The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation?

[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

[aron]

-1

Drake,

Good advice, thanks. I'll receive it. Certainly applicable to us both. Not to mention the person who said he had the ministry of the age, and was deputy God.

To whom much is given, much is required.

[awareness]

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...

I'm glad you made all these metaphors plain. And I agree with you.

Except : I took a stand against what was called The Flow of Oneness, brought by the lead elder from Anaheim. The flow of oneness didn't take the throne, river, and tree of life as a metaphor.

It was explained that, the river flows from Christ on the throne, carrying the authority of the throne, to, The Apostle on the earth, Witness Lee.

So you say, it's all metaphor, but Witness Lee took it as literal to establish himself as The MOTA.

Another Bible reference used to support The Flow of Oneness was :

Psa 133:1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Psa 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

In this reference the precious ointment (the Holy Spirit) was poured upon the head, Witness Lee, then ran down the beard (the elders) and finally down to the garments (us little potato's).

I got the boot for disagreeing with The Flow of Oneness. The verses they used from Revelation and Psalms were not taken as metaphorical, but as literal, to established Witness Lee as the MOTA.

[aron]

Evangelical says a throne is just a chair and God doesn't need a chair - why, is God tired? No. So no chair, no throne. A throne is a metaphor, like tree, or river, or city.

Perhaps so. But I'd prefer to act as if there's a real, physical chair somewhere. Just like Jesus ate a real, physical fish after resurrecting from the dead.

This is why - it gives me a metaphorical peg on which to hang my metaphorical hat. A conceptual center, if you will. It makes me more resistant to charlatans and wordsmiths who come anong with their own metaphorical centers, like "flow of oneness".

Witness Lee gave us a new so-called center every other month. They all flowed out from one center - Witness Lee.

[Drake]

-1

Aron>"But I'd prefer to act as if there's a real, physical chair somewhere."


It's how the Lord conveys His thoughts and ideas to us. The Bible is filled with imagery to express some reality.

It's like looking at a picture of crashing waves on a beach and then actually being there where you hear the sounds, smell the salty air, feel the breeze, and watch the waves swell and roll.

The throne, the crystal river, the tree of life, the fruits, the street, the wall, etc, are the imagery of a reality for us to enter into.

Sometimes I feel Ike a kid in a theme park where the wonders never end.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical says a throne is just a chair and God doesn't need a chair - why, is God tired? No. So no chair, no throne. A throne is a metaphor, like tree, or river, or city.

Perhaps so. But I'd prefer to act as if there's a real, physical chair somewhere. Just like Jesus ate a real, physical fish after resurrecting from the dead.

This is why - it gives me a metaphorical peg on which to hang my metaphorical hat. A conceptual center, if you will. It makes me more resistant to charlatans and wordsmiths who come anong with their own metaphorical centers, like "flow of oneness".

Witness Lee gave us a new so-called center every other month. They all flowed out from one center - Witness Lee.

Jesus ate a physical fish in a physical world ..thats believable. Is Heaven a physical place? Can physical things exist in heaven?

[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?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

No, no, no ... many of the reformers (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss, et. al.) were willing to die that the common plowboy could read God's word.

So ... your justification for Witness Lee is now King Henry VIII? The English king who went thru woman after woman just to get a son. And to think that WL ended up with sons like Phillip and Timothy.

I've heard it all!