What is God's Economy?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Spiritually, I agree, but practically it should match this spiritual fact. So we should not be in any sort of "ism". If we attend Catholic mass every Sunday for example, we are in Catholicism. We are not just in Christ and "the church" but also in Catholicism. If we are in a house church movement, we are in house-churchism.

So, great logic here Evangelical, if we gather every week to read Lee's messages, then we are in Lee-ism.

That is the spiritual fact. The Bible says you are "of Lee."

I do believe you are slowly catching on.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, great logic here Evangelical, if we gather every week to read Lee's messages, then we are in Lee-ism.

That is the spiritual fact. The Bible says you are "of Lee."

I do believe you are slowly catching on.

And Evangelical, you identified yourself as being "in the Recovery" ("That's why I'm in the Recovery today.")

Which is an 'ism' if ever there was one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And Evangelical, you identified yourself as being "in the Recovery" ("That's why I'm in the Recovery today.")

Which is an 'ism' if ever there was one.

That's not my identity that's the process I am in, the Lord's recovery.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not my identity that's the process I am in, the Lord's recovery.

Evangelical, in that statement ("That's why I'm in the Recovery today."), you used the term "the Recovery" to identify a group, not a "process."

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not my identity that's the process I am in, the Lord's recovery.

The Lord moves forward from His first coming towards His second coming. He is building His church. You 'in the process' of 'recovery' you are moving backwards?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, great logic here Evangelical, if we gather every week to read Lee's messages, then we are in Lee-ism.

That is the spiritual fact. The Bible says you are "of Lee."

I do believe you are slowly catching on.

Ohio,

That's as logical as saying if we gather together every week to read the bible we are in bible-ism. Or if we gather together for the Lord's table we are in Lord's-table-ism.

That is not a spiritual fact, you don't say too many spiritual facts I have noticed.

The spiritual fact is what Koinonia said:

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table).

We do not say "I follow Lee" and we do not (or should not) even say "I follow Christ", for that would be divisive.

We are of Christ because we as believers are positionally in Christ and have been baptized in Christ's name.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio,

That's as logical as saying if we gather together every week to read the bible we are in bible-ism. Or if we gather together for the Lord's table we are in Lord's-table-ism.

That is not a spiritual fact, you don't say too many spiritual facts I have noticed.

The spiritual fact is what Koinonia said:

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table).

We do not say "I follow Lee" and we do not (or should not) even say "I follow Christ", for that would be divisive.

We are of Christ because we as believers are positionally in Christ and have been baptized in Christ's name.

That would all be very nice, if it were true. I have heard many LC members, including top coworkers, boldly declare that they follow Lee. On more than one occasion, I have heard Ron Kangas boldly and defiantly declare, "I am not ashamed to say that I follow a man."

During the Summer Training of 2015, I heard RK decry certain Christians for referring to themselves as "Lutherans" and "Wesleyans," and then say, "What a shame if we were to call ourselves 'Lee-ites.'"

However, I immediately recognized the absolute ridiculousness of this statement considering that most Lutherans and Wesleyans know nothing about Luther and Wesley; yet, very, very many in the LCs are 'Lee-ites'--whatever they call themselves.

In the same way, you focus obsessively on what people call themselves, yet seem to ignore the heart and the spiritual reality.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That would all be very nice, if it were true. I have heard many LC members, including top coworkers, boldly declare that they follow Lee. On more than one occasion, I have heard Ron Kangas boldly and defiantly declare, "I am not ashamed to say that I follow a man."

During the Summer Training of 2015, I heard RK decry certain Christians for referring to themselves as "Lutherans" and "Wesleyans," and then say, "What a shame if we were to call ourselves 'Lee-ites.'"

However, I immediately recognized the absolute ridiculousness of this statement considering that most Lutherans and Wesleyans know nothing about Luther and Wesley; yet, very, very many in the LCs are 'Lee-ites'--whatever they call themselves.

In the same way, you focus obsessively on what people call themselves, yet seem to ignore the heart and the spiritual reality.

The scripture focuses on what people call themselves and names. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4 the emphasis was on what they said. Paul was not instructing them not to follow himself, or Peter, or Christ. He was telling them not to say they follow them.

In 1 Corinthians 1:13 Paul says "were you baptised in the name of Paul"?

To the person who says they are Lutheran he would say "were you baptized in the name of Luther"?

The context is divisions, and names and what we call ourselves in relation to that.

RK's context in following a man, I presume are in relation to following the
ministry of the man.

When we read and follow Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Does that mean we are following Paul? Well yes in a sense. Suppose someone reads and follows Matthew, are they following Matthew? Yes in a sense. There is no problem unless one says "I am a Paul-ite" and the other " I am a Matthew-ite".

So no problem if 50, 70 or 100% of a church follows Lee's ministry, unless they call themselves a Lee-ite then it's a problem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The scripture focuses on what people call themselves and names. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4 the emphasis was on what they said. Paul was not instructing them not to follow himself, or Peter, or Christ. He was telling them not to say they follow them.

In 1 Corinthians 1:13 Paul says "were you baptised in the name of Paul"?

To the person who says they are Lutheran he would say "were you baptized in the name of Luther"?

The context is divisions, and names and what we call ourselves in relation to that.

RK's context in following a man, I presume are in relation to following the
ministry of the man.

When we read and follow Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Does that mean we are following Paul? Well yes in a sense. Suppose someone reads and follows Matthew, are they following Matthew? Yes in a sense. There is no problem unless one says "I am a Paul-ite" and the other " I am a Matthew-ite".

So no problem if 50, 70 or 100% of a church follows Lee's ministry, unless they call themselves a Lee-ite then it's a problem.

Until they run around in circles carrying a sandwich sign-board proclaiming ""I am of Lee, I am of Lee, I am of Lee, ..." Until then, by your definition, they are not of Lee.

Can you really be that naive?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Until they run around in circles carrying a sandwich sign-board proclaiming ""I am of Lee, I am of Lee, I am of Lee, ..." Until then, by your definition, they are not of Lee.

Can you really be that naive?

Well the context of Paul's words in "I follow Paul, I follow Christ etc", was on what people said and how they identified themselves. I note that he did not tell them to stop following those people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the context of Paul's words in "I follow Paul, I follow Christ etc", was on what people said and how they identified themselves. I note that he did not tell them to stop following those people.

You make it sound like they have a few Witness Lee books in their library but otherwise you would have no idea that they were following Lee.

No one on this forum has taken issue with you for having a Witness Lee book.

No, the issue is that if you accept Witness Lee's teaching it includes the doctrine that all other Christians are wrong in their walk. How does one "follow" Witness Lee without judging all other Christians as being "off the mark of God's economy"?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That would all be very nice, if it were true. I have heard many LC members, including top coworkers, boldly declare that they follow Lee. On more than one occasion, I have heard Ron Kangas boldly and defiantly declare, "I am not ashamed to say that I follow a man."

What a shame because Ron Kangas should and does know better.

"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. "
1 Corinthians 1:12-15

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

What a shame because Ron Kangas should and does know better.

"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. "
1 Corinthians 1:12-15

In his warped thinking, RK can follow Lee, teach Lee, live as WWLD, and allow Lee's books and instructions to supersede the Bible, but as long as he never says those four dreaded words, "I am of Lee," then he is not violating scripture.

Talk about finely parsed legalistic views of scripture! Reminds me of my childhood with the nuns at my Catholic school trying to convince us that all the statues around us were NOT graven "images."

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In his warped thinking, RK can follow Lee, teach Lee, live as WWLD, and allow Lee's books and instructions to supersede the Bible, but as long as he never says those four dreaded words, "I am of Lee," then he is not violating scripture.

Talk about finely parsed legalistic views of scripture! Reminds me of my childhood with the nuns at my Catholic school trying to convince us that all the statues around us were NOT graven "images."

This is my conclusion--that most LC members and leaders focus on very outward things like words used and names, etc., but overlook the heart, the attitude, and the spiritual reality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is my conclusion--that most LC members and leaders focus on very outward things like words used and names, etc., but overlook the heart, the attitude, and the spiritual reality.

That's exactly what legalism, pride, and self-righteousness do.

Both Nee and Lee criticized the Exclusive Brethren for being "overly objective" in their teaching emphasis. Actually they were not. They made the experience of Christ into a science, much the same as Lee did during the Perfecting Training, i.e. "just flip the switch," and turn on the Spirit. Remember that? Mechanized spirituality in the name of subjective experience of Christ.

What really damaged the Exclusives, the Little Flock, and the Recovery was the Deputy Authority, whose endless teachings superseded scripture, and whose authority robbed the Lord of His.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio,

That's as logical as saying if we gather together every week to read the bible we are in bible-ism. Or if we gather together for the Lord's table we are in Lord's-table-ism.

That is not a spiritual fact, you don't say too many spiritual facts I have noticed.

The spiritual fact is what Koinonia said:

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table).

We do not say "I follow Lee" and we do not (or should not) even say "I follow Christ", for that would be divisive.

We are of Christ because we as believers are positionally in Christ and have been baptized in Christ's name.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table)

Really? Every Christian in every denomination says that too! Except for Lee's messages.

It would be good for LC's to be more Bible-ism!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table)

Really? Every Christian in every denomination says that too! Except for Lee's messages.

It would be good for LC's to be more Bible-ism!

People in denominations can grow in Christ and remember Him in the Lord's table as well. But they aren't on the ground of locality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

People in denominations can grow in Christ and remember Him in the Lord's table as well. But they aren't on the ground of locality.

On that we agree.

And a good night to you!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But they aren't on the ground of locality.

Over the years that has become a phrase that lost it's meaning. Question is what does it mean to utter "ground of locality"?

I would say "the ground" is based upon a man and his ministry. Apart from his ministry that LSM publishes, there can be no fellowship.