Definition of "The Lord´s Recovery"

[ZNPaaneah]

Can you define "genuine move of God"?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you define "genuine move of God"?

A movement initiated by God through the Holy Spirit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

A movement initiated by God through the Holy Spirit.

So you are saying there are movements that are not initiated by God? How do you reconcile that with "all things came into being through Him and apart from Him nothing exists that exists"? Also, how do you reconcile this with "all things work together for good to those that love God and are called according to purpose"? Could that really happen if the Holy Spirit was not in all things and working in all things?

[Jo S]

ZNP, I don't want to get too far off topic but to me it's very simple. I look to scripture and see that there is no new revelation to be given to the church after Christ's revelation to John (Rev 22:18). The driving force behind the Lord's Recovery has been from the beginning extra-biblical special revelation of "one church one city". The Holy Spirit wouldn't contradict God's Word. That's not to say behind the scenes the Lord wasn't been working on the hearts and minds of Christians within the Recovery.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

ZNP, I don't want to get too far off topic but to me it's very simple. I look to scripture and see that there is no new revelation to be given to the church after Christ's revelation to John (Rev 22:18).

The topic is for each of us, including you, to give a definition of the Lord's Recovery. Therefore understanding your definition and your use of the words "genuine move of God" is certainly on topic.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The driving force behind the Lord's Recovery has been from the beginning extra-biblical special revelation of "one church one city". The Holy Spirit wouldn't contradict God's Word. That's not to say behind the scenes the Lord wasn't been working on the hearts and minds of Christians within the Recovery.

I strongly dislike this term "genuine move of God" and consider that it is at the very heart of the error, not only in the Local Church but with a myriad of groups that have left the narrow way. It is an arrogant term. Is presupposes that God is not moving in a thousand different ways, which is arrogant. It is presumptuous because the implication is that God is genuinely moving with us, hence not with you. Finally, who is the "judge" that decides? If as you say, God is moving behind the scenes in the hearts and minds of Christians within the Local church then how can you say that for them this is not a genuine move of God?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The topic is for each of us, including you, to give a definition of the Lord's Recovery. Therefore understanding your definition and your use of the words "genuine move of God" is certainly on topic.
I strongly dislike this term "genuine move of God" and consider that it is at the very heart of the error, not only in the Local Church but with a myriad of groups that have left the narrow way. It is an arrogant term. Is presupposes that God is not moving in a thousand different ways, which is arrogant. It is presumptuous because the implication is that God is genuinely moving with us, hence not with you. Finally, who is the "judge" that decides? If as you say, God is moving behind the scenes in the hearts and minds of Christians within the Local church then how can you say that for them this is not a genuine move of God?

By "off topic", I meant making this about ourselves but fair enough. For the sake of fruitful discussion I'll try to clarify the best I can.

By "genuine move of God" I'm using that phrase in the context of the building up of Christ's church.

In scripture, we see Christ first laying the foundation of his church through his ministry with his disciples but the actual brick laying didn't occur until Pentecost.

I do believe there is a genuine move of God that began in Jerusalem but I believe this is the one and only move of God that there is with the man Christ Jesus and no one else at the helm. And this move is still occurring to this day until all things come to completion.

The issue is that we don't have a bird's-eye view of His church, only God does, thus movements like the Lord's Recovery or the NAR which claim that they alone are God's restorative effort on earth will only end up creating something else altogether because these so called "apostles" or MOTAs cannot see the entire picture like Christ can.

ZNP, the way you misquoted John 1:3 has me concerned. You changed the context from past tense to present tense. That verse refers to the beginning of creation and not to all that exists today. This alludes to the belief that can be found in Daoism and pantheism, that is, the belief that God is in all things. This is simply not true. Brother, I'd test this in prayer and with scripture.

I hope that helps.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Jo S

By "off topic", I meant making this about ourselves but fair enough. For the sake of fruitful discussion I'll try to clarify the best I can.

By "genuine move of God" I'm using that phase in the context of the building up of Christ's church.

I assume you are basing this on the Lord's word that "I will build my church".

In scripture, we see Christ first laying the foundation of his church through his ministry with his disciples but the actual brick laying didn't occur until Pentecost.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I do believe there is a genuine move of God that began in Jerusalem but I believe this is the one and only move of God that there is with the man Christ Jesus and no one else at the helm. And this move is still occurring to this day until all things come to completion.

That is a teaching very much in line with Witness Lee's teaching.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The issue is that we don't have the bird's-eye view of His church, only God does, thus movements like the Lord's Recovery or the NAR which claim that they alone are God's restorative effort on earth will only end up creating something else altogether because these so called "apostles" or MOTAs cannot see the entire picture like Christ can.

Which is why I object to the use of this term. We are not God. It is really for God to determine what is and is not a genuine move of His.

Originally Posted by Jo S

ZNP, the way you misquoted John 1:3 has me concerned. You changed the context from past tense to present tense. That verse refers to the beginning of creation and not to all that exists today. This alludes to the belief that can be found in Daoism and pantheism, that is, the belief that God is in all things. This is simply not true. Brother, I'd test this in prayer and with scripture.

I hope that helps.

Perhaps you would prefer Jesus is Lord? That is not past tense. Or perhaps this verse:

15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Are you saying that the all things here does not refer to the Local Church? For example, does the book of Job relate a "genuine move of God"? How about the book of Exodus? What about the gospels? If so, then doesn't Satan's attack on Job, Pharaohs chasing the Israelites with his army and the Romans crucifying Jesus all fall within the "Genuine move of God"?