How many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why isn't Micah 6:8 a direct quote? It is not direct or indirect. It's just the difference between active/passive voice and present/present perfect tense.

Easy. It's not a quote because it doesn't contain quotation marks.

I take the lack of scholarly support coming from you as a sign that you don't have any.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Brother, I have already lost count of how many times you contradict yourself in this discussion. Not long ago you agreed Micah reveals Christ. Now you say Micah does not reveal Christ. Aren't justice, mercy and humility parts of God's standard of perfection? Does Micah have to include all standards of God in one verse?

Then I think I said not everything Micah writes reveals Christ.

A verse which says God requires us to obey the Lord to be saved is definitely not revealing Christ which is about His righteousness saving us, not our own works or morals.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I asked about Paul because Jesus' words didn't seem enough for you. You asked for Paul's confirmation even though I quoted Jesus' own words that match Micah 6:8.

Let's see what Paul said about mercy:

Ephesians 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,

As Paul said, God is rich in mercy. Mercy is an attribute of God, not just human moral.

Why don't you quote the rest of that sentence in verse 25 :

made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.

Seems to me that the mercy Paul speaks of is the mercy of God towards us in Christ by saving us by grace alone.

This is not the same thing as Micah which says God requires us to be merciful and what Jesus said in Matt 23:23. This time period was when the Jews were still under the law (written and moral). But now we are under the grace.

I don't think many Christians pay much attention to Matt 23:23. When was the last time you ground pepper and salt into the collection plate? The type of righteousness achieved by obeying Matt 23:23 is but a shadow of the righteousness that comes by faith.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I almost feel good seeing this comment from you. I would rather embarrass myself in your eyes than before God.

During this discussion, you tried to divert the topic, you contradicted yourself, you pretended to be scholarly but there is no substance in your argument. You were relentlessly defending the footnote instead of God's truth. This is a perfect demonstration of the fruit of WL.

Yes, I am one of the "32m" who have heard of WL. I have heard of him and also witnessed his fruit.

I don't know what truth you think you are defending but seems to me you are defending the shadows rather than defending Christ.

This is evident when you warned me against lowering the importance of the shadows however the bible itself e.g. Hebrews 10:1 already lowers it by saying the law is "only a shadow".

I must say in all my time on here this has one of been the weakest arguments against the footnotes. I also note that not many are coming to your defense and presenting any convincing arguments from bible scholars or otherwise to support you.

Firstly you seem confused about the difference between old testament and new testament prophecy. It's very strange that having shown you the consistent pattern of language in old testament prophecy, that you would then try to link that back to local church "prophesying" meetings as if there is some kind of clear relationship.

You have not seemed to realize the difference between a direct quote from God "thus saith the Lord , or 'declares the Lord' and human opinion, or that prophecies can contain a mixture of divine revelation and human opinion (morals, ethics, scientific worldview at the time, etc).

Probably my biggest concern is a conflated argument on the piecemeal interpretation of a single footnote.

[Drake]

>alb “Why then the LC keeps insisting every member to "prophesy"?

Alb,

I am really puzzled by this comment. If I recall, I thought you were at some point an active functioning member in a local church. So you would know the answer to the above question and you would also know the difference between that and the old testament prophets. But now I am wondering so please clarify ... when you were attending the local church meetings was prophesying practiced, if so, when did prophesying occur, and what were you told was the purpose?

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

>alb “Why then the LC keeps insisting every member to "prophesy"?

Alb,

I am really puzzled by this comment. If I recall, I thought you were at some point an active functioning member in a local church. So you would know the answer to the above question and you would also know the difference between that and the old testament prophets. But now I am wondering so please clarify ... when you were attending the local church meetings was prophesying practiced, if so, when did prophesying occur, and what were you told was the purpose?

Thanks
Drake

No worry. The LC did a good job reminding me the concept of prophesying from time to time. Just that all of a sudden Evangelical said "the lord saith" must be added to speak God's revelation. I couldn't help wondered why no one in the LC told me this important piece of informaton before. Have we been speaking only our own concept instead of God's word all the time?

Now that he clarified the old testament prophecy and new testament prophecy are different. I am fine with that. Only I couldn't help wonder how did this "the lord saith" requirement began and how did it end. I don't recall coming across this in the scripture.

But I don't have the energy to further pursue this for the time being. It was a bit exhausting understanding the way Evangelical thinks. Still need to answer his reply.

[Drake]

-1

Ok alb. It just looks like you were becoming combative in the last few posts by disagreeing about teachings and practices I’m sure you already understood. It’s expected we will disagree about most topics but being or having been a member of a local church you already knew the answer to your question. So no need for the banter on those items. Plenty of topics to sort through.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ok alb. It just looks like you were becoming combative in the last few posts by disagreeing about teachings and practices I’m sure you already understood. It’s expected we will disagree about most topics but being or having been a member of a local church you already knew the answer to your question. So no need for the banter on those items. Plenty of topics to sort through.

Drake

Praying for you Drake.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ok alb. It just looks like you were becoming combative in the last few posts by disagreeing about teachings and practices I’m sure you already understood. It’s expected we will disagree about most topics but being or having been a member of a local church you already knew the answer to your question. So no need for the banter on those items. Plenty of topics to sort through.

Drake

Combative? No. May be zealous. There are things I am urged to say. May be one day all these will make sense...

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Easy. It's not a quote because it doesn't contain quotation marks.

Haha, what else can I say?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A verse which says God requires us to obey the Lord to be saved is definitely not revealing Christ which is about His righteousness saving us, not our own works or morals.

Hurray, we finally come full circle. Micah 6:8 says obey the Lord to be saved and this is just the prophet's own concept because the footnote said so. Right?

Once again I failed to convince you. But I think I've said enough. Nice talking to you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Haha, what else can I say?

Hurray, we finally come full circle. Micah 6:8 says obey the Lord to be saved and this is just the prophet's own concept because the footnote said so. Right?

Once again I failed to convince you. But I think I've said enough. Nice talking to you.

I learned long ago that LCers can never be convinced of anything. Remember I was once one myself, and was willing and ready to lay down my life for the cause.

Then why write? Twofold, firstly it helps the writer un-leaven his understanding of the many fortified strongholds we have developed over the years in the LSM system. Interactions, challenges, defenses, post replies, all the while digging thru the scriptures, have become invaluable to me personally. Leavened teachings abound in the LC's, and this forum can help remedy that. "Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump."

Secondly, I always remind myself that I am also writing for the unknown reader, the lurker. New forum members continually testify that they have been reading the forum, sometimes for years, before working up the courage to actually post. Current members do them a great service by the back-n-forth rehash of the same teachings they hear in the meetings. I say let the reader decide! This forum does not "poison" anyone, rather it gives the reader choices. It's like going away to college and learning all your classmates are atheists. You need to "know whom you believe in."

So I say present all your best arguments, and when challenged, dig some more. At that point I usually quit. Let them supposedly have the "last word." No one can convince them. I did not remain in the LC because LSM "won" every argument, rather until this forum developed, I never got to hear the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I learned long ago that LCers can never be convinced of anything. Remember I was once one myself, and was willing and ready to lay down my life for the cause.

Oh come on! You are an LCer and you are convinced. I am an LCer and I am convinced. I think we could easily get 10 or more who #I'm convinced.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Secondly, I always remind myself that I am also writing for the unknown reader, the lurker. New forum members continually testify that they have been reading the forum, sometimes for years, before working up the courage to actually post. Current members do them a great service by the back-n-forth rehash of the same teachings they hear in the meetings. I say let the reader decide! This forum does not "poison" anyone, rather it gives the reader choices. It's like going away to college and learning all your classmates are atheists. You need to "know whom you believe in."

So I say present all your best arguments, and when challenged, dig some more. At that point I usually quit. Let them supposedly have the "last word." No one can convince them. I did not remain in the LC because LSM "won" every argument, rather until this forum developed, I never got to hear the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.

Great word Ohio.

A Little Brother - you'll find that the use of words like "combative" are being used very intentionally. I love what Ohio said, as it is so true... write for the Lurkers - contributors like Drake or Evangelical are only fooling themselves, their contribution to the forum are ironically the best testament against Witness Lee's church. A casual reader following this thread can read what is going on.

Even though I love seeing this light being shined (albeit unintentionally)... It still hurts my heart to see guys like Drake.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So I say present all your best arguments, and when challenged, dig some more. At that point I usually quit. Let them supposedly have the "last word." No one can convince them. I did not remain in the LC because LSM "won" every argument, rather until this forum developed, I never got to hear the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

A Little Brother - you'll find that the use of words like "combative" are being used very intentionally. I love what Ohio said, as it is so true... write for the Lurkers - contributors like Drake or Evangelical are only fooling themselves, their contribution to the forum are ironically the best testament against Witness Lee's church. A casual reader following this thread can read what is going on.

Even though I love seeing this light being shined (albeit unintentionally)... It still hurts my heart to see guys like Drake.

Thanks Ohio and Leastofthese for your encouraging words. I will cetainly continue to voice out what I have to.

Leastofthese, it hurts my heart too. But it helps me slightly understand how Jesus felt when He saw His sheep scattered.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Haha, what else can I say?



Hurray, we finally come full circle. Micah 6:8 says obey the Lord to be saved and this is just the prophet's own concept because the footnote said so. Right?

Once again I failed to convince you. But I think I've said enough. Nice talking to you.

Based on your interpretation of Micah 6:8 you seem to believe in obedience /law-keeping for salvation rather than by faith alone:

Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on your interpretation of Micah 6:8 you seem to believe in obedience /law-keeping for salvation rather than by faith alone:

Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The matters Lee speaks of in the footnote are even weightier than the "weightier matters" Jesus refers to in Matt 23. Remember you're a Christian not a Jew. Next time you tithe you don't have to donate 10% of your cumin.

If you can't accept a straight forward message from God and even Jesus' words don't carry enough weight for you, I don't know whether you are capable to understand the more excellent way.

But I can test the water first. Let me start with this question...

Did Paul keep the law? Why or why not?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

If you can't accept a straight forward message from God and even Jesus' words don't carry enough weight for you, I don't know whether you are capable to understand the more excellent way.

But I can test the water first. Let me start with this question...

Did Paul keep the law? Why or why not?

No, Paul did not keep the law. He rejected it as "dung" when he found Christ.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, Paul did not keep the law. He rejected it as "dung" when he found Christ.

How could he then claim himself "as to the righteousness which is in the law, become blameless." (Phi 3:6) and "Neither against the law of the Jews nor against the temple nor against Caesar have I sinned in anything." (Acts 25:8)? How come he followed the ritual law in Acts 21:26?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

How could he then claim himself "as to the righteousness which is in the law, become blameless." (Phi 3:6) and "Neither against the law of the Jews nor against the temple nor against Caesar have I sinned in anything." (Acts 25:8)? How come he followed the ritual law in Acts 21:26?

His blamelessness in Phi 3:6 indicates a person who became morally righteous but did not have Christ.

That was before he knew better. Paul was on a transition between being a full Jew to half Jew eventually to someone who could rebuke Peter for being too Jewish, and finally creating Christianity as we know it today where we can eat pork and work on the Sabbath if we want to. That's the sort of freedom Christ died for.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on your interpretation of Micah 6:8 you seem to believe in obedience /law-keeping for salvation rather than by faith alone:

Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.

Who obeyed the Father? Who saw the Father always before Him? Paul? Witness Lee? Or do we say, rather, nobody? Do we really say that no one ever obeyed? Then what of Jesus Christ? It amazes me that we so assiduously look away from Christ. What happens to our gospel when we say no one can obey the Father?

At one point, you said that I promoted David as a "perfect type" of Christ, or some such (I go by memory). I never said that. David sinned; Christ did not. But even the sinner's prayer in Psalm 51, for example, has NT echoes. Jesus said, "Forgive US our trespasses". Us. Us. Us. I cannot overemphasize that the Son of Man included HIMSELF in the prayer (sorry for the all-caps). No He did not sin, but as the High Priest He prayed, "Us" and the Fathe heard His word. He took on flesh and blood, yet He sinned not. Yet His purity did not separate Him from sinners, but brought sinners near to God. Christ prayed, "forgive us" and the Father heard. Suddenly humanity had an advocate.

So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by aron

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.
...
So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

Aron, hope you don't mind my jumping in while you wait for Evangelical's reply.

I totally agree with you that Micah points us to Christ and Christ is the one who can perfectly fulfill God's requirments.

On the other hand, we often use this type of sentence structure: "It is not about...., it is about...". This could be just a figure of speech. But I found WL used this very extensively. When he mentioned one truth, he usually used this to deny another thing to elevate the truth he mentioned. Very often, it is not that the truth he mentioned was wrong, but he had simultaneously denied another piece of God's truth.

Mat 23:23 reminds me I should not lose sight of either the light or weightier matters.

I would rather say Micah's utterance isn't only about us, it's also about Christ.

(Hope I didn't sound to legalistic. )

[Drake]

-1

>"Mat 23:23 reminds me I should not lose sight of either the light or weightier matters."

Alb,

A weightier matter of what?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

>"Mat 23:23 reminds me I should not lose sight of either the light or weightier matters."

Alb,

A weightier matter of what?

Drake

of whatever God wants us to listen to and obey.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.

Who obeyed the Father? Who saw the Father always before Him? Paul? Witness Lee? Or do we say, rather, nobody? Do we really say that no one ever obeyed? Then what of Jesus Christ? It amazes me that we so assiduously look away from Christ. What happens to our gospel when we say no one can obey the Father?

At one point, you said that I promoted David as a "perfect type" of Christ, or some such (I go by memory). I never said that. David sinned; Christ did not. But even the sinner's prayer in Psalm 51, for example, has NT echoes. Jesus said, "Forgive US our trespasses". Us. Us. Us. I cannot overemphasize that the Son of Man included HIMSELF in the prayer (sorry for the all-caps). No He did not sin, but as the High Priest He prayed, "Us" and the Fathe heard His word. He took on flesh and blood, yet He sinned not. Yet His purity did not separate Him from sinners, but brought sinners near to God. Christ prayed, "forgive us" and the Father heard. Suddenly humanity had an advocate.

So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

If we say "no one can obey the Father" this is normally understood to exclude Christ.

I don't fully agree that Jesus was including Himself in the Lord's prayer with "forgive us our sins". This implies that Jesus was a sinner like us.

To me He was demonstrating to his disciples how to pray. As a demonstration, he was not making a prayer to the Father at that time which would include Himself, but demonstrating what they should say.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we say "no one can obey the Father" this is normally understood to exclude Christ. .

Suppose Peter gave a gospel message on Psalm 16 and said how it was vain, that nobody could please God. And you said, "What about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead" and Peter said, "I am excluding Christ".

Why would we exclude Christ?

What kind of a gospel message are we preaching, if we exclude Christ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't fully agree that Jesus was including Himself in the Lord's prayer with "forgive us our sins". This implies that Jesus was a sinner like us.

To me He was demonstrating to his disciples how to pray. As a demonstration, he was not making a prayer to the Father at that time which would include Himself, but demonstrating what they should say.

The High Priest offers for the sinners. He may indeed say, "Father forgive them" their offenses. But as a human being, who partook flesh and blood, who was touched with our weaknesses, the High Priest may in fact say, "Forgive us our trespasses" without loss of meaning, or power, or efficacy.

I know my response is personal, and idiosyncratic, but I see Lee's response as subjective as well. I apologize if I've been disrespectful. I just don't like a system in which only one person has a response and everyone else has to say, "Wow! what a revelation!" What kind of function is that if we all have to be "ministry cheerleaders" which occasionally includes deliberately turning away from Christ?

You want to exclude Christ. I don't. I want to see Christ. And he is right there, in scripture, in front of us. "My sheep hear My voice". Listen for His voice, He is calling to you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Micah 6:8 isn't about Paul, nor is it about WL. It isn't the "NT elders enjoying grace". It isn't you nor I. It's Jesus.

The subject of the NT is Jesus Christ. The OT points to Jesus.

Who obeyed the Father? Who saw the Father always before Him? Paul? Witness Lee? Or do we say, rather, nobody? Do we really say that no one ever obeyed? Then what of Jesus Christ? It amazes me that we so assiduously look away from Christ. What happens to our gospel when we say no one can obey the Father?

At one point, you said that I promoted David as a "perfect type" of Christ, or some such (I go by memory). I never said that. David sinned; Christ did not. But even the sinner's prayer in Psalm 51, for example, has NT echoes. Jesus said, "Forgive US our trespasses". Us. Us. Us. I cannot overemphasize that the Son of Man included HIMSELF in the prayer (sorry for the all-caps). No He did not sin, but as the High Priest He prayed, "Us" and the Fathe heard His word. He took on flesh and blood, yet He sinned not. Yet His purity did not separate Him from sinners, but brought sinners near to God. Christ prayed, "forgive us" and the Father heard. Suddenly humanity had an advocate.

So when you speak of "keeping the law" and don't talk of Christ, it simply baffles me. How can we believe unless we see the Obedient, Spotless, Sinless Lamb of God? He obeyed the Father.

Micah's utterance isn't about you, sorry. It's about Christ.

In chapter five Micah reaches the high peak of his prophecy concerning Christ. Then in chapters six and seven, which we will cover in this message, he descends to a much lower plain. His prophecy in chapter five is great, but his prophecy in chapters six and seven is not great but is very much according to the human concept. (Life-Study of the Minor Prophets, Chapter 25, Section 1)

Whereas many Christians appreciate verses such as Habakkuk 3:17-19a, we need to be brought into another realm, the realm of Christ. These verses are not according to the divine revelation concerning Christ but according to the prophet's natural, human, and religious concept. (Life-Study of the Minor Prophets, Chapter 29, Section 2)

Everyone needs to be advised. Witness Lee's teaching concerning "all scripture is God breathed and profitable" includes his authority to decide which Prophets have the divine vision and which don't. With James he gets to decide when James is clear on the NT and when he isn't. With Psalms he decides which Psalms are the human concept, which are the divine concept and which are a little of both.