The Unique Move of God

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you any idea how many "traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods" exist in the LC's? I have watched these multiply exponentially over the last 40 years. Give them as much time as some other denomination, and they will be just as bad or worse.


That's the goal of this forum, we are not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but we want to help both the leaders and the members in TLR.


Witness Lee made "religion" the boogeyman, but religion is totally benign. James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained." How is that evil? James' definition exactly matches the teachings of the Gospels.


Of course we need to be delivered from this present evil age. Why do you think I left TLR? It had become part of this evil age! Have you not read any of the posts on this forum? Do you think we made these stories up?

Are they really pursuing Christ? Or are they pursuing Lee's teachings and practices?

I think you know that the term "religious" has nothing to do with that verse in James. Different contexts. Religion as opposed to personal relationship.

I'm glad you agree about deliverance from this present evil age. The next question is where is it to be found. The answer to that is, in the denominations. I don't think joining the denominations will help anyone escape from the evil age. If the TRL is part of it also, then where should we go? A good community church or house church?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you know that the term "religious" has nothing to do with that verse in James. Different contexts. Religion as opposed to personal relationship.

I'm glad you agree about deliverance from this present evil age. The next question is where is it to be found. The answer to that is, in the denominations. I don't think joining the denominations will help anyone escape from the evil age. If the TRL is part of it also, then where should we go? A good community church or house church?

If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.

Read Revelations.

The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.

The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.

Read Revelations.

The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.

The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.

That's not Lee's definition.

This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.

For example see here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christi...ationship.html

practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.

Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God

Christianity is not about signing up for a religion.

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.

If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:

Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.


In other words, the verse is about religious service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".

So the verse should be interpreted as:

"pure religious service is....."

not as you have "religion is..."

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion.

Exactly! Then why would the Recovery want to distance itself with Christianity as in "6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age"?

Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
"Dear brothers in Christianity, we do love you. We are slapping at your face just to wake you up and let you know you are living in the present evil age. Oh, you need some help? Sorry, I am busy widening the gap between you and us."

Never forget why Jesus became a man and went among sinners in the first place.

Dear Evangelical, I think you can do better than using stock answers and tweaking terminology. Think hard, pray hard. Open your heart, turn to your spirit. Aim not at winning an argument. Aim at knowing our Lord and winning life. Care less about whether the teachings offend you, care about whether they offend God.

P.S. Be careful when you say the outlines are just "stock standard beliefs". The leading brothers say they are not just cut and paste from old standard messages. They are supposed to shed new light in every training. You might hurt their feelings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Exactly! Then why would the Recovery want to distance itself with Christianity as in "6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age"?

Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
"Dear brothers in Christianity, we do love you. We are slapping at your face just to wake you up and let you know you are living in the present evil age. Oh, you need some help? Sorry, I am busy widening the gap between you and us."

Never forget why Jesus became a man and went among sinners in the first place.

Dear Evengelical, I think you can do better than using stock answers and tweaking terminology. Think hard, pray hard. Open your heart, turn to your spirit. Aim not at winning an argument. Aim at knowing our Lord and winning life. Care less about whether the teachings offend you, care about whether they offend God.

P.S. Be careful when you say the outlines are just "stock standard beliefs". The leading brothers say they are not just cut and paste from old standard messages. They are supposed to shed new light in every training. You might hurt their feelings.

I don't really get your point regarding hypocrisy.

For example, in preaching the gospel, we wish to save sinners in the world, and we also wish to distance ourself from the world as much as possible. It is not hypocrisy to want to distance ourself from the world the sinners live in, while wishing to save them. I don't see that as hypocrisy. That's how it's meant to be.

So, in regards to the Church, we wish to distance ourselves from the evil system utilized by Satan, yet we wish to save the people in the denominations.

I think it is fairly clear that when we speak of the evil we are not referring to the genuine believers but the evil system, as this quote shows:

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God's people belonging to the Lord. But the organization of the denominations in which they are is not of God. The denominational organizations have been utilized by Satan to set up his satanic system to destroy God's economy of the proper church life."

Witness Lee, "Message Thirty-Four" in The Life-Study of Genesis
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 464

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, in preaching the gospel, we wish to save sinners in the world, and we also wish to distance ourself from the world as much as possible. It is not hypocrisy to want to distance ourself from the world the sinners live in, while wishing to save them. I don't see that as hypocrisy. That's how it's meant to be.

May be you are too deep into the Recovery Version Bible to notice the obvious difference between in and conforming to this world.

John 17:15 (RcV) I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one.

Romans 12:2 (RcV) And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect.

Romans 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

May be you are too deep into the Recovery Version Bible to notice the obvious difference between in and conforming to this world.

John 17:15 (RcV) I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one.

Romans 12:2 (RcV) And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect.

Romans 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

I'm not sure what your point is. Those reasons are precisely the reasons why we don't participate in the religious activities of the denominations.

For example, on the one hand, we wish to save Catholics, and we may meet Catholics at any occasion, which is being "in the world", but on the other hand, that doesn't mean we should join their mass, that would be "conforming to the world". We would not wish to close the gap between our Lord's Table meeting and the Catholic mass, for example, we would want to widen that gap. We would also want to widen the gap between their practice of praying to idols.

Similarly, to save sinners, we do not participate in their sin, so as to save them, yet we happily meet with them otherwise.

In the whole history of the Reformation, Luther et al, sought to "widen the gap" with the Catholic church. So most protestant denominations today are already "gap wideners". In fact it could be said that the Lutheran and Anglican churches are closer to the Catholic than say a baptist church, because they retain the liturgical nature and structure of the Catholics. And over history, the "gap widening" has continued as more and more denominations developed, with the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the brethren, the community and house churches etc.

This is my issue with the ecumenical movement - I think it is sort of hypocritical for individuals in free groups or baptist churches who wish to "close the gap" with Catholics, when the very church they are in exists to keep that gap as wide as possible. If we want to "close the gap" with Catholics then why not just join them.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So, in regards to the Church, we wish to distance ourselves from the evil system utilized by Satan, yet we wish to save the people in the denominations.

As I've said before, it's hypocritical for you to distance yourself from the "evil system" of other groups while ignoring and excusing the evil system that exists within your own.

Like I said, if you guys were half as interested in rooting out the evil in your own group as you were in pointing out the evil elsewhere this board would be unnecessary.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not Lee's definition.

This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.

You are changing the subject ... again ... to save yourself.

W. Lee made his ministry out of the attack on RELIGION. Read his book Christ v. Religion. He clearly states that religion has been the enemy of God for ... ever. He claims that religion killed the Lord Jesus. But the Bible never says that. The Bible identifies characteristics of the heart such as unbelief, hypocrisy, stubbornness, hardness of heart, un-repentance, man-pleasing, loving the glory of men, idolatry, etc. as the ingredients that oppose God and His people. The Bible has long lists of these evils in verses like Mark 7.20-23 or Galatians 5.19-21.

Religion is never mentioned in one of these lists. That is Lee's construct. He widened the Biblical definitions of evil to include all those outside of his little club. He called them all religion, claiming that all religion was against God and Christ. But the Bible never claims this. In fact James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained."

In other words, James defines religion as keeping one's self from evil and devoting one's life to good works. I could list a thousand verses in the Bible which support James' definition of religion as positive. Religion is not our faith, but is the Christian's proper living in response to a healthy faith. Religion is not our personal relationship with the Lord, but is the fruit of our personal relationship with the Lord. Religion describes the daily living of a child of God walking in newness of life. There is nothing about religion which is evil of itself, as the Lord told the Pharisees, the brood of vipers, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Mt 12.35)

It is Lee's pitifully poor exposition of scripture which makes religion evil, not the Bible. Lee used this self-serving construct to isolate his movement from the Body of Christ. Perhaps it's now time for you to reconsider your views about religion in general and about the greater body of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are changing the subject ... again ... to save yourself.

W. Lee made his ministry out of the attack on RELIGION. Read his book Christ v. Religion. He clearly states that religion has been the enemy of God for ... ever. He claims that religion killed the Lord Jesus. But the Bible never says that. The Bible identifies characteristics of the heart such as unbelief, hypocrisy, stubbornness, hardness of heart, un-repentance, man-pleasing, loving the glory of men, idolatry, etc. as the ingredients that oppose God and His people. The Bible has long lists of these evils in verses like Mark 7.20-23 or Galatians 5.19-21.

Religion is never mentioned in one of these lists. That is Lee's construct. He widened the Biblical definitions of evil to include all those outside of his little club. He called them all religion, claiming that all religion was against God and Christ. But the Bible never claims this. In fact James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained."

In other words, James defines religion as keeping one's self from evil and devoting one's life to good works. I could list a thousand verses in the Bible which support James' definition of religion as positive. Religion is not our faith, but is the Christian's proper living in response to a healthy faith. Religion is not our personal relationship with the Lord, but is the fruit of our personal relationship with the Lord. Religion describes the daily living of a child of God walking in newness of life. There is nothing about religion which is evil of itself, as the Lord told the Pharisees, the brood of vipers, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Mt 12.35)

It is Lee's pitifully poor exposition of scripture which makes religion evil, not the Bible. Lee used this self-serving construct to isolate his movement from the Body of Christ. Perhaps it's now time for you to reconsider your views about religion in general and about the greater body of Christ.

As I said before, this idea of Christ versus religion, that Lee wrote about, is a common one in Christianity. See the gotquestions article I posted.
I don't think the authors of that apologetic ministry would agree with your views on religion not being a problem:
Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works.

If you disagree with this then clearly you don't believe that Christianity is a personal relationship with God and is not a religion. We cannot get to heaven by belonging or following to a religion, even the very best Christianity can't save us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before, this idea of Christ versus religion, that Lee wrote about, is a common one in Christianity. See the gotquestions article I posted.
I don't think the authors of that apologetic ministry would agree with your views on religion not being a problem:
Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works.

If you disagree with this then clearly you don't believe that Christianity is a personal relationship with God and is not a religion. We cannot get to heaven by belonging or following to a religion, even the very best Christianity can't save us.

Clearly a nonsensical conclusion.

How do they say it? A fallacy of extremes?

Has anyone else told you how difficult it is to have a conversation with you?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Clearly a nonsensical conclusion.

How do they say it? A fallacy of extremes?

Has anyone else told you how difficult it is to have a conversation with you?

It might be nice to discuss about how we can be half for a relationship with Christ and half for religion, but that mixture is not good in my view.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.

If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:

Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.

In other words, the verse is about religious service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".

So the verse should be interpreted as: "pure religious service is....." not as you have "religion is..."

Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...

(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?

(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"

A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.

B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.

(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?

In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.

James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...

That's because you/others don't like me quoting Lee/Nee alone, so I go to outside, theological sources which prove you wrong. Just like on other discussions I consulted the works of NT Greek experts and theologians and proved people wrong about the role of women in the church.

Originally Posted by Ohio

(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?

(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"

A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.

B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.

It's out of context because you're talking about "Lee's definition of religion", and then quoting James to counter Lee's definition (which is really not his alone - see gotquestions article).

But James is not defining religion, he is talking about proper religious service. Let me remind you, that unless you are a Catholic, the gospel and Christian story is based upon the 4 gospels and Paul's writings, not James. The Catholic gospel revolves around the book of James, concerning good works for getting us to heaven, and practical service.

Originally Posted by Ohio

(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?

In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.

The verse in James is about practical service. It does not negate all that Lee and the gotquestions article says about Christ versus religion, because they are different matters.

Originally Posted by Ohio

James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.

Witness Lee wrote that the religious service James talks about is very good and helpful for practical Christian perfection. But Paul wrote about God's New Testament economy concerning Christ living in us. There's no need for you to try and portray James as being opposed to "Christ versus religion" - it's not. Christ is versus religion and at the same time, the lessons in James for practical Christian perfection are very important.

[Evangelical]

Just to make clear that Lee and Christianity in general say more or less the same thing:

Lee's book overview 'The calling of every believer is to come to the living person of Christ, leaving behind all religious forms and dead doctrines.'

Gotquestions says:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christi...ationship.html

Religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” In that respect, Christianity can be classified as a religion. However, practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.

In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children.

Recommended Resource: Checklist Jesus: A Journey from Religion to Relationship by Jeremy Walker

In Christian bookstores, I'm sure we will find a number of books emphasizing relationship over religion.