Latter Rain, Kingdom Now, & the Lord's Recovery

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I welcome your input, Awareness and I'm always up for a challenge, Evangelical.

I wonder if there's anyone else on the forum that would like to share their thoughts on the topic of dominion theology found within the LC's one city one church teaching.

Do you believe it applies or not? Or if you don't have an opinion either way, have you heard this comparison being made before?

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Bro Jo S, I think we need to define dominion theology. Example, is dominion theology the Rushdoony type, and Theonomy type?

Like I stated, I'm not familiar with Latter Rain. What type of dominion theology do they embrace?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Jo S, I think we need to define dominion theology. Example, is dominion theology the Rushdoony type, and Theonomy type?

Like I stated, I'm not familiar with Latter Rain. What type of dominion theology do they embrace?

I always find myself having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this topic because it's just so easy to get lost in all the terminology, isn't it? I understand the more mainstream view of dominion theology is Christian nationalism but that's not what I'm talking about here. The type of dominionism I'm referring to is along the lines of church restoration and apostolic reformation. Here is the basis for the type of theology I'm talking about;

-Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

These three unscriptural beliefs are essentially the foundation of all dominion theology with the last one having the potential of focus, rather on just church reform, shifted to the political and social realms as well.

I believe all these types of dominionism are occurring simultaneously throughout a good portion of Christianity in one form or another (denomination or not) with the LC focused more on the restoration of the church to it's own exclusive extra biblical revelation of one church one city pattern of organization.

The belief that the members of the LC make up the only true church and all the rest of Christianity is apostate "Babylon" means that by having an LC in every city is having the ambition of bringing all Christians throughout the entire earth under the umbrella of the Local Churches by geographical city wide congregations. Essentially desiring to "dominate" Christendom and define Christianity by their ideology through their MOTA'S unique interpretation of scripture. They're not doing a great job at this because the LC is hardly known within Christianity but this is the driving force of it's organization from my understanding.

I also personally know that members of the LC branch which was quarantined view their leader as an apostle with unique revelation and rely solely on his guidance. This was from their own words. I assume the same was with Witness Lee. This is the mindset that comes straight out of movements like the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) and Kingdom Now, Latter Rain ect which is the type of dominionism I'm referring to.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Let me know your thoughts.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

I believe that is correct. Satan usurped by deceiving man, rather than "God transferred ownership because man sinned". I am not sure other interpretations are possible.

Originally Posted by Jo S

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

Romans 16:20 says
"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly." , proving that Satan still has to be crushed ("will crush") and the church ("your feet") plays some part in that.

That is fundamental to the role of the church on the Earth as a tool God uses to bring about change on the Earth. It is related to Jesus's statement about us doing "greater things than these" (John 14:12), and "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph 4:12).

The building up of the church on the Earth is analogous to the defeat of Satan. If every person on the Earth was a Christian then Satan would be defeated completely. During the revivals of old, churches were full, crime ceased to exist, and police had nothing to do. This is a practical example of the church crushing Satan in a town or city. Who else but the church can do this?

Originally Posted by Jo S

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

The Bible says certain things have to be done by the church before Christ will return, such as:

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe that is correct. Satan usurped by deceiving man, rather than "God transferred ownership because man sinned". I am not sure other interpretations are possible.

"Usurp" means to take by force. The purpose of using this specific word by these movements (Witness Lee also chose to use this term) is to provoke an emotional response as a type of rally cry.

Satan didn't force Eve to take the fruit, she willfully sinned just as Esau willfully gave up his inheritance. He didn't take dominion, it was lost through sin.

Romans 16:20 says
"And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly." , proving that Satan still has to be crushed ("will crush") and the church ("your feet") plays some part in that.

The "God of peace" will defeat Satan after his coming and after the millennial reign (Revelation 20), and not a pre-tribulation pre-raptured global church formed by MOTA'S or any other man. The LC looks to restore and organize Christianity in a one church per city model before Christ's coming. This won't happen because it's not scripture. If it does happen, it's not Jesus Christ's church. It's Anti-Christ's.

"That is fundamental to the role of the church on the Earth as a tool God uses to bring about change on the Earth. It is related to Jesus's statement about us doing "greater things than these" (John 14:12), and "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph 4:12).

The building up of the church on the Earth is analogous to the defeat of Satan. If every person on the Earth was a Christian then Satan would be defeated completely. During the revivals of old, churches were full, crime ceased to exist, and police had nothing to do. This is a practical example of the church crushing Satan in a town or city. Who else but the church can do this?

The Bible says certain things have to be done by the church before Christ will return, such as:

Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

This is not written so why even consider this hypothetical? This scripturally unsupported mentality is where dominionism comes from. A need to dominate society absolutely through Christian ideology.

The commission given to God's people is to spread the gospel. Good works flow from that but a systematic organization of the church is not one of those works given to the Christians in scripture and it is not a work of ours that will defeat the works of Satan, that is a job for Christ's alone. (1 John 3:8).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

"Usurp" means to take by force. The purpose of using this specific word by these movements (Witness Lee also chose to use this term) is to provoke an emotional response as a type of rally cry.

Satan didn't force Eve to take the fruit, she willfully sinned just as Esau willfully gave up his inheritance. He didn't take dominion, it was lost through sin.

The meaning of the word usurp is not "take by force", and so the rest of your assertions are also wrong which are based on this wrong meaning about force.

I know you don't like external references but I must refer to a dictionary because your definitions are so wrong:

Usurp was borrowed into English in the 14th century from the Anglo-French word usorper, which in turn derives from the Latin verb usurpare, meaning "to take possession of without a legal claim." Usurpare itself was formed by combining usu (a form of usus, meaning "use") and rapere ("to seize").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp

Take possession of without a legal claim can be by force but it can also be by deception. For example Jacob is also known as a usurper but there was no force, just deception.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The "God of peace" will defeat Satan after his coming and after the millennial reign (Revelation 20), and not a pre-tribulation pre-raptured global church formed by MOTA'S or any other man. The LC looks to restore and organize Christianity in a one church per city model before Christ's coming. This won't happen because it's not scripture. If it does happen, it's not Jesus Christ's church. It's Anti-Christ's.

If this verse referred to the second coming then why does it say shortly, i.e. "under your feet shortly"?

Your statement about it being Anti-Christ does not make sense. Yes I can see it happening, after the whole world has one church per city, in order to "bring the Lord back", then we'll bring out the pentagrams, the devil horns, force everyone to take a microchip in the hand, and when Christ comes tell Him to go back to Heaven.

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is not written so why even consider this hypothetical? This scripturally unsupported mentality is where dominionism comes from. A need to dominate society absolutely through Christian ideology.

The commission given to God's people is to spread the gospel. Good works flow from that but a systematic organization of the church is not one of those works given to the Christians in scripture and it is not a work of ours that will defeat the works of Satan, that is a job for Christ's alone. (1 John 3:8).

The systematic organization of the church can be found here:

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

and here:

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

And as a Christian I do not see a problem with dominating society with Christian idealogy. In fact I welcome it. The alternatives are atheist/secular, muslim, hindu, Jewish... the more Christian dominion the better I say.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The meaning of the word usurp is not "take by force", and so the rest of your assertions are also wrong which are based on this wrong meaning about force.

I know you don't like external references but I must refer to a dictionary because your definitions are so wrong:

Usurp was borrowed into English in the 14th century from the Anglo-French word usorper, which in turn derives from the Latin verb usurpare, meaning "to take possession of without a legal claim." Usurpare itself was formed by combining usu (a form of usus, meaning "use") and rapere ("to seize").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp

Take possession of without a legal claim can be by force but it can also be by deception. For example Jacob is also known as a usurper but there was no force, just deception.

You just said it; to "seize". Your argument actually validates mine. Here is the definition of seize;

seize
sēz/Submit
verb
1.
take hold of suddenly and forcibly.

To usurp is to forcefully take hold of. This is not what took place in the garden yet it is a term used by Lee and other dominionist movements to appeal to people's emotions.

Satan didn't "take" anything. Through deception he subjected man to himself through sin. So if man was slave to sin how is it that they continued to be masters over creation? Humans as well became slaves to creation because Genesis 3:19 then said after the fall;

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

This no longer sound as if they we have mastery or dominion over the earth but rather became slaves to creation.

If this verse referred to the second coming then why does it say shortly, i.e. "under your feet shortly"?

Your statement about it being Anti-Christ does not make sense. Yes I can see it happening, after the whole world has one church per city, in order to "bring the Lord back", then we'll bring out the pentagrams, the devil horns, force everyone to take a microchip in the hand, and when Christ comes tell Him to go back to Heaven.

He also said at the end of Revelation 22:7, "Look, I am coming soon". Christ said this from heaven and remember with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

God still does all the work even if he uses our "feet". And this will all occur after the millennial reign, not before like the LC envisions it happening.

The systematic organization of the church can be found here:

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

and here:

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Your verse of Acts does not make an argument for one church per city worldwide.

In Titus 1:5, Paul is meaning every town he directed on the island of Crete, not every town on the entire planet. I'd imagine Titus would be exhausted even thinking about undertaking such an enormous and ambitious task.

And as a Christian I do not see a problem with dominating society with Christian idealogy. In fact I welcome it. The alternatives are atheist/secular, muslim, hindu, Jewish... the more Christian dominion the better I say.

You just validated my thread. You are by definition a dominionist, Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You just said it; to "seize". Your argument actually validates mine. Here is the definition of seize;

seize
sēz/Submit
verb
1.
take hold of suddenly and forcibly.

To usurp is to forcefully take hold of. This is not what took place in the garden yet it is a term used by Lee and other dominionist movements to appeal to people's emotions.

Satan didn't "take" anything. Through deception he subjected man to himself through sin. So if man was slave to sin how is it that they continued to be masters over creation? Humans as well became slaves to creation because Genesis 3:19 then said after the fall;

"By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

This no longer sound as if they we have mastery or dominion over the earth but rather became slaves to creation.

That is only one possible definition. The meaning is a more general one to take something illegally or without authority. It can be by force but doesn't have to be.

The Oxford dictionary ( a real English dictionary by the way ) says (with some example sentences):

Take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.

1.1 Take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally; supplant.
‘the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts’

1.2usurp on/uponarchaic no object Encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights)
‘the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state’

‘By transmitting the virus willingly one is usurping on others’ rights to life and happiness.’

So the meaning of usurp is truly "illegal or by force".

The Collins dictionary makes it even clearer:

If you say that someone usurps a job, role, title, or position, they take it from someone when they have no right to do this.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di.../english/usurp

So "Satan usurping Eve" means taking something from her when he has no right to do it.

Originally Posted by Jo S

He also said at the end of Revelation 22:7, "Look, I am coming soon". Christ said this from heaven and remember with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

God still does all the work even if he uses our "feet". And this will all occur after the millennial reign, not before like the LC envisions it happening.

Paul seemed to think the church would have some sort of victory over Satan "shortly". I do not see it relating well to Christ's use of the word "soon".

Originally Posted by Jo S

You just validated my thread. You are by definition a dominionist, Evangelical.

So what's the problem with Christian idealogy (any oxymoron by the way) dominating society anyway? I think most Christians would like that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I always find myself having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this topic because it's just so easy to get lost in all the terminology, isn't it? I understand the more mainstream view of dominion theology is Christian nationalism but that's not what I'm talking about here. The type of dominionism I'm referring to is along the lines of church restoration and apostolic reformation. Here is the basis for the type of theology I'm talking about;

-Satan usurped dominion over the earth from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

-The body of believers (the overcomers/Joel's army/warrior bride of Christ ect), are the tool God will use to take back dominion and crush the serpent.

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

These three unscriptural beliefs are essentially the foundation of all dominion theology with the last one having the potential of focus, rather on just church reform, shifted to the political and social realms as well.

I believe all these types of dominionism are occurring simultaneously throughout a good portion of Christianity in one form or another (denomination or not) with the LC focused more on the restoration of the church to it's own exclusive extra biblical revelation of one church one city pattern of organization.

The belief that the members of the LC make up the only true church and all the rest of Christianity is apostate "Babylon" means that by having an LC in every city is having the ambition of bringing all Christians throughout the entire earth under the umbrella of the Local Churches by geographical city wide congregations. Essentially desiring to "dominate" Christendom and define Christianity by their ideology through their MOTA'S unique interpretation of scripture. They're not doing a great job at this because the LC is hardly known within Christianity but this is the driving force of it's organization from my understanding.

I also personally know that members of the LC branch which was quarantined view their leader as an apostle with unique revelation and rely solely on his guidance. This was from their own words. I assume the same was with Witness Lee. This is the mindset that comes straight out of movements like the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) and Kingdom Now, Latter Rain ect which is the type of dominionism I'm referring to.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks. That helped a lot. Yes Lee's LC movement has some resemblance to dominion theology, particularly with your point #3 :

-Until the church is restored or prepared in a certain fashion, Christ will not return.

And it is true that there exists bigger and more successful dominionists, particularly in the political realm, than the Recovery could ever dream to be. Thank God for that.