with backsliders and Christians who are weak in the faith you cannot accurately discern what is going on. As a result Witness Lee slanders and defames all believers. That is his error.

Misunderstanding is a two-way street ZNPaaneah, but I should apologise for my confrontational tone and try to stay objective.

I think people can be offended if they identify with a denomination and read Lee say such things about their denomination, they take as a personal attack on them. They might say "I am a Lutheran, Lee said Lutheranism is degraded, therefore he is saying I am degraded". I was the opposite. When I read that about my own denomination (at the time I was attending) being degraded, I actually agreed with that statement. I could not think of any other word to describe it.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2016, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Misunderstanding is a two-way street ZNPaaneah, but I should apologise for my confrontational tone and try to stay objective.

I think people can be offended if they identify with a denomination and read Lee say such things about their denomination, they take as a personal attack on them. They might say "I am a Lutheran, Lee said Lutheranism is degraded, therefore he is saying I am degraded".

There are two very different ways to look at the situation.

Witness Lee's way is that there is a group of elite Christians, they meet in the proper way, on the proper ground, with the vision of the age. These ones alone are faithful to the Lord. We cannot compromise with "degraded Christianity" but instead they need to repent and join us. (I am summarizing many, many quotes of Witness Lee that I have posted already on this and the other forum).

The Second way is similar to how the children of Israel entered the good land. Initially only a handful were ready to enter the land. These were the elite, Joshua and Caleb. But they realized they needed to enter as a nation and not as a few. As a result the Israelites continued to wander for many more years before the second generation was matured enough to enter. Those that tried to enter on their own were wiped out. Instead of "degraded" the issue with this approach is a necessary maturation process. I would argue that you must distinguish between the genuine believers and the false ones (the synagogue of Satan, Balaam, Jezebel, etc). Then, for the genuine believers everything that happens to them is necessary. We need to overcome these various "diseases" but if we do we will be fully matured and the result will be the church in Philadelphia.

I personally do not believe that you can have the church in Philadelphia until you have overcome Jezebel and Balaam. This is why I do not like to look at these churches as "historical" but rather as necessary experiences that you need to go through to be fully matured.

Evangelical · 10-10-2016, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are two very different ways to look at the situation.

Witness Lee's way is that there is a group of elite Christians, they meet in the proper way, on the proper ground, with the vision of the age. These ones alone are faithful to the Lord. We cannot compromise with "degraded Christianity" but instead they need to repent and join us. (I am summarizing many, many quotes of Witness Lee that I have posted already on this and the other forum).

The Second way is similar to how the children of Israel entered the good land. Initially only a handful were ready to enter the land. These were the elite, Joshua and Caleb. But they realized they needed to enter as a nation and not as a few. As a result the Israelites continued to wander for many more years before the second generation was matured enough to enter. Those that tried to enter on their own were wiped out. Instead of "degraded" the issue with this approach is a necessary maturation process. I would argue that you must distinguish between the genuine believers and the false ones (the synagogue of Satan, Balaam, Jezebel, etc). Then, for the genuine believers everything that happens to them is necessary. We need to overcome these various "diseases" but if we do we will be fully matured and the result will be the church in Philadelphia.

I personally do not believe that you can have the church in Philadelphia until you have overcome Jezebel and Balaam. This is why I do not like to look at these churches as "historical" but rather as necessary experiences that you need to go through to be fully matured.

I can't say I disagree with you. I personally think of it is as either historical or present. For example, in a non-historical way, today we may say that our church might become this or that (and reference a certain church in Revelation). This is about our condition as a church.

In the context of Lee's ministry and his role in the world (and Nee's), in a prophetic and destiny sort of way, Lee saw it as a historical continuation of the process of reformation or what he called recovery. There was Catholic, then Luther, then Presbyterian, Baptist, brethren, pentecostal, etc then just "the church" (Nee/Lee).

Personally I do not see it as much of a historical thing as Lee did but a conditional one. It is possible for any local church to become one of the churches mentioned in Revelation.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2016, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Others, such as testallthings has already picked up your inability to quote and reference on topic, when you provided a quote to me in another thread from Watchman Nee's book that was nothing to do with what you said it meant.

Oh, my bad.

You said "My post showed you that he did not "denigrate a term".

are you saying that these quotes of Witness Lee are not on topic or have nothing to do with what you said?

“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion” (Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion, Chapter 12, Section 6)

"Religion is a human invention, a product of the fallen human mind." (Witness Lee, Life Study of John, Chapter 14, Section 1)

"religion is anything done for Christ but not having the presence and reality of Christ." (Witness Lee, Enjoying Christ as the All-inclusive Spirit for the Practical, Genuine, and Real Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3).

"Religion is to try to worship God but without God, Christ, or the Spirit." (Witness Lee, The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 1, Section 2)

You said "You seem to be twisted Lee's words to mean that he was against taking care of orphans and widows. That is not the meaning of being "against religion".

And to that I responded with the following quotes to show that Witness Lee was against charitable works and was against religion.

"Religion is something formed by the human mentality under Satan's instigation and inspiration in order to oppose God's economy. Apparently, religion is for God, but in actuality, it is fully against Him." (Witness Lee, The Lord's Recovery and the Present Situation of Religion, Chapter 2, Section 1)

We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2).

Are you saying that these quotes do not adequately respond to what you said?

Evangelical · 10-10-2016, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Oh, my bad.

You said "My post showed you that he did not "denigrate a term".

are you saying that these quotes of Witness Lee are not on topic or have nothing to do with what you said?

“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion” (Witness Lee, Christ versus Religion, Chapter 12, Section 6)

"Religion is a human invention, a product of the fallen human mind." (Witness Lee, Life Study of John, Chapter 14, Section 1)

"religion is anything done for Christ but not having the presence and reality of Christ." (Witness Lee, Enjoying Christ as the All-inclusive Spirit for the Practical, Genuine, and Real Church Life, Chapter 1, Section 3).

"Religion is to try to worship God but without God, Christ, or the Spirit." (Witness Lee, The Recovery of Christ in the Present Evil Age, Chapter 1, Section 2)

You said "You seem to be twisted Lee's words to mean that he was against taking care of orphans and widows. That is not the meaning of being "against religion".

And to that I responded with the following quotes to show that Witness Lee was against charitable works and was against religion.

"Religion is something formed by the human mentality under Satan's instigation and inspiration in order to oppose God's economy. Apparently, religion is for God, but in actuality, it is fully against Him." (Witness Lee, The Lord's Recovery and the Present Situation of Religion, Chapter 2, Section 1)

We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2).

Are you saying that these quotes do not adequately respond to what you said?

ZNPaaneah, in all those quotes I cannot find anything which is out to denigrate the term religion.

Religion in this context means a system of beliefs and rituals. If you prefer to use the definition of religion in James, that is fine, but the majority of people in the world do not define religion in this way.
So when Lee speaks of religion he is not speaking about helping orphans and widows, but a system of man-made beliefs and rituals.
Lee is saying that a system of beliefs and rituals cannot give life.

This is what his first quote means
"“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion”

The fact that I found one quote where Lee spoke positively of religion, saying it is good, proves that he did not denigrate the term.

Yes, he said religion is against God. But it is. Hard for you to argue that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc is not against God in as much as they reject Christ.

Lee was not against helping widows and orphans, he was saying that like Paul, it is not the focus of his ministry.

In short, his view is that religion is good from a human perspective, but cannot give life, only Christ can.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2016, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, in all those quotes I cannot find anything which is out to denigrate the term religion.

Religion in this context means a system of beliefs and rituals. If you prefer to use the definition of religion in James, that is fine, but the majority of people in the world do not define religion in this way.
So when Lee speaks of religion he is not speaking about helping orphans and widows, but a system of man-made beliefs and rituals.
Lee is saying that a system of beliefs and rituals cannot give life.

This is what his first quote means
"“Anything that is scriptural and even spiritual, yet without life, becomes religion”

The fact that I found one quote where Lee spoke positively of religion, saying it is good, proves that he did not denigrate the term.

Yes, he said religion is against God. But it is. Hard for you to argue that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc is not against God in as much as they reject Christ.

Lee was not against helping widows and orphans, he was saying that like Paul, it is not the focus of his ministry.

In short, his view is that religion is good from a human perspective, but cannot give life, only Christ can.

And where in the New Testament does any of the apostles say this?

Witness Lee's definition is not supported by the New Testament. The word "religion" is never used in the way he describes nor can it ever be defined in his way. He has confused the "Judaizers" with the Jewish religion.

In the church in Smyrna we learn of "the synagogue of Satan", people who say they are Jews and are not. You can't call them the Jewish religion, they aren't. Yes, the synagogue of Satan is accurately described by Witness Lee's definition, but he has incorrectly defined religion as being the synagogue of Satan and that is a mistake.

Witness Lee made a big deal of how the "sheep and goats" do not refer to the believers and unbelievers, but rather to two types of unbelievers. That definition is crucial for understanding eternal salvation.

Well, in the same way he has mashed up "the synagogue of Satan" with all religion. This is a mistake.

To equate pure religion with "the synagogue of Satan" is to denigrate pure religion.

Evangelical · 10-10-2016, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And where in the New Testament does any of the apostles say this?

Witness Lee's definition is not supported by the New Testament. The word "religion" is never used in the way he describes nor can it ever be defined in his way. He has confused the "Judaizers" with the Jewish religion.

In the church in Smyrna we learn of "the synagogue of Satan", people who say they are Jews and are not. You can't call them the Jewish religion, they aren't. Yes, the synagogue of Satan is accurately described by Witness Lee's definition, but he has incorrectly defined religion as being the synagogue of Satan and that is a mistake.

Witness Lee made a big deal of how the "sheep and goats" do not refer to the believers and unbelievers, but rather to two types of unbelievers. That definition is crucial for understanding eternal salvation.

Well, in the same way he has mashed up "the synagogue of Satan" with all religion. This is a mistake.

To equate pure religion with "the synagogue of Satan" is to denigrate pure religion.

ZNPaaneah, most people in the world use the term religion to mean a system of man-made beliefs and rituals. Continuing to argue your point of view from the "correct" view of the meaning of religion (as taking care of orphans and widows), is not logical. The Bible says only God or Christ gives (eternal) life. Religions don't give life. Actually, even taking care of orphans and widows does not give eternal life. Both false religion and true religion cannot give life. We are against religion on the basis that it does not give life, everyone will die someday and people without life will go to hell for eternity. Care for widows and orphans all you like but when they die they will go to hell without Christ.

I am really itching to start a discussion with you about "sheep and goats" and a strange doctrine resulting from that which says we can be saved by giving someone a cup of water. But perhaps for another time.