Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that LSM can say "this is not published here" and I agree that the elders in a local church can say "this is not spoken here". I also agree that UntoHim can tell people what they can and cannot say on his forum.

The issue with one publication is that they are telling every local church what they can and cannot say. True, they agree that they can publish a local song book and gospel tract as long as it doesn't go regional. Now if I started another forum and UntoHim excommunicated me from this one because I also have a forum, then that would be comparable to Dong and Chu.

On the first point, the one publication does not dictate what a local church can and cannot say. That is flat out wrong. Brother Lee makes is crystal clear that whether or not a local church receives his ministry is entirely up to them. Therefore, they can say whatever they want about his ministry and that does not change their standing as a local church.

Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed... and it did.

To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore he blocked you and warned others not to do the same or they would reap the same action.... and THEN you went and started your own forum and sympathizers from here joined you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum. But if your disgruntled followers defamed, slandered, and falsely accused the moderator of this forum of trying to tell others what they can read or what they can publish then he might defend his actions... or he might just ignore them.

Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules of THIS forum.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

On the first point, the one publication does not dictate what a local church can and cannot say. That is flat out wrong. Brother Lee makes is crystal clear that whether or not a local church receives his ministry is entirely up to them. Therefore, they can say whatever they want about his ministry and that does not change their standing as a local church.

On that point it is flat out wrong. The application of this doctrine is in the excommunication of Titus Chu. Read the letter from the Blending brothers disciplining Titus Chu, he was disciplined for not being absolute to the ministry of WL and WN and because he published his own materials. They also reference the "one trumpet", etc. Although they made some unsubstantiated allegations about the flesh, the only charges that were backed up with evidence (not hearsay) was the fact that he published outside of LSM, that he was critical of the Blended brothers, and that he was not absolute for the ministry of WL and WN.

Originally Posted by Drake

Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed.

To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore you were blocked.... and THEN went and started your own forum and others from here joined you because they sympathized with you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum.

Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules.

Drake

The point is simple -- UntoHim owns this forum, it is his. He has the right to set the rules. You don't like it, leave. What UntoHim doesn't have the right to do is to tell me I can't start my own forum.

Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The point is simple -- UntoHim owns this forum, it is his. He has the right to set the rules. You don't like it, leave. What UntoHim doesn't have the right to do is to tell me I can't start my own forum.

Right. And Titus has is own "forum" as did Dong... no one told them they couldn't. But, the responsible brothers did not allow them to impose their brands on the rest of the local churches. They can't stop them from doing their own thing and they can't stop them from publishing their own books.... but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet. If local churches choose to follow them, as occured, then that is their decision and prerogative... they answer to the Lord directly.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.

Yes, the church belongs to the Lord..... and by the Spirit He directs men to carry out its practical affairs on earth. That we cannot deny.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Right. And Titus has is own "forum" as did Dong... no one told them they couldn't. But, the responsible brothers did not allow them to impose their brands on the rest of the local churches. They can't stop them from doing their own thing and they can't stop them from publishing their own books.... but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet. If local churches choose to follow them, as occurred, then that is their decision and prerogative... they answer to the Lord directly.

Have not the Blendeds "imposed their brands on the rest of the local churches?" LSM has done exactly what they accuse Titus Chu of. And worse.

Once again, Apostle Paul's words to the self-righteous is fulfilled. (Romans 2.1)

TC, however, gave elders the choice of what to use in their meetings. LSM has taken away this liberty.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

R but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet.

Wait, wait, wait.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is leading the "responsible brothers" to restrict people from influencing the local churches? What if God sends a minister to the local churches and the "responsible brothers" object. Who are they to object? What is their purview? Where does such authority come from? What if the minister is being led by the Holy Spirit and the "responsible brothers" are not? Whether you like it or not, that is entirely possible.

And who gave the "responsible brothers" the authority to keep ministers from the local churches in the first place? Do they have "first dibs" on them? Do they own them? What gives them the right to decide who can minister where? Why can they impose their brand on local churches but no one else can?

You'd better be careful before speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit. He may be doing something he hasn't clued you in on. Did you ever think of that?

My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

That is "One Publication" in a nutshell.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Wait, wait, wait. .....

....My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

Whoa! Hold on there big fella.

You know there is no such word as “presumptiveness” don’t you?

... but let’s go with it anyway.

You probably meant to express the thought “such presumption!” or “boy, they have presumptive ideas!”?

They both work in a way.

Presumptive: “giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief”

Presumption: an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION
b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

You know there is no such word as “presumptiveness” don’t you?

No, I didn't. I presumed there was. That was my presumptiveness. Anyway, there should be such a word. Actually, I still think there might be....

Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I didn't. I presumed there was. That was my presumptiveness. Anyway, there should be such a word. Actually, I still think there might be....

Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.

Ok Igzy. Let’s moderate ourselves for a moment.

I believe it is the irony in your posts that caught my attention. The irony being you take a high position of speaking down to believers in the local churches and to leading brothers in particular, sort of lecturing about things that you do not appear to fully understand, and talking about God’s love yet your posts appear completely devoid of it, no trace of its reality.

And then, your fake word.

Look, I really don’t care about your command of the English language. I don’t really care about your derogatory opinions of the Lords recovery, the local churches, the serving ones, or brothers like me. However, I do care about whether you represent the truth accurately and to some extent I care about the way you prosecute your case.

We all butcher the language every now and then. You can call me on it when my time comes. If you want to invent a new word, then give me a heads up so I can brace myself!

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, I didn't. I presumed there was. That was my presumptiveness. Anyway, there should be such a word. Actually, I still think there might be....

Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.

ne·ol·o·gism Dictionary result for neologism
/nēˈäləˌjizəm/Submit
noun
a newly coined word or expression.
synonyms: new word, new expression, new term, new phrase, coinage, newly coined word, made-up word, invented word, invention, nonce word; portmanteau word
the coining or use of new words.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

they answer to the Lord directly.

So they are not bound by the "One Publication"?

It is the claim of this thread that we all answer to the Lord directly and are not desirous to be under the law.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So they are not bound by the "One Publication"?

It is the claim of this thread that we all answer to the Lord directly and are not desirous to be under the law.

You’re losing me now Brother ZNP. Can’t follow and don’t have the time to devote to sorting it out. I’ll leave you the last word.

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

You’re losing me now Brother ZNP. Can’t follow and don’t have the time to devote to sorting it out. I’ll leave you the last word.

Thanks
Drake

According to the One Publication edict you need to have your speaking vetted. Even WL would not presume to publish something without getting a senior brother like WN to vet his words. Yet you say that these blended brothers "answer directly to the Lord". That is contrary to this edict. If they answer directly to the Lord they do not need to have an intermediary approve their speaking.

Why is it that everyone who defends this rule (you are the only one on this thread) and every one that enforces this rule does not submit to it? Why do you expect everyone else but yourselves to submit to this rule?

You don't get your posts vetted. Why is that?