The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm overstating the case to make a point. But it must be made. "And when among you I determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

When resolutely holding this "essential" it allows one to venture further afield without becoming lost, or ensnared by someone's speculations. As an illustration, Psalm 96:5 says, "For the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens." The psalmist is looking at Israel's God JHWH versus neighbouring deities. Only one God is Creator of all and thus Lord of all. It's an interesting premise: one "national god" is the "Universal God" by saint of his cosmic position. This psalm and others, and the Prophets repeatedly allude to this, sometimes quite explicitly.

Justin Martyr taught that these "gods of the nations" were the rebellious spirits from the angelic rebellion of Genesis 6:1-4. Justin's source, 1 Enoch, isn't in the canon so we may end our discussion here. But my question is, did Jesus end the discussion here? What were his thoughts?

First, he functioned as an exorcist, a healer and demon-expeller, as did his disciples who followed. In so doing, Jesus referenced an evil spirit going out of a man, travelling through waterless places seeking rest, which aligns closely with 1 Enoch (and, notably, little else for source material besides Enoch). Same with the "great gulf over which none can pass" in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Same with Peter and James' reference to the disobedient spirits in prison. And the adamantium "gates of Hades" so prominently mentioned in the gospels, which kept the disobedient and the dead. Jude of course explicitly quotes Enoch.

So what of it, and why on this thread? First, the fallen human culture that permeates the Lord's recovery "church life". So the gods of the nations are still at work. It actually explains a lot for me. Second, this consideration is just that, and is not a precondition for fellowship. I just share what I'm seeing, but don't need to make an issue. And as I said earlier, my consideration is shaped by that of Jesus, how he used scripture. Is there anything to show his awareness & reception of scripture? Does he ever overtly reject what is written? If he doesn't, I won't.

Wow, aron, I’m surprised that you of all posters would go that far (as you said afield) with the book of Enoch! Jude took the following from that book “Behold, the Lord has come amidst myriads of His holy ones, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all the works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and concerning all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” And it seems what he otherwise wrote was influenced by it, then in the rest of his epistle has severe warnings about those in the church who speak things about “what they do not know yet confidently assert” and do so for profit like Balaam. Paul likewise had similar counsel to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1. Lee often followed his favorite so called “great Brethren teachers” like G.H Pember and D. M. Panton in areas like this and I like other good local churches followed in many areas, perhaps too far? that most Christian teachers avoid. I don’t mind following books of canon there for a while, but an apocryphal book recognized by Roman Catholics and few others. Really. Please help me understand why that is advisable in light of the strength of Jude and Paul’s warnings. Or am I being overly careful?

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Wow, aron, I’m surprised that you of all posters would go that far (as you said afield) with the book of Enoch! Jude took the following from that book “Behold, the Lord has come amidst myriads of His holy ones, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all the works of ungodliness which they have done in an ungodly way, and concerning all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” And it seems what he otherwise wrote was influenced by it, then in the rest of his epistle has severe warnings about those in the church who speak things about “what they do not know yet confidently assert” and do so for profit like Balaam. Paul likewise had similar counsel to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1. Lee often followed his favorite so called “great Brethren teachers” like G.H Pember and D. M. Panton in areas like this and I like other good local churches followed in many areas, perhaps too far? that most Christian teachers avoid. I don’t mind following books of canon there for a while, but an apocryphal book recognized by Roman Catholics and few others. Really. Please help me understand why that is advisable in light of the strength of Jude and Paul’s warnings. Or am I being overly careful?

The book of Enoch is not recognized by the Roman Catholics. Only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to my knowledge.

My question was, What did Jesus think? That is our focus. So when Jesus said, "An evil spirit flies out of a person and goes through waterless places seeking rest", we might wonder what he meant. Did he base this on some scriptural source? Did he bring some extra-biblical knowledge down from heaven, which never made it into print except in a few oblique references like this?

Many people just ignore such sayings because they don't know where to put them. With Lazarus and the rich man, same thing. Lazarus is on a pleasant place, resting, and the rich man is in torment. But a great gulf, or abyss, separates them. Where is this kind of concept from? Should we care? Do we just ignore it? Make up our own explanations based on "how it might be"? Or the "gates of Hades" - where did that come from, and why is it so prominently featured in the Revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God that the Father in Heaven showed Peter (Matt 16)? Whence cometh these "gates of Hades"? Should we ignore this phrase? Pass over it without comment? Extrapolate from our own sensibilities?

My method is to look in surrounding literature. But it goes precisely to my point, which is that nothing we do should overturn our faith in Jesus as the crucified an resurrected Messiah. But it may provide clues as to how we got caught, for a while, by Witness Lee's publishing house and mind control system, both of which are aspects of the same phenomena and which phenomena may be related to the dual falls of Genesis 3 (humanity) and Genesis 6 (the 'sons of God'). Clearly the dual falls are related in Genesis, and to the flood which followed.

Now, what did Jesus think of the dual falls of Genesis 3 and 6, and the flood which followed? Did his "an unclean spirit comes out of a man, and flies about" have any relation with this narrative? I suspect yes, but if so, how?

Look at 2 Peter, for example. "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment". And Jude "And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling--these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day." Think about the prevalent gospel concepts of "binding and loosing" in this context. This is not esoteric but related to immediate daily Christian practice. (Or, it should be.)

Now, again, to my point: "For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but the Lord made the heavens." ~Psalm 96:5

Who are "all the gods of the nations"? And is this related to the fact that many of us became effectively enslaved by a "Chinese warlord" as at least one disaffected escapee termed him? I read an article and began to wonder. It made sense to me. But --- it is not a basis of fellowship. My fellowship is based on my faith in the suffering and glorified Jesus. That is my faith, not that Psalm 96, through Justin Martyr and 1 Enoch, possibly points to the spirit of disobedience behind the LC movement. Just thinking aloud, is all.

My faith is my faith. I consider it immutable. I confessed, I repented, I was baptised. I declare Jesus as Lord. Now, my thinking... that comes and goes...

For the record, the article at hand is: "The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine: Aetiology, Demonology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr" by Annette Yoshiko Reed. Journal of Early Christian Studies. 2004;12(2):141-71. Johns Hopkins U. Press.

Throughout his works Justin Martyr equates the "gods of the nations" with demons (Psa 96:5) and explores the various ways in which they deceptively imitate the divine in order to lead unwary humans away from belief in the one God and his Saviour Son.

When I read this, I started thinking of WL's teachings and practices which essentially became the basis of fellowship in the LC, as "deceptively imitating the divine" and leading many astray. I was there, and remember. Repetitively shouting outline and HWMR sections. It seemed godly but when I look at the fruit it's obvious it wasn't. And I also suspect the repetitive shouting caused us to overlook the clear unrighteousness and unbiblical events which were happening right in front of us.

Daystar is my Exhibit A. When the church leader (Witness Lee) takes church members $$ and invests it in a business run by his immediate family, that's a conflict of interest. Doesn't matter that the business went belly-up and the $$ disappeared. What matters is that it was set up in the first place. It should have been obvious what was happening. But people were duped, led astray. What spirit was at work, here? A spirit of deception. I think it's worth asking such questions. And looking into the Bible, specifically Jesus' teachings, for answers. But my answers are not a basis of fellowship. My answers are tentative and subject to pruning by the 'ekklesia'. Perhaps even drastic pruning.

[Sons to Glory!]

Aron and JJ - I haven't been following ya-alls conversation very well. Can you please summarize and let me know how it ties into the topic at hand? Thx

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Aron and JJ - I haven't been following ya-alls conversation very well. Can you please summarize and let me know how it ties into the topic at hand? Thx

See Post #63. I stated my basis of fellowship is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The ongoing thread's discussion was on the Bible, and how to view it, whether concepts of fallible men, divinely inspired, or a mix? My reply was asking how Jesus viewed and used scripture. Since he was the resurrected and glorified Messiah, his view might be worth considering, no? Not just that of Augustine and Luther and Billy Graham. What was Jesus' usage pattern?

Then I made an excursus, in showing how I could "venture afield" perhaps profitably, perhaps not, but still safely (not leaving fellowship) by considering how we got led astray by a "global Chinese Christian leader". Did anyone read that latest whitewash attempt? It seems that the LC is surreptitiously putting plants in academia to put out CRI-lite sociological explanations for their unorthodoxy.*

My excursus was through Psalm 96, and how Justin Martyr used 1 Enoch's riff on Genesis 6:1-4 to show how the nations are led astray, and deceived. Given the fairly frequent references in the NT (see post #63) to disobedient angels and unclean spirits causing human harm, it might be worth taking a minute to consider.

I closed the loop by saying that my considerations don't form a basis of fellowship. However one might view them, good or bad - they're merely thoughts, human thoughts. Not truths in any objective sense.

Originally Posted by OBW

The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life was from messages Lee gave in 1971... It begins with some statements concerning the faith. According to Lee, the faith is “composed of the beliefs concerning the Bible, God, Christ, the work of Christ, salvation, and the church.”

Jesus had faith. "He [Messiah/Son/Christ] trusted in God [Father in heaven], let him [Father] save him [Son] now" (Matt 27; Psa 22). It is his faith that saves. Not mine. So what he thought about subjects like "the Bible" should be first considerations. This is my attempt to add value to the conversation: look at what he believed. Not what I believe, or you believe, or Witness Lee's purported "all genuine Christians" believe.

*https://www.researchgate.net/profile...c5d15bf4fc.pdf

[aron]

A warning. Anything that distracts us from seeing Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, crucified and raised to glory, should be rejected as a stumbling to our path.

Revelation 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Zechariah 12:3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.

Matthew 21:44 "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

This revelation of Jesus as Christ, who willingly entered into death on our behalf, and rose as Saviour of the world, King of kings and Lord of all is obviously a stumbling to many. But it's our rock. On this rock our ekklesia's founded and grows, and this rock supports all our subsequent fellowship with one another.

Don't you think that "the gods of the nations" would be upset at the revelation of Jesus as Christ? If they couldn't oppose him with persecution, they would co-opt him by melding their own fallen devious schemes. Witness Lee made fun of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and rightly so. But shouldn't he get called out for his Eastern ways? Nigel Tomes wrote an article on Lee's 1980s-era version of the Great Leap Forward, how many close parallels there were to Mao's. Lee didn't stop being a Chinese when he became Christian. And Teresa Zimmerman-Liu at UCSD has also noted this. Human culture, and its influence, doesn't disappear when we say "Lord, Jesus". If we don't recognise what it is and what it can do, it can really derail our journey. It becomes a lens, or prism, through which we examine scripture to determine what is "normal" and desirable.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Lee often followed his favorite so called “great Brethren teachers” like G.H Pember and D. M. Panton in areas like this and I like other good local churches followed in many areas, perhaps too far? that most Christian teachers avoid. I don’t mind following books of canon there for a while, but an apocryphal book recognized by Roman Catholics and few others. Really. Please help me understand why that is advisable in light of the strength of Jude and Paul’s warnings. Or am I being overly careful?

FYI, Pember was with the Brethren, but Panton was not. Panton succeeded Govett at Surrey Chapel, where ME Barber was from.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

FYI, Pember was with the Brethren, but Panton was not. Panton succeeded Govett at Surrey Chapel, where ME Barber was from.

I daresay these guys may have been considered cutting edge 150 years ago, or even in Nee's day. Readers in China in 1926 were surely impressed, as were a few naiive readers later in the USA, but their work is hardly pressing current discussions forward. Only the cloistered few in the "remnant" or "restored" or "recovered" churches would really focus on them, today.

I'm a self-identified "fundamentalist" in that I believe and confess that God loved the world so much - so much! - that he sent his only begotten Son. But a willful and deliberate obtuseness and enforced ignorance - see e.g., "One Publication Policy" - isn't where I'm heading.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I daresay these guys may have been considered cutting edge 150 years ago, or even in Nee's day. Readers in China in 1926 were surely impressed, as were a few naiive readers later in the USA, but their work is hardly pressing current discussions forward. Only the cloistered few in the "remnant" or "restored" or "recovered" churches would really focus on them, today.

My opinion, nothing more.

"My opinion, nothing more." -- Interesting comment. Perhaps auditioning for a new signature line?

How should we view your previous posts?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"My opinion, nothing more." -- Interesting comment. Perhaps auditioning for a new signature line?

How should we view your previous posts?

Jesus' opinions count. Yours and mine don't count very much. Witness Lee's even less, as he insisted on primacy.

[JJ]

Thanks for the feedback and helpful corrections.

We all tried to answer “what is the faith”. Then aron started to venture into matters that lie elsewhere (generality?) but came back to what is the faith.

I have two other questions:

What about this term “speciality”. Lee says by it he means “We all must know what it is in the church life that is special” and equates that to “the faith” we are charged by the apostles to contend for.

The second question I have is “what does contend for the faith mean?”

For reference the definition of the Greek word translated as “contend” is here https://biblehub.com/greek/4866.htm.

I’m surprised by the definition that it has more of an athletic team meaning than a warfare meaning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

The second question I have is “what does contend for the faith mean?”

For reference the definition of the Greek word translated as “contend” is here https://biblehub.com/greek/4866.htm.

I’m surprised by the definition that it has more of an athletic team meaning than a warfare meaning.

I think your question here exposes errors in WL's ministry. He saw "contending" as a military battle, with himself as commander-in-chief fighting against all others. His way created loyal footsoldiers faithful to his program, us vs. them mentality. Thus WL regularly stated that our condition (in the faith) was far outweighed by our corporate standing (on the ground of oneness.)

Paul, however, saw this as a personal struggle, striving to remain in the faith, walking by faith, living by faith, striving for the reward. To Paul, personal faith was everything.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

The second question I have is “what does contend for the faith mean?”
For reference the definition of the Greek word translated as “contend” is here https://biblehub.com/greek/4866.htm.
I’m surprised by the definition that it has more of an athletic team meaning than a warfare meaning.

As you point out, the meaning is more about an athletic competition rather than warfare. To contend is something you do in a game or a contest and is not to the point of lethal action, as warfare is.

We are to contend with those around us, being diligent that they may hear and see evidence of the faith in us, via our words and actions. We are not out to kill them, but rather to bring them to the knowledge of the Son of God, Who is life itself. So it is a friendly endeavor, as opposed to warfare - which goal is to destroy the other.