The Mormon Church is "The Church"?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes but the context is the Reformation - are churches splitting in the 4th century really relevant? Numerous rebellions, splits and offshoots occurred before the Reformation for various reasons, but no serious historian considers these as part of the Reformation.

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

Yes, just read Broadbent's seminal work, "The Pilgrim Church" about the primitive ekklesia in the dark ages. There have have always been a remnant that didn't take man's way (and were often persecuted for it).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But why does LSM discussion of the Reformation always seem to assume that meaningful church history only began with the Reformation? Statements like, "The Reformation was lipstick on a pig" implies tacitly that there are 3 choices emerging from history: the RCC, Protestants, and the Recovered/Degraded Recovered spinoff of the Protestants. The pig, the lipstick, and us. But church history didn't start in 1500. And there have always been other churches besides the RCC.

Again, in 1525 Germany the point was moot, for Luther. Not for us, today. Our horizons are not his, and our narrative shouldn't presuppose only his as its basis.

I still don't see the relevance or that it changes much. Why would we not be concerned mostly with European/Western church history?

I think that viewing history in such a way - "Catholic to Reformation" is characteristic of evangelicalism as a whole. Catholicism also pretends that these other groups did not exist and that absolutely everyone was Catholic.

This way of viewing the world is common. Take American history for example. It is now known that maybe the Chinese or Phonecians discovered America first. I don't see those historical facts changing the narrative, nor is it so relevant.

The way I see it, the contributions of these obscure and often unheard of groups, are exaggerated beyond proportion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way I see it, the contributions of these obscure and often unheard of groups, are exaggerated beyond proportion.

The EOC is obscure? The Syrians and Ethiopians are unheard of? Maybe in Germany in the late Middle Ages, but today?

In one sense I understand, given that it was my view once; it's also common to find a conscious, resolute myopathy, a total lack of curiosity when that's necessary to maintain the coherence of one's narrative. (And it fits on a thread about Mormonism!)

But the ignorance level of a medieval Western Europe is hardly appropriate for what purports to be a global Christianity in the 21st century (again, note the similarity to Mormonism).

WL once told us that no one had taught him anything new in 45 years. That's probably one of the most telling things he ever said.

Originally Posted by LSM Church History

There was Jesus, and then there was the Church (Matthew 16 is cited; Acts 2; Acts 10). Then the Church got degraded (2 Timothy; Revelation 2 & 3). Then there were 1,500 years where nothing of interest happened. Then Luther began the Recovery out of Great Harlot Babylon RCC with Justification. Then Darby & Brethren recovered 'Christ' in OT types and figures. Then we recovered the Church!

The internal cohesiveness of the Luther/Darby/Nee/Lee segment in the Recovered Church History needs a 1,500-year blank spot: "No light there; nothing to see folks; move along!" Of course LSM may occasionally wave Fenelon and Guyon as props; pad teachings with quotes from Augustine & Jerome. But one finds a stubbornly-held antipathy for anything outside their primitivist, massively truncated story. The level of determined and conscious ignorance, of "shutting out" required to hold it all together is amazing. It's really quite a window into psychopathology.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The EOC is obscure? The Syrians and Ethiopians are unheard of? Maybe in Germany in the late Middle Ages, but today?

In one sense I understand, given that it was my view once; it's also common to find a conscious, resolute myopathy, a total lack of curiosity when that's necessary to maintain the coherence of one's narrative. (And it fits on a thread about Mormonism!)

But the ignorance level of a medieval Western Europe is hardly appropriate for what purports to be a global Christianity in the 21st century (again, note the similarity to Mormonism).

WL once told us that no one had taught him anything new in 45 years. That's probably one of the most telling things he ever said.



The internal cohesiveness of the Luther/Darby/Nee/Lee segment in the Recovered Church History needs a 1,500-year blank spot: "No light there; nothing to see folks; move along!" Of course LSM may occasionally wave Fenelon and Guyon as props; pad teachings with quotes from Augustine & Jerome. But one finds a stubbornly-held antipathy for anything outside their primitivist, massively truncated story. The level of determined and conscious ignorance, of "shutting out" required to hold it all together is amazing. It's really quite a window into psychopathology.

If you are going to allude to these other groups then you best state clearly why you think we should consider them.

I will present why we should not, this is taken from

https://www.gotquestions.org/Coptic-Christianity.html

about the Coptic Christians:


Theologically, Coptic Christianity is very similar to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They profess to be genuine followers of Jesus Christ and a part of His worldwide Church. But, as with Catholicism, they tend to emphasize meritorious works in salvation along with liturgical ritual rather than salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you can state clearly what you believe Coptic Christianity can contribute to the Recovery today? I think you will find they are stuck in their age-old traditions like the EOC and broke with the rest of Christianity at an early time, over disagreement about the nature of Christ.

Did God recover salvation by faith alone through them? Clearly, no, so what's your problem?

It's one thing for you to criticize what I wrote for not being cohesive and all inclusive of all Christian groups in history. It's another thing for you to be able to say something intelligent about them that shows why I/we should not have excluded them from the narrative.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you can state clearly what you believe Coptic Christianity can contribute to the Recovery today? I think you will find they are stuck in their age-old traditions like the EOC and broke with the rest of Christianity at an early time, over disagreement about the nature of Christ.

Perhaps you can state clearly why the EOC never had a reformation, why all the spin off groups like the LDS, JW, SDA, Christian Science and LSM all seem to emerge from Protestants and not EOC, and what EOC teaches concerning justification by faith? Is their justification "tradition" from the Bible or no? If no, why did cult-watcher Hanegraaf join them?

Or must we consider the EOC as one of your unheard-of groups? Again, EOC may have been unknown in 1517 Bavaria, but not in 21st-century global Christian faith.

Originally Posted by Evandelical

It's one thing for you to criticize what I wrote for not being cohesive and all inclusive of all Christian groups in history. It's another thing for you to be able to say something intelligent about them that shows why I/we should not have excluded them from the narrative.

Intelligent? I may not know much, but I know that a teaching of church history that has 3/4 of its timeline as blank space is hardly promoting intelligence. No, but "Get out of your mind" is the default response to those who think, seek, and ask.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you can state clearly what you believe Coptic Christianity can contribute to the Recovery today? I think you will find they are stuck in their age-old traditions like the EOC and broke with the rest of Christianity at an early time, over disagreement about the nature of Christ.

Bro E, Recovery to what? If recovery back to the early church days, the Coptic church claims to go back to Mark the Evangelist.

And bro aron. Our old standing Christian churches, like the RCC & EOC, are the touch stone, or baseline, that Cultologist's use to measure what it is to be a cult.

And by that standard The Recovery is a cult. And so is the church that don't want to be called Mormon.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro E, Recovery to what? If recovery back to the early church days, the Coptic church claims to go back to Mark the Evangelist.

And bro aron. Our old standing Christian churches, like the RCC & EOC, are the touch stone, or baseline, that Cultologist's use to measure what it is to be a cult.

And by that standard The Recovery is a cult. And so is the church that don't want to be called Mormon.

The Coptic church does not believe in salvation by faith alone as they did in the early church. So clearly the recovery is needed.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Perhaps you can state clearly why the EOC never had a reformation, why all the spin off groups like the LDS, JW, SDA, Christian Science and LSM all seem to emerge from Protestants and not EOC, and what EOC teaches concerning justification by faith? Is their justification "tradition" from the Bible or no? If no, why did cult-watcher Hanegraaf join them?

Or must we consider the EOC as one of your unheard-of groups? Again, EOC may have been unknown in 1517 Bavaria, but not in 21st-century global Christian faith.



Intelligent? I may not know much, but I know that a teaching of church history that has 3/4 of its timeline as blank space is hardly promoting intelligence. No, but "Get out of your mind" is the default response to those who think, seek, and ask.

Let's keep talking about the Coptic church as that is the church you mentioned.

This church was rejected by Catholicism, EOC and Protestantism since they did not believe the orthodox view of Christ's nature.

That is a good enough reason why the recovery is not coming from the Coptic church.

If you don't think the Coptic or EOC need recovery then why aren't you joining them like Hanegraaf ?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you don't think the Coptic or EOC need recovery then why aren't you joining them like Hanegraaf ?

You feign ignorance of my argument to avoid facing it. The LSM tries to legitimize its existence by presenting a Kiplingesque "Just So Story" of church history, conveniently omitting anything that doesn't line up with the narrative thrust of "recovery". I point out that there are more churches than the RCC and the Protestants, some of whom apparently believe in justification by faith.

Then you reply they're too insignificant to note. I point out one significant example, perhaps missed in medieval Germany but hardly so today, and you tell me to go join them.

The LSM version of church history is hardly worth teaching to grade schoolers, much less college graduates at their full time training centres. Its coherence necessitates the omission of the bulk of what actually has and does happen on the ground. Only then can this "Christianity" be a convenient foil for their "recovery".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you are going to allude to these other groups then you best state clearly why you think we should consider them.

For some we need to 5Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.

For others, we need to know their tribulation and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not. This is so we would not be ignorant of Satan's devices.

For others we need to learn about the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans, stumbling blocks to the church.

Still we also need to be inoculated against the evil influence of Jezebel, false prophets and false prophetesses.

With others we need to 3Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst hear; and keep it, and repent.

With all of them the Lord says 8I know thy works so it is crucial that we also know their works.

Finally, a major error some make is to be boastful 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Being reproved by the Lord is not a reason for us to ignore their example, nor does it indicate He loves them any less.

Finally, I would point out that Philadelphia is composed of saints who have experienced some of the failed church experiences:

12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the [h]temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

Indicating that these experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers.

That is why we should consider them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For some we need to 5Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.

For others, we need to know their tribulation and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not. This is so we would not be ignorant of Satan's devices.

For others we need to learn about the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans, stumbling blocks to the church.

Still we also need to be inoculated against the evil influence of Jezebel, false prophets and false prophetesses.

With others we need to 3Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst hear; and keep it, and repent.

With all of them the Lord says 8I know thy works so it is crucial that we also know their works.

Finally, a major error some make is to be boastful 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked: 18I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see. 19As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Being reproved by the Lord is not a reason for us to ignore their example, nor does it indicate He loves them any less.

Finally, I would point out that Philadelphia is composed of saints who have experienced some of the failed church experiences:

12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the [h]temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

Indicating that these experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers.

That is why we should consider them.

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

Could we apply that same line of reasoning to Witness Lee’s churches?

[leastofthese]

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Witness Lee church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community?

Lee's teaching forced me to really question my sense of reality, who God is, and how He's moving on the earth. It is a different gospel - focused solely on the works of a fallen man and the culture he desired for the group that meets in his name. The Lord very physically removed me from this group and placed me back on solid ground - He is so gracious to me in so many ways. I couldn't speak for certain, but I would have to say that Witness Lee has had no impact what so ever on my community. In speaking more in more broad sense of community I would also say that Witness Lee likely has had no impact.

What have they taught you that you did not know before?

Nothing. Anything I could attribute to Witness Lee and his church that would be considered positive, I have also found through other means outside of the "recovery". I could list dozens of things I have been taught that would be considered negative.

If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Witness Lee church is.

If I asked 10 believers I know, 0 would know anything about Witness Lee and his supposed recovery. I could ask 50 believers, 100, the answer would still be 0.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

Goodness, I don't think we know how much we today owe to Coptic versions of books of the Bible. In fact, the earliest we have of NT books is in Coptic, not Koine Greek.

Originally Posted by E

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

So recovery is to go back to before the RCC kicked in salvation by works? But not back to the earlier days, when there were more than one way to salvation? Consider James, of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus. He made Paul prove that he wasn't abolishing the law.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point is best seen by a question - what has the Coptic church done for your faith or anyone else you know in your community? What have they taught you that you did not know before? If we ask that question to 10 believers we know, I doubt many would even know what and where the Coptic church is.

My point is that omitting such groups and others like them has no impact on Luther recovering salvation by faith alone.

My point was that we should be aware and cognizant of the "works" done by all the preceding Christian groups. Otherwise we can go off on half baked, incomplete works, or become proud and boastful yet ignorant of our poverty.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For some we need to Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent.

For others, we need to know their tribulation and the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not. This is so we would not be ignorant of Satan's devices.

For others we need to learn about the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans, stumbling blocks to the church.

Still we also need to be inoculated against the evil influence of Jezebel, false prophets and false prophetesses.

With others we need to Remember therefore how thou hast received and didst hear; and keep it, and repent.

With all of them the Lord says I know thy works so it is crucial that we also know their works.

Finally, a major error some make is to be boastful Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I reprove and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Being reproved by the Lord is not a reason for us to ignore their example, nor does it indicate He loves them any less.

Finally, I would point out that Philadelphia is composed of saints who have experienced some of the failed church experiences:

He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the [h]temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name.

Indicating that these experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers.

That is why we should consider them.

"These experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers."

Amen. One of the great ironies of the Nee/Lee saga is that it prohibits the very thing it's supposedly based on. We're told that Nee read all the great works of Christian history & learnt from them. He read widely & broadly, looked far afield & profited from the enormous base of work he digested. Somehow all these competing points of view were able settle in his mind & build something solid, something that approximated reality as it is.

Now, the LAST thing the LSM wants its captive flock to do is follow Nee & dispassionately consider varied sources. Today, there can be only one source - the printing press in Anaheim.

The irony could hardly be more striking. Someone should make a movie - Hollywood loves this stuff. The free thinker who struck out on his own and started a personality cult that programs its followers to only think his thoughts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

"These experiences are crucial for the church to become a church of overcomers."

Amen. One of the great ironies of the Nee/Lee saga is that it prohibits the very thing it's supposedly based on. We're told that Nee read all the great works of Christian history & learnt from them. He read widely & broadly, looked far afield & profited from the enormous base of work he digested. Somehow all these competing points of view were able settle in his mind & build something solid, something that approximated reality as it is.

Now, the LAST thing the LSM wants its captive flock to do is follow Nee & dispassionately consider varied sources. Today, there can be only one source - the printing press in Anaheim.

The irony could hardly be more striking. Someone should make a movie - Hollywood loves this stuff. The free thinker who struck out on his own and started a personality cult that programs its followers to only think his thoughts.

Lots of ironies.

1. Nee studied history extensively yet missed the point that history involves many individuals with many insights and is an ongoing process.

2. The entire doctrine of blending is based on many members yet one body, but the irony is they want one body without the varied talents of the many members.