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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The simple fact that at Christ's tempting Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said to him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shalt be thine.' (Luke 4:5-7), shows that Satan couldn't have offered Christ what wasn't his to begin with otherwise there wouldn't have been no bases for Christ to potentially sin in the first place.

And then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4;

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not........."

Again, God establishes ALL powers on earth (Romans 13:1). If Satan is "ruler of this world", it implies God allowed him to establish it. Nothing was taken from God that wasn't allowed by him in the first place.

Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. Satan did not "usurp" as Lee or the commentators put it or take anything by force. Instead by sin, he subjected man to himself and with that, man's dominion. Force was not involved in any way, man sinned willfully.

As long as man is subject to sin, he is subject to Satan. Therefore, if fear and terror come through sin and creation is subject to it, it follows that creation is subject to Satan. This is the conclusion the apostles reached otherwise they wouldn't have called Satan "god of this world".

In John 14 Jesus said, "The ruler of this world is coming, and in me he has nothing." If Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world, who are we to argue?

I was considering the prayer where Jesus says, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven". In such there are indeed "rulers over five cities" and "rulers over ten cities" (Luke 19:17,19) - the idea being that in heaven, God's will is done through deputies, in hierarchy... but on earth, God's will is done by our taking the least place. On earth, Jesus took the least place, because of sin. Paul made this very clear.

Then the self-anointed Super Apostle interposed his own fallen human will whilst calling it God's will, and the dupes were happy for a time, with new-found purpose and meaning. "Go out and take the cities of the earth" they were told. "Preach the high peak, recovered truth". Then at some point the Super Apostle imposed his admittedly unspiritual son as Office Manager, who then ran roughshod over local church elders and thus "the cities of the earth". What a scam.

I don't know much about the NAR but I see similarly in that a fallen sinner convinces other sinners to come under him, that this will incur God's blessing. Because of sin, we should not presume pride of place. Dominion, in Christan terms, is self-control, and the ability to resist evil and do good (help others, show love). Those who lack self-control will then try to control others. See, e.g., Witness Lee, and sons Timothy and Philip.

We called it "the flow" from the throne of God, through Witness Lee, but it was the God of this age tricking man into taking a position that was not his to claim. Remember that Jude 1 has a warning, repeated in 2 Peter, about the angels who did not keep their place? In the church there is the temptation to leave our place, and to begin to lord over others. This is exactly what is seen with Nee, Lee and the "recovery".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Considering the prayer, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven" - Jesus taught that there are indeed "rulers over five cities" and "rulers over ten cities" (Luke 19:17,19). In heaven, God's will is done through deputies, in hierarchy... but on earth, God's will is done by our taking the least place. On earth, Jesus took the least place, because of sin. Paul made this very clear.

Then the self-anointed New Apostle interposed his own fallen human will whilst calling it God's will, and the dupes were happy for a time, with new-found purpose and meaning. "Go out and take the cities of the earth" they were told. "Preach the high peak, recovered truth". Then at some point the New Apostle imposed his admittedly unspiritual son as Office Manager, who then ran roughshod over local church elders and thus "the cities of the earth". What a scam.

This is probably a crucial point to consider with the New Apostles movement, which arguably includes the LC. "Thy reign come: Thy will come to pass, as in heaven also on the earth." ~Matt 6:10 YLT

God's kingdom come to earth is where His dominion and reign extends. My argument is that the NT, building on the Hebrew scripture (OT) suggests that because of sin, the way home is repentance and faith, followed by humility, self control, and service. Those who believe into Jesus are transferred from one realm to another, and show signs of discipleship by self control, lowering themselves, and doing good to others. Clearly Jesus set the pattern, both in teaching and in works. Those who mouth the faith but don't consistently act accordingly to Jesus' pattern are merely "hearers and not doers" of the word.

Now, the "New Apostle" (NA) comes along, thinking that they're the apostolic channel of God's will on earth, and convinces others to subsume their will to theirs. The NA displays godly attributes and some teaching skills, or healing signs and "charisma", and then the gathering acolytes are taken as "proof" that the divine will rests on this elect vessel. The LC will cite books published and sold, assemblies raised up, training centres created, etc. For a while, those duped think they're onto some special "recovered truth" as the warm fuzzies from following a self-exalted person accomany the act. Their joy and satisfaction at your discipleship and obedience becomes your joy in submission. You then take this transferred, conditional joy as some "latter rain".

But there was a second, crucial, validating aspect of Jesus' ministry: the resurrection from the dead on the third day. This is taken as proof of God's giving him glory. The signs were proof ("if you don't believe me, believe the works" ~John 10:38; 14:11), and the resurrection was the confirmation from God. "And God blessed him, and gave him the name above every name on earth or in heaven, or under the earth, in this age and to come".

No matter how many 'signs' and 'proofs' one exhibits of being a Jesus-follower, even a possibly great one (a "spiritual giant" in LC terms), ultimately one's place is given by God at the end, and not by man today. If it's given by people then sin will at some point interpose itself, and we'll see the result: corruption. A Todd Bentley or a Ted Haggard sins, or David Yonggi Cho or Witness Lee son sins, and then what happens to our NA sand castle? It's ruined.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is proof that "there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus", but those who claim on earth today to be apostolic mediators between others and Jesus, or to be"Deputy God" in LC parlance, are making themselves Christ in position if not in title. Witness Lee complained that the Chinese worshiped him as God - well, guess what, he'd set them up. He'd put it into play, and they picked it up and ran with it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, the "New Apostle" (NA) comes along, thinking that they're the apostolic channel of God's will on earth, and convinces others to subsume their will to theirs.

This is the core of the error, the presumption of authority and acquiescence to it. The false leader presumes authority, and the misled submit to it. Why? Because they are afraid not to. Why? Because they have been warned something bad will happen to them if they don't. Plus, hasn't the leader "helped" them? Isn't he "great?" This is a subtle, deceiving and powerful psychological trap. And it has been used again and again in history to control people, by both religious and political leaders.

And others. I've said that I watched the documentary "Leaving Neverland," which is about singer Michael Jackson's pedophilia, and even used the theme in one of the MOTA comics. Jackson told his young victims they shared a "unique" love, and that they had something that no one else would understand and would try to attack, and that they must never betray that love or discuss what they did in private or they would "go to jail." Does that sound eerily familiar?

This psychological trap was so strong that even in adulthood the victims felt they should protect Jackson and felt guilty about exposing him. Such is the power of this selfish, abusive control exploiting misplaced loyalty and fear.

As I watched the film, I slowly realized that I had been subjected to the same kind of abuse. Not sexual, but spiritual. My spiritual being was violated and abused for selfish purposes by people who cared more about their "vision" than they did about me or anyone else. Like those victims of Jackson, it took me years to face what had happened to me. Like them, I felt guilty about "betraying" Witness Lee. Hadn't he done so much for me? Hadn't he given me so much? Michael Jackson gave those boys a lot, too. He showered them with gifts and attention and let them do anything on his fantastic theme park estate in California. He "loved" them, as he "loved" all children.

But no sane person would say that excused what he did to them. And no sane person would say what Witness Lee did, and what his successors are now doing, is excusable either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

No matter how many 'signs' and 'proofs' one exhibits of being a Jesus-follower, even a possibly great one (a "spiritual giant" in LC terms), ultimately one's place is given by God at the end, and not by man today. If it's given by people then sin will at some point interpose itself, and we'll see the result: corruption. A Todd Bentley or a Ted Haggard sins, or David Yonggi Cho or Witness Lee son sins, and then what happens to our NA sand castle? It's ruined.

I've never been a fan of either Christian News or Local News, and thus have missed out on many a story over the years, of both "blessings" and "scandals." Having become more than familiar with LSM's many "claims and shames," I guess knowing of that was enough for me, since I had invested so much in their program.

For me it has always been a struggle to discern the many 'signs' and 'proofs' which Christians claim. Yes, the Bible does provide instruction to heed them, (e.g. Mark 16.17; 2 Cor 12.12) but in our day how difficult it is to test them for authenticity. During Jesus time, recipients of miracles were often scrutinized by Jewish leaders, yet the facts were undeniable. (e.g. John 9, Acts 3) These events were so real, that they were willing to endure endless examination and even suffering.

WL made it easy for his followers. First he claimed a past history of miraculous signs, which none of us could verify. Second, he used "numbers" to prove he had the prerequisite "signs" for today, i.e. numbers of churches and numbers of books. Who was I to argue with that?

Recently, while visiting a Bible study in some friends' home, we heard about the "weeping Bible" in Dalton, GA. They have been collecting "anointing oil" from this bible for months, curing all manners of evils. I was told, "it has to be the Lord, cause how could they fake it?" I tend to believe everything can be faked, yet I still hold out hope, lest I be convicted of an "evil heart of unbelief."

Fortunately for me, salvation is based on my faith in the greatest sign of all, that Jesus Christ died for my sins according to the scripture, that God raised Him from the dead, and has exalted Him above all.

[Cal]

I think it's clear enough that displays of the miraculous power of God are required for proof of apostleship (2 Cor 12:12*). To try to water down that verse so that "signs" just means "great works" seems irresponsible. If the Bible even hints that an apostle must prove his apostleship with miracles then we should err on the side of caution.

Apostles should have to prove themselves. We shouldn't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Neither should we have to go around worrying if we missed an apostle. Apostleship should be clear, and the Bible says that clarity comes by seeing miracles worked.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

*"The signs, indeed, of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." Young's Literal Translation

[aron]

There is a reason I brought up the subject of signs. Jesus' resurrection from the dead was the sign from God that his ministry was fully validated and now he is in glory. If one believes into the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, one tacitly accepts his position as "firstborn of creation". Case closed.

With the apostles, they were picked by Jesus and thus validated. Paul received the right hand of fellowship. The NAR and any other Apostolic-wanna-be lacks all of this. They have their delusion and their ability to convince others that it is real. But guess what - there are plenty of dupes out there, unfortunately. I was one. A mass of followers doesn't validate an apostle. Neither do signs.

Jesus alone has the validated sign - resurrection. The NT apostles were chosen by Jesus. Any other "apostle", whether RCC or post-Protestant has none of these. They get reflecting pools and mausoleums when they die. None of them has been resurrected. Only Jesus has. So claims of greatness not only ring hollow, but should be automatically viewed with suspiction.

Another thing that Jo S mentioned, is the connection between hyper-excited "charismatic" states and the susceptibility to suggestion. This is a danger. They get you to be subjective, and then they impose their subjectivity (which is self-oriented, natch). At some point they may even be telling you scripture is "fallen" and "natural concepts" (!!!) while you hang on their every word as if it came from God.

All of us who believe have some ability to channel God. All of us who believe have some residue which might block God, and interpose self-will of fallen man. Peter is used in the NT as an example of this. Revelation is seen, as well as error.

The New Apostle side-steps this with a special Untouchable status. And then everyone else is measured how they relate to the NA. This kind of referent point is only reserved for Jesus Christ. This last point may or may not apply to the NAR folk, but it certainly applies to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. Ruth Lee apparently became an atheist when she realized Watchman Nee was a fallen human being like any other, with human frailty and foibles.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

But guess what - there are plenty of dupes out there, unfortunately. I was one. A mass of followers doesn't validate an apostle. Neither do signs.

When the prey is young people, I wouldn't call them dupes. They are definitely victims. We were victims. They exploited our idealism and trust.

But I agree that signs alone don't validate an apostle. But to me they are a minimum requirement. A following means little. Anyone ruthless enough can come up with a way to get a following. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I agree that signs alone don't validate an apostle. But to me they are a minimum requirement. A following means little. Anyone ruthless enough can come up with a way to get a following. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

Not only did Paul list "signs" as evidence, but also his suffering. Sufferings of all kinds, with little comfort to justify his status. This to me is a greater proof, the proving of our faith, trials by sufferings, so that what passes thru is of God alone.

Ministers love to duplicate his "hankerchief" miracles (Acts 19.12), but who is willing to suffer as he did, for the Lord, for the truth, for the gospel, for the saints, and for righteousness sake? Paul took his sufferings from the Lord, not just the "thorns," and did not see them as from the "devil." Who could ever be a real minister, when all he has to share is the gospel of "prosperity."

The apostles thus battled false "super-apostles" their entire lives. Endless counterfeits came and went, deceiving the elect. How much more today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The New Apostle side-steps this with a special Untouchable status.

From a small child I was indoctrinated with this evil, called the "infallibility of the Pope." It was never questioned. Endless modifications of this same theme have been used to deceive God's children for centuries.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

From a small child I was indoctrinated with this evil, called the "infallibility of the Pope." It was never questioned. Endless modifications of this same theme have been used to deceive God's children for centuries.

It all comes down to: Does your leader seem like your servant, or like your lord? If he seems like your lord, he is not a biblical leader.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

Ruth Lee apparently became an atheist when she realized Watchman Nee was a fallen human being like any other, with human frailty and foibles.

How did you find this out? just curious as I never heard tthis. But I never knew W Lee was twice married either

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

How did you find this out? just curious as I never heard tthis. But I never knew W Lee was twice married either

I believe that poster 'awareness' noted this about Ruth Lee, sourced from Dana Roberts' biography. Hardly anything could be more damning of Nee's ministry and the damage it brought forth was in the 'flipped' role of women. With Nee, his closest coterie were women. In Witness Lee's hagiography of Nee (one can't call it a biography, proper) there is a whole chapter on the women who served with (mostly under) Nee. Then 80 years later they're relegated to anonymity and servitude. Once they had served their purpose they were discarded. Do you think Peace Wang or Dora Yu or Ruth Lee would last a fortnight with today's Blendeds? I doubt it.

And I don't mean to ignite a firestorm over the role of women in the churches today. I'm simply pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of using women to gain control, then summarily dumping them.

The power of God raised Jesus from the dead. "And the power was with him [Jesus] to heal." This same power is with Peter and Paul in the book of Acts. Yet Peter and the Jerusalem church is never "under" Paul, nor vice versa. Those who claim dominion over the souls of others are precisely those evil fallen spirits that Paul calls the authorities of the air. Reject them utterly. That is my advice. Call them out for what they are and their grip on you is done.

People who try to control others are demonstrating that they themselves lack the power of self-control, thus they "feed" on others. When I talked to someone in the LC, about 8 or 10 months ago, they told me of the campus recruiting efforts, and called it "fresh blood for the Body." Hel-lo?