The Unique Move of God

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the only thing it clearly indicates is that the body of Christ was to be found in those cities. It does not define the "boundaries" of an assembly, or the manner in which it should be identified.

If you want to infer one church per city you can make that inference, but you have to understand this is an inferred teaching and not based on the black and white word.

So whereas there is a very clear word concerning Jesus coming in the flesh, or how to have the Lord's table meeting, or about the requirement to baptize, there is no such teaching on the boundaries of the city and how they relate to church administration.

Also, you might want to rethink or restate the part about the church being identified. Each letter gives very distinct description that would identify Laodicea from Philadelphia from Ephesus. It surely does tell you how to identify them.

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches throughout the age is, once again, an inferred teaching that is never given in black and white. To take that inference further and say that if your gathering does not fit one of these seven models it is not a genuine church would surely be unwarranted and without any real basis.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches throughout the age is, once again, an inferred teaching that is never given in black and white. To take that inference further and say that if your gathering does not fit one of these seven models it is not a genuine church would surely be unwarranted and without any real basis.

One of the craziest conclusions from these theories was to assume that Philadelphia -- brotherly love -- did NOT exist as a church until the Darby Brethren came along, with their endless anf fickle divisions I should add.

This was based on their ideal that no name was the right name, thus negating all manners of evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the craziest conclusions from these theories was to assume that Philadelphia -- brotherly love -- did NOT exist as a church until the Darby Brethren came along, with their endless anf fickle divisions I should add.

This was based on their ideal that no name was the right name, thus negating all manners of evil.

That is what happens when you take create teachings based on shadows, types and allegories.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, you might want to rethink or restate the part about the church being identified. Each letter gives very distinct description that would identify Laodicea from Philadelphia from Ephesus. It surely does tell you how to identify them.

Actually, it gives a very distinct reference to the body of Christ as found in that city, the significance being that within that city there was found something noteworthy. Deeds of Nicolaitans, deep things of Satan, belief that they had the best and needed nothing, etc. And even those statements do not suppose that everyone in that city were mired in these problems. So there begins to be a question. If we understand things correctly, then the problems were not just a few on the side with issue, but more systemic problems seen in that area.

Whether it was within certain ones meeting separately from those who were noted as not going along with the error is never stated in any form. Yet you seem to talk about it as if the term church is simply synonymous with both a single assembly and the city in which that assembly is found. I find no such implication. The only reason that we ever thought it was that simple was because someone once said it was yet ever bothered to say why. I know that you do not subscribe to the inferred teaching of one church in a city, yet the rest of what you say concerning the letters in Revelation "infers" that it must be understood that way. If there is no church-city equivalence, then referring to the body of Christ (and not specific assemblies, whether singular or plural) in that city would be correct to call according to the city.

You wouldn't write to the Baptists who are in Dallas if you meant to cover all the believers. You would write to the church in Dallas (not to be confused with the group meeting on Meandering Way and using that as their name). The church in Dallas, as the body of Christ, is composed of many Christians who meet in many assemblies that have various names of all kinds. There is no conflict in this.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches . . . .

I'll stop the quote there. I do not disagree (much) with what you wrote. But this term "genuine church" is problematic. It presumes that a gathering of Christians for the purpose of teaching, worship, etc., can be "not genuine" and therefore not really church. I realize that there is a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" that we generally consider to not be a church because it does not hold that Jesus is God and is the source of salvation. And there a some others. But when discussing the LRC, Baptists, Methodists, AOG, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, various other evangelical, Pentecostal or free groups, or even Catholics, if we insert "genuine" into the discussion, we are implying that some of those are not churches in the sense of assemblies collecting together the Christ-believing, Christ-following members of that body.

It is mostly brought into the conversations to differentiate and marginalize. Much like the "c" word recently discussed. "Not genuine" is an unfounded overlay onto the body of Christ that marginalizes and demeans brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jesus prayed that we would be one. Those who find ways to dismiss others are exercised to see to it that only they count and their lack of being one with others can instead be transformed into the only true oneness.

[countmeworthy]

I have a question for those who were or are more enveloped in "the Unique Move of God" than I ever was.

In the 70s, the 'leading brothers' were called 'elders' not pastors. Elders is an OT word.

Yet, PAUL describes certain offices in Ephesians 4:11
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors,
Teachers

He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

In other letters we read about bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers)

No blended brothers are mentioned in the scriptures though

Did Lee ever give any reason why those offices mentioned in the bible were ignored by him and possibly Nee? They ARE in the scriptures after all.

Personally, I think naming these offices invited the religious 'spirits'. The RCC has bishops as do some denominations. Pastors, prophets, evangelists and teachers. These 'offices' ended up elevating man.


2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

Mansions make no sense in the translation. How does the Father's house contain many "mansions?" The proper translation should be literally "places to stay", i.e. "rooms, dwelling places, abodes, resting places, habitats, lodgings, etc." The word "mansion" (and I'm not sure what this word once meant in the Shakespearean English of the early 17th century) comes from Greek "monai" which root is from Greek "mone."

The KJV translation of "mansions," or even "manor or manse," partly transliterates this Greek word into English, but wrongly connotes large, private, individual homes for each believer for the future only.

Little Kittel (p.582): "In the NT the word occurs only twice in John. In 14.2 it denotes the abiding dwelling (in contrast with our transitory earthly state) that Christ prepares for His people in His Father's house. In 14.23, however,the abode is on earth, for Christ and the Father will come to believers and make their home with them... In both of these verses, the reference is individual rather than universal or eschatological. Salvation consists of union with God and Christ through their dwelling in believers and their taking believers to dwell in them. The "mone" brings out the indestructibility of the union."

This means, in part, that our "mansion" in the Father's house is both today and forever, and is not physical, but spiritual in nature.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I have a question for those who were or are more enveloped in "the Unique Move of God" than I ever was.

In the 70s, the 'leading brothers' were called 'elders' not pastors. Elders is an OT word.

Yet, PAUL describes certain offices in Ephesians 4:11
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors,
Teachers

He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

In other letters we read about bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers)

No blended brothers are mentioned in the scriptures though

Did Lee ever give any reason why those offices mentioned in the bible were ignored by him and possibly Nee? They ARE in the scriptures after all.

Personally, I think naming these offices invited the religious 'spirits'. The RCC has bishops as do some denominations. Pastors, prophets, evangelists and teachers. These 'offices' ended up elevating man.





2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

In Ephesians 4:11 the grammatical construction for the word describing pastors (shepherds) and teachers are one function - those who "teach and shepherd".

So there are really 4 kinds of persons:
Apostles
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors (Shepherds/Teachers)

Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament. In Scripture the role of presbuteros is not well defined, only defined are the episcopos and the diakonos. The presbuteros is thought to be leading men, who are spiritually older and more mature. Hence, the "leading brothers" is an appropriate term for the presbuteros. If we want to be particular about names, in the LC there are really no terms for the episcopos or the diakonos.

The view of Lee/Nee was that the offices were never intended to be official positions in the church, but a matter of function and calling. e.g. pastors are those who perform the function of shepherding and teaching. The LC sees them as functions (things people do) not as particular offices or positions to hold. The LC also believes that all believers are priests, all can prophesy, all can be an evangelist or a pastor.

The concept of particular people holding certain office or position in the church such as the Prophets of the old testament, ceased when the New Testament came about.

I see it like this. There is really only one gift God gives us- the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), and all gifts and functions are a result of the one gift. That is, anyone with the gift of the Spirit can operate in any of the 4 or 5 gifts as the Spirit wills. There is really no such thing in the bible of a person operating in only one of the gifts for their entire life (e.g. the apostle Paul, also functioned as a pastor, evangelist, prophet, miracle worker etc). A person who the Spirit uses to operate in one of the gifts more than others might be known or recognized according to that gift (e.g. a person who evangelizes much might be known as an evangelist, but this is not to say that the same person cannot teach in a church).

John 14:2 - many mansions or better - abodes.
The Father's house is the body of Christ, the temple, God's dwelling place. God's dwelling place is mankind, or us - Revelation 21:2..Therefore we are the many abodes of the Father/Son.

Lee/Nee did not believe that "the Father's house" or the New Jerusalem is a physical city as in a building. It is a metaphor to describe God's people. Just like the metaphor "temple" is used to describe our bodies (we are temples of the Spirit etc).

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Ephesians 4:11 the grammatical construction for the word describing pastors (shepherds) and teachers are one function - those who "teach and shepherd".

So there are really 4 kinds of persons:
Apostles
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors (Shepherds/Teachers)

Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament.

Lee/Nee did not believe that "the Father's house" or the New Jerusalem is a physical city as in a building. It is a metaphor to describe God's people. Just like the metaphor "temple" is used to describe our bodies (we are temples of the Spirit etc).

Thanks for your comments first and foremost.
I have another question for you and everyone here. But since you specifically said Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament.

Do you consider the LC/LSM as part of Christianity? I ask because by and large the denominations don't have elders on the pulpit. The only religious organization that has elders is LDS. I don't know if the LC/LSM still consider the 'leading brothers' elders as they did back in the 70s but that is what the leading brothers were called: ELDERS. And yes it is taken from the OT which is curious because the LC/LSM strongly supported Paul's teachings. In Ephesians Paul does not mention Elders in describing what the Pentecostals call the '5 fold ministry'.

It is my opinion and that is all that it is, that Paul opened up a can of worms when he mentions them in 4:11

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

I don't understand why he had to give them titles if as you said (and I also believe btw) they are merely types of persons.

I know for sure in the 70s Lee was considered the apostle of the age.

So Lee was ok with calling himself or having others call him 'the apostle of the age' and he was ok for the leading brothers to be called 'elders' but he threw out the window the words 'pastors (shepherds), prophets, evangelists, teachers.

Food for thought. Food for thought.

Next.
If the Holy city New Jerusalem is simply a metaphor, then God sitting on a throne, a physical Kingly chair is also a metaphor. Streets of Gold is also then a metaphor. Fruit that people eat as seen in the book of Revelation are also a metaphor. The Tree of Life, the River of Life is also a metaphor by your definition. Is this correct?

On the one hand the Holy City New Jerusalem is a city with streets of gold (Revelation 21:21) and on the other hand she is the Bride of Christ.

Again.. simply food for thought.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Thanks for your comments first and foremost.
I have another question for you and everyone here. But since you specifically said Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament.

Do you consider the LC/LSM as part of Christianity? I ask because by and large the denominations don't have elders on the pulpit. The only religious organization that has elders is LDS. I don't know if the LC/LSM still consider the 'leading brothers' elders as they did back in the 70s but that is what the leading brothers were called: ELDERS. And yes it is taken from the OT which is curious because the LC/LSM strongly supported Paul's teachings. In Ephesians Paul does not mention Elders in describing what the Pentecostals call the '5 fold ministry'.

It is my opinion and that is all that it is, that Paul opened up a can of worms when he mentions them in 4:11
I don't understand why he had to give them titles if as you said (and I also believe btw) they are merely types of persons.

I know for sure in the 70s Lee was considered the apostle of the age.

So Lee was ok with calling himself or having others call him 'the apostle of the age' and he was ok for the leading brothers to be called 'elders' but he threw out the window the words 'pastors (shepherds), prophets, evangelists, teachers.

Food for thought. Food for thought.

At this point I should explain that the bible reveals a distinction between God's work and church administration. The '5 fold ministry' is related to God's spiritual work. A person who operates in one of the 5 fold gifts is equipped for doing God's spiritual work. Not one of those 5-fold gifts is for practical administration. That is, there is no such thing as a spiritual gift for managing finances or running a church bank account.

The role of an elder is for practical administration of the church, e.g. finances, parking spaces, helping people deal with personal problems etc. This role requires spiritual maturity - wisdom etc rather than a spiritual gift. A person may be a gifted evangelist and save many people but they may be terrible at managing finances or listening to people's problems, so they are unsuited to be an elder. 1 Tim 3:1-2 describes the requirements of an elder.

In the bible we find the apostles appointed elders in each church:
Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church"

No where does the bible say that an apostle, pastor, prophet, evangelist or teacher was appointed in each church. This is where some "5-fold" churches which focus on appointing Apostles, Prophets etc (capital letters) as positions in the church have got it wrong.

It is possible for a person to be involved in church administration as an elder only, or God's work only (as one of the 5-fold), or both church administration and God's work. For example, Peter was an apostle and also an elder in Jerusalem. If Peter was travelling and spreading the Good Word, then he was doing God's work as an apostle/evangelist. If Peter was at home in Jerusalem, then he was dealing with the practical matters of church administration.

The "5 fold ministry" is related to God's spiritual work and the elders is related to the church administration. It is possible for a person to be involved in both, it is possible for an elder to function as a teacher "from the pulpit".

This distinction is also seen in the churhces which have both pastors adn elders - like presbyterians/baptists. Normally the elders perform church administration roles, and the pastor will perform God's Work by conducting church services, teaching, evangelism, etc. The pastor may also be an elder. Elders are normally spiritually mature and well-regarded members of the congregation, who may not have a pastoral degree or theological qualification. A pastor however must normally have a degree and qualification of some kind.

In the local churches, like the Brethren churches, we do not have pastors or pulpits, so we just have elders. If an elder teaches God's Word in the meeting, then they are functioning as teachers. If they travel and spread the gospel, they are functioning as evangelists.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Next.
If the Holy city New Jerusalem is simply a metaphor, then God sitting on a throne, a physical Kingly chair is also a metaphor. Streets of Gold is also then a metaphor. Fruit that people eat as seen in the book of Revelation are also a metaphor. The Tree of Life, the River of Life is also a metaphor by your definition. Is this correct?

On the one hand the Holy City New Jerusalem is a city with streets of gold (Revelation 21:21) and on the other hand she is the Bride of Christ.

Again.. simply food for thought.

I believe that the New Jerusalem is symbolic for the church. The bible refers to the church as the Bride of Christ (in preparation), and it says New Jerusalem comes down like a bride prepared for her husband. So if we put two and two together, we, the church, are the New Jerusalem. The alternative viewpoint is that God has prepared a very nice physical city for His people to live in, but I consider this unlikely.

I think it is unlikely to be a physical building when considering that God did not create a house for Adam and Eve or tell Adam and Eve to build houses and cities. The description of the New Earth parallels that of the old - with the tree of life, the river, etc. In the future, when there is no more death, sin, or violence, then houses or cities for comfort and protection will not be necessary. Wherever all the people of God are gathered together in the open air, that will be the New Jerusalem. Jesus feeding the crowd of 5000 people in the open air, paints a similar picture. Jesus himself also spent a lot of time in open air spaces, with his disciples. In the Old Testament, God himself preferred to dwell in a simple tent among his people rather than a grand building. In the future New Earth there will also be no need for privacy and security, so buildings will not be necessary.