The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Thank you for making it O So Clear. I think you have a long and distinguished career ahead of you as a Lee translator. "Witness Lee for the Dummies", aka the Mooing Cows who didn't immediately grasp the great man's impeccable logic.

Let me suggest a subtitle: "Everything is Everything". Makes it that much easier for the feeble minds out there. The Father is the Son who is the Spirit, who is [at] the Cross, the Altar, as a Man, which is the Tree of Life, which is the Throne! And it's all at the center of the Universe!!

And since I'm a Man, I'm also the Father (not in the Father-hood, mind you) and since you're also the Father, you and I are one: I'm Evangelical and Evangelical is Aron. You and I are one just as Jesus is one with the Father, fulfilling the prophecy in John 17:21.

So easy, neat and simple. (I feel a song coming on.) No wonder Christianity waited 2,000 years for someone to wrap it all up in a slogan or two. Couple of bullet points - training outline - ta da! (Not everyone can do this, you know.) Keep up the good work. You'll go far with this one.

I know you are being facetious but you've touched on the matter of Christ and the Body being one, and believers being one with the Father through Christ. These are all solid scriptural ideas. So what you say is not exactly wrong.

I once read a story of a man, an unbeliever, who died and saw the spiritual realm. In the spiritual realm he saw streams of light connecting all living things and flowing from God. So I think there is some metaphysical reality behind all these things, that people are connected in some way. Animals also exhibit some sort of invisible connection with humans and other animals as well, somehow they know or sense things. How else to explain the sixth sense or gut feeling that many people have when their friend or family is in trouble? There's lots of things that science can't explain but the bible can.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know you are being facetious but you've touched on the matter of Christ and the Body being one, and believers being one with the Father through Christ. These are all solid scriptural ideas. So what you say is not exactly wrong.

I once read a story of a man, an unbeliever, who died and saw the spiritual realm. In the spiritual realm he saw streams of light connecting all living things and flowing from God. So I think there is some metaphysical reality behind all these things, that people are connected in some way. Animals also exhibit some sort of invisible connection with humans and other animals as well, somehow they know or sense things. How else to explain the sixth sense or gut feeling that many people have when their friend or family is in trouble? There's lots of things that science can't explain but the bible can.

In the portrayal of the New Jerusalem we see a throne, and a river bright as crystal proceeding out of the throne, and a tree of life growing along the river. These are distinct items.

In the first chapter of the same book we see the Christ walking in the midst of the seven golden lampstands, in front of the throne. I see distinct items, and feel that most readers would also.

The Centurion in Capernaum (Luke 7) was "one" with Caesar in Rome, and could speak and the servants would obey. But the Centurion was not Caesar. They are distinct. One is in Rome, and one in Caesarea. But from an operational perspective (that of the functioning servant) they are one.

All of this is fairly common sense.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

In the portrayal of the New Jerusalem we see a throne, and a river bright as crystal proceeding out of the throne, and a tree of life growing along the river. These are distinct items...

Those items don't actually exist of course. They are just metaphors for some spiritual truth. So everything mentioned is distinct in terms of an aspect of God, but in and of themselves they are not distinct because they all relate to the one Person. Similarly, terms such as bread of heaven, lamb of God, all relate to Christ. If we imagine the bread and the lamb to be distinct separate things, then we will find ourselves in a conundrum.

For example, typically God is pictured as a man with a long white beard sitting on a big chair, called God's throne. I don't think God sits on an actual throne. A throne is a human invention, an ancient piece of furniture, and monarchs in different ages and cultures have different ways to show their status and power - not necessarily a big fancy piece of furniture. Humans created chairs, and why does God have to sit anyway, does He get tired? And does the throne have any meaning when God is not on it? Can we consider a big chair in heaven as distinct from God? I don't think so. A picture of heaven with a big chair on it and God not there on the throne does not make much sense or mean anything. Symbolically it means "God is not on the throne", and this is related to God, not the chair. So the throne in itself has no meaning. So I understand "throne of God" to mean one aspect of God and not referring to a piece of "heavenly furniture". Similarly, the river in and of itself has little meaning, unless it is related in some way to God. So it is correct to say that "the throne is God" and "the river is God". It makes sense if we understand that they are metaphors for different aspects of the same Person. It is like saying "my arm is me", and "my leg is me", the arm is distinct from the leg but in a way they are just "me".

You said before "Let me suggest a subtitle: "Everything is Everything"."

Actually Lee believed "everything is Christ". So the tree of life is Christ, the altar is Christ, everything is Christ. Similarly, the cross or crucifixion without Christ has no meaning.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those items don't actually exist of course. They are just metaphors for some spiritual truth....

And the Centurion in Luke 7 had no power unless he was a "man under authority" - i.e. he was connected to the will of Caesar in Rome, and expressed his wishes. But the Centurion was not Caesar.

There is a thing called "agency". Something comes out from something else, and expresses it. But the thing that comes out is not the thing that sent it. The President sends the Secretary of State, who speaks for the President. But the SS is not the President.

Likewise, the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, but the message, even from God, was not carried by God, but by a designated representative. I wear shoes and gloves, but my shoes and gloves are not the same thing.

All of this is fairly common sense reading, and can be expected to be understood, unless you are mesmerised by someone's pseudo-spirituality.

The Bible is like a big jigsaw puzzle with thousands of pieces scattered throughout it. We need to put all the pieces together to have the complete picture. . . During the past seventy years we’ve been putting together the pieces of this great "puzzle." Now we have a picture of the whole Bible.. ~Witness Lee, Life-Study of Proverbs chapter 8

I also like puzzles. I see several possible answers.

1. Lee put out 6 different "centers of the universe" at various times, speaking about different aspects of the same thing, and I just don't get it, in spite of your repeated attempts to help. This just shows my obstinacy.

2. Lee put out ideas at whim, and the LC masses were too befuddled to notice when the ideas didn't line up with each other. My "brainwashed" hypothesis.

3. Many in the LC did notice that Lee and Nee occasionally (often?) contradicted themselves but were afraid to point it out. Don't want to be seen as being negative. "Even when he's wrong he's right" - how could this saying emerge if Lee was not wrong, sometimes?

This is seen in the gospels with the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Christ but wouldn't openly say it, for fear of being put out of the synagogues.

Back to the first post. How can Protestantism be 'christless' if "Everything is Christ"? This requires a different reading. And under this new reading, if Protestantism is christless then the Lord's Recovery of Lee is perhaps doubly so. With what measure you measure, you are measured.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Back to the first post. How can Protestantism be 'christless' if "Everything is Christ"? This requires a different reading. And under this new reading, if Protestantism is christless then the Lord's Recovery of Lee is perhaps doubly so. With what measure you measure, you are measured.

Ok getting back on track. In defense of Lee's view of Christless Protestantism, let us consider the intended meaning of the term Christless as used by Lee:

Christless refers to the places or gatherings that name Christ but are merely social clubs or ritualistic performances. Where the sermons are mostly on ethical, political or social issues, rather than welcoming Christ's presence and authority.

Christless means churches where Christ is "outside the door" knocking:

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should hear My voice and open the door, then I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

Typically this verse is misapplied to mean Christ knocking on the door of one's heart, for salvation. But the context is clearly Laodicea. The term "Christless" can be applied to the church of Laodicea where Christ is outside knocking.

The other meaning of Christless is in reference to Christ having no authority in the Protestant churches:

In the Book "God Tells the Man Who Cares" by A. W. Tozer it says:

My grief is simply the result of a condition which I believe to be almost universally prevalent among the churches…. Let me state the cause of my burden. It is this: Jesus Christ has today almost no authority at all among the groups that call themselves by His name. …I do mean Protestant churches generally, and I include those that protest the loudest that they are in spiritual descent from our Lord and His apostles, namely, the evangelicals….

Lee is more or less stating the same thing that Tozer stated, that being a general observation regarding the state of the Protestant churches as not having Christ's authority, and therefore, Christless.

Did Lee ever say that Protestants were going to hell or not Christians? Of course not, never did. Christless is in reference to the church gatherings not individual spirituality. If anyone thinks that just because some Christians get together to do whatever they like, then "Christ is in their midst" then think again. Scripture never says that. Rev 3:20 proves it is possible for a gathering of two or three (a church, by most people's definition) to not have Christ in their midst. It is possible for a church to not have Christ, and therefore be Christless. Is Christ really "in the midst" of the Reformed churches that ally themselves with the Catholic church and homosexuals? Does a church have Christ if it holds to the 1689 Confession of Faith or some other Creed ? Did Christ say in Rev 3 that a Creed or Confession is the answer to their problems?

On this point there is no where in the bible where Christ condemns or praises any particular church for having a particular Confession of Faith, Creed, or similar. Unlike many Protestants/Reformers who consider it a noble thing to hold to a particular Confession or Creed, the bible does not seem to place much importance on it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Unlike many Protestants/Reformers who consider it a noble thing to hold to a particular Confession or Creed, the bible does not seem to place much importance on it.

The bible does consider it a noble thing to do a lot that the LC doesn't do.

"They asked me to remember the poor, which thing I was eager to do", said Paul. The FTTA trainer told us, "Don't waste your time", quote-unquote. Instead, go after the "good building material".

How is that not also Christless Protestantism, or Christless Post-Protestant Personality Cult, or whatever label we want to call it?

How did Lee get the temerity to re-write the Bible and put various labels on people and groups while avoiding them on his own?

With what measure you measure, you are measured. Only God comes out of this one unscathed. God and His Christ. The rest of us, while we are yet in the flesh of sin, would behoove ourselves to take the last place and not to presume a position of judgment of others.

Where is the love? I don't see it.

Now, Drake mentions that I also lack charity. Mea culpa. But you know what - I'm not presuming to be something. I'm just calling out someone who is.

"They have creeds - we have the subjective experience of Christ." Yes, so subjective that you pan scripture as fallen, mixed, and natural. So subjective that you dismiss the poor, the sick and the weak. &c.

[Drake]

-1

aron>"Now, Drake mentions that I also lack charity. Mea culpa. But you know what - I'm not presuming to be something. I'm just calling out someone who is."

Well, hold on there aron. Bitte, bitte.

I don't think you can ignore the principle of "mote in the eye" in judging others. We all have faults and if you knew me personally you would exhaust yourself listing mine. However, when you condemn the believers in the local churches in this forum for some shortcoming or fault you better know your own as relates to that. Judge with the judgement you would like to be judged with... because you probably will be.

For example, if you condemn others from the pulpit for drinking, smoking, and cussing but after the show go pour yourself a strong one, roll your own, and swear like a sailor then I think you would be in more danger of the judgement than had you not condemned others for the very infractions you also are guilty of. Or, if you condemn an FTTA trainer for not remembering the poor but you do nothing personally to help the poor then that too is an issue.

We judge things in life but how we pass judgement on others and fellow believers is important. To apply this back to this topic I have no hesitation before the Lord to condemn the reformed churches for their unbiblical embrace of the gay agenda. That is Christless. However, neither do I have the peace before the Lord to be aggressive or militant towards gay people though I am not gay. Some may not see the difference but it is pretty clear to me.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

How did Lee get the temerity to re-write the Bible and put various labels on people and groups while avoiding them on his own?

Which of the Reformers did not do this? Because I think all Reformers, took liberty to "re-write" the Bible, and put various labels on other groups while avoiding them on their own. If Lee is no different to Luther, Calvin, King Henry, etc in this respect, why only blame Lee?