What is God's Economy?

[DistantStar]

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

It's a concept of church history which parallels the restoration of Israel/Judah to the good land after being conquered and carried off to foreign lands by Assyria and Babylon, recorded in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekial. Like Israel, supposedly all was lost of the truth and the proper church during the Dark Ages, and starting with Luther, God slowly "recovered" all the lost truths, with each successive generation building on the one before.

LSM and the LC's claim to hold this unique distinction. They claim that the rest of Christianity has never returned to the "proper ground" in Jerusalem to rebuild the "temple" of God. Thus they alone are the true testimony of Jesus.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They claim that the rest of Christianity has never returned to the "proper ground" in Jerusalem to rebuild the "temple" of God. Thus they alone are the true testimony of Jesus.

That explains their condescending view of other churches. But why use the word "economy"? Or are they using it as a kind of synonym for "recovery"? "Economy" seems out of place.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

That explains their condescending view of other churches. But why use the word "economy"? Or are they using it as a kind of synonym for "recovery"? "Economy" seems out of place.

I think Ohio misread you, and answered for the "Lord's recovery". Supposedly the church got degraded, then God raised up specially anointed vessels like Martin Luther, Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee to recover the truth. Sorry, only one Specially Anointed Seer per age (generation), so don't apply. Also supposedly the "age of spiritual giants" is now over, because Witness Lee recovered all possible truth from the Bible.

What you were referring to is known as "God's economy", and it means that salvation is by getting filled with the Spirit of God and this will "Sonify" you or "Divinize" you. Make you God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

So salvation isn't dead works but inner filling with the Holy Spirit which transforms you into the same image, from glory to glory. They also call it "dispensing".

But it seems to me, having been out of that group for some time now, that they miss the idea of obedience. Their idea is, Just get filled, and enjoy God, and you will become God bye and bye (that's colloquial English for at some point, eventually).

But it is Jesus' obedience that gives us hope. We the unrighteous see the Righteous One, and live. And then He calls us, and says, "Follow Me". Follow Him how? Dispensing? No, obeying. "Even as I obeyed the Father's commandments, so you obey My commandments."

But how can we obey, if we are the sinful, disobedient ones? Because by faith we see Jesus before us. Like Peter who looked out of the boat, and saw Jesus there, walking. "Lord if this is indeed You, bid me come". By faith we follow Jesus. By faith we see Him (this is only by the Spirit that we see Him[Jo 15:26]), and by faith we follow. He calls His sheep by name, and they hear His voice, and follow.

Anyway, that's my alternative to "dispensing" and "God's economy".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

That explains their condescending view of other churches. But why use the word "economy"? Or are they using it as a kind of synonym for "recovery"? "Economy" seems out of place.

I'm sorry. In my haste I read the question to be what is "recovery?" Oops.

[Freedom]

The way that the LC uses the phrase God's economy highlights a lot of what is wrong with the LC. The word economy, as it is found in the RcV, is used in place of words like stewardship or administration which are found in other versions. The meaning is the word is the same, but LCers think that this word economy that they (through the help of Lee) have supposedly stumbled across was some great secret in the Bible.

Go and ask any Christian if God has an administration/stewardship and you should get a resounding ‘yes’. Ask an LC member if Christians outside the LC know about God’s economy and you will probably get ‘no’ as an answer, along with a lecture about how ‘degraded’ other Christians are.

In other words, economy represents a common and perhaps unspoken understanding about how God operates, but what the LC has done is to turn it into a buzzword. You will hear phrases like “remaining in God’s economy…” or “the central lane of God’s economy” and it leaves you wondering just what the really mean when they use it. Of course, lots of members know only how to throw around these words and phrases, but as it turns out, it is an attempt on the part of LC leaders to refocus everyone on something other than God, that being the ministry of WL.

In the LC, the construct of God's economy is what they believe everything to revolve around. They even believe it to be a basis by which to reject certain of the Psalms or even whole books of the Bible like James. As aron mentioned, God’s economy is thought to result in the eventual deification of the believer. So when you take a step back and look at what is going on, the LC has taken a relatively simple understanding of how God operatates, and told members that they must submit themselves to that understand/paradigm rather than God himself. As Christians, we know that God is a manager, that He is arranging things on our behalf, but we don’t fully know what He’s doing or how He’s doing it, so there’s really no such thing as “seeing” or “leaving” God’s economy. That’s not our decision to make.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by aron

What you were referring to is known as "God's economy", and it means that salvation is by getting filled with the Spirit of God and this will "Sonify" you or "Divinize" you. Make you God in life and nature but not in the Godhead.

It was this kind of thinking which made me want to run to the door at light-speed and never look back. Nothing scares me more than someone saying "Ye shall be as gods".

Originally Posted by aron

But it seems to me, having been out of that group for some time now, that they miss the idea of obedience. Their idea is, Just get filled, and enjoy God, and you will become God bye and bye (that's colloquial English for at some point, eventually).

I experienced the same thing. More than once they said that we shouldn't live with a view of things as "right" and "wrong". They believe that the Forbidden Tree was the tree not only of evil, but of good also. This confused me immensely. Are they saying that Good is Evil? That doesn't make sense.

Since I got saved I've tried to live a cleaner and more righteous life. I believed (and I still do) that we should always strive (with pain if necessary) to do what is Right. For a while I fell for their view of not having to do what is right. It was only after watching seminars by Ray Comfort that I realised that I was right and they were wrong.

(I know Comfort is a controversial man, but look up America's Greatest Sin and Hell' Best Kept Secret).

But thanks. I could never completely understand what they meant with the "god-man".

Originally Posted by Freedom

The meaning is the word is the same, but LCers think that this word economy that they (through the help of Lee) have supposedly stumbled across was some great secret in the Bible.

This is one of the first things I've noticed. The idea of a "secret" which other Christians know nothing of was very weird to me. I merely dismissed it as not being that important. I didn't realise that they put that much emphasis on it.

Isn't it disturbing how the LC, whether the church itself or Christians on Campus are all so alike? I understand common teachings here and there, but this is extreme. I live in South Africa and I read posts by people in the US, Philippines and Germany, and you all have curiously similar experiences.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sorry. In my haste I read the question to be what is "recovery?" Oops.

I guess it was my mistake. I confused "Lord's Recover" with "God's Economy". But I wasn't so sure what they meant by the "recovery" as well. So thanks anyway

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by testallthings

.................

Thanks for the information.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I guess it was my mistake. I confused "Lord's Recover" with "God's Economy". But I wasn't so sure what they meant by the "recovery" as well. So thanks anyway

These were distinctly loaded words which were drummed into us by Lee. It was always The Recovery or The Lord's Recovery. Likewise it was always God's Economy or God's New Testament Economy.

Lee presented these and other concepts as the long lost recovered secrets unique to his ministry and the entire movement. I can go anywhere in the world, throw out a couple of these coded catch phrases, and be instantly recognized as an insider. On the other hand, if I say any of these in other churches, they immediately scratch their head and wonder about me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

It was this kind of thinking which made me want to run to the door at light-speed and never look back. Nothing scares me more than someone saying "Ye shall be as gods".

The verse you quote from Proverbs is apt: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end is death". The LSM Local Church is all about what 'seems right'. They make a big deal of seeming to be rooted in orthodox Christian history and theology. But they've got hidden histories (quarantines, rebellions, storms, lawsuits, bankruptcies) and hidden esoteric theologies and practices, teetering at the brink of heterodoxy, the end of which is isolation and death.

The best way to survive in the Local Church is to practice tight information control. They'll fixate on verses which seem aligned with their theology, and dismiss the "fallen" or "natural" verses that don't line up with "God's New Testament Economy." Related, their version of Church history is absurdly truncated. It's as if there were maybe a dozen or twenty noteworthy Christian authors and thinkers between the age of the apostles and today. Certainly Nee and Lee would brook no peers. So you get a very strange view of the church - supposedly only one or two selected pockets of light; the rest is darkness and can be safely ignored, or even disparaged.

My own take is this: in the first century, there was no "New Testament" and those who lived the events and wrote them down constantly appealed to the scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. But over time the NT writings were held (rightly) to be authoritative in their own. But as oral traditions dropped away and the canon of scripture became more or less fixed, what was said became less important than what was written. This is completely opposite of the first two centuries, where the oral tradition was sacrosanct and written materials were less trusted. (for example, today you can find an Apocalypse of Peter and Acts of Paul and Thecla etc. A lot of books were being written, not all of them aligned with actual events). To know the "truth" in the second century, you'd have to find someone who'd been discipled by one of the original apostles, or by one of their followers, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

By the Reformation at the end of the Middle Ages, the burgeoning Protestant theology, supported by the idea of "Scripture alone", began to re-examine all the texts with their theology in mind, and only their theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

The problem that I see is that the Protestant theologians had the scripture, and their reasoning, or logic, but almost no supporting material. So things could mean whatever they needed to mean for a coherent picture to hold in place. Now, this was still a great advance because there were a lot of smart fellows (it was mostly men who did the heavy thinking; women were held to be too emotionally unstable); but they were still limited in their ability to understand the New Testament texts as the original authors and readers might have. The surrounding conversations and shared understandings were almost fully gone from view. Again, think of the OT; when I grew up in Protestantism the OT was held to be merely a book of "law" (which we know couldn't save anyone - salvation is by grace alone), history, and poetry/wisdom, and some garbled apocalyptic prophecy.

So the table was set for anyone like Nee or Lee to come along and say, "This means that". Oikonomia to Lee means dispensing, calling on the Lord and being filled in spirit/Spirit. Oikonomia in Lee's Local Church doesn't mean stewardship, responsibility, faithful and continual obedience to one's set of tasks from the Master of the house.

What ultimately made the Witness Lee group so wretchedly deformed in understanding and practice was that anyone who'd raise their hand and say, "Hey, not so fast- maybe Oikonomia means responsibility and continual obedience more than merely dispensing" would be charged with being ambitious, divisive, factious, and rebellious. I'm not kidding - in the Local Churches if you attempt to think critically that's verboten. Only the Oracle can think, and reason. The Oracle said, "This means that" and that's it.

I'm a Protestant who sees the Local Church as a cautionary tale for Protestantism gone very wrong, an isolated splinter sect clearly gone off the deep end ("You and your followers have gone into the ditch"[Lu 6:39; Mat 15:14]). Today we can humble ourselves and be open to all believers, not just those who think "exactly the same", and admit we don't know the last word, and don't have the final say on "truth". Today I'm slowly becoming a student of the Word, connected to my fellow students. And that means students of all Scripture, not just a few epistles from the NT which seem beguilingly "high", e.g. Philippians and Colossians. The people who wrote the NT were deeply rooted in shared understandings of first-century Jewish thought. They just happened to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

To ignore first-century Jewish thought as somehow passe is to miss a large part of what was conveyed in NT writings. Lee of course missed this almost completely. In his eyes, scripture could be whatever he needed for his organizational contingencies and merchandising operation. And yes he was a merchandiser; of words and ultimately of the bodies and souls of men. Today there are dozens or perhaps hundreds of young people out there "serving the ministry" on college campus (that's your friendly neighbourhood Christians on Campus group).

[TLFisher]

It's a term by which Witness lee claimed to recovered and profited from financially. It's been said Lee's content in the 1964 Economy of God conference were notes from T.A. Sparks' messages. Most likely messages T.A. Sparks had given during 1950's.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by aron

I'm a Protestant who sees the Local Church as a cautionary tale for Protestantism gone very wrong, an isolated splinter sect clearly gone off the deep end ("You and your followers have gone into the ditch"[Lu 6:39; Mat 15:14]).

A very good point which I will consider in the future.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

It's a term by which Witness lee claimed to recovered and profited from financially. It's been said Lee's content in the 1964 Economy of God conference were notes from T.A. Sparks' messages. Most likely messages T.A. Sparks had given during 1950's.

Very interesting.

[OBW]

DistantStar,

(First, I must admit that my Freudian slip would be to call you DarkStar, referring to a song by CSN back in the 70s.)

The Lord's economy, or "God's Economy" is taken heavily from the opening verses in 1 Timothy. Specifically 3 & 4. If you read the opening chapter of his book on the subject, Lee mentions no other verse and argues a peculiar meaning that is essentially not taken by any other. And he uses some tricks of argumentation to stop the listener/reader from questioning his certainty of position. For example, he says something like "a thorough investigation of the entire Bible will reveal that . . . ." Of course, no one is going to actually do such an investigation. And he has hinted that he has done it. And declared that it will reveal his answer. So you either go along or you have to start into just such an investigation.

In the realm of logical discussion, his method is designed to provide no actual information but suggest that the requirements to contradict are so difficult as to be impossible, thus shutting off debate. The astute arguer will simply reject such an assertion and ask for actual evidence that it is so.

On top of that, Lee takes the two verses in which Paul says (in so many words) stop certain ones from preaching garbage which results in problems rather than resulting in "God's economy." (Whether you like the term "economy," it is one of the reasonable words into which it is translated.) But that means that A results in B while C (unmentioned but implied) results in D. Garbage teachings result in problems (A --> B) while good teachings result in God's economy (C --> D). The issue at hand is teachings. You can presume which kind of teachings based on what they produce.

The "problems" are not the garbage teachings (not saying that the teachings are not problems, but that they are not their own result) but are the result of the garbage teachings. And God's economy is not the good teachings, but the result of them.

Yet Lee then insists that the thing that should be taught is "God's economy." He then declares that it is simply God dispensing himself into man (what the thorough investigation was about) and says that is what should be taught. In other words, the C --> D structure is invalid and Paul's parallelism is destroyed. Good teachings don't result in God's economy. The only good teachings are God's economy. And they produce something else.

But that isn't what Paul said. So no matter how much some of us may still like some things about the whole "God's economy" teaching, it was created through a serious mishandling of scripture. (by a master mishandler, IMO)

If you are on board with him, then turn to chapters 2 and following and you will get "enlightened." But if you are not on board, those chapters wills start to fall apart. I started looking at the first chapter when someone started quoting from a much later chapter to try to support some Lee/LCM construct that was just too crazy to buy (at this point in time). Did that open my eyes to the way Lee worked. (I have to admit that my reading of Lee's works prior to that were almost always quick scans. Lee was hard to read and didn't really do much for me.)

And given that the rest (of The Economy of God) is somewhat a house of cards, even if he got some of it from TAS, I doubt that the things that were emphasized to us were actually from TAS because I don't think TAS taught that kind of nonsense.

[JJ]

OBW has done a good job of describing Lee's version of "God's Economy".

I've done a Word study on the word that is translated economy "oikonomia" in the Recovery version in some instances, stewardship in others, and dispensation in yet others. And I've come to some conclusions:

1) The word stewardship is a better translation than economy whenever it occurs in the New Testament and conveys what it means better than economy.

2) It would be helpful to stick with the word stewardship and steward when "oikonomia" occurs, instead of flopping back and forth (as many other translators also do) to simplify the understanding.

3) God's oikonomia is the stewardship of God's grace entrusted to His servants to announce to both Jews and Gentiles that God's eternal plan is to head them and all things up in Christ (as Paul defines it in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians).

4) According to 1 Timothy 1:5 the end (or goal) of Paul's charge to Timothy is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith, something that was sorely lacking in TLR.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

God's oikonomia is the stewardship of God's grace entrusted to His servants to announce to both Jews and Gentiles that God's eternal plan is to head them and all things up in Christ (as Paul defines it in Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians).

Nice summary, and findings. I wanted to comment on one point. To me, the key to understand scripture is not to study Paul in isolation, but to approach Paul through Jesus. Jesus was the Master, Paul the disciple.

Thus, 'oikonomia' as translated 'stewardship', with the associated meanings of continual obedience to a charge or responsibility (in this case distribution of household goods and management of those affairs) should color any reading of Paul's ideas of 'economy' or 'dispensing arrangements' [. . .''of the Processed and Consummated Triune God'']. For example, see Jesus' parable on the "unrighteous steward" in Luke 16, where Jesus uses this specific word (vv. 2,3)

Otherwise we may get distracted, seized upon by a word that fancies us, and get taken somewhere neither Paul nor Jesus intended us to go. As brother HERn noted well, "Satan is a gospel preacher". . . don't let people use the Bible to make merchandise of you.

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 2:3

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (KJV)

[aron]

Also apropos of nothing, really: it may well be that Lee's usage of "God's economy" wasn't his idea but was cribbed from the same 19th century sources that Vincent and Alford used, and which were often re-used by Lee with the barest of re-packaging.

Originally Posted by YP0534

I reviewed several of the works I'm in the process of doing some indexing of and discovered that, gasp, Lee's reference to the very phrase "divine economy" in the very sense he meant it (on the over-arching side vs. the dispensing side) has precedent in these works. "Economy" was apparently a somewhat familiar term of art for Bible scholars of the era referring to a dispensation or the dispensations of the ages. Thus, "God's economy" in the sense of God's entire plan in His universal administration is simply not something that could be attributed to Lee as his invention. .

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Thus, 'oikonomia' as translated 'stewardship', with the associated meanings of continual obedience to a charge or responsibility (in this case distribution of household goods and management of those affairs) should color any reading of Paul's ideas of 'economy' or 'dispensing arrangements' [. . .''of the Processed and Consummated Triune God'']. For example, see Jesus' parable on the "unrighteous steward" in Luke 16, where Jesus uses this specific word (vv. 2,3)

Otherwise we may get distracted, seized upon by a word that fancies us, and get taken somewhere neither Paul nor Jesus intended us to go. As brother HERn noted well, "Satan is a gospel preacher". . . don't let people use the Bible to make merchandise of you.

In the LC, a scenario I saw replayed many times is where a newcomer would ask what is meant by the word economy, and then LCers would tell define it as "a stewardship". If that is how LCers would indeed define it, then why not use the word stewardship to begin with? Obviously, Lee's true intention in using a unique rendering was to given him the ability to define things as he saw fit. I find that the word economy has a less precise meaning when compared to stewardship. At face value, economy is claimed to mean the same thing as any other rendering. In practice, it takes on a particular meaning in the LC, unbeknownst to outsiders.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Also apropos of nothing, really: it may well be that Lee's usage of "God's economy" wasn't his idea but was cribbed from the same 19th century sources that Vincent and Alford used, and which were often re-used by Lee with the barest of re-packaging.

I was looking at a parallel list of renderings for 1 Tim 1:4, and I noticed that both the ASV and Darby versions use the word dispensation. It's kind of interesting when you consider how much Lee was influenced by Darby. Dispensationalism is another subject all together, but it seems to me that such a 'lens' goes hand in hand with an underlying presumption of understanding everything that God is doing.

Some like Lee have sought to define various 'ages', starting points, ending points, key players, God's 'thought' during that age. It all sounds not much different than what Paul calls "endless genealogies". I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with such a lens, but it all goes back to what is being presumed. If someone wants to presume that at a certain point in time, God was doing X as part of His plan, it may very well be a possibility, but the same token, the door should be left open to consider alternatives. More importantly, the whole point of what Paul was talking about is that such things are minor and it is questionable as to how much time/discussion they are deserving of.

If people want to obsess themselves with plotting events on timelines, or determining which person 'turned' each age, and so on, then they should realize that such an undertaking is a genealogy of sorts. Above anything else, it is a distraction from the more important things. Finally, to insist upon any extrapolated understanding or interpretation is perpetuating a 'myth', and that was exactly what Paul warned about.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

If people want to obsess themselves with plotting events on timelines, or determining which person 'turned' each age, and so on, then they're undertaking is a genealogy of sorts. . . and to insist upon any extrapolated understanding or interpretation is perpetuating a 'myth', exactly what Paul warned about.

"Then out of the ignorance and darkness, God raised up the ministry of Watchman Nee" is a genealogy of sorts. . . then to buttress the idea that Nee was God's Seer of the Divine Revelation, and Deputy God on earth, one must concoct myths, or ecclesiastical versions of Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories". See, for example, There is One Apostle Per Age, which lasts until Witness Lee who's the final High Peak Oracle, etc. . .

My cultural reference is to "fantastic accounts of how various phenomena came about", per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

[Evangelical]

God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god. What does "become god" mean? It means man might partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In short, God became a man so that man might become god. In general Christian theology this is called divinization (deification, making divine, or theosis).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god.

God speaks the word to humankind, which word is Spirit and life (even Jesus is called the Word), and this Spirit (which is God) operates in the human vessel to transform them into the same image. Okay, fine. Redemption, transformation, transfiguration; okay, fine.

So just masticate the processed and consummated Triune God and become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead, right? Fine, right?

But, God also speaks the word to angels, who are vectors of the divine will. And is God's speaking to angels a different word, or a different Spirit? I daresay no. Additionally, Angels are made in God's image (Rev 21:17; Gen 18:1,2); angels are also called "sons of God" (Psa 82:6 [cf Jo 10:34]; angels even appear in a kind of proto-trinitarian expression of glory - the glory of the Son and the Father and the holy angels (see e.g. Lu 9:26; Mark 8:38).

And angels obviously are never argued in orthodox Christianity as "god in life and nature but not in the godhead". For scriptural basis see Heb 1:4,5; see also the angel's response to John's awe at his glorious appearance - "Do not worship me; worship God" (Rev 19:10; 22:9). Angels are ministering spirits, not god either in or out of the Godhead.

It seems as if Lee was saying, "Based on this, and this, and this, we see 'x'." So I say, Fine, but based on this, and this, and this, we also do not see 'x'. So we're reduced to making a sort of special pleading, or case, simply because we prefer it to be so. That's the only 'simply' here. God's economy simply means 'x', because Lee simply preferred it to mean 'x'. Otherwise, it isn't so simple at all. As Jesus simply told the scribes, "Do you not know the scriptures?" That's what someone should have said to Lee. But nobody could say that, because, as we all know, he was Deputy God. Don't question Lee - even when he's wrong (which is often). Anyone who ever tried to point out the emperor's lack of apparel got ejected forthwith from the assembly.

What happens with Lee's teaching is that instead of humanity restored as a an agent or vector of the divine will, to obey and serve God, we're given a story of "Grace on steroids", in which we don't have to do anything but be filled with the Triune God, and then we become God in life and nature. Obedience - who can be obedient? All men have sinned. Etc. Righteousness - we don't care about right and wrong! We just care about life! Etc. It just becomes a case of swapping words around, and getting dazzled by or emotionally invested in our own sleight-of-hand tricks.

[Evangelical]

How is your argument any different to those who say of grace "let us do evil so that good may come"? To suggest as you do that to be filled with God (life and nature) implies disobedience, unrighteousness and not doing His will is not accurate. Lee never makes that assertion, and it goes against everything that "God in life and nature" means. But some may claim that of Lee's teachings as some may also claim that of the doctrine of grace (arminianism vs calvinism).

"we don't care about right and wrong" means we don't care about following the dead letter of the law. "we just care about life" means following the spirit of the law. The language is not precise and ANY Christian catchphrase is bound to be misinterpreted (such as "saved by faith alone"), but the meaning is obvious to anyone who knows the Bible. Again, this is Lee's Calvinism becoming evident.

Unlike the verses in Genesis about mankind, there is no explicit verse in the Bible describing angels as "made in God's image", particularly not in Rev 21:17. Of course all of God's creation must share some attributes or likeness of the Creator. But God places mankind in a special place above the rest of creation (Psalm 8:4). The reason for this is because mankind is created in God's image. God holds in high regard His creation which He created as a portrait of Himself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Unlike the verses in Genesis about mankind, there is no explicit verse in the Bible describing angels as "made in God's image", particularly not in Rev 21:17. Of course all of God's creation must share some attributes or likeness of the Creator. But God places mankind in a special place above the rest of creation (Psalm 8:4). The reason for this is because mankind is created in God's image. God holds in high regard His creation which He created as a portrait of Himself.

There also is no explicit verse in the Bible describing man as becoming God in life and nature. And all the supporting material to buttress your preferred meaning, like being glorified, is also used elsewhere, yet there it's not supporting the idea of becoming God. So to say that the whole thing can be summed up 'simply' that God wants to do thus, to end up thus, is to grossly oversimplify the narrative. It never explicitly says what Lee says it all meant, and to support his meaning he had to do a rather crude cut-and-paste job with scripture. Ultimately, all that supports his "God's economy is simply this" is that he said it was so; it was a confidence game, and we got merchandised. How many books did he sell, saying "God's economy is simply this"? I can think of several. Thick, shiny, impressive-looking books.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I was looking at a parallel list of renderings for 1 Tim 1:4, and I noticed that both the ASV and Darby versions use the word dispensation. It's kind of interesting when you consider how much Lee was influenced by Darby. Dispensationalism is another subject all together, but it seems to me that such a 'lens' goes hand in hand with an underlying presumption of understanding everything that God is doing.

It reminds me of a physicist who sits at home with his 19th century books on physics. Does experiments, puts in long hours, arguably makes contributions to the field, but because he won't read anything published after 1922, he's horribly out of date. Yet he thinks his zeal and effort will cover for his disdain for any other scientist but himself. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Relying solely on Darby or Wuest or the 1901 ASV for your meaning, and ignoring all other scholarship since, is like insisting to fly from New York to California in a Ford TriMotor because that was state-of-the-art in 1928.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/new...he%201930s.htm

Sorry but the world has long passed you by. Wake up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god.

What does "become god" mean? It means man might partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In short, God became a man so that man might become god. In general Christian theology this is called divinization (deification, making divine, or theosis).

I don't see the connection between God's economy (oikonomia) and deification (theosis.) They are different concepts. Lee taught God's economy for a quarter century in the US before he took up the so-called "high peak" teachings of Athanasius and the Eastern Orthodox.

Economy refers to the administration in God's house to minister the riches of Christ to God's children. To this end the apostles were given a stewardship, which is the office of this administration to minister, shepherd, teach, preach the gospel, etc. for the household of God.

The Bible says that many wonderful things result from the stewardship: the farm grows, the house is builded up, and the members are edified, perfected, etc. The Bible never says that we become God, and it had ample opportunity to do so, but did not. Athanasius may have taught it, but his writings are not scripture. The Eastern Orthodox church may still hold on to it, but that no more authorizes the teaching than for the Mormons to teach it too.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

There also is no explicit verse in the Bible describing man as becoming God in life and nature. And all the supporting material to buttress your preferred meaning, like being glorified, is also used elsewhere, yet there it's not supporting the idea of becoming God. So to say that the whole thing can be summed up 'simply' that God wants to do thus, to end up thus, is to grossly oversimplify the narrative. It never explicitly says what Lee says it all meant, and to support his meaning he had to do a rather crude cut-and-paste job with scripture. Ultimately, all that supports his "God's economy is simply this" is that he said it was so; it was a confidence game, and we got merchandised. How many books did he sell, saying "God's economy is simply this"? I can think of several. Thick, shiny, impressive-looking books.

There is no surprises about Lee's manner of communication and style. Short, catch-phrase statements that are bound to be misinterpreted and misunderstood. What Lee actually means by "God's economy" is not unique to him. Probably it comes from Watchman Nee, or others. Actually I encountered this teaching first not with Lee but with various pentecostal churches I attended prior to attending the local church. So you could say I was familiar with it. Lee is not unique in having 'discovered' this revelation. Dig a little deeper and "man becoming God" is found in the writings of early church fathers and a form of this doctrine exists in mainstream denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, etc).

"God in life and nature" is Lee's attempt to precisely define what "become god" means. I understand his use of "God" here is not God the person but God the substance, as in His divinity. Another way to say this is that we do not become God as in His person, but we share His nature.

Many Christians would probably accept man "becomes like God", but I think Lee prefers "becoming God" to emphasise that the process by which man "becomes like God" is the termed "organic union" between man and God. "Becoming God" is another way to say "becoming divine".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't see the connection between God's economy (oikonomia) and deification (theosis.) They are different concepts. Lee taught God's economy for a quarter century in the US before he took up the so-called "high peak" teachings of Athanasius and the Eastern Orthodox.

Economy refers to the administration in God's house to minister the riches of Christ to God's children. To this end the apostles were given a stewardship, which is the office of this administration to minister, shepherd, teach, preach the gospel, etc. for the household of God.

The Bible says that many wonderful things result from the stewardship: the farm grows, the house is builded up, and the members are edified, perfected, etc. The Bible never says that we become God, and it had ample opportunity to do so, but did not. Athanasius may have taught it, but his writings are not scripture. The Eastern Orthodox church may still hold on to it, but that no more authorizes the teaching than for the Mormons to teach it too.

The connection is there in Lee's definition of "God's economy". Probably not in the 'mainstream' definition as you describe. It is possible to have "God's economy" without theosis, as in a cup which is filled with water but the cup is not changed or affected by the water. Alternatively, "God's economy" and theosis, is like a (cardboard?) cup which not only holds the water but absorbs the water. Lee uses the symbolism of the mixture of "tea and water" in a cup of tea. Early church fathers used the concept of an metal and fire which to me is more accurate.

Important concepts such as "saved by faith alone", and the Trinity, are not "explained by the Bible", either. We could probably make a long list of concepts held in Christianity for which a clear Bible verse cannot be found.

To make very clear that Lee is not the originator of this doctrine, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (on the Vatican website) states:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

2 Peter 1:4 says we "partake of the divine nature". This is not about whether we receive the Holy Spirit or not, but about whether this Spirit changes us or not. If the Spirit changes us, then we are, in essence, "partaking of the divine nature". If we "partake of the divine nature", then we are, in essence, "becoming god", where "god" means His nature, not His person.

To use more biblical language. We could say that Christ is the vine and we are the branches. The branch must be the same substance as the vine, the branch not only part of the vine but is the vine.

Another way to say this is using the biblical terminology of 'sonship'. In some Protestant circles the idea of sonship is merely an adoptive status as a son of God, where God "considers" or "reckons" a person to be a son. But this does not consider the nature-changing effect of the inward dwelling of the Spirit. Historically as can be seen by the Catholic definition, the understanding of sonship in the church was believers being made sons in life and nature, or in other words, being made divine.

To some, to become "like Christ" means we will copy Him in word and deed, as in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, etc. The original meaning of becoming "like Christ" means to become a human being with both humanity and divinity. That is, to become like Christ in His person, not merely to outwardly copy His words and actions.
In fact, the outward words and deeds should be an expression of the inward change.

In the Bible "son of God" is the same as saying "God". If we say we are "sons of God" in essence we are saying "we are God". This was also the Jewish understanding in the time of Christ - for a Christian to even say they are a "son of God" is blasphemous (John 10:30-33). Probably we might say we are "sons of God" and that God is our "Father" without really understanding what it means - the divinization of humanity.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee is not unique in having 'discovered' this revelation. Dig a little deeper and "man becoming God" is found in the writings of early church fathers and a form of this doctrine exists in mainstream denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, etc).

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

Strange Bedfellows—W. Lee Appeals to the Roman Catholic Church
This hypocrisy is heightened when W. Lee, having denigrated the Roman Catholic Church for decades, appeals to their teaching as endorsement for his doctrine. He says, “the Catholic Church is also paying attention to this matter of deification. Not long ago a brother showed me that the Catechism of the Catholic Church,*recently published by the Roman*Catholic Church. [It] presents the following: ‘...Why Did the Word Become Flesh? The Word*became*flesh to make us “partakers of the divine*nature” (2 Pet. 1:4)...“For the Son of*God*became*man so that we might become God” (St.*Athanasius,*De inc.,*54, 3).*“The only-begotten Son of*God...assumed our*nature, so that he...might*make*men*gods”*(St. Thomas Aquinas,*Opusc. 57:1-4).” Witness Lee then comments, “Here we see that the Catholic Church teaches that the believers in Christ can*become*God...”172 LSM’s Local Church and the Roman Catholic Church make strange bedfellows; yet they both endorse a doctrine of deification. W. Lee consistently vilified the Roman Catholic Church as “apostate”, “satanic,” “religious Babylon,” and the “great prostitute.” Now he uses their teaching to support his doctrine, saying, “We see that the Catholic Church teaches that the believers in Christ can*become*God.” But what is the value of that endorsement—the endorsement of the “apostate, satanic, religious Babylon”? Isn’t it hypocritical, on the one hand to denounce Roman Catholicism and, on the other hand, to appeal to their teaching as an endorsement?

An argument for the validity of a teaching cannot be based upon what other groups believe. I do not buy such an argument for even a second.

[OBW]

While stewardship may generally be the better understanding of the term for purposes of the scripture, there is something about the way that everything about the Christian and the church was distilled into that one term "God's stewardship" or "God's arrangement" that made those verses in 1 Timothy seem to be talking about everything as it would relate to the Christian — life, worship, prayer, etc. — and the workings of the church that makes "dispensing" or even "stewardship" kind of weak in explaining all it meant.

If I read Paul's words right, then everything that comes out of teachings to be obedient, righteous, meek, merciful, lovers of God, lovers of neighbor, in submission to one another (and a whole lot of other "one anothers"), and many more things is what constitutes "God's arrangement." It is not just "grace." Unless you define that so broadly as to be all-encompassing.

The right teachings set the whole of the Christian life in order. The wrong teaching create a lot of questions and rabbit trails (like angels on the heads of pins). There is no place for suggesting that there is a lack (need more dispensing). Peter dispensed with that idea (we have everything we need for . . . .)

God's economy is not so mysterious. It is the whole enchilada, so to speak. It is not "simply" anything. It is everything.

And when everything seems messed up, then that might be the sign that there is something wrong with the teachings.

And when it seems right (not necessarily splendid physically, but spiritually right) then it is probably the result of good teachings.

And a great morning watch over bad teachings is like sprinkling holy water on pig feces. You might be rescued a little from it all. But you have been focused on error. It just doesn't go anywhere good.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

An argument for the validity of a teaching cannot be based upon what other groups believe. I do not buy such an argument for even a second.

"other groups" are largely responsible for why we are Christians today and what we believe, yes even Catholicism. Yet it is not Catholicism per se from which the teaching about become gods comes, but the man Athanasius. He played a role in the formation of the New Testament canon, namely being the first to rightly identify the New Testament canon. In other words, the New Testament canon you hold dear today is in part due to the man who spoke about "man becoming god". "man becoming god" may not be explicitly found in scripture, but it is not heresy either.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

While stewardship may generally be the better understanding of the term for purposes of the scripture, there is something about the way that everything about the Christian and the church was distilled into that one term "God's stewardship" or "God's arrangement" that made those verses in 1 Timothy seem to be talking about everything as it would relate to the Christian — life, worship, prayer, etc. — and the workings of the church that makes "dispensing" or even "stewardship" kind of weak in explaining all it meant.

If I read Paul's words right, then everything that comes out of teachings to be obedient, righteous, meek, merciful, lovers of God, lovers of neighbor, in submission to one another (and a whole lot of other "one anothers"), and many more things is what constitutes "God's arrangement." It is not just "grace." Unless you define that so broadly as to be all-encompassing.

The right teachings set the whole of the Christian life in order. The wrong teaching create a lot of questions and rabbit trails (like angels on the heads of pins). There is no place for suggesting that there is a lack (need more dispensing). Peter dispensed with that idea (we have everything we need for . . . .)

God's economy is not so mysterious. It is the whole enchilada, so to speak. It is not "simply" anything. It is everything.

And when everything seems messed up, then that might be the sign that there is something wrong with the teachings.

And when it seems right (not necessarily splendid physically, but spiritually right) then it is probably the result of good teachings.

And a great morning watch over bad teachings is like sprinkling holy water on pig feces. You might be rescued a little from it all. But you have been focused on error. It just doesn't go anywhere good.

Decades ago people were still grasping the concept of a "personal relationship with God" as opposed to "doing things". That was an improvement over the works-based doctrines prevalent in Christianity. Lee, Nee and others, have further clarified this, that it is not merely a buddy friend "personal relationship" with God, as if God and His children were separated, but a so-called "organic union" between God and man. In a world where Christianity is mostly about outward things, God's economy brings us back to the inward things. It is fine and accurate to say we have a personal relationship with God, because we may pray to Him regularly and go to church. But if we have the same temper, or lust problem we had when we were first saved, what is the benefit? Only if God somehow changes us from the inside, can we be truly changed.

People generally understand that they have to put food and water into their bodies to grow, they have to feed their children, and they need to water and fertilize plants for them to grow and bear fruit. Can you teach a person or plant to grow? No you cannot. Teaching does not cause spiritual growth. However it may facilitate spiritual growth if it leads towards the source of (living) water, that is, Christ.

Dispensing is related to everything in the Christian life and without dispensing the Christian life is not genuine.

Is not the most important thing in the universe to be saved? (who wants to spend an eternity in hell?).
Are we not saved by being "born again" ?

So my question is - can we be "born again" without God's dispensing?

God's dispensing as I understand it, is simply filling an empty cup (human vessels) with water (the Holy Spirit).

An empty cup is not much use for anything. A cup is not designed to be empty (humans are not meant to be without God). A full cup is better than an empty cup (I just explained salvation, in a nutshell). Many billions of full cups is even better than a single cup (I just explained the universal church, in a nutshell). Then again billions of cups becoming a huge bucket of water is even better (I just explained the ONE universal church and genuine Christian unity, in a nutshell).

Dispensing is essentially the purpose and meaning of the human life. To say God's economy is "simply" dispensing is not to trivialise its importance, but to emphasise its simplicity. If we can understand how a cup is filled with water, then we can understand God's economy.
To understand its practical application is harder, but again, if we understand that biological systems do not grow by themselves or by teaching, but by feeding and watering (dispensing), then we can understand the practical side as well. The practical side is seen in the fruit of our spiritual growth.
Spiritual growth is simply the removal of things from us that are not God (negative things such as bad habits and sins), and the addition of things that are God (which is God Himself). If we can look back on our life and see a change in us over time, then we have observed the practical result of God's economy, namely, His dispensing. We may well call this being conformed to the image of the Son.

Spiritual growth is not, how many church services you attend, how much you pray or read the Bible, how good and pleasant you are outwardly (human ethics), it is everything to do with God's dispensing and the outward effects of that. Our giving, our service, our prayer, worship, how we treat other people, and how we react to circumstances, are all an outward effect of the inward change that the Holy Spirit has accomplished in us.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"other groups" are largely responsible for why we are Christians today and what we believe, yes even Catholicism.

Jesus is responsible for why I am a Christian.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Decades ago people were still grasping the concept of a "personal relationship with God" as opposed to "doing things"..

The blended brothers of LSM and the elders of the Local Churches are blinded to the reality that Christ has millions of lovers of Jesus and vital children in thousands of groups not controlled by LSM.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

The blended brothers of LSM and the elders of the Local Churches are blinded to the reality that Christ has millions of lovers of Jesus and vital children in thousands of groups not controlled by LSM.

If these millions of lovers of Jesus love Him so much why are they in "thousands of groups"? They cannot even love each other let alone love Jesus.

John 17:21 - a true lover of Jesus seeks oneness and not division, because that's what Jesus wants.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If these millions of lovers of Jesus love Him so much why are they in "thousands of groups"? They cannot even love each other let alone love Jesus.

John 17:21 - a true lover of Jesus seeks oneness and not division, because that's what Jesus wants.

Silly Evangelical, the Lord Jesus does not see denominations, He sees His bride! Only divisive blended brothers and elders see denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

2 Peter 1:4 says we "partake of the divine nature". This is not about whether we receive the Holy Spirit or not, but about whether this Spirit changes us or not. If the Spirit changes us, then we are, in essence, "partaking of the divine nature". If we "partake of the divine nature", then we are, in essence, "becoming god", where "god" means His nature, not His person.

Another way to say this is using the biblical terminology of 'sonship'. In some Protestant circles the idea of sonship is merely an adoptive status as a son of God, where God "considers" or "reckons" a person to be a son. But this does not consider the nature-changing effect of the inward dwelling of the Spirit. Historically as can be seen by the Catholic definition, the understanding of sonship in the church was believers being made sons in life and nature, or in other words, being made divine.

To some, to become "like Christ" means we will copy Him in word and deed, as in healing the sick, feeding the hungry, etc. The original meaning of becoming "like Christ" means to become a human being with both humanity and divinity. That is, to become like Christ in His person, not merely to outwardly copy His words and actions. In fact, the outward words and deeds should be an expression of the inward change.

I spent my best 30 years attending to the ministry of Witness Lee, believing that he lived what he ministered. Then I learned that there was an incredible "disconnect" in his life. I emphasized your words above highlighting your own convictions that what is preached must be practiced. I and others on this forum are saying they do not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Jesus is responsible for why I am a Christian.

Amen to that!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If these millions of lovers of Jesus love Him so much why are they in "thousands of groups"? They cannot even love each other let alone love Jesus.

John 17:21 - a true lover of Jesus seeks oneness and not division, because that's what Jesus wants.

Are you serious, Evangelical?

The Blended Brothers lived, worked, and served with scores of brothers over the years whom they later quarantined, slandered, and even sued.

They can't even love the brothers identical to them, let alone their enemies, as Jesus has instructed us. The Blendeds Brothers only love those who are in subjection to them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

Silly Evangelical, the Lord Jesus does not see denominations, He sees His bride! Onily divisive blended brothers and elders see denominations.

Jesus may overlook this, for the sake of the gospel and keeping the peace, but I believe it is still on His heart.

Jesus only built one church and prayed for unity, not division.

Everyone attending their own denomination and claiming they are "one" , in spirit, or whatever (but not in practice), is not genuine unity in my view. A step in the right direction but not at the goal.

The other way, the way that the Recovery took, is to separate from the divisions, and start a new unity. This works provided the new unity remains a unity and does not divide itself again.

There is a risk that the new unity become another division, it seems this is what has happened in practice, by holding to the teachings of Lee/Nee and not Christ. Well, this forum is evidence of that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious, Evangelical?

The Blended Brothers lived, worked, and served with scores of brothers over the years whom they later quarantined, slandered, and even sued.

They can't even love the brothers identical to them, let alone their enemies, as Jesus has instructed us.

I don't deny the hypocrisy, but take away the problem for a moment (Blended Brothers), and possibly the LSM etc. What is left is local churches, they have the Bible, the Spirit, and each other, and they probably are an OK representation of the unified Body of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't deny the hypocrisy, but take away the problem for a moment (Blended Brothers), and possibly the LSM etc. What is left is local churches, they have the Bible, the Spirit, and each other, and they probably are an OK representation of the unified Body of Christ.

So Evangelical, you are willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the Blended Brothers and LSM, but not the hypocrisy of the rest of the body of Christ. Have you not become a "respecter of persons?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus may overlook this, for the sake of the gospel and keeping the peace, but I believe it is still on His heart.

Jesus only built one church and prayed for unity, not division.

Everyone attending their own denomination and claiming they are "one" , in spirit, or whatever (but not in practice), is not genuine unity in my view. A step in the right direction but not at the goal.

The other way, the way that the Recovery took, is to separate from the divisions, and start a new unity. This works provided the new unity remains a unity and does not divide itself again.

There is a risk that the new unity become another division, it seems this is what has happened in practice, by holding to the teachings of Lee/Nee and not Christ. Well, this forum is evidence of that.

Have not the Blended Brothers also divided the Body of Christ in practice when they excommunicated the country of Brazil and the GLA, where I am from?

These divisions were formed because the Blended Brothers in practice held on to the teachings of Lee, and not Christ.

Based on not learning from history, I can guarantee that their new unity in the Recovery will one day be divided again.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

take away the problem for a moment

Evangelical,

I appreciate your coming to an arguably unfriendly sphere and trying to support the notion of "God's economy" as presented to us from scripture. But I really wonder if we can separate the problem from the teaching. That's like taking away the fruit from the tree, and pretending it was a different tree. But the fruit reveals the tree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is left is local churches, they have the Bible, the Spirit, and each other, and they probably are an OK representation of the unified Body of Christ.

They also have teachings that need serious re-examination. So let's try again?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god.

Let's look at the first part, the dispensing part. You have the cup filled with water analogy, or the glove filled with a hand analogy. Then you have the Holy Spirit operating within the redeemed human vessel. "No longer I but Christ". Fine and good.

But there's something crucial lacking with the 'simply dispensing' idea. God has a kingdom, and God uses agents. God dispenses so that we can be responsible stewards. Jesus was the progenitor. He was the Faithful Son. We the unfaithful saw the One True Son, the Obedient Lamb of God, and repented and turned back, and received eternal life. Now what? Dispensing? No - obedience. Dispensing is for sustained responsibility, attention, and obedience, not for mere 'enjoyment' and divinization.

Look how Jesus' closest follower, who observed Him day and night for 3+ years, described His life and ministry: "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." Jesus went around doing good. He even told His disciples, that His food was to do the Father's will. He told them, be doers, not merely hearers of the word.

In contrast, the "God's economy" metric produced three behaviours: First was to go to meetings and sit in chairs and listen to messages. Second was to make noise: sing, pray, praise, call "Lord Jesus" and "Amen" and pray-read verses from the Bible, later to pray-read words of expository ministry. "Let's all stand up and declare Stanza Three together!" Third was to go out and recruit others to participate in the first two practices.

That's it. Very little outflow of life. No attention to Jesus' commands to spend yourself on those who couldn't repay you in this age. In fact we were actively discouraged by "the ministry" from wasting our time with those who couldn't advance the ministry's cause in the short term.

Jesus on the other hand would heal ten lepers (interestingly, by sending them to the priests[Lu 17:14], the very ones who later turned on Him), only one of whom came back to thank and praise God. The other nine - gone. But Jesus had healed all ten! And so forth: the Samaritan woman, cripples, drunks and orphans. One after another, Jesus brought the light of the kingdom into the darkest holes. By contrast, God's economy turns people into timid, emasculated, organisation-centric navel-gazers. Noisy navel-gazers, to be sure, but paralyzed, hyper-subjective, introspective, and self-absorbed. Trying to "make it". Trying to be filled. Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

Now, as far as being 'made god', that's really above my pay grade, so I'll bow out. My only comment is that Athanasius isn't our source here; he was pre-dated by Origen by 150 years. Origen, if I remember rightly, thought that all would eventually be saved, including disobedient angels, and all would become God, including obedient angels. Everything and everyone becomes divine, eventually. Higher and higher, everyone goes, until all return home. Merged back into the Father, our source.

Which idea I'm not particularly fond of, as attractive as it seems. Anyway, listing Athanasius as your ideational source is probably incomplete, or even incorrect.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

By contrast, God's economy turns people into timid, emasculated, organisation-centric navel-gazers. Noisy navel-gazers, to be sure, but paralyzed, hyper-subjective, introspective, and self-absorbed.

That's why Titus Chu used to call us "yellow-bellied-push-button-robots."

He blamed the problem on us, however, and never on the source in Anaheim.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

I, too, appreciate your willingness to discuss the LC teachings with us in such a civil way. I'm not opposed to doing that, but sometimes with these kinds of things you can just go around and around because often we are discussing a teaching's theoretical fruit, rather than its actual fruit.

In other words, whenever you approach any teaching, you have to look around and honestly assess what the fruit of the teaching is. What does it, in the final analysis, really produce? This is what Jesus meant when he said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

So what's the fruit of the natural abilities teaching, or the local ground teaching, or the minister of the age teaching, or the 'don't be negative' teaching? Are these teachings producing good fruit, or are they producing something else?

It's not good enough that teachings sound good. The question is how have they stood the test of being implemented in practice. Do they hold up? And Lee's more proprietary teachings seem to produce more followers of Lee than followers of Christ. The teachings I mentioned above, and a lot more, seem to be geared to keep people in the LCM as much as anything else.

If you feel like you cannot leave the LCM for any reason, then you are not a follower of Christ, you are a follower of Lee. And that is not good fruit. If you feel like you cannot question Lee or must defend him at the cost of dividing yourself from the rest of the Body, then you are not a Christ follower, you are a Lee follower.

Real Christ followers can follow the Lamb wherever he goes, including right out of the LCM if he so leads them. If you don't believe that then the fact is you are more a Lee follower than a Christ follower.

Producing a group which is dismissive of all other Christian works other than the .001% performed by itself is NOT good fruit. It's bad fruit. It's the same old bad fruit that has been produced by umpteen other little enclaves in church history who thought they had to be special to be significant.

So we can discuss the theoretical correctness of teachings all day long. But until you really and honestly start assessing their fruit, it will lead nowhere.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Decades ago people were still grasping the concept of a "personal relationship with God" as opposed to "doing things". That was an improvement over the works-based doctrines prevalent in Christianity. Lee, Nee and others, have further clarified this,..

A lot of popular theology phrased in Lee's way, plus some peculiar Leeology. I'm not going to respond point-by-point. That you want to call what ultimately happens "dispensing" is fine. But that was the thing that was declared to be the whole of God's economy.

And I say that is nonsense. It is entirely dismissive of all that God does in and through us.

While I do not entirely dismiss the "personal relationship with God" teachings, they are for the most part a creation of recent thinking. Maybe more like a new label on old theology. But it is so constantly wrapped in the activities of a fully-literate population doing things that only a very few could do much more than 200 or so years ago that I think the crux of what is called "personal relationship" is about doing a lot of personal reading. Reading that a large portion of the world couldn't (and somewhat still can't) do. Deep-dives into complex studies of the scripture.

Before that, the most that many had to consider for an entire week was what they could remember from their last sermon. And that might not even be entirely straight scripture. There was a reason for creeds. It was repetition of small amounts, not continuous wandering through endless analyses of scripture, that most people could even hope to deal with in their lives.

And we gripe about how poor those people and their ways were. Their poor reliance on doing what they learned from sermons and their liturgy.

So we throw it all off, dig deep into the scripture, and think it is all about high theology, yet don't even try to DO what is commanded. We argue about who we shouldn't count as being our neighbor so we don't have to love them. We belittle the works of the faithful as we are unfaithful because we have done the modern equivalent of pledging our parent's help to the temple so we don't have to support them.

All in the name of a personal relationship that has no practical application to today's living.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why Titus Chu used to call us "yellow-bellied-push-button-robots."

That's like the abuser blaming the victim. "If you weren't such a pathetic loser, I wouldn't be forced to treat you this way." Gee, thanks hon, I love you, too.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I, too, appreciate your willingness to discuss the LC teachings with us in such a civil way. I'm not opposed to doing that, but sometimes with these kinds of things you can just go around and around because often we are discussing a teaching's theoretical fruit, rather than its actual fruit...

Lee is an example, or "spiritual father" as per 1 Corinthians 11:1. We do not follow him.

How many people saved through Lee/Nee's ministry? That is the answer to your question about the fruit of the teachings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I appreciate your coming to an arguably unfriendly sphere and trying to support the notion of "God's economy" as presented to us from scripture. But I really wonder if we can separate the problem from the teaching. That's like taking away the fruit from the tree, and pretending it was a different tree. But the fruit reveals the tree...

The kingdom is God's dispensing as well. Just like water cannot "rule" a cup unless the water is in the cup. God cannot rule a person unless He dwells in their heart. Without God's dispensing there is no ruling (throne, kingdom). The kingdom is "simply" God's dispensing. The kingdom ruling produces obedience (in those who are willing and not actively resisting the Spirit).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have not the Blended Brothers also divided the Body of Christ in practice when they excommunicated the country of Brazil and the GLA, where I am from?
These divisions were formed because the Blended Brothers in practice held on to the teachings of Lee, and not Christ.
Based on not learning from history, I can guarantee that their new unity in the Recovery will one day be divided again.

Matt. 18:15-18 "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In this verses, who is "the church"? If you can answer that, you have answered your own question about this.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

A lot of popular theology phrased in Lee's way, plus some peculiar Leeology. I'm not going to respond point-by-point. That you want to call what ultimately happens "dispensing" is fine. But that was the thing that was declared to be the whole of God's economy.

You seem to be implying that we, or the Reformers for that matter, should have been content with hearing and applying the unquestionable sermons of the Catholic Priest, rather than searching out matters for ourselves. Rather ironic, given the claims made here about Lee and his teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The kingdom is God's dispensing as well. Just like water cannot "rule" a cup unless the water is in the cup. God cannot rule a person unless He dwells in their heart. Without God's dispensing there is no ruling (throne, kingdom). The kingdom is "simply" God's dispensing. The kingdom ruling produces obedience (in those who are willing and not actively resisting the Spirit).

I categorically disagree. Look at the scenes where they're dispensing right and left, with no obedience. So what of it?

You have the Master giving talents to the servants, some of whom do business and some don't. What is giving talents but dispensing?

You have Paul writing, "Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful." (1 Cor 4:2 NIV) There are faithful stewards and unfaithful stewards. Both get dispensing.

You have Jesus saying, "Don't be hearers only of the word, but doers". By contrast, the "God's economy" metric was sold such that we could just come in to the LC meeting, fall asleep in the back, and have the assurance that we left with "more God" than when we came in. I heard this. Of course it was spoken facetiously, to laughter, but the message was consistent: stay in the ministry and you'll get God dispensed into you. This kind of thinking breeds passivity and introspection.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How many people saved through Lee/Nee's ministry? That is the answer to your question about the fruit of the teachings.

How many Christians became spineless jellyfish, afraid to function according to the Spirit's lead, because they might stand out as independent, or rebellious? How many Christians became program robots, afraid to think because that might be the natural man? Only the Oracle can think safely, right? The rest of us merely have concepts. Just say, "amen" to the Oracle. God's economy passes through the Ministry.

This is also the fruit of the teachings.

How many millions on the mainland PRC are under the hellish teachings of the Lee off-shoots? This, also, is "through Lee/Nee's ministry" as much as everything read into the Congressional Record. Lee claimed several tens of millions of shouters (and yes that's a name, and he said it approvingly) in China; then it imploded into cults worshiping people as deity incarnate (including Lee as Lord Changshou, among others), and who kidnap, brutalize, extort and brainwash. That's also the fruit.

We shouldn't be selective in our judgment of what is fruit. We should examine everything.

Ignorance and zeal is a dangerous combination. Lee would sell us some oversimplified mash, "The Kingdom of God is just 'x'" and we all thought, "Gee, this is great! Somebody did all the hard work for us. Just stand two by two and declare the Catchphrase of the Day, complete with fist pump, and sit down and you now have 'more God'". Patent nonsense. Sorry to be so disagreeable but I just don't see it. It's a dangerous oversimplification. Yes it's convenient; far too convenient, I'm afraid.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee is an example, or "spiritual father" as per 1 Corinthians 11:1. We do not follow him.

Okay, if you did follow him, how would that look different than what you are doing now?

How many people saved through Lee/Nee's ministry? That is the answer to your question about the fruit of the teachings.

Well, by that measure hardly anyone has been saved through the LCM since Lee came to the US. Certainly not in the last 30 years.

Beside, fruit is much more than getting people saved. Fruit is the net result of all our Christian efforts. So your answer was a bit of a dodge.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Matt. 18:15-18 "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In this verses, who is "the church"? If you can answer that, you have answered your own question about this.

That's your response?

Sounds like the Riddler, "riddle me this Batman ..."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's your response?

Sounds like the Riddler, "riddle me this Batman ..."

It is like the Riddler, who was too smart by half. By the time he simplified all the variables down, he'd put himself in a box of his own creation.

Nee was so smart that he could read all the books worth reading, extract the good from each one, and simplify everything down to an easy-to-digest formula for the masses. Nee was too smart by half. Here, "tell it to the church" becomes the entry-point into Nee's normal Christian life. You have a line of text turned into a systematic formula which now becomes an ideational lock-box.

The church, here, can be the larger Christian audience; it can even be the Gentiles, for that matter. It means tell it in public. Tell it from the housetops. No more private covering. Look at the 'ekklesia' dismissed by the Ephesian city clerk in Acts 19:41. Full of Gentiles. Remember Jesus taught of "My church"; there was also a church which was not of Jesus. It meant gathering, assembly, convention of persons for some purpose, religious including but not exclusively Christian. Only with the passage of much time did it become exclusively associated with Christian assembly(s).

Instead with Nee we got an ontological entity which was defined as thus-and-such, and importantly, as NOT thus-and-such, and once you agreed with Nee's asssertion he then had a hook to manipulate you. The basis of Nee's church was that it was NOT the running dogs of the West, the Denominations. Of course resentment against foreign incursion and domination was high, and rightly so. The angry masses were waiting for a hero, waiting to throw off the imperialist yoke. Nee couldn't say, "Out with the foreign devils" because that was unchristian. So he said, "Out with denominations" - the Brethren of UK gave him the fixed point, or fulcrum, to lever the flock into his indigenous, local (and 'local' was by definition Chinese) pen.

Once he had his flock, and his boogeyman, he was off to the races. Suddenly he discovered the Jerusalem Principle - no more local autonomous church! (Lee used this trick 40 years later when he 'recovered the Body'). Nee then 'recovered' Handing Over, Getting in Line, Deputy God and so forth. Nee could pull the flock wherever he wanted; didn't matter if Early Nee contradicted Later Nee, if it contradicted the word of the Bible, if it contradicted what Nee lived out, or if it contradicted common sense and human conscience.

Nope - follow the Seer of the Divine Revelation, or the Boogeyman (who you assented to, either passively or overtly) might get you. Don't want to be like Christianity, do you? Okay, hand it over. Get in line.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

Having a heart for oneness is fine. But saying that oneness needs to be realized by the model you prefer is something much different. Insisting on your model and calling everyone divisive who doesn't conform to it is itself divisive.

Jesus prayed for oneness, yes. But he never said use oneness as a general point of division. That's what the LCM does. They insist their model of realizing oneness is the best one, they expect everyone else to conform to it, and they write off everyone who doesn't. That, when you step back and look at it, is nutty. It's the worst kind of division.

In the first place, you can not know for sure that your model of practical oneness is the correct one or even the best one available. I know, I know, Lee sold it to you. But the fact is anything we cannot be sure of that we insist upon is unreasonable and thus divisive. The fact is the Lord didn't give us a outline for the model of how church should be realized. I believe he did this on purpose because if he had then all of church history would have been an even worse battle over who is doing it more correctly and who is the "real church."

Secondly, all you have to do is look at church history and at LCM history to realize (1) claiming to be a special part of the Church as a whole is a prescription for disaster and (2) the LCM has divided over and over itself! Basically the oneness of the LCM faction loyal to LSM is Lee, not Christ. You can claim it is Christ up one side and down the other. But the only people you are fooling is yourselves. Everyone else sees what you are.

In the end you are going to have to learn to think outside the LCM box. If you continue to just repeat, without thinking, the stuff they've fed you, and not do any research or thinking yourself then, my friend, you are wasting your time here. The people who post here are smart and they can think for themselves. Just repeating Lee-isms isn't going to cut it. Your theology and view of history need to make sense from top to bottom. And they don't. And if you'd really think about it you'd have to admit they don't. That's what you are missing.

I'm all for oneness. But your oneness is the oneness of unity around Lee, not Christ. If it was Christ you wouldn't be expecting everyone else to see things your way. You'd simply be practicing your Christian lives as best you can and respecting others who do so as well, knowing that you can never be sure that you have things exactly right, because the Lord hasn't, and probably won't, give any of us that knowledge.

[Cal]

The real test of oneness is not how you treat those who agree with you, who are inside your little band; the real test is how you treat those who don't agree with you, who are outside your band.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The church, here, can be the larger Christian audience; it can even be the Gentiles, for that matter. It means tell it in public. Tell it from the housetops. No more private covering. Look at the 'ekklesia' dismissed by the Ephesian city clerk in Acts 19:41. Full of Gentiles. Remember Jesus taught of "My church"; there was also a church which was not of Jesus. It meant gathering, assembly, convention of persons for some purpose, religious including but not exclusively Christian. Only with the passage of much time did it become exclusively associated with Christian assembly(s).

I agree with this. If your brother won't hear you, get another brother, and then eventually "go public." How "public" depends on the offense. If you both meet together, then go to the elders. If you don't meet together, then find some elder brothers, or perhaps sisters.

In the Recovery system, locality is basically a farce. In Nee's early ministry, he claimed that the highest church government was the local elders. In Nee's later ministry, however, he found the "Jerusalem principle" was more advantageous, where those at headquarters (under his direction, of course) could and regularly did overrule local decisions. Lee followed the same course of action in Taiwan. Then he came to America, and repeated what he had been trained to do. Eventually all the elders who do remain learn to make no decisions on their own, fearing the horrible "independent" label, and thus becoming almost useless to the great Shepherd of the flock.

So what does it mean to "tell it to the church" in the recovery system today? It simply means to "tell it to the Blendeds" in Anaheim. This regularly occurred in the leadership under Lee, well back to the '70's. Lee used to operate under what I call the "the law of first complaint," in other words, Lee would believe the dirt he heard without any further investigation. Why? Because it was useful to him. Titus Chu often complained about this, but unfortunately he operated the same way in the GLA. If LC leaders really believed in "local" churches, then they would never get involved in LC matters. It was never any of their business.

The unfortunate side effect of this non-Biblical management style was the endless suspicions and spying on one another, especially among the leaders. Why "go to your brother" personally, when you can "tell it to the church" by going directly to the Maximum Leader himself, scoring a few personal brownie points, embellishing the mud-slinging, and hoping that your rival "gets it" during the next get together. During many times in our history, "sleeper cells" arose, acting promptly on coded words from the podium, and fueling the rumor mill with fresh dirt.

If Evangelical really cared for Matthew 18.15-18, he would listen to what we are saying, examine what really has happened in the Recovery in the light scripture, and "consider his ways."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In the first place, you can not know for sure that your model of practical oneness is the correct one or even the best one available. I know, I know, Lee sold it to you. But the fact is anything we cannot be sure of that we insist upon is unreasonable and thus divisive. . . In the end you are going to have to learn to think outside the LCM box. If you continue to just repeat, without thinking, the stuff they've fed you, and not do any research or thinking yourself then, my friend, you are wasting your time here. .

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Evangelical really cared for Matthew 18.15-18, he would listen to what we are saying, examine what really has happened in the Recovery in the light scripture, and "consider his ways."

We have to give Evangelical credit: s/he has admitted that some things of the LC system were/are flawed, and appears to be willing to examine them critically, and see them objectively. Tilting toward objectivity, and considering others' viewpoints as valid, is essentially verboten in the LC.

Also s/he has cited Frank Viola who is a "local church" witness not of the LSM type, and therefore is not an LC "exclusive" (so I surmise).

And s/he also is coming here and posting on a board with essentially no allies and many who are willing to poke a sharp (metaphorical) stick into his/her ideas.

So let's not be judgmental and closed-minded. I know, maybe coming from me that's a hoot. But it needs to be said. Let's bend over backward to see if there's an argument worth defending.

Actually, on that point, there probably is an argument. A case to be made. A small case. But that case isn't reality. There are also other arguments, other views, other cases. That's why we have discussions: everyone learns. None of us are God, here. Evangelical is showing signs of thinking independently. Don't assume s/he is a program parrott.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical is showing signs of thinking independently. Don't assume s/he is a program parrott.

Thanks for the reminder. Sorry if I came on too strong.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be implying that we, or the Reformers for that matter, should have been content with hearing and applying the unquestionable sermons of the Catholic Priest, rather than searching out matters for ourselves. Rather ironic, given the claims made here about Lee and his teachings.

I do not deny that we should use the good (and now well-trained) minds that God gave us.

But the purpose of it all was not to be spiritual and go to the New Jerusalem. Yes, that is the final stage as described in Revelation. But is that really the goal? Some land of walls and cubits and gates and leaves, etc.? Or is it that the description of the return of the redeemed to the place as God's image bearers relative to the "nations" that continue to exist to the end? We read through a few chapters of a clearly metaphorical description of the spiritual war that goes on behind the daily battle of life that we face and then fail to realize that the ending is no less a metaphor.

We disdain those that speak of "going to heaven" then pine away for a different version of it. What it is difference?

But when I read the accounts of what Jesus said to the people (not just to the 12, or even the 70 or other number that were in training to be the leaders). I see talk about living righteously, even hungering and thirsting for it. I see the primary command for our lives being encapsulated in a single word. And the word is not "church," "saints," "economy," "dispensing," or any of the other things that so captured out minds in the LCM (and in many other places as well). The word was (and still is) "love." Love God and love neighbor as self. Try to read the gospels without the overlays of spirituality. Of everyone being an evangelist. Or a disciple (in the sense of the 12). What did Jesus teach the people?

And when we then go to read Paul, why do we think that he is given authority to dismiss what Jesus said? We would never admit to that. But we do it all the time when we presume that the Christian life is about seeking to be crucified with Christ. Or so many other "spiritual" things. But Paul didn't say to be crucified with Christ. He said because we are we should live differently. We should think on our fellow Christians differently that just what they are in natural terms (slave, slave owner, Roman, Jew, etc.)

You despise the sermon of the Catholic priest. And presume that I am suggesting we should still just be Catholic (or EO). But look at the actual sermons for the people. They were not about "the intrinsic processing of Christ as the Spirit for the revealing of the seven-fold intensified Spirit that now lives in our spirit." Or any other strictly "spiritual" nonsense that has no application to my drive home on 121 this evening. If you despise the sermons of the average Catholic priest, then you hate the ones Jesus gave to the people sitting on the side of a mountain. He didn't tell them some fancy constitution. He gave simple instructions in the ways of living righteously. He healed people and sent them home to live differently.

We have it all wrong. We were created to represent God as his image bearers but think that salvation is for the purpose of getting out of Dodge and to heaven or the New J. Not to bear His image in a dark, perverse world, but to escape to a meeting where we can be invigorated to tolerate the fallen world.

And I will return to the use of our good minds. John warned that there were some that had been among us who went out and were now a problem. But we know better than to be captured by their nonsensical teachings.

Returning to the use of our minds. It is through the mind that we realize what we are called to do. What is the right was to live. We read. Or we listen. And we respond. You want it to be an effort in significant thought to conclude what is to be done. But it is really quite simple. We hear the word. It commands and directs our living. Those who say that we should not do things because of a command are ducking from their unwillingness to obey. But it is not so hard to know what to do. And even the simple obedience arising from faith can do this. From those who hear those "poor" sermons and realize it is something they should do.

Do you think that if they do what they are told that they are somehow not "in the vine"? If so, please explain how you think that is true. I will muddy the waters by noting that what they are told to do is from the scripture. It is not contrary to the teachings of Christ, but is fully in keeping with it. What could possibly make them not "in the vine"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical is showing signs of thinking independently. Don't assume s/he is a program parrot.

The Bible is very balanced when we read it on our own. Once we read someone's books, however, we automatically become skewed in the writer's direction. That might not be a bad thing, but if that's all we have, then we really are not connected to the "pure word" of God.

Yes, the Bible does tell us that we are members one of another, and part of the body of Christ, and what we do affects other members, but the Bible also instructs us in many places to personally "test all things, hold on to the good" (I Ths 5.21), "prove by testing what the will of God is" (Rom. 12.2), and "prove what is well-pleasing to God." (Eph. 5.10) With much practice, we each will then have our "faculties exercised in order to healthily discriminate the good from the worthless."

We should never consider this personal practice to be "independent" thinking. Rather it is the kind of thinking that helps us by the Spirit to renew our minds and to work out our own salvation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I categorically disagree. Look at the scenes where they're dispensing right and left, with no obedience. So what of it?

You have the Master giving talents to the servants, some of whom do business and some don't. What is giving talents but dispensing?

You have Paul writing, "Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful." (1 Cor 4:2 NIV) There are faithful stewards and unfaithful stewards. Both get dispensing.

You have Jesus saying, "Don't be hearers only of the word, but doers". By contrast, the "God's economy" metric was sold such that we could just come in to the LC meeting, fall asleep in the back, and have the assurance that we left with "more God" than when we came in. I heard this. Of course it was spoken facetiously, to laughter, but the message was consistent: stay in the ministry and you'll get God dispensed into you. This kind of thinking breeds passivity and introspection.

Frequently, in the LR people are admonished to pray, prophesy, exercise their Spirit, call on the Lord.
If anything there is "peer pressure" to participate than fall asleep!
So I know that what you say here is just your own imagination and not the truth.

It is well known and taught that without exercising the spirit there is no spiritual growth. Contrast that with the denominations where only one man, pastor or priest, does all the speaking, and the congregation stays silent.
To believe, pray and read the Word, admonish others, prophesy is also obedience.
But we may compare the practical side as well.
If there is "no obedience" as you claim, who has distributed tens of thousands of Bibles in Europe and other places?
Why are there many university students coming to the Bible studies on campus?
Why are new churches being planted and why are new people being baptized?
These folk are more active than I've seen in any local denomination and your average "pew sitter".
In fact I believe that when compared side by side, an average local church is "doing" much more than an average local denominational church.
And what it is doing is probably more in line with God's command to preach the Word and spread the gospel, than your average denominational church which is running the "Sunday raffle" to raise money.

Originally Posted by aron

How many Christians became spineless jellyfish, afraid to function according to the Spirit's lead, because they might stand out as independent, or rebellious? How many Christians became program robots, afraid to think because that might be the natural man? Only the Oracle can think safely, right? The rest of us merely have concepts. Just say, "amen" to the Oracle. God's economy passes through the Ministry.

This is also the fruit of the teachings.

How many millions on the mainland PRC are under the hellish teachings of the Lee off-shoots? This, also, is "through Lee/Nee's ministry" as much as everything read into the Congressional Record. Lee claimed several tens of millions of shouters (and yes that's a name, and he said it approvingly) in China; then it imploded into cults worshiping people as deity incarnate (including Lee as Lord Changshou, among others), and who kidnap, brutalize, extort and brainwash. That's also the fruit.

We shouldn't be selective in our judgment of what is fruit. We should examine everything.

Ignorance and zeal is a dangerous combination. Lee would sell us some oversimplified mash, "The Kingdom of God is just 'x'" and we all thought, "Gee, this is great! Somebody did all the hard work for us. Just stand two by two and declare the Catchphrase of the Day, complete with fist pump, and sit down and you now have 'more God'". Patent nonsense. Sorry to be so disagreeable but I just don't see it. It's a dangerous oversimplification. Yes it's convenient; far too convenient, I'm afraid.

Your argument is flawed because one could easily say that Roman Catholicism and so many other heretical teachings and groups that came from the New Testament period and are based on the Bible, is evidence that the New Testament and the Bible produces bad fruit!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, if you did follow him, how would that look different than what you are doing now?




Well, by that measure hardly anyone has been saved through the LCM since Lee came to the US. Certainly not in the last 30 years.

Beside, fruit is much more than getting people saved. Fruit is the net result of all our Christian efforts. So your answer was a bit of a dodge.

Following Lee in the sense of replacing "following Christ", would include praying to him, worshiping him, and singing songs about him. I have never seen that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Following Lee in the sense of replacing "following Christ", would include praying to him, worshiping him, and singing songs about him.

Not at all. All you have to do is obey Lee instead of obeying Christ and you are a Lee follower instead of a Christ follower. I never said Lee worshiper, though I'm sure some have done that as well. But there are thousands of LCMers who put obeying Lee above obeying Christ. They would never admit it, but that's what they do.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not deny that we should use the good (and now well-trained) minds that God gave us.

But the purpose of it all was not to be spiritual and go to the New Jerusalem. Yes, that is the final stage as described in Revelation. But is that really the goal? Some land of walls and cubits and gates and leaves, etc.? Or is it that the description of the return of the redeemed to the place as God's image bearers relative to the "nations" that continue to exist to the end? We read through a few chapters of a clearly metaphorical description of the spiritual war that goes on behind the daily battle of life that we face and then fail to realize that the ending is no less a metaphor.

The LR believe in a metaphorical, physically-spiritual New Jerusalem, not a material one.

Originally Posted by OBW

We disdain those that speak of "going to heaven" then pine away for a different version of it. What it is difference?

But when I read the accounts of what Jesus said to the people (not just to the 12, or even the 70 or other number that were in training to be the leaders). I see talk about living righteously, even hungering and thirsting for it. I see the primary command for our lives being encapsulated in a single word. And the word is not "church," "saints," "economy," "dispensing," or any of the other things that so captured out minds in the LCM (and in many other places as well). The word was (and still is) "love." Love God and love neighbor as self. Try to read the gospels without the overlays of spirituality. Of everyone being an evangelist. Or a disciple (in the sense of the 12). What did Jesus teach the people?

And when we then go to read Paul, why do we think that he is given authority to dismiss what Jesus said? We would never admit to that. But we do it all the time when we presume that the Christian life is about seeking to be crucified with Christ. Or so many other "spiritual" things. But Paul didn't say to be crucified with Christ. He said because we are we should live differently. We should think on our fellow Christians differently that just what they are in natural terms (slave, slave owner, Roman, Jew, etc.)

The New Jerusalem is not a "different version of heaven". According to Revelation 21:2 New Jerusalem is not heaven because the Bible says it comes down from heaven. It is heavenly (in nature), but it is not heaven.

How are we going to do what Jesus said and be the person He want us to be?
How are we going to live righteously?
How are we going to heal people?
How are we going to put the sermons into practice?

We need the dispensing of the Holy Spirit for that. An engine doesn't run by itself without the right fuel inside of it, powering it.

The gospels by themselves is not the whole picture. We have Paul's writings that teach us about life in the Spirit so we can do and be everything we are supposed to do and be.

Paul (not Jesus) said this:

Galatians 3:3 says "Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"

Jesus told us what we have to be and do, but Paul told us how to do it.

This is why we need the teachings of God's economy etc which focus on the Spirit.

Contrast that with the denominations who talk about God, Father, Jesus, with barely any mention of the Spirit.

Witness Lee and Nee for the most part is just expounding Paul's ministry.

Originally Posted by OBW

You despise the sermon of the Catholic priest. And presume that I am suggesting we should still just be Catholic (or EO). But look at the actual sermons for the people. They were not about "the intrinsic processing of Christ as the Spirit for the revealing of the seven-fold intensified Spirit that now lives in our spirit." Or any other strictly "spiritual" nonsense that has no application to my drive home on 121 this evening. If you despise the sermons of the average Catholic priest, then you hate the ones Jesus gave to the people sitting on the side of a mountain. He didn't tell them some fancy constitution. He gave simple instructions in the ways of living righteously. He healed people and sent them home to live differently.

We have it all wrong. We were created to represent God as his image bearers but think that salvation is for the purpose of getting out of Dodge and to heaven or the New J. Not to bear His image in a dark, perverse world, but to escape to a meeting where we can be invigorated to tolerate the fallen world.

And I will return to the use of our good minds. John warned that there were some that had been among us who went out and were now a problem. But we know better than to be captured by their nonsensical teachings.

Returning to the use of our minds. It is through the mind that we realize what we are called to do. What is the right was to live. We read. Or we listen. And we respond. You want it to be an effort in significant thought to conclude what is to be done. But it is really quite simple. We hear the word. It commands and directs our living. Those who say that we should not do things because of a command are ducking from their unwillingness to obey. But it is not so hard to know what to do. And even the simple obedience arising from faith can do this. From those who hear those "poor" sermons and realize it is something they should do.

Do you think that if they do what they are told that they are somehow not "in the vine"? If so, please explain how you think that is true. I will muddy the waters by noting that what they are told to do is from the scripture. It is not contrary to the teachings of Christ, but is fully in keeping with it. What could possibly make them not "in the vine"?

To "bear God's image" we need God to live in us and shine forth out of us.This is what the teachings of God's economy, if applied, are meant to accomplish.
Otherwise we are just copycats, with the outward form but not the inward reality.

Practical righteousness is the goal or outcome of the church, saints, God's economy, dispensing. The way of God's economy ensures that it is of Him and not of ourselves. Without these things, we could not fulfill Galatians 3:3.

The average Catholic priest and protestant preachers do not focus upon the Spirit. Many, do not even focus upon Jesus. That is what I know as a fact from my time in the denominations.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not at all. All you have to do is obey Lee instead of obeying Christ and you are a Lee follower instead of a Christ follower. I never said Lee worshiper, though I'm sure some have done that as well. But there are thousands of LCMers who put obeying Lee above obeying Christ. They would never admit it, but that's what they do.

I cannot think of one instance where I have "obeyed Lee" given that:
a) Lee has passed on
b) He is not my local church leader
c) I never had the opportunity to meet him
d) I was never instructed to "obey Lee".

Therefore, I am not a Lee follower.

Is it fully scriptural to obey church leaders.

Now if you would claim that I am a "Lee follower" because most of the books on my shelf have his name on it, or because I use the Recovery Version,
then I would have to call you a follower of King James or Zondervan for using their versions of the Bible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible is very balanced when we read it on our own. Once we read someone's books, however, we automatically become skewed in the writer's direction.

I know the premise - lock ourselves away with just the Bible and the Holy Spirit makes us an expert theologian. If we happen to have some wafers and juice we can break bread with ourselves as well. Then we can "publish" our expert theology by writing down our thoughts and musings in a personal journal. There is no need to meet with anyone else or read anyone else's writings because we can be confident that we have not been "skewed in anyone's direction". But we are fooling ourselves, because when we read the Bible on our own, we automatically can become skewed in our OWN direction.

[Evangelical]

If I were to ask you, "I want to meet Jesus, where is Jesus", you could probably tell me, even though you never met Him in the flesh. If I was to ask you about how we are saved, you could probably tell me something about the cross 2000 years ago, even though you were not there.

But if I ask someone here on this forum what is "the church?", and more importantly where is "the church" today? You cannot tell me.

If I want to tell my problems to "the church" according to Matthew 18:17, where do I find it?

I do not want to tell it to "a church", I want it to be "the church".

For any of the bible verses about "the church" to be realized today, there must be some practical and visible expression of New Testament Christianity.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

Nice summary, and findings. I wanted to comment on one point. To me, the key to understand scripture is not to study Paul in isolation, but to approach Paul through Jesus. Jesus was the Master, Paul the disciple.

Thus, 'oikonomia' as translated 'stewardship', with the associated meanings of continual obedience to a charge or responsibility (in this case distribution of household goods and management of those affairs) should color any reading of Paul's ideas of 'economy' or 'dispensing arrangements' [. . .''of the Processed and Consummated Triune God'']. For example, see Jesus' parable on the "unrighteous steward" in Luke 16, where Jesus uses this specific word (vv. 2,3)

Aron, I agree with looking at the gospels and other Bible books for insight into the meaning of oikonomia. One of the reasons I prefer the stewardship rendering and definition is how the Greek word oikonomos is used in Luke 16 and other places for a steward. Doing a word search on oikonomia and oikonomos is easy in Blue Letter Bible (if one wants to check this out).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical, Having a heart for oneness is fine. But saying that oneness needs to be realized by the model you prefer is something much different. Insisting on your model and calling everyone divisive who doesn't conform to it is itself divisive....

I make no apologies. If you want local church members to post here then expect local church answers.

It's not the model "I prefer". It's the model revealed in the Bible. Time and time again when the local church is mentioned it is by the locality (the city name etc). You cannot find a denominational or a hierarchical structured model anywhere in the Bible. I do the right thing and request others to present to me these "different models" and no one can show me.

Please listen to yourself. Trying to argue that such an important matter as the church is not something Jesus revealed to us.

Even the Roman Catholics can tell me what the church is and where it is, better than you all can. They can point to it and say "here it is".

And many of you supposedly spent time in the "local churches" under Lee's ministry.

I think not, you would have a better understanding of these things, or it seems you were all "sleeping at the back" as one other poster put it.

Or you are merely recounting negative experiences that happened decades ago in the 70's and 80's. Things seem to have moved on, the LR has moved on. Welcome to the 21st Century.

The things done in the name of Christianity by the denominations has far exceeded any negative thing that the LR has ever done as far as I see it. Inquisitions, murders, etc.

Yet you are all defending them as if they are the exemplar of what church is all about.

Hopefully my post has demonstrated enough "independent thought" for my little brainwashed mind .

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The real test of oneness is not how you treat those who agree with you, who are inside your little band; the real test is how you treat those who don't agree with you, who are outside your band.

How does Jesus treat those who don't agree with Him? That's all we really have to be worried about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know the premise - lock ourselves away with just the Bible and the Holy Spirit makes us an expert theologian. If we happen to have some wafers and juice we can break bread with ourselves as well. Then we can "publish" our expert theology by writing down our thoughts and musings in a personal journal. There is no need to meet with anyone else or read anyone else's writings because we can be confident that we have not been "skewed in anyone's direction". But we are fooling ourselves, because when we read the Bible on our own, we automatically can become skewed in our OWN direction.

Evangelical your reaction is so extreme! Is reading the Bible by itself really that dangerous? Did you not find any merit in my post?

Can you see any difficulties within the LC's, when every one reads their Bible (actually the HWfMR) thru the eyes of Lee and his Blendeds?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For any of the bible verses about "the church" to be realized today, there must be some practical and visible expression of New Testament Christianity.

How about, "Wherever two or three of you are gathered in My name, there I will be in your midst"? You have gathering, you have the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit revealing Jesus to the attendees, who He was, and what He represents for us, and for God (see Jesus' teachings in John 14-16), you have the presence of Jesus in your midst.

But you say, "No, sorry, that's not the church."

Um, sorry, but I'll take Jesus over your hypothetical church any day of the week. Jesus met the disciples outside the box, over and over again. But you think you've created the foolproof box?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now if you would claim that I am a "Lee follower" because most of the books on my shelf have his name on it, or because I use the Recovery Version, then I would have to call you a follower of King James or Zondervan for using their versions of the Bible.

Bad analogy. No real publisher requires its readers to focus exclusively on its content. If you go in a bookstore, and there are 200 titles by one man, or to someone's house, and see 40+ titles, at best you are dealing with an unbalanced sect. A fair assessment would be 'personality cult'. A less forgiving assessment would be 'cult'.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Or you are merely recounting negative experiences that happened decades ago in the 70's and 80's. Things seem to have moved on, the LR has moved on. Welcome to the 21st Century.

The things done in the name of Christianity by the denominations has far exceeded any negative thing that the LR has ever done as far as I see it. Inquisitions, murders, etc.

Yet you are all defending them as if they are the exemplar of what church is all about.

Hopefully my post has demonstrated enough "independent thought" for my little brainwashed mind .

Evangelical, it seems your memory of LC history has forgotten the recent events of the 21st century. In case you forgot, I am from Ohio where we had quarantines, lawsuits, backstabbings, hypocrisies, etc. so I'll let the Apostle Paul say it better for me,

"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith."

We in the GLA watched all this happen as LSM sent their operatives into city after city. Please read the above quote once again. LSM fulfilled this prophecy by Paul in my area less than ten years ago. Sorry if you missed out on all the fun. Perhaps you were too far away to get the "local" news, or perhaps you got all your news from station WLSM. And please tell me again about that church with no name going to court for the rights to a church name that is not really a church name?

After what LSM and their fine DCP people put us thru, every other local congregation (what you love to deride as denominations) seemed more than holy, godly, and spiritual.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Or you are merely recounting negative experiences that happened decades ago in the 70's and 80's. Things seem to have moved on, the LR has moved on. Welcome to the 21st Century.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We in the GLA watched all this happen as LSM sent their operatives into city after city. .

Yes, indeed, welcome to the 21st Century LR. Or have things turned the corner in the last 9 years? I daresay the purge of members in 2007 (GLA, Brasilians) was so extreme that the folks with the long knives were sated for a bit. But likely, they'll be back.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your argument is flawed because one could easily say that Roman Catholicism and so many other heretical teachings and groups that came from the New Testament period and are based on the Bible, is evidence that the New Testament and the Bible produces bad fruit!

Paul said that in a great house there are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. The Bible doesn't produce bad fruit. Men do.

Let's look at the fruit of the LSM, shall we?

1. Dozens, hundreds of titles. Books, pamphlets, CDs, calendars, whatnot. All for sale to the public. Merchandising.
2. Many prayer meetings, church meetings, Bibles studies, which are all ministry indoctrination sessions.
3. Conferences and trainings, which are ministry indoctrination sessions.
4. Full-time trainings, which are ministry indoctrination centers.

And that's the good fruit. The bad fruit:

1. Storms, divisions, quarantines, turmoils, lawsuits.
2. Cultic spin-offs in mainland China

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Paul said that in a great house there are vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. The Bible doesn't produce bad fruit. Men do.

Let's look at the fruit of the LSM, shall we?

1. Dozens, hundreds of titles. Books, pamphlets, CDs, calendars, whatnot. All for sale to the public. Merchandising.
2. Many prayer meetings, church meetings, Bibles studies, which are all ministry indoctrination sessions.
3. Conferences and trainings, which are ministry indoctrination sessions.
4. Full-time trainings, which are ministry indoctrination centers.

And that's the good fruit. The bad fruit:

1. Storms, divisions, quarantines, turmoils, lawsuits.
2. Cultic spin-offs in mainland China

I accept points 2,3,4 regarding indoctrination. I do not really accept point 1 because try buying ANY bible without paying for it. You would have to condemn all of your local Christian bookstores as well for 'merchandising', otherwise it is a bit hypocritical to consider LSM as merchandising when the Christian world is full of it.

Bad fruit Point 1. I accept as evidence of bad fruit.
Point 2. regarding cults I do not accept. If a cultic spin-off is proof of bad fruit of an organization or religion, then you would have to condemn and reject the whole of Christianity for producing bad fruit as well. Many cults have come from Christianity. Are you condemning Christianity because of that? If no, you are hypocritical. If yes, then you are consistent. If a cult is formed out of LSM, it is not their fault. Did they start or encourage the cultic spinoffs? Clearly, no. In fact, by the things said here, the LSM would be very much against any sort of cult or break away group, according to their desire to control.

Any major denomination fits those same categories you describe. The Reformation and thereafter was a tumultuous period with the loss of many lives as well.
So if you believe that any major denomination has just as much 'bad fruit', then we can agree. But if you are like others on here who accept denominationalism whilst criticising the LR, then I would have to point out the hypocrisy and bias against the LR, whilst ignoring the other good fruit. We also should not be ignoring the good fruit such as changed lives and salvations, a focus on Christ, community fellowship and higher and deeper understanding of God's Word.

Evangelical said "You would have to condemn all of your local Christian bookstores as well for 'merchandising'" -
A bookstore merchandises, a book store can control a chain of book stores, even on a worldwide scale. That's a bookstore.
LSM is strange ...

LSM- a publisher, a merchandising outlet for a self proclaimed 'God's oracle', 'Ministry Of The Age', also demands absolute obedience from LSM brand of 'local churches' worldwide, such that the LCs have to every day read and repeat Lee messages and read only Lee messages and LSM published bible, and behave in uniformity all instructions issued out of LSM first by Lee now the Blended.

LSM brand LC elders- in total obedience and conformity to LSM Blended-leaders, any not behaving in this manner quickly 'outed' by the blending force for not being in LSM type oneness and LSM defined body. LC autonomy- pay your own bills, clean your own hall, change your own light bulbs, report your own locality spiritual condition (members count, in oneness or not, in the body feeling or not, anyone causing troubles), order your own standng order HWFMR booklets and make sure of good distribution and money collection.

LSM- whosoever promoted to 'BLEND' level, full-timers and elders etc... must sign pledge of oneness to ONE publication, The LSM. Question: LSM churches are whose (franchised) local churches? Watchman Nee what do you thinks?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

try buying ANY bible without paying for it. You would have to condemn all of your local Christian bookstores as well for 'merchandising', otherwise it is a bit hypocritical to consider LSM as merchandising when the Christian world is full of it...

True. Christianity is full of merchandising, a lot of it is really shameful. But at least most Christian book-stores allow more than "one publication". So LSM is up there with the rankest of the money-grubbers.

Funny that Nee was able to read all the Christian classics, and take the best from each. But once he put quill to paper, there were no longer any other voices worth heeding? From then on, it was One Trumpet? My, how the age did indeed change.

Then when God's Humble Bondslave passed, nobody at all could function meaningfully. God's Oracle resided solely on print. Lee was the last of the Revelators. So the LSM has a captive market, now.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a cult is formed out of LSM, it is not their fault. Did they start or encourage the cultic spinoffs? Clearly, no. In fact, by the things said here, the LSM would be very much against any sort of cult or break away group, according to their desire to control. .

The LSM does desire to control. When they came to mainland China, all the Little Flock house churches were told to "get in line". The age of the spirit had begun, and all you had to do was "masticate the divine". It took off like wildfire. At one point Lee publicly claimed 20 million 'shouters'. But because they gutted the extant leadership, a typical LSM move, there was nobody to control the group and when it spun out of control they denied any involvement. LSM adherents went from 20 million to zero in about 10 years. And you aren't even the least bit curious as to why, I'm sure. In fact you're trying hard not to be curious. You don't want to know the truth.

As one local church elder put it so well, "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

higher and deeper understanding of God's Word.

That is a completely subjective, biased, and unfounded assessment. I was there for years, and now am reading what the "cemeteries", as Lee called them, are putting out. It feels like leaving third-grade level reading books and getting a real college-level text. There's simply no comparison. The LSM output can only exist in the hermetically-sealed local church world. In the market-place of free ideas, with give-and-take, and real learning, they simply wouldn't make it. As soon as the light begins to shine, the Lee-world fiction crumbles. Take it from someone who got out.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a cult is formed out of LSM, it is not their fault. Did they start or encourage the cultic spinoffs? Clearly, no. .

The other place where the shoe fits uncomfortably well is that when you read the recruiting practices of the most evil and egregious of the spin-off cults, they're so similar to the LSM-approved and promulgated methods.

1. Go to the Christian groups. Find ones who are open. Tell them you also are a believer.
2. Don't let them know your affiliations, or motives. "Oh, we are just Christians."
3. Begin to gain their trust. Let them make emotional connections. Affirm common points of ground.
4. Begin to separate them from others. Start feeding them how awful every other group is, all the problems. Get them to agree in your condemnations.
5. Start to groom them with your special truths. Recovered for these last days.

Etc

Etc

Etc

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

True. Christianity is full of merchandising, a lot of it is really shameful. But at least most Christian book-stores allow more than "one publication". So LSM is up there with the rankest of the money-grubbers...

lol you claim my view is subjective, biased, and unfounded, and then you provide your own subjective view. In comparison to much of the material out there, I think Lee and Nee books are quite good. There are many in the denominations who read them and study them, without being 'brainwashed' by the LSM movement. For the most part the mainline denominations are cemeteries. They don't preach Christ crucified. They don't preach the Spirit. They are more focused on promoting their own religion, entertainment, buildings and fund raising than building the church. People sit on the pews and attend every Sunday without doing anything, the priest or pastor does all the work, they are paid to do so. The priest or pastor extorts money from the congregation by claiming they must tithe otherwise they are 'robbing God' and God won't bless them. The only real "spiritual" service they provide is conducting marriages and funerals, animal blessings and in some cases homosexual union or marriage blessings. They criticize each other for not baptizing in a certain way or for raising hands during worship.

They use hand-waving hocus pocus magic in their "communion" rituals. They baptize infants and assure the parents they are saved simply for being splashed with water. The priest or pastor would never let a member of the laity, give a word or message or prophesy from the Spirit. They will bless and approve of couples engaged in fornication and adultery. They will accept Buddhist, or Hindu teachings and many priests or pastors are both Christian and Buddhist, or of dual faith. Then there are the gay and lesbian churches where the gay or lesbian pastors are ordained because have learnt enough from the "real college level texts" of the theologians. So as not to offend anyone the pastor will call God "Mother". I think Lee was very accurate to call them cemeteries, some actually deserve to be called worse.

I bring your attention to the number of denominations who are approving homosexual ordination or blessings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homosexuality

You can see there is a whole lot of green there.

And if you are American (I know you aren't, the "you" is directed at any who may be reading) well this conglomeration of denominations have really dropped the ball with the gay marriage law thing haven't they? All in the name of love and tolerance.

I think yourself and many others here on this forum are delusional in focusing on the problems of the "1% of the Body" local churches, whilst oblivious to the problems of the 99%. Nee/Lee and the LR are a little bit of a shining light compared to the alternative majority - at least they preach the Bible, if not badly. And one of you here have been appealing to the views of this 99% as evidence against the "1% local churches". The same 99% of which a majority are tolerant towards homosexual behavior. I really think it is you lot who have their head stuck in the sand. Since you are so obsessed about speaking about Lee and Nee and the negative goings on, it only proves that you have never really left them, yet blinded to the real condition of the Body.

Now Germany, I haven't even begun to think about the condition of the body of Christ in your own country, I unfairly focus on the Americans. But lets think about it for a moment, many sleepy villages and towns with a local Catholic and Lutheran churches. The Christmas times are beautiful by the way, I really enjoy it, but nothing of Christ. When I went to Germany I couldn't help but fall asleep in the churches. And the many idolatrous things in the great cathedrals and the statues of Mary on the sides of the roads. Again, Lee was kind of accurate to call all of this a cemetery, because everyone seems spiritually dead and sleeping. To think that your country was once the shining light of the Reformation, and now of what it has become. The Lutherans only know when to stand and sit when they are told by the Priest and pray and read the bold letters out of a service book. You don't consider that a cemetery? Now consider the "Verantwortung und Verlässlichkeit stärken", perhaps you would like to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...nd_Lutheranism

In the year 2000, the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) passed the resolution Verantwortung und Verlässlichkeit stärken, in which same-gender partnerships are supported.[7] In November 2010, EKD passed a new right for LGBT ordination of homosexual ministers, who live in civil unions.[8] The most churches within the EKD allowed blessing of same-sex unions.[9]

Again, you try and tell me these are not cemetries? These are abominations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

lol you claim my view is subjective, biased, and unfounded, and then you provide your own subjective view. .

Of course my view is biased. That's why I stay open to the larger Christian conversation. I rarely presume to hold forth the sum total of objective reality, i.e. the High Peak Truth Recovered for the Present Age, and when I do, someone usually says, "Not so fast." The church is a great place to get right-sized. And when I say, "church", I think you know what I mean: all the believers, not the select few.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again, you try and tell me these are not cemetries? These are abominations.

Yes they're abominations. But the solution is not to play Little Jack Horner and sit in the corner pulling out Christmas plums and telling yourself what a good boy you are, there on the proper ground. If you really loved the church you'd engage it, not flee from it.

If you engage the church you'll see the light. Or you can hide, and pretend.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god. What does "become god" mean? It means man might partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In short, God became a man so that man might become god. In general Christian theology this is called divinization (deification, making divine, or theosis).

The Bible does not teach deification, it prohibits this teaching.

1st, Witness Lee cannot redefine words as he pleases. The word Deification: the act or an instance of deifying. Deify: to make a god of; exalt to the rank of a deity; personify as a deity. To adore or regard as a deity. Show me a credible dictionary with Witness Lee's definition of this word? Any reasonable person who hears that Witness Lee teaches “deification” will understand the word according to this definition. Witness Lee even admits that this is heresy and blasphemy. It is one thing to use obscure meanings of a word, that is a gray area, but to say that black is white it clearly deceitful.

“Actually, I do not use the word deification. It would be heretical to teach deification in the sense of claiming that believers attain to the Godhead. But it is according to the Scriptures to teach that because we have been born of God, we possess the divine life and the divine nature and that, in these two aspects, we have become the same as God. We definitely cannot participate in the Godhead or have the position to be worshipped by others as God; nevertheless, through regeneration we have God's life and nature.” (Witness Lee, Life Study of 2 Peter, Chapter 3, Section 3)

I don’t have an issue with 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now we are children of God”, but I don’t ignore 1John 5:21 My little children, guard yourselves from idols.

I don’t deny 2 Peter 1:4 "partakers of the divine nature" but I understand that Peter’s point is 2Pet 3:11 “what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness”.

Everyone teaches John 1:12-13 says that we were born, regenerated, by God with His life. The issue we have with Witness Lee is that he went beyond the things written. (1Cor 4:6). Godliness, sanctification, and holy living are the things written. There is no need to use the term deification since his definition is equivalent to sanctification.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again, you try and tell me these are not cemetries? These are abominations.

Why don't you just save some time and call down fire from heaven on them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes they're abominations. But the solution is not to play Little Jack Horner and sit in the corner pulling out Christmas plums and telling yourself what a good boy you are, there on the proper ground. If you really loved the church you'd engage it, not flee from it.

If you engage the church you'll see the light. Or you can hide, and pretend.

I think we need some genuine light of God's Word:

Isaiah 52:11 Depart, depart, go out from there, Touch nothing unclean; Go out of the midst of her, purify yourselves, You who carry the vessels of the LORD.

2 Cor 6:17 Therefore, "Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."

2 John 1:9-10 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

James 1:27 Pure religion, undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

1 John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

Can you can offer some verses that show that we should engage with the homosexual-loving and idolatrous denominations?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Bible does not teach deification, it prohibits this teaching.

The principle in Scripture is one of God joining himself to man:
1 Cor 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him"

As a Christian do you call yourself a son of God? If so then you are really calling yourself "god". That is why Jews and Muslims would stone you for saying that.

If your father is a cat, then clearly, you are a cat.
If God is your Father, then clearly, you are "a god".

God is not simply restoring mankind back to their original condition in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were human but they did not have God's Spirit. When God joins himself to a person they become both human and divine.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As a Christian do you call yourself a son of God? If so then you are really calling yourself "god". That is why Jews and Muslims would stone you for saying that.

If your father is a cat, then clearly, you are a cat.
If God is your Father, then clearly, you are "a god".

A hasty conclusion, is it not?

The Bible tells us we adopted as sons.
Eph 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will

A silly example, but I've seen videos on Youtube of dogs 'adopting' kittens, etc. The point is, though God is our Father, that doesn't translate into us being 'God'.

[least]

Re: What is God's economy?
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjN8lyDlAdo
*
6.01 min
This is science, the science of fruit bearing, and so 1 person in 5 years becomes 13 persons. and you multiplied yourself 12 times. This is divine economy.

Is God's economy different to divine economy?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

A hasty conclusion, is it not?

The Bible tells us we adopted as sons.
Eph 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will

A silly example, but I've seen videos on Youtube of dogs 'adopting' kittens, etc. The point is, though God is our Father, that doesn't translate into us being 'God'.

I note this has already been discussed to some extent here:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=615

This is about whether or not we are considered sons of God because of our legal status as being ones accepted into God's household (a place we don't naturally belong), or are we sons of God because we are "born again".
I believe it is both. Objectively there is the legal adoption, and subjectively there is the inward change to be like Christ.
Protestants, especially evangelicals tend to stress the objective aspect, whereas inner life groups such as the LR stresses the inward change.
There is a third aspect here which is that we are sons of God only if we are led by the Spirit:
"but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Romans 8:13-14)."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The principle in Scripture is one of God joining himself to man:
1 Cor 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him"
As a Christian do you call yourself a son of God? If so then you are really calling yourself "god". That is why Jews and Muslims would stone you for saying that.
If your father is a cat, then clearly, you are a cat.
If God is your Father, then clearly, you are "a god".
God is not simply restoring mankind back to their original condition in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were human but they did not have God's Spirit. When God joins himself to a person they become both human and divine.

Evangelical

1. I asked you to show me a credible definition of Deification that was not blasphemous. I will take your silence to mean that you did not find another definition.
2. I accused Witness Lee of practicing deceit when he taught “deification” out of one mouth, said that it wasn’t “deification” out of another mouth, and admitted that the use of this term was blasphemy. I will take your silence on this point to be tacit agreement that Witness Lee was deceitful.

So then, let us now consider what you did say.

First — the principle of Witness Lee’s doctrine of deification, man becomes God, is that “he who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit with Him”. I am joined to the Lord, and my spirit is outraged that Witness Lee would not continue in the teaching of the apostles. The principle that I see here is 1Jn 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

The apostles taught all the things that you have mentioned without ever once teaching that man becomes God. They taught sanctification, they taught godliness. Witness Lee conveniently forgets anything to with how we ought to behave. The apostles say that we don’t know what we will be, yet Witness Lee in his arrogance does. If you want to continue in the apostles teaching you can say “we will be like Him” and you can say that we are son’s of God, but the minute you talk about deification and man becoming God you have ceased to continue with the Apostles and by going out you make it plain you are not of the apostles.

Witness Lee’s cleverly devised fables of cats and the garden of eden, and apple trees having the nature of apples are designed to turn people from the truth. Although the apostles did not teach deification, the New Testament does refer to some who did:

Rev 2:20 But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.

We have been charged to keep the Lord’s table and to do that we must flee from idols (1Cor 10:14).

1 Cor 10:19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.

Deification is a doctrine of demons.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think we need some genuine light of God's Word:...

Evangelical,

Ever wonder why the local church has such a high churn rate?

Churn rate (sometimes called attrition rate), in its broadest sense, is a measure of the number of individuals or items moving out of a collective group over a specific period of time. It is one of two primary factors that determine the steady-state level of customers a business will support.

Because they realize that the ground of the church and the ministry are a stronghold of unclean things. Worse than the religious world they condemn. "Come out of her, My people" is applicable here, as well. If Protestantism is breeding the daughters of the harlot, then the local church is one of her vilest off-spring.

Having said that, I do love my lc brothers and sisters. It is just that they're under the influence of some rather pernicious teachings. So, like Paul, I hope to provoke a few of them, here.

A long, long time ago, there was a narrative. It concerned the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was the Savior of the world. That narrative indeed became lost over time, at least in the public discourse. People like Luther and Wesley did indeed begin to advance it back to its proper sphere. But Lee's Gods Economy metric is actually a turning away. Instead of God's Christ we get God's New Move, the Feeling in the Body, the Proper Church Life, God's Oracle, Masticating the Processed God, Vital Groups, Full-time Training, Standing Orders, and so forth.

But when you come to the Bible itself, you know what Lee calls it? "Fallen human concepts". Instead of pointing to the coming Messiah, Lee thinks it's just vain human imagination.

This is not a recovery of the narrative, but a turning away. Refuse such teachings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical
1. I asked you to show me a credible definition of Deification that was not blasphemous. I will take your silence to mean that you did not find another definition.

Apologies for my rudeness in not responding, there have been many people posting, I intended to respond but other topics drew my attention away.

Deification in one form or another was believed by Martin Luther, and many many early church fathers, and continues to be believed today in the major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican). As such, to lay blame on Lee for this teaching and to use it as a point to damn his whole ministry and the Lord's Recovery, is to forget the long history of this teaching and it may not be as blasphemous as you might think.

In fact, to deny such a long history of this doctrine in the church is to show ones own ignorance in the matter.

Lee's view is summed up by 2 Peter 2:4. We partake of God's divine life and nature. He published the book 'DEIFICATION—BECOMING GOD
IN LIFE AND IN NATURE BUT NOT IN THE GODHEAD'.

Lee explained it to be no more than stated in 2 Peter 2:4.

It is easy to show that Lee's understanding does not go beyond the belief of the early church and even Martin Luther and CS Lewis.

This is a sample quote from this study about Luther and Theosis:

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/marq...andtheosis.pdf

In an early (1515) Christmas sermon, Luther notes:
As the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary that the flesh
should also become Word. For just for this reason does the Word
become flesh, in order that the flesh might become Word. In other
words: God becomes man, in order that man should become God.
Thus strength becomes weak in order that weakness might become
strong. The Logos puts on our form and figure and image and
likeness, in order that He might clothe us with His image, form,
likeness. Thus wisdom becomes foolish, in order that foolishness
might become wisdom, and so in all other things which are in God
and us, in all of which He assumes ours in order to confer upon us
His [things].

But before we cry "blasphemy!" let us consider the facts:

Deification has been believed in the church since the day dot.

I find this a good article, not too hard to read:
http://www.dualravens.com/fullerlife/theosis.htm

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
"[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.
"[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh."
"And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity...

Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430)
"'For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
"[Men] were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest."

Even (almost) everyones favourite book author CS Lewis believed in it:

"The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said"

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18.

In short, Lee's teaching on the matter of deification is no more than that already believed in Christianity since the early church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Deification in one form or another was believed by Martin Luther, and many many early church fathers, and continues to be believed today in the major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican). As such, to lay blame on Lee for this teaching and to use it as a point to damn his whole ministry and the Lord's Recovery, is to forget the long history of this teaching and it may not be as blasphemous as you might think.

How ironic.

Lee claimed that his "high peaks" were the consummation of the recovery of lost truths in scripture. Now Evangelical wants me to accept that lots of Christians have been believing this all along!

How can you positively reference degraded Christianity which your leader regularly condemned as "hopeless and helpless?"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical,
Ever wonder why the local church has such a high churn rate?

The loss of members in a church has been recognized to be a church-wide thing, so is not isolated to the LR, so not really a solid argument.

Let's rationally and logically evaluate your claims about it being worse than the religious world it condemns, as you put it.

Is there a systematic abuse of children under a clergy-laity system (or any system) which fosters it and an attitude of cover up at the higher levels?

Has WL and the LR executed Christians in the name of Christ and spilt Christian blood over a long period of time?

Does WL and the LR agree with or support or practice ordination of homosexual ministers, or bless civil unions or marriages?

For the "religious world", I would say the answer is yes to all the above.

Can you say the same for Lee?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In fact, to deny such a long history of this doctrine in the church is to show ones own ignorance in the matter.

Thank you for reminding me that I am ignorant, we all need to be humbled.

All of this may be true, but as a basis to accept a doctrine as not being blasphemous it is what James referred to as "having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons". We have been specifically told not to do that, both by James and Paul. So I am going to treat this as an interesting aside, but essentially irrelevant to answering my question.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's view is summed up by 2 Peter 2:4. We partake of God's divine life and nature. He published the book 'DEIFICATION—BECOMING GOD IN LIFE AND IN NATURE BUT NOT IN THE GODHEAD'.
Lee explained it to be no more than stated in 2 Peter 2:4.

Once again I will repeat, Witness Lee does not get to tell me that the word idol does not mean idol. Likewise he cannot tell me that the word "deification" does not mean "deification". He can create a new word, perhaps "Witlessification" and define it any way he pleases. Or, he can use the New Testament term "Sanctification" and use the New Testament definition which includes 2Pet 2:4. I am well aware of how Witness Lee explained his deceit. However, it is deceit and I reject it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is easy to show that Lee's understanding does not go beyond the belief of the early church and even Martin Luther and CS Lewis.
This is a sample quote from this study about Luther and Theosis:
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/marq...andtheosis.pdf

My brother, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But before we cry "blasphemy!" let us consider the facts:
Deification has been believed in the church since the day dot.

Like the fact that Witness Lee called it Blasphemy in the Galatians training?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find this a good article, not too hard to read:
http://www.dualravens.com/fullerlife/theosis.htm
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)
C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18.
In short, Lee's teaching on the matter of deification is no more than that already believed in Christianity since the early church.

Hold it, you reject the things Christianity teaches and believes in when it is convenient for you to judge them (the proper ground) but the fact that others have fallen for this deification doctrine is a basis for you to accept it. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

I do not know what we will be like. I do know that we are being sanctified, we are being transformed, and that we shall be like Him. I also know that we need to keep ourselves from idols, that we cannot partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of idols. I know that false prophets like Jezebel and Balaam teach believers to eat things sacrificed to idols and I know that Jesus rebuked the believers who tolerate Jezebel or Balaam. Finally I know that false prophets are revealed when they do not continue in the apostles teaching but go out from that teaching. Deification is a very clear example of Witness Lee going out from the apostle's teaching.

[Evangelical]

Regardless of what Lee called it and the semantics of the words, he explained what it meant, and so to continue to argue that he meant something which he said he did not mean, is wrong. It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy. If you think there is, well stone us for blasphemy, I don't care.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regardless of what Lee called it and the semantics of the words, he explained what it meant, and so to continue to argue that he meant something which he said he did not mean, is wrong. It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy. If you think there is, well stone us for blasphemy, I don't care.

Despise -- to regard unworthy of ones notice.

Matt 18:6 but whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh! 8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire. 10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The loss of members in a church has been recognized to be a church-wide thing, so is not isolated to the LR, so not really a solid argument.

All churches have attrition, all companies with customers have "churn". But that wasn't my point, at all. My point was on the attrition rate, the so-called churn rate. If you ran a phone company and your underlings said that your churn rate was twice the others', that would indicate dissatisfied customers. If you just shrugged and said, "All phone companies experience churn", you'd be out of a job within 2 years.

I was active in the local church for a number of years, and in non-lc Christianity both before and after. I'd estimate the churn rate of the lc is probably between 2 and 3X the average.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's rationally and logically evaluate your claims about it being worse than the religious world it condemns, as you put it.
Is there a systematic abuse of children under a clergy-laity system (or any system) which fosters it and an attitude of cover up at the higher levels?
Has WL and the LR executed Christians in the name of Christ and spilt Christian blood over a long period of time?
Does WL and the LR agree with or support or practice ordination of homosexual ministers, or bless civil unions or marriages?
For the "religious world", I would say the answer is yes to all the above.
Can you say the same for Lee?

I think I remember reading of sexual predators who were ministry zealots were relocated in the local church, but am not sure. If someone has info on this, please let us know. I believe it's possible, however, because of what I do know:

Witness Lee was a lover of money. He defrauded the local church members out of hundreds of thousands of dollars (1970s dollars) to fund his family. If you've never read the DayStar saga, please do. It's an eye-opener. It was created to subsidize neer-do-well son #1, Timothy.

Witness Lee put neer-do-well son #2 Philip in charge of the LSM for what, 12 years? When Philip was caught en flagrante delecto, Witness Lee had injured and aggrieved parties relocated, and those who protested were run out of town.

Or were you not aware of these events? What makes the local church and the LSM worse than the Christianity it condemns is that the lc is based on intolerance and holier-than-thou condemnation of all other groups of believers as devilish, satanic, and dark. By its own measure, the lc, being all those and arrogant as well, is thereby the worst of all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by least

Re: What is God's economy?
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjN8lyDlAdo
*
6.01 min
This is science, the science of fruit bearing, and so 1 person in 5 years becomes 13 persons. and you multiplied yourself 12 times. This is divine economy.

Is God's economy different to divine economy?

I suddenly feel like the AFLAC duck after hearing Leo Durocher talking about the difference between money and cash.

Totally befuddling.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regardless of what Lee called it and the semantics of the words, he explained what it meant, and so to continue to argue that he meant something which he said he did not mean, is wrong. It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy. If you think there is, well stone us for blasphemy, I don't care.

So you have chosen to agree to disagree.

Let me ask you a different question then: what is the line that you will not tolerate a "Bible teacher" to cross? Jesus rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating that woman Jezebel. Jesus has a line that He feels a person should not tolerate others to cross. Paul said "their mouths must be stopped" so Paul also had a line.

Can you tell us what is the line that you would not tolerate a so called "Bible teacher" to cross?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

"Come out of her, My people" is applicable here, as well. If Protestantism is breeding the daughters of the harlot, then the local church is one of her vilest off-spring.

I actually don't recommend people leave the lc of Lee, nor leave the Methodists or Presbyterians. Paul said, "Wherever you were called, there remain." God may not call you in a favorable location. But an unfavorable location is an opportunity for God's blessing and light to pour through you.

Contrast that to those who withdraw, like the lc, and build pens, and will only attempt meaningful relations with those who enter the pen. "Oh, we don't do ecumenicalism." True, because you don't do anything but sit in your cell and pretend that you have escaped the evil dark world.

But I wanted to write about teaching, not behaviours. Local church behaviour isn't as bad as some of the worst of Christianity, true, but their teaching is right there near the bottom. And this is why: because of their isolationism, they remain stuck in 19th century revelations, and abetted by the "madness of the prophet" (Nee and Lee) in the 20th. Because of their isolationism, when Nee and Lee went in the ditch nobody could stop it; on the contrary all were expected to follow in the interests of promoting oneness.

Consider this: the Bible is the story of Jesus. Man fell, and God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son, that we might believe and not perish. This narrative did arguably get corrupted, and turned inside out. And Luther for Europe, and Wesley for the English, and the Puritans for North America, and Zinzendorf and others, did indeed begin to recover the story from the text. Justification by faith was important to hold forth to the public. But Nee and then Lee's addendums weren't a progress of this narrative recovery but a trip into the ditch.

Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me". Lee said, "No they were not. They were just vain words by fallen men." Who are you going to believe? Jesus, or Lee?

Look at Psalm 1 for a prominent example. "Blessed is the man who doesn't go to wicked ways; but who meditates on the word both day and night". . . Lee said this is vanity. Nobody can do this. Um, ever hear of a guy named Jesus the Nazarene? The whole NT shows how Jesus was the fulfillment of positive OT types, and promises, but here, Lee wasn't interested; he had his "economy" metric to promote, and couldn't find it in Psalm 1.

If you want corroboration that Psalm 1 isn't "fallen", look at how Deuteronomy 17:14-20. Especially vv 19 and 20. Vain? Fallen? Natural?

14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.(NIV)

Then look at Psalm 2. Behold the King! Yes indeed, the same Man as in Psalm 1. Only one Man fulfilled Psalm 1; this man is God's Son in Psalm 2.

Again and again Witness Lee missed Christ, and forbade his followers; if Lee couldn't see Christ, no Christ. Can you imagine being among the attendees getting 'trained', and sitting there as this rubbish came from the podium? Not one peep or murmur from the assembled? Nobody shifted uncomfortably? Because they know that one can only 'amen' the Ascended Master, no matter how badly he mauls the text. The local ground was the holding pen, now you have to eat Lee gruel 24/7.

Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Lee said, "Move along everyone, nothing to see here. . ." No seeking allowed in the local church. And no finding.

"We're in the church our home!" No more seeking, and no more finding.

"Home, home in the church, it is here that we've ended our search!" No more seeking, no more finding. How about, "Home, home in the ditch. It is here that we've followed Lee."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you have chosen to agree to disagree.

Let me ask you a different question then: what is the line that you will not tolerate a "Bible teacher" to cross? Jesus rebuked the church in Thyatira for tolerating that woman Jezebel. Jesus has a line that He feels a person should not tolerate others to cross. Paul said "their mouths must be stopped" so Paul also had a line.

Can you tell us what is the line that you would not tolerate a so called "Bible teacher" to cross?

Today I was reading I John. John also confronted this same issue. His "line in the sand" was in 4.1-3. I think that would be within the bounds of Jesus' word to Thyatira, and Paul's instructions to Titus.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by least

Re: What is God's economy?
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjN8lyDlAdo
*
6.01 min
This is science, the science of fruit bearing, and so 1 person in 5 years becomes 13 persons. and you multiplied yourself 12 times. This is divine economy.

Is God's economy different to divine economy?

Welcome to LocalChurchDiscussions least!

If God does have an "economy", then surely it is clearly expressed, annunciated and defined for us in the Word of God. It must be something that is revealed from Genesis to Revelation. I would point us to today's quote of the day:
"Only one thing validates a message or a messenger: The whole counsel of the word of God."

"The Economy of God" was Witness Lee's seminal work (published in 1968) and much of his ministry in the West was based upon this work.

Although Lee does take us through the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, he does a lot of "adding and taking away" from the biblical text itself. One recent example noted on our forum is this notion that "God became man so that man can become God". As others have so aptly pointy out, this whole idea of man becoming God is not even hinted at, much less openly stated. Yet Lee felt he was qualified to string together a few verses, mix them together with some of his make-it-up-as-you-go-along, home-brewed "theology", and then declare his teaching as "recovered truth". It should be no surprise that this kind of faux biblical theology has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority Christian teachers, scholars and apologists...at least by all the ones who are not bought and paid for by the LC/LSM/DCP

If by "economy" Witness Lee actually meant to convey the whole story and purpose of God in creating and redeeming man, and fulfilling of his eternal purpose and bringing forth the coming of his kingdom, then he was simply off the mark with his "processed triune God dispensing himself into man" teaching. At best, this teaching points us to a few of the trees located in a vast forest, however it "misses the forest for the trees".

-

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

At best, this teaching points us to a few of the trees located in a vast forest, however it "misses the forest for the trees".

Obedience. Our faith is in the Obedient One. Now by faith we struggle to follow, and obey. The Spirit sees us in our weakness, and comes to help us. The Paraclete.

Or we can sit in our corner like Jack Horner, and tell ourselves how transformed we must be getting. That is The Economy of God, by Witness Lee.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It does not mean becoming part of the Godhead, so there's no blasphemy.

How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?

Great question. It is the difference between Jesus being the Son of God, and you and I being sons of God (if we are believers, that is).

It is the difference between God being the Judge, and we being judges.
The difference between Christ our High Priest and King of Kings, and us being priests and kings.

Revelation 5:10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood..."

Luke 19:17 "'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

This is really a process over time, described in Romans 8:29:

Romans 8:29 says For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

It will not be completed until we receive immortal (and godly) bodies like Christ:

1 Cor 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

1 Cor 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

When we become immortal, we become "gods", essentially. Think of it, do mere mortals live forever? No. Do mere mortals rule the earth? No. Do mere mortals judge even the angels? No.

Now consider, that God is the only Judge:
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?


Yet later, as "gods", God will give us the privileged to judge the world and angels:

1 Cor 6:2 Or do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Judging is a role really reserved for God Almighty alone, especially for His angels.

Humans now are lower than angels but will be crowned, or immortalized later:
Hebrews 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor

Yet it says right there in 1 Cor 6:3 we will judge angels. Therefore we have become like "gods".

I like the way CS Lewis describes it:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, Collier Books, 1980), 18

I like this statement by him and makes me think that the poor and despised of this world such as the homeless, will one day be ruling over the Earth in their immortalized and god-like bodies:

1 Cor 1:26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.
1 Cor 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.


C.S. Lewis stated in his book, "Mere Christianity" as follows:

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 174—75.

Jews and Muslims do not accept Christians calling themselves "sons of God" because they know what it means - that we become like God.

Unfortunately because of this truth being suppressed by Satan about humankind's true destiny, many in Christianity today do not know their bible and what it means to call themselves a son of God. They think salvation merely means to go to heaven and have no concept of what lies beyond that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today I was reading I John. John also confronted this same issue. His "line in the sand" was in 4.1-3. I think that would be within the bounds of Jesus' word to Thyatira, and Paul's instructions to Titus.

After studying James I have a new take on those verses. To me, confessing Jesus come in the flesh seems to be equivalent to a work of faith.

So when Witness Lee was condemning works, it was equivalent to denying Jesus coming in the flesh.

We do not like to set up social and charitable works such as schools and hospitals. The apostle Paul did not do this kind of work. Our service must be a direct building on the unique foundation. (Witness Lee, Basic Lessons on Service, Chapter 15, Section 2)

[least]

Thank you Evangelical for the long reply. It will take some time for me to look into what you wrote. pardon me for being 'least'.
After quick reading through, I find the long passage text did not answer to;
"How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?"

You mentioned 'become god' as if it is implied in the bible, you do not have bible verse that says exactly what you or WL(?) said.
C.S. Lewis I do not know but his book should be just another man's writing such as WL's writing is man's writing.

You also said 'becomes god' is not now, not until inherit immortality. But I heard LC members proclaimed: I am god(God), I am god(God)!
Ron Kangas said: I am god but not the godhead, for example I am not here talking to you at the same time physically present in another city.
So I asked: 'how do you know you are a god without a godhead?".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Thank you Evangelical for the long reply. It will take some time for me to look into what you wrote. pardon me for being 'least'.
After quick reading through, I find the long passage text did not answer to;
"How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?"

You mentioned 'become god' as if it is implied in the bible, you do not have bible verse that says exactly what you or WL(?) said.
C.S. Lewis I do not know but his book should be just another man's writing such as WL's writing is man's writing.

You also said 'becomes god' is not now, not until inherit immortality. But I heard LC members proclaimed: I am god(God), I am god(God)!
Ron Kangas said: I am god but not the godhead, for example I am not here talking to you at the same time physically present in another city.
So I asked: 'how do you know you are a god without a godhead?".

There are two aspects of Christians being god. One is the present aspect, and the one I described before is the future aspect. Just as Christians have eternal life now (John 3:36), we don't have it in the sense that we still must die once, and receive eternal life in a complete way once we receive our immortal bodies. That is, we can never die again.

The Scriptures says God calls His representatives, the prophets, 'god' in the psalms:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

When God says "Ye are gods", this means "I have given you my name and power to rule your people in my stead" (Benson Commentary)

This is because they are God's representatives on Earth and carry His Word and authority. So the difference is that god is a representative of God, and God (or Godhead) is God Himself.

A Christian is also God's representative on Earth and carry His Word and authority (Mark 16:17). More than that, a Christian is greater than an old testament prophet (Luke 7:28), and is called a child of God or a son of God (Gal 3:26, 1 John 3:2).

Yet Christians are not merely representatives in the sense of messengers. Christians are "born again" ( John 3:1-21). That is, we are all first born physically as humans, but we are born a second time by the Holy Spirit. So Christians also bear the image of Christ and the power of God. In Ephesians 1:19 Paul says "I pray that you'll begin to understand the incredible greatness of his power for us who believe.... ".
God has given Christians the same power that raised Christ from the dead (Eph 1:19).

Furthermore, the church is considered the Bride of Christ:

Christ, the Bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be His bride (Ephesians 5:25–27) (http://www.gotquestions.org/bride-of-Christ.html)

If the Bridegroom is God (Christ as the Son of God is God), then the Bride must equal the Bridegroom, the Bride is god as well.

In this sense Christians are 'god' today. There are more aspects I could go into about Christians being or becoming god.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Scriptures says God calls His representatives, the prophets, 'god' in the psalms:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

When God says "Ye are gods", this means "I have given you my name and power to rule your people in my stead" (Benson Commentary)

This is because they are God's representatives on Earth and carry His Word and authority. So the difference is that god is a representative of God, and God (or Godhead) is God Himself.

Citing Psalm 82 as promoting deification is possibly error. Jesus knew the scripture, as did His hearers. "You are Gods, yet you will die like men". We don't know the scriptures as well, so we ignore the "die like men" part. These gods, so-called, were not 'god' at all, but corrupt judges, princes and rulers. They had the capacity to discriminate, yet failed. They took bribes, bowed to political pressure, etc. And in so doing, they failed, and re-played the original fall, and this also mirrors the "sons of God" story of the angels who disobeyed, the "One third of the stars fell from heaven" narrative. Genesis 6, 2 Peter 2, Jude 6, and various points of John's Apocalypse reference this. It was a continual biblical touchstone. God's command overturned and usurped, both in heaven and on earth, and the consequences of so doing. As in heaven, so on earth, both obedience and disobedience.

So "you are gods" is Jesus turning the scribes and pharisees' accusations back on themselves. Their judgments of Jesus were politically motivated, revealed their source (satan), and indicated their eventual end - death. Read the entire psalm - all 8 verses. Where does context suggest deification. On the contrary, it suggests massive failure, presumption, and loss.

[Evangelical]

Aron,
that is an acute observation, but have you considered, that if God did not regard them as gods, then He could not have said "dying like men/mortals" ? In other words, God truly considered them as gods, yet their behavior meant they must die like men. In other words, they should have been immortal. Verse 6 shows that "god" = child of God. So God regarded them as His children, and "a god" is a child of God.

We can note two things, God called them gods ' Ye are gods', it does not say "we are gods", and secondly,
Jesus used that verse in his defense against the Pharisees who claimed he was blaspheming for saying He was the Son of God. This is found in John 10:33-36.

Jesus was saying, hold on a minute, "if God called your prophets and judges "gods", in Psalm 82, then why are you blaming me for blasphemy when I called myself a Son of God?" Jesus's statement in verse 35 proves again that it was God who called them that.

I consulted a number of bible commentaries from here:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/82-6.htm

Which all show that use of the word god, child of God, and son of God, are synonymous. You can see, that all commentaries say that God calls them gods in the affirmative, and not in the negative. So if I call myself "god" I am not blaspheming, any more than if I call myself a son of God or a child of God.

Some examples:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
6. I said, Te are gods,

And all of you sons of the Most High (R.V.).

I is emphatic. It is by God’s appointment that they have been invested with divine authority to execute judgement in His name. Cp. the language used of the king, Psalm 2:7; Psalm 89:27.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 6. - I have said, Ye are gods; i.e. "in my Law I have called you gods" - I have given you this lofty name (see Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8, 9), since ye judge on my behalf, "as my representatives" (Deuteronomy 1:17; 2 Chronicles 19:6; Romans 13:1, 2). And all of you are children of the Most High. Not therefore "gods" in the strictest sense, but possessing a derived, and so a qualified, divinity.

Barnes:
I have said, Ye are gods - See the notes at Psalm 82:1. I have given you this title; I have conferred on you an appellation which indicates a greater nearness to God than any other which is bestowed on men - an appellation which implies that you are God's representatives on earth, and that your decision is, in an important sense, to be regarded as his.
And all of you are children of the Most High - Sons of God. That is, You occupy a rank which makes it proper that you should be regarded as his sons.

Matthew Poole's Commentary
I have said, Ye are gods; I have given you my name and power to rule your people in my stead.

Children of the Most High; representing my person, and bearing both my name and lively characters of my majesty and authority, as children bear the name and image of their parents.

Gill:
I have said, ye are gods,.... In the law, Exodus 21:6 or they were so by his appointment and commission; he constituted them judges and magistrates, invested them with such an office, by which they came to have this title; see Romans 13:1, and so our Lord interprets these words, that they were gods "to whom" the word of God came, which gave them a commission and authority to exercise their office, John 10:35, or rather "against whom" it came, pronouncing the sentence of death on them, as in Psalm 82:7, to which the reference is; declaring, that though they were gods by office, yet were mortal men, and should die. The Targum is, "I said, as angels are ye accounted"; and so judges and civil magistrates had need to be as angels, and to have the wisdom of them; see 2 Samuel 14:20. Jarchi interprets it of angels, but magistrates are undoubtedly meant:

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aron,
that is an acute observation, but have you considered, that if God did not regard them as gods, then He could not have said "dying like men/mortals" ? In other words, God truly considered them as gods, yet their behavior meant they must die like men.

What kind of gods die like men? Doesn't sound like the Jewish JHWH to me. Sounds more like the failed gods of the nations.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I consulted a number of bible commentaries from here:

There is study to confirm your view, but I"ll take the minority position, here. The Jews were a strictly monotheistic religion, and to take Jesus' words prima facie here is absurd. No; He was using the absurdity of taking His word at face value, to make the accusers see themselves as God saw them. Failed. Completely unqualified to make judgments on His person and ministry.

To support the idea that Jesus is promoting deification of man, here, is to overlook that He's struggling against the "brood of vipers" - He's not interested in theological niceties. This is an extremely antagonistic interchange, and He's turning it back on them. They are the 'gods that failed', who are not gods at all, but fallen men, usurped by satanic power, and whose usurpation of divine authority makes them twice the sons of gehenna as those they piously condemn.

Please don't ignore the fact that Jews were strictly monotheistic, in looking for support in "you are gods" phraseology. I'd say that's a big mistake. My opinion, of course.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

What kind of gods die like men? Doesn't sound like the Jewish JHWH to me. Sounds more like the failed gods of the nations..

Aside from what Jesus meant, (not disagreeing with you I see the context), God did in fact call men 'gods', therefore if I want to call myself a god, I can, without fear of God's judgement or men's false accusations of blasphemy. Consider that if God had no problem calling us 'gods', even if it was only to prove a point, then we should not either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aside from what Jesus meant, (not disagreeing with you I see the context), God did in fact call men 'gods', therefore if I want to call myself a god, I can, without fear of God's judgement or men's false accusations of blasphemy. Consider that if God had no problem calling us 'gods', even if it was only to prove a point, then we should not either.

The Mormons had it right all along?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Mormons had it right all along?

Please explain?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Please explain?

Sorry, I was being a little sarcastic.

If we should consider ourselves as "gods" as Evangelical suggests, then the Mormons, who claim the same, have had it right all along.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, I was being a little sarcastic.

If we should consider ourselves as "gods" as Evangelical suggests, then the Mormons, who claim the same, have had it right all along.

If they believe that then yes they are right on this issue.

Noting that the Catholic, Orthodox churches have believed this also all along.

[testallthings]

It is almost impossible for any group to be wrong in every doctrine.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Great question. It is the difference between Jesus being the Son of God, and you and I being sons of God (if we are believers, that is).

(1) Angels are also called sons of God. Are angels ‘gods without the Godhead’?
Genesis 6: 4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1: 6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 38: 7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

(2) Are there bible verses that say directly that, christians being sons of God are gods?

(3)
Psalm 82: 1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV)
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
God stands in the assembly of the Angels and among the Angels he will judge.

*** Here ‘gods’ in Psalm 82, in Aramaic bible in plain English is ‘angels’.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is the difference between God being the Judge, and we being judges.
The difference between Christ our High Priest and King of Kings, and us being priests and kings.

You are just substituting the upper case Judge to God and lower case judges to gods, substituting upper case King to God and lower case kings to gods …. etc., This is a play of the English language. Wonder how you do it in other languages.
You have not answer to ‘how is Godhead separated from God’.
You only make clear the difference between ‘God’ and ‘gods’ using the difference in the capital letter and the small letter of the words: Judge and judges, King and kings, Priest and priests.
You do not even attempt something like ‘we are judges but without the Judgehead’.
And how do you separate Judgehead from judges? How do you separate Godhead from god?
You proclaim you are gods without the Godhead. What gods are you?
In the bible there are: ‘god of this world’ or ‘god of this age’, ‘their god is their belly’, ‘all the gods of Egypt’, ‘do not mention names of other gods’, ‘they sacrifice to gods they have never known’, ‘to new gods that have come recently’, ‘so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” ….

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Revelation 5:10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

That’s exactly what it is: a kingdom and priests to serve our God.
You would substitute the verse to read ‘You have made them to be a godsdom and gods to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth’?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood..."

That’s exactly what it is: a chosen people, a royal priesthood.
You would substitute the verse to read ‘But you are a chosen godrace, a royal godshood …’?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Luke 19:17 "'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

That’s exactly what it is: my good servant!
You would change ‘my good servant’ to ‘God’s good god’?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is really a process over time, described in Romans 8:29:
Romans 8:29 says For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
It will not be completed until we receive immortal (and godly) bodies like Christ:

(1) How does the above answer: How is Godhead separated from God? How do you know you are a god (God) without a godhead (Godhead)?

(2) Romans 8: 28- 30 (recovery version bible)
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers;
And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified.

*** Called, justified, glorified. *** That’s it.
You want to force ‘god without godhead’ into these bible verses?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Cor 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
1 Cor 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Following the above 2 verses are verses 55, 56, 57 as below:
Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the claw.
But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When we become immortal, we become "gods", essentially. Think of it, do mere mortals live forever? No. Do mere mortals rule the earth? No. Do mere mortals judge even the angels? No.

(1) You would the verses following 54 to read: When we become immortal, we become “gods” essentially. Mere mortals cannot live forever, cannot rule the earth and cannot judge even the angels. (huh?)

(2) Recovery version I Corinthians 15: 58
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

You would substitute ‘judging’ in place of ‘labor’ in the work of the Lord?
Why? Because the result of becoming gods is to ‘judge’? Even judge angels? You seem to use ‘even judge angels’ as a motivation (bait) to ‘become gods’.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now consider, that God is the only Judge:
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?
Yet later, as "gods", God will give us the privileged to judge the world and angels:

James 4: 11 says: Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.
James said brothers and sisters slandering one another or judges them speaks against the law and judges the law. Yet, there is only one Lawgiver and Judge.
God is the only judge of the law, for God is the Lawgiver. Judging according to the law is keeping the law.
* Yet later, as ‘gods’ …
(1)You being now ‘god’ as you proclaim ‘I am god’, quote the bible that who are you to judge your neighbor; yet you judge anyway (not waiting till ‘yet later, as gods’). Point at a (near or distant) neighbour and say ‘the church in New York does not believe in Christ’.
(2) You are motivated by ‘the privilege’ to judge? You said, as ‘gods’, God will give us the privileged to judge the world and angels:
gods are privileged to judge? That's why you have to be gods? for the privilege

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Cor 6:2 Or do you not know that the Lord's people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

(1) You would substitute ‘Lord’s people’ with ‘gods’?
The Lord’s people will judge the world, not ‘later gods will judge the world’.

(2) Recovery version I Cor 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy of the smallest judgements?

You would substitute ‘the saints’ to ‘gods’? Revise the Recovery version?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Judging is a role really reserved for God Almighty alone, especially for His angels.

You first quote the bible (God’s word) to say: we will judge angels
then you say (your own word): judging is a role really reserved for God Almighty alone, especially for His angels.
It is God’s words vs your words, or your words vs God’s word?
Is there ‘really’ something you know better about the Almighty God that He himself ‘really’ does not know about?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Humans now are lower than angels but will be crowned, or immortalized later:

Humans? Who are humans here? All human beings?
Humans now are lower than angels but will be crowned, meaning all human beings will be crowned?
will be crowned, or immortalized later: crowned and immortalized meant the same?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hebrews 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor

Above verse you quoted from the NIV bible, it says: You made ‘them’ …
There are also other versions that used ‘them’ … in this verse.
Below kjv and recovery version used ‘him’ in place of ‘them’.
(KJV) Hebrews 2:7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
(Recovery version) Hebrews 2:7
You have made Him a little inferior to the angels; You have crowned Him with glory and honor and have set Him over the works of Your hands;

The Recovery version grouped Hebrews 2: 5-18 under a topic titled:
As the Son of Man -- As Man
That means the Recovery version interprets the ‘him’ in Heb 2:7 as the Son of Man – As Man.

You quoted Heb 2:7 that used ‘them’ in place of ‘him’, because you need to substitute this word to ‘gods’ to illustrate your deduction of ‘become gods’?

Have you betrayed your own version of the bible? or you read the NIV and not the recovery version? hahaha, that’s funny lol … very funny

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yet it says right there in 1 Cor 6:3 we will judge angels. Therefore we have become like "gods".

The bible verse says: we will judge angels …
You then THEREFORE it: we have become like “gods”.
The bible does not say: we will judge angels, therefore we have become like “gods”.
It is your THEREFORE, your own words, not God’s word.
And what is this: become ‘like’ gods?
Are you ‘gods’ as you proclaim? or are you ‘become gods’ as you also say? or are you become ‘like’ gods as you wrote above?
Do you ‘really’ know what you say?
And what happens to the ‘not the Godhead’ part? Question still not answered. Do you ‘really’ know how you are god without Godhead?

[aron]

Originally Posted by least

You proclaim you are gods without the Godhead. What gods are you?

In the bible there are: ‘god of this world’ or ‘god of this age’, ‘their god is their belly’, ‘all the gods of Egypt’, ‘do not mention names of other gods’, ‘they sacrifice to gods they have never known’, ‘to new gods that have come recently’, ‘so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” ….

This is what I was touching on elsewhere. Israel has One True God, not many 'gods'. So the term 'gods' in plural is typically couched in dismissive terms.

"You are 'gods' . . . but you will die like men. You will fall like the princes." You are 'gods' BUT you are not God. What kind of 'gods' die like men? And fall like the princes? What is our goal, here? As least put it, What gods are you?

To discriminate god without the Godhead is an exercise in vanity, against monotheism. "Hear, O Israel, there is One God". . . there are angels that are not God, men that are not God, judges and princes that are not God, fruit trees and steamships that are not God. So to say that we are 'gods' or 'god' but not God is essentially meaningless. A god that is not God, in monotheism, is what? It was merely an excuse to give a conference (or two), print up some books, and keep people distracted for a bit longer.

Lee never really had a master plan, that I can see, except how to survive for another day. Stay on the lc throne for one more day.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If they believe that then yes they are right on this issue.
Noting that the Catholic, Orthodox churches have believed this also all along.

Evangelical referred to the Mormons in his first sentence.
Followed he noted that the Catholic, Orthodox churches have believed this all along.

This believe being 'christians are gods'.

In other posts Evangelical said 'they' (LSM churches) are unique.
He said they start new churches in the principle of 'new wine in new wineskin'.

Now I see, they are not 'unique' as they claim.
They start new churches by 'recovery' of old wine (Catholic and other Orthodox churches are older than them, and LSM recovered their believes to make it LSM unique high peak truth) into new wineskin (new legal registration of a 'church' entity)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Evangelical referred to the Mormons in his first sentence.
Followed he noted that the Catholic, Orthodox churches have believed this all along.

This believe being 'christians are gods'.

In other posts Evangelical said 'they' (LSM churches) are unique.
He said they start new churches in the principle of 'new wine in new wineskin'.

Now I see, they are not 'unique' as they claim.
They start new churches by 'recovery' of old wine (Catholic and other Orthodox churches are older than them, and LSM recovered their believes to make it LSM unique high peak truth) into new wineskin (new legal registration of a 'church' entity)

In my opinion, I would tend to agree that the recovery is more like the REFORMation , done properly this time. Luther made a step back towards the New Testament by recovering the truth about salvation by faith alone, and the recovery tries to take it back all the way. So it should not surprise us there are commonalities between catholic and the recovery, if they are doctrines that were held by the early church. Another one is purgatory, Lee believes in purgatory.
Protestantism on the other hand threw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
All protestant churches tried to recover history by quoting early church fathers, but they did not go far enough. Instead, we have protestant churches that have ignored history altogether.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

(1) Angels are also called sons of God. Are angels ‘gods without the Godhead’?
Genesis 6: 4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1: 6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 38: 7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

(2) Are there bible verses that say directly that, christians being sons of God are gods?

(3)
Psalm 82: 1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV)
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
God stands in the assembly of the Angels and among the Angels he will judge.

*** Here ‘gods’ in Psalm 82, in Aramaic bible in plain English is ‘angels’.

Yes angels are called sons of God, but are they born again? Were they created in God's image? No, so they are not real sons of God like us.

Nice try but 'angels' can mean human messengers. I have consulted bible commentaries about this and they stand maintain the view they are human judges and rulers, not angels.

We can see from verse 6 that it refers to humans and not angels.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nice try but 'angels' can mean human messengers.

Which verse or chapter makes angels (at least in that instance) out as mere humans? I'd like to look this up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Which verse or chapter makes angels (at least in that instance) out as mere humans? I'd like to look this up.

"Least" has tried to argue that Psalm 82:1 refers to angels and not humans by quoting the Aramaic version (the Syrian or Syriac translated version of the Bible). That is,they are using a version which was translated from Hebrew to Syrian, and then from Syrian to English to try and prove their point. Why not use the Bible versions that go straight from Hebrew to English? Psalm 82:6 makes the context clear, that it refers to humans, not angels. So the Aramaic version is incorrect.

In Pslam 82:1:

It says angels only in one version:
http://biblehub.com/psalms/82-1.htm

The word elohim can mean humans:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/430.htm

The bible commentaries all say that these 'gods' or 'angels' are people:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/82-1.htm

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges addresses the difference between the Aramaic version and the others, on the matter of whether it refers to actual angels or people. You will note the part I highlighted in bold below which shows that interpreting it to mean angels is incorrect:

he judgeth &c.] In the midst of gods (Elôhîm) will he judge. According to the view adopted above, the judges and authorities of Israel are meant by gods. It might indeed be supposed that the poet intended to represent God as holding His court surrounded by angels, like an earthly king in the midst of his courtiers (cp. 1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:2); and so probably the Syriac translator understood the verse: “God standeth in the assembly of the angels, and in the midst of the angels will He judge.” But Elôhîm can hardly have a different meaning from that which it has in Psalm 82:6, where it clearly refers to the judges who are put on their trial; and the address in Psalm 82:2 would be unintelligible if the persons addressed had not already been mentioned.


About the word 'angel' in general:

The word angel comes from the Greek angelos meaning messenger. the word itself does not indicate whether they are supernatural beings or humans. Translators of the bible always consider the context.
Revelation 1:20 is an example of 'angels' meaning church leaders.

[aron]

But behind every judge and prince is an angel, a throne, authority, a power. It has double meaning - both angel and human. Both either are allied against God, or for God. The unjust princes were usurped by evil spirits, and both the princes and spirits (powers, authorities) were destroyed. See Genesis 6, Jude 1:6, 2 Peter 2, etc. It has a widespread use in scripture.

See also, with Peter at the gate, "It is his angel", and "Receive the saints for you will entertain angels unawares" and "A man, that is an angel" in Rev 21.

The Angel in Revelation 1:20 has also been called the Spirit. "Blessed are those who hear what the Spirit (Angel) is speaking to the churches". Jesus speaks to the Angel of the church, which is a ministering spirit, which then speaks to the church. The angel is a messenger. That's why there are seven churches, seven angels who stand before the throne, and seven spirits (lamps of fire) burning before the throne.

[Cal]

aron,

I always get confused by the messenger angel idea. When does God use an angel to talk to us and when does he just talk to us directly, and why would he need both?

Signed,
Confused

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

aron,

I always get confused by the messenger angel idea. When does God use an angel to talk to us and when does he just talk to us directly, and why would he need both?

Signed,
Confused

"I am Gabriel, I stand before God". Angels are messengers. In the text it often is confusing, to us, because the writers often don't clearly delineate as our theological notions would prefer. We like clear-cut, but in the text we see an angel send Philip to the South Road, then the Spirit (ministering spirit?) sends Philip up to a chariot with an Ethiopian eunuch.

The expelled Hagar tells the angel, "Now God has seen His servant's distress", but she isn't speaking to God directly, but to God through the mediatory angel (so I surmise). So John's "seven eyes of God" may be angels. Possibly. God sees the servant Hagar through the servant angel.

And the NT record repeatedly tells us that the law was given through the intermediary agency of angels, but the OT record seems not to indicate this at all.

Anyway, I don't have a clear answer. But to summarily say that the "messenger" of Revelation 1:20 is a man, not an angel, seems a bit presumptuous, and overly hopeful. Our theology may prefer it, because we like our theology neat.

The best I can do is point to the typical narrative structure of the parable in the NT gospel record. A man, a rich man, or a king, had servants, and He (God is the understood allusion) gave them instructions and sent them off. A rich man doesn't do everything for himself, but has agents to do his bidding. God, of course, is very rich, and has tens of thousands, and thousands of thousands of servants, both men, angels, and whatnot (living creatures? Elders?) who all do His will. But the key, here, is not "whether angels or men" but whether clarity or not. Only transparent servants qualify. If we muddy up God's will with our own, we fail. Transparency is key. The eyes of the Lamb are always clear. Look at how the wheel of Ezekiel 1 and the four living creatures in Revelation 4 are full of eyes.

My point is that these messengers tell us about God, and tell God about us. They go back and forth. "Angels ascending and descending."

I am sure I didn't help your confusion and for that I apologize. I'm not sure that the biblical text gives the clarity we'd prefer. But in short I'd say that God, being holy, prefers to use intermediaries. Otherwise we'd get vaporized like smoke.

[DistantStar]

As I understand it, angels are not only God's messengers but also... in an non-understandable way... avatars of God. "Avatar" in the sense that the angels are (at least in some instances) more than merely messengers, but rather representatives. Not incarnations, but manifestations (if I may go so far). Manifestations of a part of Him. Like a tool. Yet distinct.

I don't think we can make a clear divide of angels as being only angels, men, or God. It surpasses our understanding. Though perhaps someone can clarify it.

Consider the burning bush out of which God spoke to Moses.

Exodus 3:2-4
(2) And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
(3) And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
(4) And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

I have to take a moment and reflect on the awesomeness of this passage. The part where God gives His name is one of the most beautiful in the Old Testament

The angel appeared, yet it was audibly God himself who spoke.

Also consider the passage about Lot escaping Sodom:

Genesis 19:13-14
(13) For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
(14) And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

Genesis 19:24
(24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Clearly the angels are distinct from, yet more than mere messengers of God. "We" and "us" in verse 13 versus "the LORD" in verse 14 and 24.

On a slightly related note, it's interesting how there were three men who spoke to Abraham (Gen 18:2). Yet when "the men" departed, "the LORD" stayed behind (Gen 18:22, 23). God had to be visible as Abraham "drew near". A manifestation of Jesus? Perhaps the third "man" was Christ while the other two went to Lot? It explains the third one's absence.

[Evangelical]

Angels and humans are actually more similar than we may think.

A human is a human spirit in a human body (Job 32:8).
An angel is a human or human-like spirit without a physical body (Hebrews 1:14).

For some reason God decided to create human or human-like spirits without bodies, and these are the angels. I will avoid saying that we become angels or that angels become humans, because I don't believe that. But I do believe angels and humans are more or less the same thing, just in a different form.

I use the word "human or human-like spirit" tentatively to describe angels, as we can never be sure. Are there different kinds of spirits? But I believe the bible shows that angels are more human than not:

1. angels find humans attractive and can appear physically to have relations with humans (Genesis 6:1-2). This must be because the angel is also human.

2. That the angels are human spirits is the reason that angels can easily take the form of a human and appear like any one of us (Hebrews 13:12).

3. Fallen angels (demons) will seek out human bodies to possess, and if they cannot find one, they might settle for an animal (Matt 8:28-34).

The similarity between angels and humans is remarkable:

Read more at: http://christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t005.html
Such expressions as “like the angels” (Luke 20:36), and the fact that whenever angels appeared to man it was always in a human form (Gen. 18:2; 19:1, 10; Luke 24:4; Acts 1:10), and the titles that are applied to them (“sons of God,” Job 1:6; 38:7; Dan. 3:25; compare 28) and to men (Luke 3:38), all seem to indicate some resemblance between them and the human race.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Angels and humans are actually more similar than we may think.

A human is a human spirit in a human body (Job 32:8).
An angel is a human or human-like spirit without a physical body (Hebrews 1:14).

For some reason God decided to create human or human-like spirits without bodies, and these are the angels. I will avoid saying that we become angels or that angels become humans, because I don't believe that. But I do believe angels and humans are more or less the same thing, just in a different form.

I use the word "human or human-like spirit" tentatively to describe angels, as we can never be sure. Are there different kinds of spirits? But I believe the bible shows that angels are more human than not:

1. angels find humans attractive and can appear physically to have relations with humans (Genesis 6:1-2). This must be because the angel is also human.

2. That the angels are human spirits is the reason that angels can easily take the form of a human and appear like any one of us (Hebrews 13:12).

3. Fallen angels (demons) will seek out human bodies to possess, and if they cannot find one, they might settle for an animal (Matt 8:28-34).

Interesting points you gave. Yet we are not just "in different forms".

Besides the examples about the Burning Bush and Sodom I gave below, also consider their other abilities, including making people mute and blind, sending disasters over the earth (Revelations) and, at times, having appearances so great that people wanted to worship them.

They are made as ministering spirits for us (Hebrews 1:13-14). They are not our counterparts, even if they share some similarities. They are clearly more than just bodyless people.

People have a lot in common with certain apes. But that just makes them similar, not the same.

I think the question we need to ask is: "What makes us humans?". A soul? A spirit? A body? All of them? Or that we are made in God's image? What else? If we can define a human then we can decide whether angels fit that criteria, otherwise they are merely similar, and (in my opinion obviously) not just bodiless humans.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Interesting points you gave. Yet we are not just "in different forms".

Besides the examples about the Burning Bush and Sodom I gave below, also consider their other abilities, including making people mute and blind, sending disasters over the earth (Revelations) and, at times, having appearances so great that people wanted to worship them.

They are made as ministering spirits for us (Hebrews 1:13-14). They are not our counterparts, even if they share some similarities. They are clearly more than just bodyless people.

People have a lot in common with certain apes. But that just makes them similar, not the same.

I think the question we need to ask is: "What makes us humans?". A soul? A spirit? A body? All of them? Or that we are made in God's image? What else? If we can define a human then we can decide whether angels fit that criteria, otherwise they are merely similar, and (in my opinion obviously) not just bodiless humans.

Clearly, angels do not fit that criteria. But angels are described as having human-like features, except for the wings, but wings aren't that biblical (only special classes of angels have wings).

Actually Jesus said that humans will be like angels in this verse:
Mark 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Perhaps humans are just angels who haven't got their wings yet.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually Jesus said that humans will be like angels in this verse:
Mark 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

In the context, I think Jesus said that humans in resurrection will be like angels, specifically in the aspect of marriage.

Matthew 22: 28- 30
Sadducees asked: Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

*****
Zachariah 5: 9
Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven.

Female angels?

******
Seraphim, Cherubim, Four Living Creatures .... (these are angels)

******
Just a thought:
- Angels do not marry (male angels, female angels)
- Humans do marry (man and woman, multiply and replenish the earth)
- Angels and human women (male angel and female human), produced giants
- Angels (female) and human men (any such thing? - no record of reproduction if there were)
- Angels and humans (male angel, male human), eg Sodom
- Angels and humans (female angel, female human) any such thing?

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually Jesus said that humans will be like angels in this verse:
Mark 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Perhaps humans are just angels who haven't got their wings yet.

"Like". Not "the same". We will still be similar to, but not the same as, the angels.

And this is anyway talking about marriage, not our whole being.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps humans are just angels who haven't got their wings yet.

Perhaps. As I wrote earlier, Origen liked to speculate on such things. But if Origen, writing in the third century CE, had to admit his writings weren't truth but speculation, how much more we all!

Yet Lee liked his theology neat. "A equals B" and "This means that" and "This shows us that." The reason I brought up the subject initially was because the categorical statement, "the messengers in Revelation 1:20 are human, not angelic" seemed too simplistic.

My own take is heavily affected by the notion that behind every physical thing, there was a spiritual one. "As in heaven, so on earth" was Jesus' prayer. So how are we to understand the earth unless we understand "as in heaven"? And Hebrews copied the dictum "See that you make everything on earth according to the heavenly pattern". The same point applies here. The heavenly pattern is central to understanding.

Therefore, to say that a poetic prophetic reference was merely to an earthly, human judge or prince (or in Revelation 1:20, a messenger to a church elder) is to miss the larger narrative, and dive too shallowly. Paul said, "The things that are seen are temporary; the things not seen are eternal". Behind the temporary human action is a spirit. Behind the human messenger is an angelic one. Behind the earthly ruler is an angelic "power".

But how much can we say? Jesus said concerning the little ones, "their angels in heaven are always beholding the face of My Father". Again and again the NT text seems to reference a common understanding that isn't well explicated. The Reformers were right to go with "sola scriptora" and abandon myth, but with angels that leaves us with precious little in the bare text.

So I'll say 3 things:

1. It's probably not as simplistic as Lee taught us.
2. There's not a lot we can say, definitively, concerning what people believed. Too much is alluded to obliquely, for us to say, "This equals that" or "this means that". But there is some very interesting research going on, regarding the surrounding conversation in 2nd Temple Judaism, on such subjects, as how the earthly was a copy of the heavenly realms, and how it might pertain to NT understanding.
3. Personally, what makes the subject germane is this: I see three falls in the OT: first is the fall of "Lucifer", second the fall of humanity in Genesis 3, and third is the fall of the angels referenced in Genesis 6. And note that each fall was in some manner intrinsically connected to (and even dependent upon?) the one which proceeded it. These are not separate subjects but are part of a larger narrative. Also note that Jesus apparently dealt with the 3 falls in the gospels, and the subject of all three was of intense NT interest right up through John's 'Apocalypse.'

But it's unwise to lean too heavily on slender reeds. The writer of 'Ad Hebreo' (To the Hebrews) was very concerned with believers being overly influenced by the discussion of angels, which at some point simply has to veer into unfounded speculation. . . so I think about it, but over time have decided to talk about it less, and try to keep focused on Jesus Christ.

[OBW]

I know this topic devolved into discussions of deification long back, and then died altogether a week or so ago.

And I probably should have just left it there.

But this is something that is always on my mind. What is God's Economy.

And when I am confronted with what Paul said when he wrote to Timothy I am unable to find a limited definition of "economy" as adequate to describe the term. I mean, if the whole of the outcome of good and proper teachings is "God's economy" then it is more than "simply" anything.

So I see many teachings provided directly by Jesus:

• Love your neighbor as yourself.
• Hunger and thirst for righteousness
• Judge righteously (as opposed to don't judge)
• Be salt and light
• Teach the law more diligently that the law that is written (because failing to do so will get you the back of the line)
• Seek the pearl of great price
• Be a doer of the word, not just a hearer
• Be one as the Father and Son are one

And so many more. Just imagine all that those teaching result in.

And then compare that to "it just the dispensing of God into man." You can argue that it could work. If you had God dispensed into you, then all of that could be true.

But it is the result of all of those things that is the whole of "God's economy," not some teaching about "simply the dispensing of God into man" that is the whole of God's economy.

Lee taught that teaching a simplistic version of God's economy was God's economy. Paul taught that the result of all the good teachings was God's economy.

Lee is not even in the same ballpark as Paul. No comparison. Not talking about sort of the same thing.

[Evangelical]

The concept of most Christians is to be a good person and do good things. But the Bible teaches a greater purpose.

God's economy is about conformation to the image of Christ:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God;

Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

All of those rules and instructions you mentioned have their ultimate purpose in achieving Romans 8:29 and 2 Cor 3:18

2 Cor 3:18 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All of those rules and instructions you mentioned have their ultimate purpose in achieving Romans 8:29 and 2 Cor 3:18

2 Cor 3:18 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

These are all true verses. But they are not the starting point. They are the result of the things I mentioned. Lee used your verses to declare that you don't have to actually obey and/or do those things, just "behold and reflect." Sounds so simple. But reflecting is to cause the glory of the Lord to go outward. That doesn't happen when we are not actually hungering and thirsting for righteousness, being a doer of the word, loving neighbor as self.

Even you slip and admit that "God's economy" is the result of all those things that I said. Then it must be the result of many good teachings that are not, in themselves, simply "God's economy." That is the fallacy of Lee's use of the term. He used the term as being the teaching and the cause for negating even the teachings of Jesus. And of his more favorite teacher, Paul.

Let me explain my biggest problem with so many of Witness Lee's "simply" statements. Grace is "simply" Jesus. God's economy is "simply" God being dispensed into man.

In some aspects, those statements are true. But they are incomplete. In the case of "God's economy," it is the difference between the vast array of things that make it up and the simplistic statement that it is "simply" anything. The way Lee wields it, it is like declaring that the vast array of formulas and algorithms that make up the field of Physics are declared to be "simply" physics with no need to study and apply the independent formulas, processes, etc. "We don't need E=mc^2!! Just apply Physics!" he would declare.

No longer a need to care for the widow and orphan. No longer a need to care for right and wrong (especially since it is in the "wrong tree"). No longer a requirement for obedience to the law (not the ritual law, but the law that is summed up on love God and love your neighbor as yourself).

Lee works his way around the Bible dismissing things, or declaring them to mean something that the words themselves could not mean, all because of "God's economy." God's economy was the reason he considered James to be mostly an example of what not to do. And the reason that so much of the Psalms are not worthy of our reading, and considered just the natural concept of the writer.

Maybe it is the natural concept of the teacher that dismisses so much of scripture. It surely wasn't something that was actually found in the scripture that allowed for it.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The concept of most Christians is to be a good person and do good things. But the Bible teaches a greater purpose..

Simply telling a Christian to "be a good person and do good things" is incomplete. It might be burdensome (As the Israelites in the Old Testament have shown, we cannot keep all the commandments by our own strength) or lead to the Christian thinking his salvation is by his good deeds and so become proud.

A more complete message would be to first understand man's sin and God's righteousness, forgiveness and love shown to us. After one has understood these, then be a good person and do good things. This is the pattern of Paul's writings in Romans and Ephesians:- Tell the people what God has done; and then in the second half of these letters, tell the people how they are to live in light of what God has done.

In terms of spelling, the two words (i) God and (ii) Good differ by an alphabet "o". I don't see why there needs to be a distinction between (i) image of God and (ii) good. When we do good (which, has to be judged inwardly and outwardly), we are reflecting God because God is good. (As Jesus said, “No one is good but God alone”)

Perhaps part of the misunderstandings we may have arise from our different understanding of "good"?

For example, in the story of the Good Samaritan, it is obvious that the Samaritan is good, while the people who robbed the traveller are bad.

But what about the people who just walked by? They didn't cause the trouble but they didn't help either. Society is full of such people. We might disagree on whether such people can still be considered "good". Some think that as long as they have not killed or stolen, these people are still “good”. Others like me disagree.

[OBW]

micah6v8,

I think you are over-analyzing it. To require that someone understand a lot of things (very true things) before one starts to "do" is not supported by the Bible. It says that believers obey. And that obedience is a sign that one believes. To say that one can believe without obeying is sort of contradictory. If you believe but don't obey, do you really believe?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Simply telling a Christian to "be a good person and do good things" is incomplete. It might be burdensome (As the Israelites in the Old Testament have shown, we cannot keep all the commandments by our own strength) or lead to the Christian thinking his salvation is by his good deeds and so become proud.

So then when Witness Lee talks about "expressing God" that would be equivalent to James reference that we are justified by works in the eyes of man.

Unfortunately Witness Lee made "expressing God" equivalent to "prophesying" and then "prophesying" became equivalent to reading footnotes in a meeting. All you have to do to express God in Witness Lee's theology is to buy his book and then read a short quote during a meeting.

[micah6v8]

Yes, this is a point I also share: - Expressing God is showing an attribute of God (e.g. his love/righteousness). When we love others or live a righteous life, we are expressing God.

Expressing God does not mean expressing your understanding of God. That would involve some sleight of hand in defining things.

For the avoidance of doubt, I believe it is a good thing to share your understanding of God with others; it may help to edify them. But definitions should not be twisted).

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by OBW

micah6v8, I think you are over-analyzing it..

I agree with you that Christians are to trust and obey God even when they do not understand. After all, we are men with finite knowledge and understanding. We do not see the big picture as God does.

I also believe that when we understand what God has done for us, we will have the ability to carry out God's commands.

Eg if I am merely asked to love my neighbour, it would be a burdensome command.

But if I know that I have been loved much by my Saviour, loving my neighbour is no longer burdensome.

We love because we have been loved.

Similarly, it is easier to forgive others when we know how much we have been forgiven.

As mentioned in my earlier posts, Paul's words are often phrased in terms of telling us what God has done for us before telling us how to live in light of what God has done.

As to whether it is possible to believe without obeying, I have not formed any firm thoughts on this. I have friends who smoke, but I believe that if I asked them, they would agree that smoking is harmful to your body.

I think some theologians believe that it is possible to have intellectual assent without being convicted in the heart.

Even if we are convicted in our heart, sometimes the flesh is weak

What do you make of the verse "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing."?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

These are all true verses. But they are not the starting point...

OBW,

In many ways simplicity is more advantageous than complexity. The simplicity of Christ, that we should be like innocent children, that we should
be like Mary not Martha, these are all examples of simplicity.

In nature are many examples of big things coming from simplicity. Trees grow from a simple seed, etc.


Regarding obedience, I'm thinking that your understanding of God's economy falls short and leads you to believe it is somehow against obedience or does not follow obedience.

God's economy is basically trusting and obeying God, by God dispensing Himself into us.

Everyone who has been saved, has been saved because of their obedience to the gospel. So obedience precedes God's economy.

Subsequently, when God's economy causes that person to obey God in some matter or do some good work, that is obedience as a result of God's economy.

If a person obeys God, God will dispense more of Himself into them, therefore this is obedience preceding God's economy.

We can see that God's dispensing is a continual flow or two-way thing between man and God.

It was only a few weeks ago actually that in the meeting we discussed the importance of obedience to God.

"Not caring for right or wrong" - is in the context for obeying God. In other words we obey God not by our own effort of following rules, legalistically, but by following the Spirit.

In the bible some people accused Paul of teaching licentiousness because he emphasized grace. Lee did not teach licentiousness, rather he emphasized God's economy over human effort. The cause of both licentiousness and legalism is in fact our fallen human nature. The solution is God's economy.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then when Witness Lee talks about "expressing God" that would be equivalent to James reference that we are justified by works in the eyes of man.

Unfortunately Witness Lee made "expressing God" equivalent to "prophesying" and then "prophesying" became equivalent to reading footnotes in a meeting. All you have to do to express God in Witness Lee's theology is to buy his book and then read a short quote during a meeting.

This is not true at all.

When Lee talks about expressing God he often refers to God's nature and character such as love, life, light, holiness etc. And expressing God is not for justification to anyone, it is God's plan and purpose for mankind. We are not a complete and normal human being unless we are expressing God.

Prophesying is not about reading Lee's words but about providing something from ones own inspiration according to the leading of the Spirit. In the meetings people are discouraged from merely repeating Lee's words.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Simply telling a Christian to "be a good person and do good things" is incomplete. It might be burdensome (As the Israelites in the Old Testament have shown, we cannot keep all the commandments by our own strength) or lead to the Christian thinking his salvation is by his good deeds and so become proud.

A more complete message would be to first understand man's sin and God's righteousness, forgiveness and love shown to us. After one has understood these, then be a good person and do good things. This is the pattern of Paul's writings in Romans and Ephesians:- Tell the people what God has done; and then in the second half of these letters, tell the people how they are to live in light of what God has done.

In terms of spelling, the two words (i) God and (ii) Good differ by an alphabet "o". I don't see why there needs to be a distinction between (i) image of God and (ii) good. When we do good (which, has to be judged inwardly and outwardly), we are reflecting God because God is good. (As Jesus said, “No one is good but God alone”)

Perhaps part of the misunderstandings we may have arise from our different understanding of "good"?

For example, in the story of the Good Samaritan, it is obvious that the Samaritan is good, while the people who robbed the traveller are bad.

But what about the people who just walked by? They didn't cause the trouble but they didn't help either. Society is full of such people. We might disagree on whether such people can still be considered "good". Some think that as long as they have not killed or stolen, these people are still “good”. Others like me disagree.

Christ's obedience to His Father was because He was the Son of God and not to make Him the Son of God. His character and his person was the primary thing.

So I agree that goodness is equivalent to bearing God's image because God is good. Being conformed to the image of Christ is God's ultimate purpose for mankind, this high purpose is also prevalent in early christian writings. This was the meaning of life that the early Christians had, and an intense desire to be with the Lord. Whatever we do to become like God can be considered a good work.

The primary good work that God wants us to do is to believe in Jesus:
John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

They had just asked him what they had to do in verse 28. Jesus said well, the main thing you have to do is believe in me. To obey God means to believe in Christ.

Today the concept of most Christians is merely to go to heaven when they die and to do good things for other people. For this purpose there are many churches and organizations that cater to individual needs and do social work. They miss the heart of the Bible and God's purpose which is to be like Him. These churches pay little attention to sitting at Jesus's feet and learning from Him, and they put good works above good character.

When most Christians read Genesis they don't see Genesis 1:27 as the most important thing (being like God), they only see the 7 day creation story.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not true at all.

When Lee talks about expressing God he often refers to God's nature and character such as love, life, light, holiness etc. And expressing God is not for justification to anyone, it is God's plan and purpose for mankind. We are not a complete and normal human being unless we are expressing God.

Prophesying is not about reading Lee's words but about providing something from ones own inspiration according to the leading of the Spirit. In the meetings people are discouraged from merely repeating Lee's words.

Witness Lee has said very clearly that the "expression of Christ is the Body". How do you build up the Body?

We also have a good hymnal and a number of good books, such as Truth Lessons, Life Lessons, the Life-study Messages, The Experience of Life, The Economy of God, and The All-Inclusive Christ. We may bring any of these books to the meeting, and when we open them, something marvelous will be there. We do not necessarily need to speak starting from the first section of a chapter, but we can use any page. We may “play ball” from any section. In a meeting you may say, “Let us read a section of Life Lessons concerning the two aspects of the Spirit.” Or you may say, “Let us speak the nine titles of the Spirit as listed in this section.” (WL, Speaking Christ for the Building up of the Body of Christ, Chapter 10, Sect 4)

All of us can speak. We have the Bible, a hymnal, the Life-study Messages, and other spiritual publications to speak. If we spoke a Life-study Message together, this would make the best message full of the divine riches and the refreshing utterances. (WL, Speaking Christ for the Building up of the Body of Christ, Chapter 4, Sect 5)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee has said very clearly that the "expression of Christ is the Body". How do you build up the Body?

We also have a good hymnal and a number of good books, such as Truth Lessons, Life Lessons, the Life-study Messages, The Experience of Life, The Economy of God, and The All-Inclusive Christ. We may bring any of these books to the meeting, and when we open them, something marvelous will be there. We do not necessarily need to speak starting from the first section of a chapter, but we can use any page. We may “play ball” from any section. In a meeting you may say, “Let us read a section of Life Lessons concerning the two aspects of the Spirit.” Or you may say, “Let us speak the nine titles of the Spirit as listed in this section.” (WL, Speaking Christ for the Building up of the Body of Christ, Chapter 10, Sect 4)

All of us can speak. We have the Bible, a hymnal, the Life-study Messages, and other spiritual publications to speak. If we spoke a Life-study Message together, this would make the best message full of the divine riches and the refreshing utterances. (WL, Speaking Christ for the Building up of the Body of Christ, Chapter 4, Sect 5)

We can speak from any of the messages, and even speaking the message has some value. But if you read the whole book from the beginning, it is clear that Lee wants us to know the Word of God and pray.

chapter 1:
The word is the holy word revealed in the Scriptures, either the constant Word or the instant word. If we are going to be the speaking ones in our meetings, we must let the word of Christ dwell in us richly (Col. 3:16). The riches of Christ are in His word. The word of the Lord must have adequate room within us that it may operate and minister these riches into our being. Then our speaking of the word in the meetings will be an exhibition of the riches of Christ.


So your argument that "all you have to do is quote Lee" is not true at all. Quoting Lee has some value but everyone is encouraged to speak from the Word in their heart. Many times myself and others in a meeting have not quoted Lee at all in our messages.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We can speak from any of the messages, and even speaking the message has some value. But if you read the whole book from the beginning, it is clear that Lee wants us to know the Word of God and pray.

chapter 1:
The word is the holy word revealed in the Scriptures, either the constant Word or the instant word. If we are going to be the speaking ones in our meetings, we must let the word of Christ dwell in us richly (Col. 3:16). The riches of Christ are in His word. The word of the Lord must have adequate room within us that it may operate and minister these riches into our being. Then our speaking of the word in the meetings will be an exhibition of the riches of Christ.


So your argument that "all you have to do is quote Lee" is not true at all. Quoting Lee has some value but everyone is encouraged to speak from the Word in their heart. Many times myself and others in a meeting have not quoted Lee at all in our messages.

Yes, you have proven over and over again that one quote from Lee can contradict another quote from Lee.

In one place he says we may bring any one of his books to a meeting, open it and speak from it. In another place he says:

It is shameful to collect materials from others' books and then pass them on to the children of God. What we pass on to the children of God must be something we have seen. (Witness Lee, The Visions of Ezekiel, chapter 1, section 4)

In one place Lee warns that using the term "deification" can be interpreted as "pagan, idolatrous, and heretical" and therefore the Orthodox Christians who used this term were wrong. In another place he tells us it is OK for him to use this term because the Orthodox Christians used it years ago.

In one place Lee tells us the US is "the great eagle" the place where the believers can flee to during the great tribulation. In another he tells us that legalized marriage for gays makes it Sodom and will bring down God's judgement on it.

In one place he teaches very detailed account of how to thoroughly deal with sins. In another place he wants to just "move on" and "forget" the "ancient history" of his sins.

You yourself said it was absolutely not true that Lee taught that quoting Lee in a meeting was the exercise of the spirit, the way to build the body and express Christ. But then when you see that he did teach that it doesn't matter because he also quoted Colossians 3:16. Now the fact that he was doing spiritual gymnastics to equate Colossians 3:16 with quoting his books in the church doesn't bother you at all. Of course not.

You see if Witness Lee doesn't teach "to worship him" then it is OK with you if he teaches that he is being deified. See, he didn't use the expression "worship me". He did say that we could worship God by buying his books and speaking them during worship services, but he never said to "worship him". He did say that all other Christian teachers lacked his special vision, that he alone was teaching the up to date vision, and that his close relationship to Watchman Nee made him "the minister of the Age". If you read these messages you will see that he actually warns that we should not quote anyone else during the meeting. (I provide a quote from these messages below) But, quoting him is a spiritual exercise. But that doesn't mean he was teaching another Jesus. Sure, he used the fact that Moses was a type of Jesus to support his MOTA teaching, basically saying that Moses was a type of Watchman Nee and by extension himself.

No I get what you are saying. I repudiate it. I reject it. But you have made yourself very clear. 9 people on the Supreme court have decided that 350 million people in the US live in Sodom. In Abraham's time God couldn't find 10 righteous people in Sodom so He judged it, today you find 9 unrighteous people in the US so you judge it. Who made you God? Oh yeah, right, it was Witness Lee.

We should avoid quoting things from books without spiritual weight. Many times people like to quote from others’ books in their speaking because they think that these quotations can strengthen or confirm their points. They also may quote others to strengthen or confirm that they are learned and knowledgeable. We do not need to make such a show of our knowledge of others’ books. To refer to others’ books is a risk. We may bring in things that are not according to the truth or that are not constructive. Our speaking with wrong quotations from others’ books may distract others and destroy our intention to build up the church. To bring in quotations from other books may even create dissension, so we have to be careful when we quote others’ writings. (Witness Lee, Speaking Christ for the Building up of the Body of Christ, chapter 10, section 3)

[Ohio]

"Yes, you have proven over and over again that one quote from Lee can contradict another quote from Lee."
-- How true!

In one place Lee encourages different brothers around the Recovery to write and publish the word of God, ministering all the riches. In another place he tells us that we need a One Publication Policy throughout all the Local Churches and only LSM can publish.

Thus the troublesome GLA and Brazil were conveniently eliminated from "God's people."

Was Lee god, or maybe just a fickle dictator?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The simplicity of Christ, that we should be like innocent children, that we should be like Mary not Martha, these are all examples of simplicity.

Do you think that the comment about Mary v Martha was a universal statement about what Mary did in this one instance v anything that anyone ever does concerning things like what Martha was doing? If you do think that, then you are lost in a context-less world. Ambiguity is your friend.

The comment to Martha about Mary was not a condemnation of what Martha did, but a recognition that the thing that Mary was doing in this particular instance was not to be disdained and set aside for the purpose of other things.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OBW,

"Not caring for right or wrong" - is in the context for obeying God. In other words we obey God not by our own effort of following rules, legalistically, but by following the Spirit.

A believer's relationship with God is tested when things are not going well in his life.

He may be at a struggle to understand why God is letting this thing happen to him. His emotions may be at a turmoil.

In such a situation, simply telling him to "follow the Spirit" is not helpful.

To quote an article I read, he may have the following expressions

“I feel so spiritually dry right now.”
“Why can’t I hear God’s voice?”
“I’m unable to feel God’s presence in my life.”

If on the other hand, he is certain of God's presence, then he may end up following his own sinful desires, and pursue a sinful course of action which he may mistakenly attribute it to the Spirit's leading.

God's word is unchanging. God's standards of "right and wrong" do not change despite our emotions.

The believer should be guided by what God has said to be "right and wrong". That is how we tell he is trusting God:- when he is obeying the bible even when things are not going well and he does not understand why this is happening to him.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not true at all.

When Lee talks about expressing God he often refers to God's nature and character such as love, life, light, holiness etc. And expressing God is not for justification to anyone, it is God's plan and purpose for mankind. We are not a complete and normal human being unless we are expressing God.

I am curious to know in which books did Lee say that expressing God is in the context of God's nature and character.

In Chapter 3 section 3 of "The Intrinsic View of the Body of Christ", Witness Lee talks about exhibiting Christ. But as I mentioned earlier, he seems to equate that to prophesying. He talks about brothers sharing "in a way that is full of the natural life and the natural concept...that have nothing to do with the Body of Christ."

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=SWTWXG6ZBLGO7

[OBW]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

In Chapter 3 section 3 of "The Intrinsic View of the Body of Christ", Witness Lee talks about exhibiting Christ. But as I mentioned earlier, he seems to equate that to prophesying. He talks about brothers sharing "in a way that is full of the natural life and the natural concept...that have nothing to do with the Body of Christ."

I think you are onto something here.

To express Christ is not to talk about him in a better way. It is not to separate from the world in a meeting and "share the riches of Christ" which is essentially a lot of talking.

Good or bad, talking is not really expressing Christ. Unless it is simply that in our speaking we are speaking as Christ would in the circumstances.

Expressing Christ is in our living. At work. At home. In the marketplace. On the streets.

It is mostly NOT about saying things about Christ. It is about living as Christ would live. Speaking in normal conversation as Christ would speak.

I am not precluding the possibility of speaking about Christ, whether in an evangelistic effort of some kind, or in one-on-one conversation that turns in that manner. But I think that we are mostly focused on speaking about Christ in either some kind of evangelistic effort or when grouped together in some kind of Christian fellowship or meeting, when that is actually the small part of our lives. That seems to consider that "expressing Christ" is mostly irrelevant in our daily living.

And it shows. We feel "free in Christ" to thumb our nose at the rules. I remember a time when an elder was speaking in a meeting about a certain brother (leading one) essentially using the example of his disregard for rules as a good example of "plundering Egypt." Go to a restaurant, order something with "no substitutions" on the menu and always ask for a substitution. (Not very significant, but an example of character.)

Did work for the "saints" and asked them to pay him through the offering box. A gift. Tax free. Plundering Egypt. (They didn't proclaim that one, but I know that it happened.)

Even when I was there, those kinds of things did not impress me positively. Before I left, I already had a negative opinion of that brother. (and he was eventually "run off" in a sense over finances.) It seemed to me to be more like not being faithful in small things. And in some not-so-small things.

This is where we express Christ. In our living.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Not caring for right or wrong" - is in the context for obeying God. In other words we obey God not by our own effort of following rules, legalistically, but by following the Spirit.

It is a convenient assumption that the Spirit is not, by definition, behind our willingness to obey the rules as we read them. As if we should not ever read a rule in the Bible and intend to obey it, but should expect it to just flow from the Spirit.

Do I presume then that for someone who lived a life of adultery, that upon being saved he/she should not simply stop it because the Bible says so, but should instead wait for the Spirit to speak to them concerning it? I bet you would declare that surely the spirit would speak on this matter.

But not on the others? If you are a Christian and you see it written that your should [fill in the blank], you should do some spiritual gymnastics until you really feel like you are not doing it from the Spirit? Or is it sufficient to understand that the words are Spirit and upon hearing them that the desire to follow is likewise Spirit, and you are therefore empowered to do it. Doesn't mean that you will successfully do it always. But you cannot excuse not even trying on a lack of Spirit since even Peter declared that you have everything you need for it.

This whole idea of people "doing it in themselves" is mostly an excuse for not even trying instead of trying an sometimes failing. Surely the world does everything, even good, "in themselves." But if you are of Christ, Christ is in you. You have no excuse. There is nothing more you need before you at least try.

An invitation for stumbling otherwise good believers. Invite them to not live the righteous life that God commands and instead live a less-than-righteous life. Seems that Jesus spoke about people teaching that doing less than all of the law as being so offensive that those teachers would find themselves at the bottom of the heap in the Kingdom.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is a convenient assumption that the Spirit is not, by definition, behind our willingness to obey the rules as we read them. As if we should not ever read a rule in the Bible and intend to obey it, but should expect it to just flow from the Spirit.

Do I presume then that for someone who lived a life of adultery, that upon being saved he/she should not simply stop it because the Bible says so, but should instead wait for the Spirit to speak to them concerning it? I bet you would declare that surely the spirit would speak on this matter.

But not on the others? If you are a Christian and you see it written that your should [fill in the blank], you should do some spiritual gymnastics until you really feel like you are not doing it from the Spirit? Or is it sufficient to understand that the words are Spirit and upon hearing them that the desire to follow is likewise Spirit, and you are therefore empowered to do it. Doesn't mean that you will successfully do it always. But you cannot excuse not even trying on a lack of Spirit since even Peter declared that you have everything you need for it.

This whole idea of people "doing it in themselves" is mostly an excuse for not even trying instead of trying an sometimes failing. Surely the world does everything, even good, "in themselves." But if you are of Christ, Christ is in you. You have no excuse. There is nothing more you need before you at least try.

An invitation for stumbling otherwise good believers. Invite them to not live the righteous life that God commands and instead live a less-than-righteous life. Seems that Jesus spoke about people teaching that doing less than all of the law as being so offensive that those teachers would find themselves at the bottom of the heap in the Kingdom.

OBW, try for what reason? God has already saved us by His grace, we cannot add to it or take away from it. God does not save us by grace half way and expect us to do the rest ourselves. God sending his Son to die for us on the cross was 100% God and 0% us and that doesn't change after salvation. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we can add to that. There are possibly people who try their hardest and are more righteous according to the Law than those that do not rely on themselves. But this is what the Bible calls self-righteousness.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I am curious to know in which books did Lee say that expressing God is in the context of God's nature and character.

In Chapter 3 section 3 of "The Intrinsic View of the Body of Christ", Witness Lee talks about exhibiting Christ. But as I mentioned earlier, he seems to equate that to prophesying. He talks about brothers sharing "in a way that is full of the natural life and the natural concept...that have nothing to do with the Body of Christ."

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=SWTWXG6ZBLGO7

See "THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF THE INDWELLING CHRIST", "CHRIST MAKING HIS HOME IN OUR MIND, EMOTION, AND WILL".

You are right that it includes prophesying. Our speaking, attitude, reactions, thoughts, opinions, intents, desires, character, etc, should all be expressing Christ which is expressing God.

If you Google "GOD’S NATURE BEING DISPENSED INTO US FOR OUR LIVING IN SPIRIT, LOVE, AND LIGHT" you will find something about God's love and light as well. All of these are contained in Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

A believer's relationship with God is tested when things are not going well in his life.

He may be at a struggle to understand why God is letting this thing happen to him. His emotions may be at a turmoil.

In such a situation, simply telling him to "follow the Spirit" is not helpful.

To quote an article I read, he may have the following expressions

“I feel so spiritually dry right now.”
“Why can’t I hear God’s voice?”
“I’m unable to feel God’s presence in my life.”

If on the other hand, he is certain of God's presence, then he may end up following his own sinful desires, and pursue a sinful course of action which he may mistakenly attribute it to the Spirit's leading.

God's word is unchanging. God's standards of "right and wrong" do not change despite our emotions.

The believer should be guided by what God has said to be "right and wrong". That is how we tell he is trusting God:- when he is obeying the bible even when things are not going well and he does not understand why this is happening to him.

Well, you've obviously missed something important - following the Spirit is the same thing as following the Word. The Word is the Spirit. When we say follow the Spirit, we mean read the Bible and pray, basically. A good reference on this would be "Christ versus Religion, by Witness Lee", section titled "THE WORD IS THE SPIRIT,
AND THE SPIRIT IS THE WORD".

The alternative to this is to try and obey with our own effort, that does not involve prayer or involves merely Bible reading without touching the Spirit. This is what Lee means by not living according to "right vs wrong".
Lee is not proposing that we do not try and follow what is plainly written in the Bible, and just seek after some spiritual experience. He is stressing the importance of spiritual fellowship with God for obedience rather than trying in our own self.

Example: We read in the Bible where it says we have to obey in some matter. Recognizing our lack of strength to obey in ourselves, we may pray and ask the Lord to give us the ability to obey. This is an example of following the Spirit.

A person living according to "right vs wrong", will read the Bible and know they have to obey in some matter, but they will not ask the Lord to give them the ability. They may not pray at all. They may even ask the Lord to make them a more obedient person in themselves, but this is a dead-letter kind of prayer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you think that the comment about Mary v Martha was a universal statement about what Mary did in this one instance v anything that anyone ever does concerning things like what Martha was doing? If you do think that, then you are lost in a context-less world. Ambiguity is your friend.

The comment to Martha about Mary was not a condemnation of what Martha did, but a recognition that the thing that Mary was doing in this particular instance was not to be disdained and set aside for the purpose of other things.

OBW, by saying it was a "recognition that the thing that Mary was doing in this particular instance was not to be disdained and set aside for the purpose of other things", you have basically confirmed what the Lord's Recovery is all about. Just as Mary's sitting at Jesus feet was better than "much serving", the Lord's Recovery is better in the Lord's eyes than any social or help the poor program because it focuses on the better thing.

So if we criticize the Lord's Recovery for merely sitting at Jesus's feet, preaching the Word, waiting on the Spirit, and perhaps not doing as much social things as other churches, then the Lord would say to us "Leave them alone, they have chosen what is better".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, you have proven over and over again that one quote from Lee can contradict another quote from Lee.

In one place he says we may bring any one of his books to a meeting, open it and speak from it. In another place he says:

It is shameful to collect materials from others' books and then pass them on to the children of God. What we pass on to the children of God must be something we have seen. (Witness Lee, The Visions of Ezekiel, chapter 1, section 4)

In one place Lee warns that using the term "deification" can be interpreted as "pagan, idolatrous, and heretical" and therefore the Orthodox Christians who used this term were wrong. In another place he tells us it is OK for him to use this term because the Orthodox Christians used it years ago.

In one place Lee tells us the US is "the great eagle" the place where the believers can flee to during the great tribulation. In another he tells us that legalized marriage for gays makes it Sodom and will bring down God's judgement on it.

In one place he teaches very detailed account of how to thoroughly deal with sins. In another place he wants to just "move on" and "forget" the "ancient history" of his sins.

You yourself said it was absolutely not true that Lee taught that quoting Lee in a meeting was the exercise of the spirit, the way to build the body and express Christ. But then when you see that he did teach that it doesn't matter because he also quoted Colossians 3:16. Now the fact that he was doing spiritual gymnastics to equate Colossians 3:16 with quoting his books in the church doesn't bother you at all. Of course not.

You see if Witness Lee doesn't teach "to worship him" then it is OK with you if he teaches that he is being deified. See, he didn't use the expression "worship me". He did say that we could worship God by buying his books and speaking them during worship services, but he never said to "worship him". He did say that all other Christian teachers lacked his special vision, that he alone was teaching the up to date vision, and that his close relationship to Watchman Nee made him "the minister of the Age". If you read these messages you will see that he actually warns that we should not quote anyone else during the meeting. (I provide a quote from these messages below) But, quoting him is a spiritual exercise. But that doesn't mean he was teaching another Jesus. Sure, he used the fact that Moses was a type of Jesus to support his MOTA teaching, basically saying that Moses was a type of Watchman Nee and by extension himself.

No I get what you are saying. I repudiate it. I reject it. But you have made yourself very clear. 9 people on the Supreme court have decided that 350 million people in the US live in Sodom. In Abraham's time God couldn't find 10 righteous people in Sodom so He judged it, today you find 9 unrighteous people in the US so you judge it. Who made you God? Oh yeah, right, it was Witness Lee.

We should avoid quoting things from books without spiritual weight. Many times people like to quote from others’ books in their speaking because they think that these quotations can strengthen or confirm their points. They also may quote others to strengthen or confirm that they are learned and knowledgeable. We do not need to make such a show of our knowledge of others’ books. To refer to others’ books is a risk. We may bring in things that are not according to the truth or that are not constructive. Our speaking with wrong quotations from others’ books may distract others and destroy our intention to build up the church. To bring in quotations from other books may even create dissension, so we have to be careful when we quote others’ writings. (Witness Lee, Speaking Christ for the Building up of the Body of Christ, chapter 10, section 3)

ZNPaaneah,

on the topic of gay marriage, your argument about the 9 or 10 doesn't stick, because I have already quoted statistics which show the majority of the American population supports it. It is on this basis that America is Sodom, and not merely because of the 9 or 10 law makers or judges.

Perhaps I can flip this around the other way. If America is not Sodom, then what city or country in the bible is best used as a metaphor to describe America today? Is it Jerusalem? It could possible be Tyre, the center of commercialism.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OBW, by saying it was a "recognition that the thing that Mary was doing in this particular instance was not to be disdained and set aside for the purpose of other things", you have basically confirmed what the Lord's Recovery is all about. Just as Mary's sitting at Jesus feet was better than "much serving", the Lord's Recovery is better in the Lord's eyes than any social or help the poor program because it focuses on the better thing.

So if we criticize the Lord's Recovery for merely sitting at Jesus's feet, preaching the Word, waiting on the Spirit, and perhaps not doing as much social things as other churches, then the Lord would say to us "Leave them alone, they have chosen what is better".

I must say, Evangelical, this is rich. But, to be blunt, who do you think you're talking to? Maybe you're going for satire?

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

I must say, Evangelical, this is rich. But, to be blunt, who do you think you're talking to? Maybe you're going for satire?

Nell

Hi Nell, I'm talking to the liberal socialist Christians that are in this forum.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi Nell, I'm talking to the liberal socialist Christians that are in this forum.

Ah! Satire it is.

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah,

on the topic of gay marriage, your argument about the 9 or 10 doesn't stick, because I have already quoted statistics which show the majority of the American population supports it. It is on this basis that America is Sodom, and not merely because of the 9 or 10 law makers or judges.

Perhaps I can flip this around the other way. If America is not Sodom, then what city or country in the bible is best used as a metaphor to describe America today? Is it Jerusalem? It could possible be Tyre, the center of commercialism.

Of course the argument still sticks. If you want to use polls on who supports and who doesn't support, then you can clearly find 10 righteous people in the US and in most cities.

Sodom was a city. You could liken Las Vegas to it. But putting the entire US as an analogy to it is a misuse of the metaphor. Read the story again. God didn't judge the city because someone was a fornicator or an adulterer. He judged the city because He couldn't find 10 righteous people. The ones He did find (Lot and his family) He pulled out from the fire, but even those (Lot's wife, etc) were severely damaged.

No one is arguing that the world, including the US is not sinful. We are well aware that it is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course the argument still sticks. If you want to use polls on who supports and who doesn't support, then you can clearly find 10 righteous people in the US and in most cities.

Sodom was a city. You could liken Las Vegas to it. But putting the entire US as an analogy to it is a misuse of the metaphor. Read the story again. God didn't judge the city because someone was a fornicator or an adulterer. He judged the city because He couldn't find 10 righteous people. The ones He did find (Lot and his family) He pulled out from the fire, but even those (Lot's wife, etc) were severely damaged.

No one is arguing that the world, including the US is not sinful. We are well aware that it is.

ZNPaaneah,
that's a strange interpretation you have. God judged the city because of its rampant immorality. Verse 20 says "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;"

God said he wouldn't destroy it if there were more than 10 righteous people there.

For you to say that God judged it because he couldn't find 10 righteous people and it wasnt because of their fornication or adultery is plain wrong.

Sodom was a city - of course. Now should that city be a whole nation, makes it less of a Sodom? Of course not - it makes it worse!

We have to admit that America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself. Everything spiritual that America has, has come from other countries first. The only denominations that American can truly claim to be its own is Mormonism, Jehovah Witness plus many other aberrant. But what America does well is promote a free and tolerant society for people to feel safe, which is why people like to come there. Unfortunately it goes to the extreme and accommodates anything and everyone, hence, gay marriage etc etc. So it plays an important role in the Lord's Recovery and home to many Christians. But that doesn't mean it can escape God's judgement or be treated different to any other country.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Ah! Satire it is.

Nell

God uses a church full of Mary's more than a church full of Martha's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah,
that's a strange interpretation you have. God judged the city because of its rampant immorality. Verse 20 says "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;"

God said he wouldn't destroy it if there were more than 10 righteous people there.

For you to say that God judged it because he couldn't find 10 righteous people and it wasnt because of their fornication or adultery is plain wrong.

Sodom was a city - of course. Now should that city be a whole nation, makes it less of a Sodom? Of course not - it makes it worse!

We have to admit that America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself. Everything spiritual that America has, has come from other countries first. The only denominations that American can truly claim to be its own is Mormonism, Jehovah Witness plus many other aberrant. But what America does well is promote a free and tolerant society for people to feel safe, which is why people like to come there. Unfortunately it goes to the extreme and accommodates anything and everyone, hence, gay marriage etc etc. So it plays an important role in the Lord's Recovery and home to many Christians. But that doesn't mean it can escape God's judgement or be treated different to any other country.

I have to admit that I have been commissioned to preach the gospel.

The good news is that there is salvation from God's judgement to those who receive Jesus Christ.

I have to admit that "rampant fornication" was every bit as bad, if not worse in Taiwan when I went there for the FTTT.

I have to admit that the sins I read about in the Middle East and Afghanistan are, to my mind more grievous.

I have admitted that God's judgement is on the world, I did that when I was baptized.

I do not have to admit that the US has not produced anything of spiritual value, I can leave that judgement to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not have to admit that everything spiritual has come from other countries. Again, I am not the judge, I will leave matters of judgement to the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have to admit that I have been commissioned to preach the gospel.

The good news is that there is salvation from God's judgement to those who receive Jesus Christ.

I have to admit that "rampant fornication" was every bit as bad, if not worse in Taiwan when I went there for the FTTT.

I have to admit that the sins I read about in the Middle East and Afghanistan are, to my mind more grievous.

I have admitted that God's judgement is on the world, I did that when I was baptized.

I do not have to admit that the US has not produced anything of spiritual value, I can leave that judgement to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not have to admit that everything spiritual has come from other countries. Again, I am not the judge, I will leave matters of judgement to the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not a matter of judgement ZNPaaneah it is just a matter of fact- Christianity came to America from Europe and so did the Lord's Recovery. Abraham, signifying a spiritual person, came to Sodom from outside of Sodom.
You are justifying and rationalizing the sins of America by pointing to the sins of other countries. Well actually many countries are now Sodom and the whole world may degrade to such before Christ comes back.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not a matter of judgement ZNPaaneah it is just a matter of fact- Christianity came to America from Europe and so did the Lord's Recovery. Abraham, signifying a spiritual person, came to Sodom from outside of Sodom.
You are justifying and rationalizing the sins of America by pointing to the sins of other countries. Well actually many countries are now Sodom and the whole world may degrade to such before Christ comes back.

Abraham didn't go to Sodom. It was Lot who went there. God met with Abraham and told him what He was going to do to Sodom. Abraham only interceded for Sodom (to save Lot).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to admit that America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself. Everything spiritual that America has, has come from other countries first. The only denominations that American can truly claim to be its own is Mormonism, Jehovah Witness plus many other aberrant.

We have to admit? Sounds like Lee speaking to a captive audience where no one is allowed to respond.

America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself? Are you serious? Are you referring to the American government? Are you referring to all Christians living in America? Are you including Lee, LSM, and the LC's? How about your nation? What spiritual value can you boast in, besides pride?

Everything spiritual that America has, has come from other countries first?According to your logic, a nation of immigrants then must be all spiritually dead. Using your own words then, We have to admit "that every perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights." So, according to your logic, if China or England or Sudan chases Christians from their borders sometime in the last 300 years, then we as a nation owe them our spiritual heritage?

The only denominations that American can truly claim to be its own is Mormonism, Jehovah Witness plus many other aberrant? I know many precious believers at the local Church of Christ, so they must be "aberrant?" Christian Missionary Alliance?

Your narrow-minded and bigoted disgust for all things "American" is continually in plain view, yet you hide behind your keyboard in some secret location. Who made you the faceless judge of all things Christian?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not a matter of judgement ZNPaaneah it is just a matter of fact- Christianity came to America from Europe and so did the Lord's Recovery. Abraham, signifying a spiritual person, came to Sodom from outside of Sodom.

That is ridiculous. When you say "We have to admit that America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself." That is a judgement. There is no "fact". How could you possibly know everything that has ever been produced by 500 million people or more over the last 200+ years. Only God could know that and only God could make that judgement.

Not only so, but when you do look at what was produced and say it doesn't have "much spiritual value" that is a value judgement. Once again, who made you God to make such a judgement.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are justifying and rationalizing the sins of America by pointing to the sins of other countries. Well actually many countries are now Sodom and the whole world may degrade to such before Christ comes back.

Sorry, I missed the post where I justified the sins of America. Please point me to that post of mine or else apologize.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God uses a church full of Mary's more than a church full of Martha's.

That's your opinion.

If by sitting in "Seven Feasts" of LSM Trainings regurgitating the Blended Re-Speakings of Lee messages, you think that is a "church full of Mary's," you are sadly mistaken.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is ridiculous. When you say "We have to admit that America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself." That is a judgement. There is no "fact". How could you possibly know everything that has ever been produced by 500 million people or more over the last 200+ years. Only God could know that and only God could make that judgement.

Not only so, but when you do look at what was produced and say it doesn't have "much spiritual value" that is a value judgement. Once again, who made you God to make such a judgement.

There's a thing called Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

It gives a list of religious movements that began in the USA. The majority of those "Christian" movements that truly originated in America - Mormon, JW, are not Christian at all.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry, I missed the post where I justified the sins of America. Please point me to that post of mine or else apologize.

Your previous post:

You justified America by saying Taiwan is worse here:
"I have to admit that "rampant fornication" was every bit as bad, if not worse in Taiwan when I went there for the FTTT."

You justified America by saying the Middle East and Afghanistan is worse:
"I have to admit that the sins I read about in the Middle East and Afghanistan are, to my mind more grievous."

This is justification of sin by pointing to the sins of others ZNPaaneah.

You yourself have said in previous posts that God does not show partiality and is not a respecter of persons.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have to admit? Sounds like Lee speaking to a captive audience where no one is allowed to respond.

America, as Sodom, has never really produced anything of much spiritual value itself? Are you serious? Are you referring to the American government? Are you referring to all Christians living in America? Are you including Lee, LSM, and the LC's? How about your nation? What spiritual value can you boast in, besides pride?

Everything spiritual that America has, has come from other countries first?According to your logic, a nation of immigrants then must be all spiritually dead. Using your own words then, We have to admit "that every perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights." So, according to your logic, if China or England or Sudan chases Christians from their borders sometime in the last 300 years, then we as a nation owe them our spiritual heritage?

The only denominations that American can truly claim to be its own is Mormonism, Jehovah Witness plus many other aberrant? I know many precious believers at the local Church of Christ, so they must be "aberrant?" Christian Missionary Alliance?

Your narrow-minded and bigoted disgust for all things "American" is continually in plain view, yet you hide behind your keyboard in some secret location. Who made you the faceless judge of all things Christian?

Ohio,
The fact that you all flocked to the teaching of a man from China (Witness Lee) rather than a home grown American preacher, proves my point. I am not trying to pick on America, but the topic is, Witness Lee saying America is Sodom. This is not to the exclusion of many other countries that are also Sodom. Witness Lee also mentioned Sweden and others. In fact the whole world will likely become Sodom before Christ returns.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Abraham didn't go to Sodom. It was Lot who went there. God met with Abraham and told him what He was going to do to Sodom. Abraham only interceded for Sodom (to save Lot).

Thanks for the correction, signifying that a spiritual person (Abraham) should not mingle with the sinful people but interceded from a distance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio,
The fact that you all flocked to the teaching of a man from China (Witness Lee) rather than a home grown American preacher, proves my point. I am not trying to pick on America, but the topic is, Witness Lee saying America is Sodom. This is not to the exclusion of many other countries that are also Sodom. Witness Lee also mentioned Sweden and others. In fact the whole world will likely become Sodom before Christ returns.

Why don't you ever address my concerns? Is it all a game to you? Who are "we all?"

I never flocked to the teaching of a man from China rather than a home grown American preacher. I was introduced to the church in Cleveland by a friend I worked with. I was looking for fellowship with Christians, and the Lord eventually connected me with these saints. It had nothing to do with Sodom. It had nothing to do with Witness Lee. It had nothing to do with teachings. It had nothing to do with a man from China.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why don't you ever address my concerns? Is it all a game to you? Who are "we all?"

I never flocked to the teaching of a man from China rather than a home grown American preacher. I was introduced to the church in Cleveland by a friend I worked with. I was looking for fellowship with Christians, and the Lord eventually connected me with these saints. It had nothing to do with Sodom. It had nothing to do with Witness Lee. It had nothing to do with teachings. It had nothing to do with a man from China.

What exactly is your concern? I believed I addressed it when I said that I am not intentionally picking on America, out of bigotry or any sort or reason. I would say the same things about any country which has accepted gay marriage. In previous discussions I made reference to homosexuality in Germany (although it is not legal currently, many churches are supporting it).

My statements are not meant to be personal ,"you all" refers to any who have joined the movement in America. Possibly many joined the recovery because it was better than what was already there. The recovery came to America, not from America, that's all I'm saying. Because America, as Sodom, needed to be recovered. If Christianity was not degraded, then the Recovery could not have grown as much as it did in America.

I have a reference:
"THE LORD’S NEED FOR A RECOVERY, NOT A REVIVAL", "Enjoying the Riches of Christ for the Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ",
by Witness Lee

There have been many attempts at revivals in America, but no real revival. Why do many say they need revival? Because they realize they are degraded that's why.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's a thing called Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

It gives a list of religious movements that began in the USA. The majority of those "Christian" movements that truly originated in America - Mormon, JW, are not Christian at all.

So then, Wikipedia determines how much spiritual value has been produced in the US? I am struggling to respond to this in a way that is not just an insult. Clearly your view on how to discern spiritual matters is very different from my view.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your previous post:

You justified America by saying Taiwan is worse here:
"I have to admit that "rampant fornication" was every bit as bad, if not worse in Taiwan when I went there for the FTTT."

You justified America by saying the Middle East and Afghanistan is worse:
"I have to admit that the sins I read about in the Middle East and Afghanistan are, to my mind more grievous."

This is justification of sin by pointing to the sins of others ZNPaaneah.

You yourself have said in previous posts that God does not show partiality and is not a respecter of persons.

Once again I have to bite my tongue.

Saying that there is rampant fornication in Taiwan that is every bit as bad as the US is not a justification for the US. Rather it is pointing out that if the US is Sodom, so is Taiwan. Since your point is that due to the US being Sodom nothing of Spiritual value is produced which is why we needed a revival that came from Taiwan. This argument collapses if Taiwan is every bit as much a Sodom as the US.

Saying that the sins in the Middle East are more grievous is not a justification for the sins of the US. Rather it is a response to your point that God is going to rain down judgment in the US. My point is that the sins in the Middle East appear to me to be more deserving of judgement from heaven. Once again, that is not a justification of sins in the US or anywhere else.

You are condemning me for pointing to the sins of others, yet this is precisely what you have done.

In my posts I have never once justified "sins" in the US or denied that they were sins. I have also said clearly that I have no issue with you doing all that you are legally allowed to as a citizen of the US or as a Christian on this issue.

I have also said that my baptism was a public statement that I was leaving the world, which was condemned by God. Since I lived in the US, and had never been to Taiwan or the Middle East at the time of my baptism it is clearly a statement about the situation in the US as much as anywhere. You have not made a clearer or stronger statement than I did when I declared that I was dead to the world.

Perhaps you do not understand simple english, like the term "justify". this word means to prove that something is right or reasonable. I have never done that concerning sins in the US. That is the kindest assumption that I can make: that you are ignorant and uneducated. Because if that is not true, then you are deceitful. You slander people, lie and distort the record, and twist words. You intentionally ignore what has been spoken clearly, and at the same time twist words to mean something that clearly was not said. As a result I have lost all respect for you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What exactly is your concern? I believed I addressed it when I said that I am not intentionally picking on America, out of bigotry or any sort or reason. I would say the same things about any country which has accepted gay marriage. In previous discussions I made reference to homosexuality in Germany (although it is not legal currently, many churches are supporting it).

My statements are not meant to be personal ,"you all" refers to any who have joined the movement in America. Possibly many joined the recovery because it was better than what was already there. The recovery came to America, not from America, that's all I'm saying. Because America, as Sodom, needed to be recovered. If Christianity was not degraded, then the Recovery could not have grown as much as it did in America.

I have a reference:
"THE LORD’S NEED FOR A RECOVERY, NOT A REVIVAL", "Enjoying the Riches of Christ for the Building Up of the Church as the Body of Christ",
by Witness Lee

There have been many attempts at revivals in America, but no real revival. Why do many say they need revival? Because they realize they are degraded that's why.

All Christians speak about revival. LSM talks about it the most because they need it the most.

It is you who is obsessed with homosexuality.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, Wikipedia determines how much spiritual value has been produced in the US? I am struggling to respond to this in a way that is not just an insult. Clearly your view on how to discern spiritual matters is very different from my view.



Once again I have to bite my tongue.

Saying that there is rampant fornication in Taiwan that is every bit as bad as the US is not a justification for the US. Rather it is pointing out that if the US is Sodom, so is Taiwan. Since your point is that due to the US being Sodom nothing of Spiritual value is produced which is why we needed a revival that came from Taiwan. This argument collapses if Taiwan is every bit as much a Sodom as the US.

Saying that the sins in the Middle East are more grievous is not a justification for the sins of the US. Rather it is a response to your point that God is going to rain down judgment in the US. My point is that the sins in the Middle East appear to me to be more deserving of judgement from heaven. Once again, that is not a justification of sins in the US or anywhere else.

You are condemning me for pointing to the sins of others, yet this is precisely what you have done.

In my posts I have never once justified "sins" in the US or denied that they were sins. I have also said clearly that I have no issue with you doing all that you are legally allowed to as a citizen of the US or as a Christian on this issue.

I have also said that my baptism was a public statement that I was leaving the world, which was condemned by God. Since I lived in the US, and had never been to Taiwan or the Middle East at the time of my baptism it is clearly a statement about the situation in the US as much as anywhere. You have not made a clearer or stronger statement than I did when I declared that I was dead to the world.

Perhaps you do not understand simple english, like the term "justify". this word means to prove that something is right or reasonable. I have never done that concerning sins in the US. That is the kindest assumption that I can make: that you are ignorant and uneducated. Because if that is not true, then you are deceitful. You slander people, lie and distort the record, and twist words. You intentionally ignore what has been spoken clearly, and at the same time twist words to mean something that clearly was not said. As a result I have lost all respect for you.

ZNPaaneah,

my point was that pointing out the sins of other countries does not excuse America from being Sodom. I would agree that other countries are Sodom as well if they have adopted gay marriage. Do you agree then that both America and Taiwan is Sodom? Saying Taiwan is Sodom does not change the fact that the Recovery came to the USA from outside America.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah,

my point was that pointing out the sins of other countries does not excuse America from being Sodom. I would agree that other countries are Sodom as well if they have adopted gay marriage. Do you agree then that both America and Taiwan is Sodom? Saying Taiwan is Sodom does not change the fact that the Recovery came to the USA from outside America.

Sodom was a city, the US is not a city.

Sodom was compared to a lush garden, like the Garden of Eden. That might apply to some cities in the US, but certainly not to all.

The men of Sodom are evil and sinners before Jehovah exceedingly. Is this true of all men in the US? No. I definitely don't agree with that.

God says that if he can find 50 righteous men in the place then He would not rain down judgement. According to the NT Jesus Christ has become our righteousness. I think it is very safe to say that there are more than 50 genuine believers of Jesus in the US. In fact I can say there are more than 50 genuine believers in Queens, NY. In fact I can testify that there are more than 50 genuine believers in Jamaica, Queens.

That said, I have witnessed some of the most blatant, offensive, in your face sins when I visited the church in San Francisco, back in 1980. This was right before the AIDS epidemic struck, and the church meeting hall was right near the epicenter of that.

Was the AIDS epidemic God's righteous judgement? Of course it was. Was the US judged? Yes. But so was the rest of the world.

My issue with you is not that you are offended with the sins of the flesh. My issue is that you think that the solution is with the government. Jesus has shown us that the cross of Christ is the solution. He dealt with sin and the flesh on the cross. This is the good news that we preach. This is how men are given a new heart.

But that is not the apology that you owe me. Your "point" was that I justified the sins committed in the US. That is a lie. Your "proof" was anything but proof. You need to apologize for your slander.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sodom was a city, the US is not a city.

Sodom was compared to a lush garden, like the Garden of Eden. That might apply to some cities in the US, but certainly not to all.

ZNPaaneah, it should be obvious that I am not speaking literally when I say "America is Sodom". Just as the Bible does - e.g. Revelation 11:8 "And their bodies will lie in the main street of Jerusalem, the city that is figuratively called "Sodom" and "Egypt," the city where their Lord was crucified."

Jude 7 says
"“Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The men of Sodom are evil and sinners before Jehovah exceedingly. Is this true of all men in the US? No. I definitely don't agree with that.

OK so you disagree that America is Sodom on the basis of America not being as sinful as Sodom.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

God says that if he can find 50 righteous men in the place then He would not rain down judgement. According to the NT Jesus Christ has become our righteousness. I think it is very safe to say that there are more than 50 genuine believers of Jesus in the US. In fact I can say there are more than 50 genuine believers in Queens, NY. In fact I can testify that there are more than 50 genuine believers in Jamaica, Queens.

That said, I have witnessed some of the most blatant, offensive, in your face sins when I visited the church in San Francisco, back in 1980. This was right before the AIDS epidemic struck, and the church meeting hall was right near the epicenter of that.

Was the AIDS epidemic God's righteous judgement? Of course it was. Was the US judged? Yes. But so was the rest of the world.

My issue with you is not that you are offended with the sins of the flesh. My issue is that you think that the solution is with the government. Jesus has shown us that the cross of Christ is the solution. He dealt with sin and the flesh on the cross. This is the good news that we preach. This is how men are given a new heart.

But that is not the apology that you owe me. Your "point" was that I justified the sins committed in the US. That is a lie. Your "proof" was anything but proof. You need to apologize for your slander.

Then I apologize for any offence given.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, it should be obvious that I am not speaking literally when I say "America is Sodom". Just as the Bible does - e.g. Revelation 11:8 "And their bodies will lie in the main street of Jerusalem, the city that is figuratively called "Sodom" and "Egypt," the city where their Lord was crucified."

Jude 7 says
"“Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”


OK so you disagree that America is Sodom on the basis of America not being as sinful as Sodom.


Then I apologize for any offence given.

I think there are pockets of people in the US who have given themselves over to fornication.

I live in NYC, there are clubs and people in this city that exemplify that, there are also people in this city that are walking by faith, like Abraham.

I was responding to your posts calling down the wrath of God on this country of 350 million. I was responding to the broad brush with which you have painted everyone. I was responding to your use of the laws in this country as a basis to judge.

You call yourself "Evangelical" yet seem to have no clue what the Gospel is.

Yes, the world is under God's judgement. Egypt, Sodom, Moabites, Syria, Babylon, etc are all types of various forms of this world under God's judgement. But, the good news is that Jesus has dealt with this on the cross, and that belief in Jesus and his resurrection will justify and save people. This is how the kingdom will be brought in. This is how you will remove the stony heart and replace it with a heart of flesh. This will not be legislated. Big business is not going to save the world. This is the vision I have and I have been faithful to this vision.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You call yourself "Evangelical" yet seem to have no clue what the Gospel is.

Amen to that!

LC leaders, and guys like Evangelical, think they can continually condemn the whole body of Christ, believing somehow that they alone are thus approved by God.

This is the blindness that results from pride, Laodicean pride.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think there are pockets of people in the US who have given themselves over to fornication.

I live in NYC, there are clubs and people in this city that exemplify that, there are also people in this city that are walking by faith, like Abraham.

I was responding to your posts calling down the wrath of God on this country of 350 million. I was responding to the broad brush with which you have painted everyone. I was responding to your use of the laws in this country as a basis to judge.

You call yourself "Evangelical" yet seem to have no clue what the Gospel is.

Yes, the world is under God's judgement. Egypt, Sodom, Moabites, Syria, Babylon, etc are all types of various forms of this world under God's judgement. But, the good news is that Jesus has dealt with this on the cross, and that belief in Jesus and his resurrection will justify and save people. This is how the kingdom will be brought in. This is how you will remove the stony heart and replace it with a heart of flesh. This will not be legislated. Big business is not going to save the world. This is the vision I have and I have been faithful to this vision.

ZNPaaneah,

I maintain there is something wrong if you cannot see that a country with majority supporting gay marriage and approved gay marriage is not more like Sodom than not. Even Billy Graham and other great men have said that. So you claim to have a vision but I think you are rather short sighted not to be able to see that. The good news isn't getting very far because you have no way to present it or accomplish it except in 20,000+ different ways with 20,000+ different denominations. Furthermore if you make a convert and they ask where is the local church you cannot show them except by pointing to one of the 20,000 different denominations. I think only when you have accomplished something to the scale and degree that Lee has can you claim to be faithful to the vision of the gospel. Of course there is no way you can do that as an individual yourself, hence my point about not having an effective way to present the gospel. To be effective we need a genuine church and we need to speak the gospel in a clear way and not in many different ways. Just like the early church did it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah,

I maintain there is something wrong if you cannot see that a country with majority supporting gay marriage and approved gay marriage is not more like Sodom than not.

I have repeated again, and again and again that I do see that something is wrong. That is why I was baptized. It is like talking to a brick wall. I didn't need to see the recent discussion on gay marriage to know something is wrong. I was around during the height of the AIDS epidemic, I knew something was wrong then.

But I don't merely harp on the fact that the world is judged and condemned, I focus on the good news that Jesus has come that we might be saved and have life.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even Billy Graham and other great men have said that. So you claim to have a vision but I think you are rather short sighted not to be able to see that.

Are you deaf? My "vision" is that the world is condemned. The only path to salvation is to believe in Jesus and to be baptized. I have left the world and made a public testimony that it is condemned. How is it that a person who is a Christian does not understand the meaning of baptism?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The good news isn't getting very far because you have no way to present it or accomplish it except in 20,000+ different ways with 20,000+ different denominations.

Get behind me Satan. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. No elected official can compare to Jesus.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Furthermore if you make a convert and they ask where is the local church you cannot show them except by pointing to one of the 20,000 different denominations.

Furthermore, wherever two or three are gathered together into His name there He is in their midst. There is nothing that a Christian congregation can have that can replace having the presence of Jesus in their midst.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think only when you have accomplished something to the scale and degree that Lee has can you claim to be faithful to the vision of the gospel. Of course there is no way you can do that as an individual yourself, hence my point about not having an effective way to present the gospel. To be effective we need a genuine church and we need to speak the gospel in a clear way and not in many different ways. Just like the early church did it.

The only effective church is one that clings to their first love, following Him even to the cross, and which has overcome the various trials of this life. It is Jesus that makes you effective, nothing else.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The good news isn't getting very far because you have no way to present it or accomplish it except in 20,000+ different ways with 20,000+ different denominations.

You'll never get it, will you? You are one of the 20,000+.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You'll never get it, will you? You are one of the 20,000+.

Reminds me of a song ....

The words that I remember
From my childhood still are true,
That there's none so blind
As those who will not see,
And to those who lack the courage
And say it's dangerous to try,
Well they just don't know
That Love Eternal will not be denied!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You'll never get it, will you? You are one of the 20,000+.

You still cannot tell me which church is the true church on Earth today can you? I can tell you but you won't listen. Because you have been indoctrinated to believe that 20,000+ denominations is normal and even biblical. Because of that I don't think you know more than me on this matter and can judge to which church I belong.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You still cannot tell me which church is the true church on Earth today can you? I can tell you but you won't listen. Because you have been indoctrinated to believe that 20,000+ denominations is normal and even biblical. Because of that I don't think you know more than me on this matter and can judge to which church I belong.

The questions "which church is the true church on Earth today" is completely ridiculous. The "true church on Earth today" is the church that Jesus is building, which includes every believer. It has nothing to do with the LC, LSM, or Witness Lee (except for the fact that he is a member).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The questions "which church is the true church on Earth today" is completely ridiculous. The "true church on Earth today" is the church that Jesus is building, which includes every believer. It has nothing to do with the LC, LSM, or Witness Lee (except for the fact that he is a member).

If every believer is part of the one church that Jesus is building why are there so many different churches/denominations?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If every believer is part of the one church that Jesus is building why are there so many different churches/denominations?

Because people make the church smaller than what it is. And that is exactly what you are doing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Because people make the church smaller than what it is. And that is exactly what you are doing.

I agree there should be no boundaries or divisions between believers. That's why I'm in the Recovery today.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree there should be no boundaries or divisions between believers. That's why I'm in the Recovery today.

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church. That's all there is.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OBW, try for what reason? God has already saved us by His grace, we cannot add to it or take away from it. God does not save us by grace half way and expect us to do the rest ourselves. God sending his Son to die for us on the cross was 100% God and 0% us and that doesn't change after salvation. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we can add to that. There are possibly people who try their hardest and are more righteous according to the Law than those that do not rely on themselves. But this is what the Bible calls self-righteousness.

And that is the kind of talk that ignores any kind of sanctification. The belief that any kind of "good" after salvation will just happen.

It is interesting that "you" tend to despise Christianity for being so totally focused on salvation and not "going on" then come back with "we cannot add to it or take away from it" as a response to the notion that our response to salvation should be obedience to the one who saved us.

You are for going on when it you compare it to the sometimes over-focus on salvation at the expense of anything else, then despise anything else if it involves actually doing anything.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OBW, by saying it was a "recognition that the thing that Mary was doing in this particular instance was not to be disdained and set aside for the purpose of other things", you have basically confirmed what the Lord's Recovery is all about. Just as Mary's sitting at Jesus feet was better than "much serving", the Lord's Recovery is better in the Lord's eyes than any social or help the poor program because it focuses on the better thing.

So if we criticize the Lord's Recovery for merely sitting at Jesus's feet, preaching the Word, waiting on the Spirit, and perhaps not doing as much social things as other churches, then the Lord would say to us "Leave them alone, they have chosen what is better".

Your response would seem to indicate that you think that the whole of life is about being ready for the death of Jesus.

This statement by Jesus has a context. It was not a disrespect of Martha's work. It was not a belittling of it. It was a commending of Mary's pouring out of herself in the particular situation and implied that she understood that something significant was coming even if she did not know what.

The idea was not to say that always doing what Mary did was preferable to doing the work we are called to do. But you are very articulate to state that this is what you believe it means and are happy to just ignore the things that are needful in all instances while taking on activities that you think are the current equivalents of what Mary did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Your response would seem to indicate that you think that the whole of life is about being ready for the death of Jesus.

This statement by Jesus has a context. It was not a disrespect of Martha's work. It was not a belittling of it. It was a commending of Mary's pouring out of herself in the particular situation and implied that she understood that something significant was coming even if she did not know what.

The idea was not to say that always doing what Mary did was preferable to doing the work we are called to do. But you are very articulate to state that this is what you believe it means and are happy to just ignore the things that are needful in all instances while taking on activities that you think are the current equivalents of what Mary did.

Thanks OBW.

It seemed that (only?) Mary comprehended the Lord's words about His pending death. Perhaps all the others were carried away by the excitement of Lazarus' rising from the dead. Mary heard, Mary believed, Mary acted decisively (11.2, 12.3), and Mary was commended by the Lord.

Nee and Lee take this home meeting in Bethany to extremes, even to the point of teaching that there "should be" twice as many sisters as brothers in a healthy church life.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is the kind of talk that ignores any kind of sanctification. The belief that any kind of "good" after salvation will just happen.

It is interesting that "you" tend to despise Christianity for being so totally focused on salvation and not "going on" then come back with "we cannot add to it or take away from it" as a response to the notion that our response to salvation should be obedience to the one who saved us.

You are for going on when it you compare it to the sometimes over-focus on salvation at the expense of anything else, then despise anything else if it involves actually doing anything.

OBW,

even our sanctification is by the Spirit, Galatians 3:3 "Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?"

We do not believe that "good" after salvation will "just happen". We focus on God's economy, enjoying Christ, prayer, the Word, the ministry, the church, functioning and service, all opportunities for the Spirit to grow in us and sanctify us.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Your response would seem to indicate that you think that the whole of life is about being ready for the death of Jesus.

This statement by Jesus has a context. It was not a disrespect of Martha's work. It was not a belittling of it. It was a commending of Mary's pouring out of herself in the particular situation and implied that she understood that something significant was coming even if she did not know what.

The idea was not to say that always doing what Mary did was preferable to doing the work we are called to do. But you are very articulate to state that this is what you believe it means and are happy to just ignore the things that are needful in all instances while taking on activities that you think are the current equivalents of what Mary did.

OBW, that is not the correct interpretation of this matter, and I think you need to educate yourself better about this context. Why I say this? because I have educated myself and know the context using a variety of bible commentaries (not just Lee/Nee material, so you cannot accuse me of bias).

For example Matthew Henry's commentary on Luke 10:38-42:

10:38-42 A good sermon is not the worse for being preached in a house; and the visits of our friends should be so managed, as to make them turn to the good of their souls. Sitting at Christ's feet, signifies readiness to receive his word, and submission to the guidance of it. Martha was providing for the entertainment of Christ, and those that came with him. Here were respect to our Lord Jesus and right care of her household affairs. But there was something to be blamed. She was for much serving; plenty, variety, and exactness. Worldly business is a snare to us, when it hinders us from serving God, and getting good to our souls. What needless time is wasted, and expense often laid out, even in entertaining professors of the gospel! Though Martha was on this occasion faulty, yet she was a true believer, and in her general conduct did not neglect the one thing needful. The favour of God is needful to our happiness; the salvation of Christ is needful to our safety. Where this is attended to, all other things will be rightly pursued. Christ declared, Mary hath chosen the good part. For one thing is needful, this one thing that she has done, to give up herself to the guidance of Christ. The things of this life will be taken away from us, at the furthest, when we shall be taken away from them; but nothing shall separate from the love of Christ, and a part in that love. Men and devils cannot take it away from us, and God and Christ will not. Let us mind the one thing needful more diligently.


Martha was at fault for blaming her sister, and secondly at fault for thinking Christ should tell Mary to do Martha's bidding by way of much business.

There is one thing needful we must do more diligently and that is what we focus on.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church. That's all there is.

Spiritually, I agree, but practically it should match this spiritual fact. So we should not be in any sort of "ism". If we attend Catholic mass every Sunday for example, we are in Catholicism. We are not just in Christ and "the church" but also in Catholicism. If we are in a house church movement, we are in house-churchism.

We are also in a country with authorities, laws etc, in families, we can be "in ourselves". There's many other things we can be in besides Christ as long as we are on Earth. In future we will be in the New Jerusalem, that's another thing we can be in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Spiritually, I agree, but practically it should match this spiritual fact. So we should not be in any sort of "ism". If we attend Catholic mass every Sunday for example, we are in Catholicism. We are not just in Christ and "the church" but also in Catholicism. If we are in a house church movement, we are in house-churchism.

So, great logic here Evangelical, if we gather every week to read Lee's messages, then we are in Lee-ism.

That is the spiritual fact. The Bible says you are "of Lee."

I do believe you are slowly catching on.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, great logic here Evangelical, if we gather every week to read Lee's messages, then we are in Lee-ism.

That is the spiritual fact. The Bible says you are "of Lee."

I do believe you are slowly catching on.

And Evangelical, you identified yourself as being "in the Recovery" ("That's why I'm in the Recovery today.")

Which is an 'ism' if ever there was one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So, great logic here Evangelical, if we gather every week to read Lee's messages, then we are in Lee-ism.

That is the spiritual fact. The Bible says you are "of Lee."

I do believe you are slowly catching on.

Ohio,

That's as logical as saying if we gather together every week to read the bible we are in bible-ism. Or if we gather together for the Lord's table we are in Lord's-table-ism.

That is not a spiritual fact, you don't say too many spiritual facts I have noticed.

The spiritual fact is what Koinonia said:

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table).

We do not say "I follow Lee" and we do not (or should not) even say "I follow Christ", for that would be divisive.

We are of Christ because we as believers are positionally in Christ and have been baptized in Christ's name.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And Evangelical, you identified yourself as being "in the Recovery" ("That's why I'm in the Recovery today.")

Which is an 'ism' if ever there was one.

That's not my identity that's the process I am in, the Lord's recovery.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio,

That's as logical as saying if we gather together every week to read the bible we are in bible-ism. Or if we gather together for the Lord's table we are in Lord's-table-ism.

That is not a spiritual fact, you don't say too many spiritual facts I have noticed.

The spiritual fact is what Koinonia said:

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table).

We do not say "I follow Lee" and we do not (or should not) even say "I follow Christ", for that would be divisive.

We are of Christ because we as believers are positionally in Christ and have been baptized in Christ's name.

That would all be very nice, if it were true. I have heard many LC members, including top coworkers, boldly declare that they follow Lee. On more than one occasion, I have heard Ron Kangas boldly and defiantly declare, "I am not ashamed to say that I follow a man."

During the Summer Training of 2015, I heard RK decry certain Christians for referring to themselves as "Lutherans" and "Wesleyans," and then say, "What a shame if we were to call ourselves 'Lee-ites.'"

However, I immediately recognized the absolute ridiculousness of this statement considering that most Lutherans and Wesleyans know nothing about Luther and Wesley; yet, very, very many in the LCs are 'Lee-ites'--whatever they call themselves.

In the same way, you focus obsessively on what people call themselves, yet seem to ignore the heart and the spiritual reality.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not my identity that's the process I am in, the Lord's recovery.

Evangelical, in that statement ("That's why I'm in the Recovery today."), you used the term "the Recovery" to identify a group, not a "process."

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not my identity that's the process I am in, the Lord's recovery.

The Lord moves forward from His first coming towards His second coming. He is building His church. You 'in the process' of 'recovery' you are moving backwards?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ohio,

That's as logical as saying if we gather together every week to read the bible we are in bible-ism. Or if we gather together for the Lord's table we are in Lord's-table-ism.

That is not a spiritual fact, you don't say too many spiritual facts I have noticed.

The spiritual fact is what Koinonia said:

As a believer, you are in Christ and in the church.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table).

We do not say "I follow Lee" and we do not (or should not) even say "I follow Christ", for that would be divisive.

We are of Christ because we as believers are positionally in Christ and have been baptized in Christ's name.

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table)

Really? Every Christian in every denomination says that too! Except for Lee's messages.

It would be good for LC's to be more Bible-ism!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That would all be very nice, if it were true. I have heard many LC members, including top coworkers, boldly declare that they follow Lee. On more than one occasion, I have heard Ron Kangas boldly and defiantly declare, "I am not ashamed to say that I follow a man."

During the Summer Training of 2015, I heard RK decry certain Christians for referring to themselves as "Lutherans" and "Wesleyans," and then say, "What a shame if we were to call ourselves 'Lee-ites.'"

However, I immediately recognized the absolute ridiculousness of this statement considering that most Lutherans and Wesleyans know nothing about Luther and Wesley; yet, very, very many in the LCs are 'Lee-ites'--whatever they call themselves.

In the same way, you focus obsessively on what people call themselves, yet seem to ignore the heart and the spiritual reality.

The scripture focuses on what people call themselves and names. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4 the emphasis was on what they said. Paul was not instructing them not to follow himself, or Peter, or Christ. He was telling them not to say they follow them.

In 1 Corinthians 1:13 Paul says "were you baptised in the name of Paul"?

To the person who says they are Lutheran he would say "were you baptized in the name of Luther"?

The context is divisions, and names and what we call ourselves in relation to that.

RK's context in following a man, I presume are in relation to following the
ministry of the man.

When we read and follow Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Does that mean we are following Paul? Well yes in a sense. Suppose someone reads and follows Matthew, are they following Matthew? Yes in a sense. There is no problem unless one says "I am a Paul-ite" and the other " I am a Matthew-ite".

So no problem if 50, 70 or 100% of a church follows Lee's ministry, unless they call themselves a Lee-ite then it's a problem.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We gather together not to read Lee's messages but to grow in Christ and do the things Christ told us to (remember Him in the Lord's table)

Really? Every Christian in every denomination says that too! Except for Lee's messages.

It would be good for LC's to be more Bible-ism!

People in denominations can grow in Christ and remember Him in the Lord's table as well. But they aren't on the ground of locality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The scripture focuses on what people call themselves and names. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4 the emphasis was on what they said. Paul was not instructing them not to follow himself, or Peter, or Christ. He was telling them not to say they follow them.

In 1 Corinthians 1:13 Paul says "were you baptised in the name of Paul"?

To the person who says they are Lutheran he would say "were you baptized in the name of Luther"?

The context is divisions, and names and what we call ourselves in relation to that.

RK's context in following a man, I presume are in relation to following the
ministry of the man.

When we read and follow Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Does that mean we are following Paul? Well yes in a sense. Suppose someone reads and follows Matthew, are they following Matthew? Yes in a sense. There is no problem unless one says "I am a Paul-ite" and the other " I am a Matthew-ite".

So no problem if 50, 70 or 100% of a church follows Lee's ministry, unless they call themselves a Lee-ite then it's a problem.

Until they run around in circles carrying a sandwich sign-board proclaiming ""I am of Lee, I am of Lee, I am of Lee, ..." Until then, by your definition, they are not of Lee.

Can you really be that naive?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

People in denominations can grow in Christ and remember Him in the Lord's table as well. But they aren't on the ground of locality.

On that we agree.

And a good night to you!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Until they run around in circles carrying a sandwich sign-board proclaiming ""I am of Lee, I am of Lee, I am of Lee, ..." Until then, by your definition, they are not of Lee.

Can you really be that naive?

Well the context of Paul's words in "I follow Paul, I follow Christ etc", was on what people said and how they identified themselves. I note that he did not tell them to stop following those people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the context of Paul's words in "I follow Paul, I follow Christ etc", was on what people said and how they identified themselves. I note that he did not tell them to stop following those people.

You make it sound like they have a few Witness Lee books in their library but otherwise you would have no idea that they were following Lee.

No one on this forum has taken issue with you for having a Witness Lee book.

No, the issue is that if you accept Witness Lee's teaching it includes the doctrine that all other Christians are wrong in their walk. How does one "follow" Witness Lee without judging all other Christians as being "off the mark of God's economy"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You make it sound like they have a few Witness Lee books in their library but otherwise you would have no idea that they were following Lee.

No one on this forum has taken issue with you for having a Witness Lee book.

No, the issue is that if you accept Witness Lee's teaching it includes the doctrine that all other Christians are wrong in their walk. How does one "follow" Witness Lee without judging all other Christians as being "off the mark of God's economy"?

They are off the mark, I have the bible and experience to tell me that (don't need Lee to know that).

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are off the mark, I have the bible and experience to tell me that (don't need Lee to know that).

That is a pretty crazy statement. Does your conscience not bother you about holding such an arrogant thought?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That is a pretty crazy statement. Does your conscience not bother you about holding such an arrogant thought?

My conscience tells me right from wrong, that's what the conscience is for.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That is a pretty crazy statement. Does your conscience not bother you about holding such an arrogant thought?

Pride within is often outside of the reach of our conscience.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That would all be very nice, if it were true. I have heard many LC members, including top coworkers, boldly declare that they follow Lee. On more than one occasion, I have heard Ron Kangas boldly and defiantly declare, "I am not ashamed to say that I follow a man."

What a shame because Ron Kangas should and does know better.

"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. "
1 Corinthians 1:12-15

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But they aren't on the ground of locality.

Over the years that has become a phrase that lost it's meaning. Question is what does it mean to utter "ground of locality"?

I would say "the ground" is based upon a man and his ministry. Apart from his ministry that LSM publishes, there can be no fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

What a shame because Ron Kangas should and does know better.

"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. "
1 Corinthians 1:12-15

In his warped thinking, RK can follow Lee, teach Lee, live as WWLD, and allow Lee's books and instructions to supersede the Bible, but as long as he never says those four dreaded words, "I am of Lee," then he is not violating scripture.

Talk about finely parsed legalistic views of scripture! Reminds me of my childhood with the nuns at my Catholic school trying to convince us that all the statues around us were NOT graven "images."

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In his warped thinking, RK can follow Lee, teach Lee, live as WWLD, and allow Lee's books and instructions to supersede the Bible, but as long as he never says those four dreaded words, "I am of Lee," then he is not violating scripture.

Talk about finely parsed legalistic views of scripture! Reminds me of my childhood with the nuns at my Catholic school trying to convince us that all the statues around us were NOT graven "images."

This is my conclusion--that most LC members and leaders focus on very outward things like words used and names, etc., but overlook the heart, the attitude, and the spiritual reality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is my conclusion--that most LC members and leaders focus on very outward things like words used and names, etc., but overlook the heart, the attitude, and the spiritual reality.

That's exactly what legalism, pride, and self-righteousness do.

Both Nee and Lee criticized the Exclusive Brethren for being "overly objective" in their teaching emphasis. Actually they were not. They made the experience of Christ into a science, much the same as Lee did during the Perfecting Training, i.e. "just flip the switch," and turn on the Spirit. Remember that? Mechanized spirituality in the name of subjective experience of Christ.

What really damaged the Exclusives, the Little Flock, and the Recovery was the Deputy Authority, whose endless teachings superseded scripture, and whose authority robbed the Lord of His.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are off the mark, I have the bible and experience to tell me that (don't need Lee to know that).

But you don't have the Bible. Every time we have asked anyone to show how "God's economy" makes anyone wrong, or verses mean different things, they always say it does but cannot utter a single verse to establish that it actually does.

It would be interesting for someone to try. In my 11 years on these forums, I have only heard crickets chirping. It is always going to come soon and never does.

[Evangelical]

Because God's economy is the whole Bible. It is God's will, God's plan, there is no single verse which can describe that, it requires the whole Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because God's economy is the whole Bible. It is God's will, God's plan, there is no single verse which can describe that, it requires the whole Bible.

Therefore, as a singular term, it is of no particular meaning. If it means everything, then it means nothing in particular.

I know that sounds harsh, but to the extent that you want it to mean specific things within the whole of the Bible, it then returns to agreements or disagreements as to what particular parts of the Bible means.

But as a yardstick for things within the scripture, it is hard to consider that God's economy would define certain parts of the "all scripture" that is "God-breathed" to be less than profitable for teaching. Parts such as much of James, or significant parts of the Psalms. Since it is the invocation of "God's economy" as a reason to dismiss these as correctly meaning for our living what they say, then there is a problem with the idea that God's economy is the whole Bible if it is to be used as a tool to dismiss part of itself.

The whole idea is circular and ridiculous.

So you actually use the term "God's economy" in all sorts of places to be the reason that your understanding of the scripture there means what you want it to mean. But that starts with a presumption that you (or your group) has insight into what is God's economy that others do not, therefore you wield the term "God's economy" as the end-all of any discussion. You say that God's economy means what you want it to mean, therefore it cannot mean what anyone else would say that is contrary to you.

Therefore, as far as the LCM is concerned, "God's economy" is a term of no meaning outside of a hollow declaration that their interpretation of scripture is right and everyone else's is wrong.

Why not just ignore the overlay terminology and just deal with the passages as they are? Stop treating "God's economy" as if it is the one ring that rules them all. As if it is a talisman that can make words mean whatever the holder wants them to mean regardless of the stretch relative from the bare text.

[Evangelical]

The term Christ means something specific and also something very general. John 1:3 "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.". It would be silly to believe only in the person of Jesus walked 2000 years ago, without also considering the Christ who made everything and who is the reason for everything existing.

God's economy then is also something specific or something very general. God's economy is the plan of the One who made everything and for whom everything exists.

When you say God's economy is ridiculous you are saying God's salvation is ridiculous (because that is what it means). Would you say "Stop treating "God's salvation" as if it is the one ring that rules them all." ? Chance are you are already "ringing" everything in life according to God's salvation, therefore you are already practicing God's economy to an extent. God's salvation would be the reason for everything you do, think and say (or should be). Therefore it is a general concept applying to all mankind, and it is also a specific concept applying to your decision about what you should do on a daily basis.

God's economy as used in 1 Timothy 1:4, means God's plan of (complete) salvation. It includes predestination, justification, sanctification, transformation, glorification.

Romans 8:30 "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. "

So far I have required two bible verses to establish that.

On the other hand, to explain God's plan of salvation completely we need the whole Bible. For example if we removed the book of Genesis or the book of Revelation, we could not explain God's plan of salvation in a complete way. I could not talk about man's need of a Savior, nor the end goal of man to dwell with God in the New Jerusalem.

On the other hand, to explain God's plan of salvation to an individual sinner, we could reference John 3:16. So God's plan of salvation can be explained in a specific but limited way or in a comprehensive way.

1 Timothy 1:4 tells us not to occupy ourselves with things contrary to God's plan of salvation, or God's economy.

Now can you explain how God dispensing Himself into man (aka giving and growing the Spirit in man) is not part of God's plan of salvation? We cannot say a person can be saved without the Spirit, nor can we say that if a person has the Spirit they are not saved:
Romans 8:9 " And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.".

If I say God's economy is God dispensing himself into man. I am correct. It is part of God's plan of salvation.
If I say God's economy is Christ dying on the cross for our sins, I am correct. It is part of God's plan of salvation.
If I say God's economy is Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge and falling, I am correct. It is also part of God's plan of salvation.

Essentially I could take any verse from the Bible where it relates to salvation, and say it is God's economy, because the whole Bible relates to salvation in one way or another. We could say that the whole bible is about God's plan of salvation.

When a person disagrees with God's economy, they are disagreeing with the idea that everything in the Bible is about God's plan of salvation. Normally they do so because they do not believe in God's plan of salvation, they are atheists or agnostics, or nominal Christians who read the bible as a history book but do not believe in salvation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The term Christ means something specific and also something very general.

Sort of reminds me when everyone went "oooohhhh, aaaaahhhh!!!" when someone once said " I was impressed, struck, and touched" followed by nothing that specifically make those three somewhat different effects meaningful.

To refer to Christ as a term that is specific and general is just silly. While "Christ" is more than a title, it is all specific to the One that is call Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God's economy then is also something specific or something very general. God's economy is the plan of the One who made everything and for whom everything exists.

When you say God's economy is ridiculous you are saying God's salvation is ridiculous (because that is what it means).

It is clear that you do not have much understanding, or intend to misrepresent and thereby avoid actually defending your interpretations of things.

And if all it means it God's salvation, then it cannot be trotted-out to dismiss the writings of James, or of so much of the Psalms. Or to dismiss the clear meaning in the beginning of Colossians and replace it with something that is not there.

And on and on.

"God's salvation" does not mean that whatever it was that Lee had such disdain for in James is actually false and therefore only useful to learn what not to do. While I do not subscribe to the universal application of the warning in Revelation concerning taking anything from the "book of this prophecy," those that do should be screaming a Lee.

What you want to recast as saying "God's economy is ridiculous" was to say that the use of the very broad term "God's economy" is meaningless in the analysis of other things because of its breadth of what it means. It has nothing in it that makes any point.

Instead, you need to find the actual passages that speak in your favor, or against what I am saying. Providing the name of an overlay is not meaningful in the discussion because it provides no basis for consideration. The hollow claim that "God's economy" covers everything does not mean that your understanding of what is in it that speaks to any particular issue is the correct understanding. You have to actually deal with the specific scripture that speaks to it. Not cast the spell of "God's economy" over it.

I have great respect for the whole of God's plan, which is much more than just salvation. But the thing that you have made out of it is not meaningful. God's economy is a legitimate overlay on all that God is and does. But to deal with any issue, you need to have the details of that for the task. Not the overlay. As simply an overlay, it is virtually useless.

Just saying "God's economy" does not provide any basis to accept your version of anything. It just suggests that you do not have the knowledge to actually deal with the issues begin discussed and instead resort to speaking fancy words to cover for that lack.

[Evangelical]

The difference between you and I is that I use Bible verses to support God's economy. It takes only a few minutes to read and understand what God's economy is all about. You say God's plan is more than just salvation but I doubt you know what God's plan actually is. What more is there besides salvation? What more should do you think Christ should have done than die on the cross?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum
Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?
While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

In the life study of John Witness Lee said that God's economy was farming.

[Jesus is the vine tree, the church is the branches, God is the farmer, grace and life supply can be seen. Fighting diseases and insects can be likened to the spiritual warfare. The reaping at the end of the season can be likened to the harvest in the book of Revelation at the end of the age, etc]

[Evangelical]

Everything is God's economy (God's plan of salvation). It's the reason everything and everyone exists.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The difference between you and I is that I use Bible verses to support God's economy. It takes only a few minutes to read and understand what God's economy is all about. You say God's plan is more than just salvation but I doubt you know what God's plan actually is. What more is there besides salvation? What more should do you think Christ should have done than die on the cross?

You make all these references to using Bible verses, but the little that you actually do, it doesn't support your contentions.

And here you dismiss what you think I would call God's plan without hearing it or providing a single bit of evidence that yours (also unstated) is actually God's plan. (And not a single verse. Just your own statements.)

It may be that the plan from the beginning was the cross. But it is evident that there was a plan that did not require salvation as long as we stuck to the "rules" first laid down, few that they were. Of course, it is centuries too late for us

And you can only say that God's plan is simply salvation if you grow the reach of salvation to include everything about the original purpose of man prior to the fall. At that point, it looks less like salvation, but an overlay that actually includes what would correctly include the thing defined as salvation.

And with this we see how the constant redefinition of terms is used to differentiate the LCM from any other group. Take any term, cause it to mean significantly more or significantly less than was previously understood from the term, and shake your finger at everyone that does not use or agree with your definition.

All this from the folks how clamor the most about unity.

[Evangelical]

Your view ignores God's sovereignty. To a Christian, Christ and the cross is the center and purpose of everything. There was never a plan in God's mind that did not require salvation. God knew what He was doing when he put the tree of knowledge there, and the serpent. Everything was prepared beforehand.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your view ignores God's sovereignty. To a Christian, Christ and the cross is the center and purpose of everything. There was never a plan in God's mind that did not require salvation. God knew what He was doing when he put the tree of knowledge there, and the serpent. Everything was prepared beforehand.

While not denying that it could be true, the claim of it is something that is only guessed at. We think we know what all those characteristics of God mean and yet we really don't.

God's sovereignty is something that he is able to wield. It is not necessarily a declaration that all outcomes are predetermined, as some of the most extreme Calvinists believe.

The center of everything is God. That is a given. But you are looking at it all from the perspective of a plan that has at its center a failure and a cure. What if the plan was that man would bear the image of God? Would glorify Him in all that we do? The addition that Lee makes to insist that it was the fall of man that was preordained so that Satan would be caught in man and sentenced to die with man is nothing short of imaginary. It makes for a good story. But it is not supportable.

And there is another whole thread on Lee's Satanology. We'll leave it for that thread.

I find it so odd that everything is about the cure and not about the purpose.

Man had a purpose defined by God. He was thwarted from achieving that purpose. God provided a cure for the problem. Now may can fulfill his purpose.

For man to achieve the purpose, the cure is absolutely imperative. But it is not the Center. Well, if you consider crossover from death to life to be the center-point between the two sides of the spectrum, then Salvation is at the center. But the goal is not salvation. Salvation is not the center. It is the means.

While we need an ongoing salvation to continue, the goal is people who choose to accept that salvation and then go on to fulfill their purpose.

I find it funny that the group that demeans the gospel of the rest of Christianity as the "low gospel" would insist that the salvation is the center. That would be true only if salvation has been redefined to cover everything about the Christian life. And given the propensity for redefinitions, I guess that is just possible.

But if that is the case, then you have once again wandered into the realm of fanciful redefinitions that only serve to separate you rather than unify you with respect to those of the household of faith. You are proud to have a "better" version of everything so that you have a basis for exclusion of everyone that does not follow Lee.

Believe me, you are of Lee. There is no way around it.

Back to the topic of the thread. God's economy was a term used to generically refer to all that God has and does. It is what all good teachings will lead to. It was provided as something very different from "questionings," which was the result of teaching so many pointless things like endless genealogies.

Sort of like peace. You do not define peace so concisely as to eliminate examples of peace, Rather, peace is what is found where there is no war or strife. It is the opposite of what it set off against.

But Lee chose to simplify God's economy down to something that might legitimately be a part of what is in the whole of God's economy. But if that were not enough, we then chose to take that definition and use it to redefine too much scripture.

The fact that you are steeped in Lee's teachings to the exclusion of healthy teaching is clear evidence that you are of Lee. You are not someone that is not a Christian. Your group is not unchristian. It is not a false church. But it is not, by itself and apart from all others, "the true church." That is the dreaming of someone who is "of" someone and excludes all others.

If there are denominations of the type and manner that Lee declares, then the LCM is one of the only denominations. It is more exclusive, sectarian, and focused on a single man (other than Christ) than almost any of the groups you so freely denigrate.

And not a single verse to support your position. Just a statement that it is so.

[Evangelical]

You call me a Lee follower yet I know the Bible better than you it seems. According to the Bible, the cure is the purpose. There is a verse which states quite clearly that salvation is God's purpose. I like the NLT because it emphasizes the fact:

2 Timothy 1:9 For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of time--to show us his grace through Christ Jesus.

So God's plan was not merely to create some humans in his image, but to show them his grace. To do so, humanity needed to pass through the process of falling, so that God could show His grace.

The verse says God purposed this before the beginning of time. So before Genesis 1:1, before God said "let there bye light" which was when time began, God had purposed for man to be saved by His grace. To achieve that, it was necessary that God create the environment in the Garden of Eden, so that it would happen.

Matthew Henry on this verse says
"The call of the gospel is a holy call, making holy. Salvation is of free grace. This is said to be given us before the world began, that is, in the purpose of God from all eternity; "

Many Christians believe that salvation just means going to heaven when they die. The rest of their life, purpose for existence, and their environment is unrelated to that fact, including going to church, which is just a routine exercise of religious observation. This is the kind of person who does not live according to God's plan, because they don't see that salvation is the very purpose of their existence.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both Nee and Lee criticized the Exclusive Brethren for being "overly objective" in their teaching emphasis. Actually they were not. They made the experience of Christ into a science, much the same as Lee did during the Perfecting Training, i.e. "just flip the switch," and turn on the Spirit. Remember that? Mechanized spirituality in the name of subjective experience of Christ.

What really damaged the Exclusives, the Little Flock, and the Recovery was the Deputy Authority, whose endless teachings superseded scripture, and whose authority robbed the Lord of His.

Criticism "for being "overly objective" in their teaching emphasis? LC practices can be criticized for being "overly subjective". Too much weight is given to feeling and no consideration given towards facts and substance.
Decision making especially among the blendeds tends to be defined as "what would brother Lee want". All objectivity and reason has been discarded.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's exactly what legalism, pride, and self-righteousness do.

Both Nee and Lee criticized the Exclusive Brethren for being "overly objective" in their teaching emphasis. Actually they were not. They made the experience of Christ into a science, much the same as Lee did during the Perfecting Training, i.e. "just flip the switch," and turn on the Spirit. Remember that? Mechanized spirituality in the name of subjective experience of Christ.

What really damaged the Exclusives, the Little Flock, and the Recovery was the Deputy Authority, whose endless teachings superseded scripture, and whose authority robbed the Lord of His.

In the LS of Exodus, Lee used the phrase "the science of drinking" (Msg 43). If everything can be diluted to some sort of 'science' or "flipping the switch" as Lee so loved to claim, then there would be no excuse for anyone to not be completely on board with the whole paradigm of "God's economy" that the LC teaches.

I used to wonder why all these promises made in Lee's ministry never worked in the way claimed. I thought I was deficient. It's not until I looked around that I realized these thigns didn't work for anyone else either.

So I think what our friend Evangelical has labeled as "religious observation" isn't so bad after all. Millions upon millions of Christians are out there living a fulfilling life glorify God. So many in the LC are stuck in a rut of wondering what they're doing wrong.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many Christians believe that salvation just means going to heaven when they die. The rest of their life, purpose for existence, and their environment is unrelated to that fact, including going to church, which is just a routine exercise of religious observation. This is the kind of person who does not live according to God's plan, because they don't see that salvation is the very purpose of their existence.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You call me a Lee follower yet I know the Bible better than you it seems. According to the Bible, the cure is the purpose. There is a verse which states quite clearly that salvation is God's purpose. I like the NLT because it emphasizes the fact:

But that is not what your verse says. It does have the word purpose in it.

You have to be careful when you read the very loose paraphrases. They are great to break you out of automatic understanding. But once it starts you questioning your understanding, you have to go back to the closer translations. They must support the premise that the paraphrase suggested.

And it fails here. The purpose of salvation is not given as the central purpose of God, but is stated as having a purpose. And that purpose is the holy life to which we are called. We were unable to get there on our own. We needed salvation. That is true. But it was not a central purpose that required a fallen mankind. Rather it was a necessary purpose because there was a fallen mankind.

The purpose was the holy life to which we were/are called. And Christ had the grace we needed in him before we needed it. That is really all the verse says. God didn't react after the fact and give Christ the grace we needed. He was ready for our failure.

So I find this verse to mean that God's purpose is for us to live a holy life. And since we are nowhere near holy, we need the grace that was already available in Christ. But the purpose is not salvation. That is how we get from where we are or were to the holy life that is the purpose.

While I would not call your paraphrased verse completely incorrect, in this case it does tend to point in a direction different from what the actual words say.

Even Matthew Henry refers to salvation as being "in the purpose" and not simply "the purpose." In the purpose indicates that it is not an afterthought, but was planned for the need. But still not "the purpose." Rather a necessary tool that was placed in the toolbox before it was needed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I used to wonder why all these promises made in Lee's ministry never worked in the way claimed. I thought I was deficient. It's not until I looked around that I realized these things didn't work for anyone else either.

So I think what our friend Evangelical has labeled as "religious observation" isn't so bad after all. Millions upon millions of Christians are out there living a fulfilling life glorify God. So many in the LC are stuck in a rut of wondering what they're doing wrong.

How very true! Decades of broken promises, false hopes, disappointments, and I and we always blamed myself and ourselves.

Yet, the standard answer to the endless query was: "What were you expecting, did you want something other than Christ?"

No, that's exactly what I wanted. Christ!

Interestingly, about the time I was leaving the Recovery, I heard someone say, that if your church "was not under the Lord's blessing, then perhaps it is under a curse."

Little extreme, but got me thinking. Eventually I concluded that our leaders had only reaped what they sowed. Decades of covered up unrighteousness and smear campaigns against the likes of our beloved brother John Ingalls can't be hidden from heavenly eyes.

How well James spoke to our condition ...

But the tongue no man can tame; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who are made in God's likeness.

Out of the same [ministry] mouth comes forth blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not so to be.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But that is not what your verse says. It does have the word purpose in it.

Yet there was a fallen mankind because God willed it to be so. Man did not fall accidentally or without God's foreknowledge.

Vincent Word studies says:

"Paul puts the beginnings of salvation in God's purpose before the time of the world (1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Peter 1:20); and Christ's participation in the saving counsels of God prior to time, goes with the Pauline doctrine of Christ's preexistence."

We could say that God created us to be objects of His salvation, before we were ever created, before Adam and Eve fell. It was all pre-planned and foreknown by God.

[ZNPaaneah]

I thought Paul said that it was not God's will that any would perish. What strange doctrine is this?

[Evangelical]

Your view is ignoring that man has free will to choose to obey Him.

[ZNPaaneah]

I did not ignore that.

You didn't say that it was God's will that man was created with a free will, the ability to choose. You said that it was God's will that man fell.

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;

So how does this work that God willed that man would fall yet God does not tempt anyone?

[Evangelical]

I believe it was God's will that man fell, and it was man's free will that made the choice to make it happen. Do we really think that God who exists outside of space and time, was shocked to learn that Adam and Eve fell? He had prepared for it since before the creation, as a number of verses say (already posted in discussion with OBW). Because of God's plan, it was inevitable.

Most of Christianity believe that man's fall was more or less a surprise to God, and so from Genesis to Matthew, God was preparing for His Son to come because of what happened in Genesis. However the Bible paints a different picture, the Bible reveals it was God's plan of salvation before the world was created, before Genesis.

If it was not God's will that man fell, He would not have allowed the serpent to be in the Garden nor would he have placed the tree of knowledge there.

We're starting to get into the well known topic of God's sovereignty and man's free will. It is somewhat a mystery, and debate, but I believe the two ideas can co-exist. But the starting point is always God, God by definition is the uncreated Creator, and nothing existing could exist unless it was in His plan.

That is, mankind, by choosing to disobey God, was not the source of God's salvation as commonly believed. Rather God was the source, so that He could have the glory. If mankind was the source of God's plan of salvation, then mankind should be able to save itself. But both the fall and the Savior were all of God's design and purpose.

[ZNPaaneah]

It is a nasty thought that God laid a trap for man to fall into. This idea is clearly rejected by the NT apostles. I quoted James, but you could just as easily have quoted John or Paul.

It is not God's will that any would perish. God does not tempt man with sin. In Him there is light and no darkness.

Saying that God could have foreseen this outcome, that He wasn't surprised by this outcome, is not the same thing as saying He willed this outcome.

[Evangelical]

It was and is not God's desire for men to perish. It was his desire to show His grace to mankind, but how could He unless mankind first needed a Savior.

https://gotquestions.org/predestinat...knowledge.html
The truth is that the word foreknew in Romans 8:29 is not speaking of God's knowing the future. The word foreknowledge is never used in terms of knowing about future events, times or actions (God’s omniscience). What it does describe is a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God whereby God brings the salvation relationship into existence by decreeing it into existence ahead of time.

[ZNPaaneah]

The salvation relationship includes Jesus Christ as life to us, it includes becoming one new man, the house of God, the temple of God, the body of Christ. You don't need sin and fallen man to have God's saving grace revealed to us. For a creature to receive the life of God, that is salvation. That is grace. These things were always God's will.

[Evangelical]

What you say sounds similar to a doctrine that speculates on what might have occurred if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the tree. It goes something like, God's creation was not complete by the 7th day, as man still had to eat the tree of life, but did not quite get there.

But I think mankind could not experience God's saving grace unless mankind was in a fallen condition.

I like this article which explains some reasons why the fall of man was part of God's perfect plan:

https://bible.org/seriespage/5-fall-...s-perfect-plan

[ZNPaaneah]

What you say is a direct contradiction of the fellowship of the apostles. It is a different gospel with a different God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What you say is a direct contradiction of the fellowship of the apostles. It is a different gospel with a different God.

The fellowship of the apostles according to you, you mean.

[aron]

What if...

Acts 12:25 " and Barnabas and Saul did turn back out of Jerusalem, having fulfilled the ministration, having taken also with [them] John, who was surnamed Mark." (YLT)

Acts 6:1,2 "And in these days, the disciples multiplying, there came a murmuring of the Hellenists at the Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily ministration, and the twelve, having called near the multitude of the disciples, said, `It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables;'"

What if God's economy were the ministration (meaning to dispense, or to minister) to those who lack means to repay in this age? What if man's economy was "Each one for themselves, and the devil take the hindmost" and God's economy was to dispense, or minister, to those very hindmost?

Witness Lee said God's economy was to eat God and become God. He said, God was processed to dispense. . . okay, but what dispensing is cited above, in the NT? That of ones who have something sharing with those who don't. Dorcas made shirts for the widows. Evidently they couldn't pay her, otherwise they wouldn't have wept so copiously when she died. If she'd sold them shirts for profit, it would have been a pecuniary transaction, and the widows would not have wept when their merchant expired. But out of love she poured out her heart for them, and in love she made shirts and tunics for them. She was in God's economy. Her reward was their gratitude. And God was watching. "Are not all my deeds recorded in your book?"

When Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:3,4 not to teach things other than God's economy, he doesn't define God's economy other than that it's "in faith". But look at what repeatedly happened: dispensing, or what Youngs Literal Translation calls 'ministration'. Caring for others through real, actual one-way transactions that have the expected payoff not on earth but in in heaven. In Galatians 2:10 Paul says, "They urged us to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do".

How do we "fulfill the ministration", a la Saul and Barnabas in Acts 12:6? When we see Lazarus lying there, covered in sores and flies, thirsty and broken, do we say, "Sorry Bud, but I'm off to a meeting with the good building material. Be warm and be filled"? Is that God's economy? I don't think so. That's the Kingdom of Self. "That member which lacks is shown the most abundant honour" - how do we show honour to those who lack? By sitting in chairs and pray-reading verses, and then giving one another empty platitudes?

I'm not suggesting that we must give half our possessions to the poor, as Zechaias told Jesus he had done. But there's a pattern there, in Zechaias' testimony, in Barnabas and Saul in Acts 12 and Galatians 2, and of course in Jesus, that of helping others in need. "It is better to give than to receive". This pattern of giving action, of outreach toward those who can't reach back out to us, suggests a picture of God's economy, what it looks like and what it is. It is indeed a dispensing, but not to self. It is a dispensing to the forgotten, lonely, overlooked other. "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me". It is love outpoured.

Just thinking aloud here. But the pattern I see in the NT seems to invite a re-orientation, from self to the neglected other... when you give to those who can't repay you in this age, you do so in faith, in faith that there will be a reward in heaven. This is what Paul referenced - "God's economy, which is in faith". In faith, we can reach out to the unreachable. This is the miracle of God's love. It reached me, and now it wants to keep going.

[aron]

If you look at the RecV, the word used in Acts 12:26 and 6:1,2 is translated 'dispensing', and the footnote says it's the same as in the gospel passage where angels 'ministered' to Jesus (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:11). Evidently it means 'to care for' in some overt way. Oftentimes we use the word 'care' as in emotional attachment, but this is a series of actions flowing out from an emotional connection. It might also be translated, 'tend to' or 'look after'.

So Saul and Barnabas were 'dispensing'... contrast to how the word is used in the LC. There I was trained in what they called 'PSRP' - pray-reading, studying, reciting and prophesying. They would take "words of ministry", i.e. Witness Lee's writings, and speak them to one another, repeatedly. "Amen, processed! Praise the Lord, processed! Hallelujah processed!" That, in the LC, was the 'dispensing', and it was supposed to effect an inward metabolic transformation ("Amen, metabolic! Hallelujah, metabolic!") from humanity to divinity. Quite different from the dispensing done by Saul and Barnabas in Acts 12.

Now, look at Jesus' words.

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

When Jesus said he "needed food" or "needed clothes" he's probably referencing the same situation Saul and Barnabas were addressing in Acts 12. And I doubt it's coincidental.

So I'm looking at two quite distinct ways of 'dispensing': one is gathering in 'meeting halls' and shouting at glassy-eyed acolytes of a certain Bible expositor who ran his own publishing firm and was called the Deputy God and Today's Moses; the other is what is suggested by the patterns of actions in the NT that line up with Jesus' teachings, and example.

Jesus talks of "the least of these" as the focus of the divine economy, but Paul Hon in Anaheim pulled up a strapping young American college student who looked like LA Dodgers pitcher Orel Hershiser, and said, "this is what we want". There were many people there with me, who can attest to my memory. Paul Hon was speaking for his bosses: they wanted Caucasian Americans with earning potential. That was their focus.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus talks of "the least of these" as the focus of the divine economy, but Paul Hon in Anaheim pulled up a strapping young American college student who looked like LA Dodgers pitcher Orel Hershiser, and said, "this is what we want". There were many people there with me, who can attest to my memory. Paul Hon was speaking for his bosses: they wanted Caucasian Americans with earning potential. That was their focus.

Then Jesus said to the man who had invited Him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or brothers or relatives or rich neighbors. Otherwise, they may invite you in return, and you will be repaid. But when you host a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, and you will be blessed. Since they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:12-14

"The servant returned and reported all this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ " Luke 14:21

Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence. 1 Cor 1:26-29

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But when you host a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, and you will be blessed. Since they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:13-14

"The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them" ~Matt 11:5 This is God's economy, and it requires faith. If you had a restaurant, would you invite in people who had no means to repay you? Look at the banquet Jesus hosted and look at who came. When John the Baptist asked Jesus to give an account of his ministry, this (Matt 11:5) is what Jesus said to characterise himself... this was outreach, God's "high arm" outstretched, to those who could not repay. This was love.

Now by my own definition, my post doesn't constitute outreach, or ministration, or dispensing. But it serves two purposes: it helps me to get free from ones who'd hold us in mental slavery, and it suggests a course of profitable activity. Good enough.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the RecV, the word used in Acts 12:26 and 6:1,2 is translated 'dispensing', and the footnote says it's the same as in the gospel passage where angels 'ministered' to Jesus (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:11). Evidently it means 'to care for' in some overt way. Oftentimes we use the word 'care' as in emotional attachment, but this is a series of actions flowing out from an emotional connection. It might also be translated, 'tend to' or 'look after'.

I read an affirmation of the idea of "look after" via material care, in the epistle "Didache". This epistle is an early witness to the gospels, quoting them extensively and providing commentary.

One comment it gives is on alms-giving. It says that one should be careful to whom one gives gifts. In an analogy of "do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them, and turn and rend you", the Didache says, "When you have alms to give, let them sweat in your palms before you know to whom to give them". In other words, find out who in "God's economy" these are intended for.

Now, in the early days, one merely used the Twelve as a clearing-house. "And they took their possessions, and sold them, and laid them at the feet of the disciples". ~Acts 4:35 Pretty simple. And with Paul, there is continuation: "And they (the apostles in Jerusalem) urged us to continue to remember the poor, which very thing we were eager to do." ~Gal 2:10

Paul's epistles continue the theme. Romans 15:24 I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.

1 Cor 16:1 Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: 2 On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. 3 Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem.…

Not to mention 2 Cor 7 and 8 -- two entire chapters on the subject.

Clearly we can see "God's economy" as a continuation of the pattern in the Gospels: "Lord, we have given up everything to follow you - what will there be for us? ~Matt 19:27; and "The women ministered to Jesus out of their substance" ~Luke 8:3; and "Judas held the [common] purse" ~John 12:6; 13:29 and the [gentile] Magi bringing precious gifts ~Matt 2:11; culminating in "and the nations brought their glory into it (The New Jerusalem") ~Rev 21:24;26.

All this fulfilled the prophetic word by Isaiah that the nations would stream to the Holy Mountain to worship God. ~Isa 2:2; 66:20. Witness Lee stressed teaching God's economy, which is in faith (1 Tim 1:4) but he didn't correctly teach us what God's economy actually was. Notice that Paul didn't delineate what God's economy is - Witness Lee supplies the contents from his own imagination. The complete record of the NT, and its referents in the OT may give a better understanding of "God's economy which is in faith" than "the Last Adam became a life-giving spirit" and "the spirit witnesses with your spirit".

There's a "dispensing" repeatedly shown in the NT, which Lee seemed to take pains to ignore. Perhaps because it conflicted with his version of "dispensing" in his proprietary "God's economy".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

There's a "dispensing" repeatedly shown in the NT, which Lee seemed to take pains to ignore. Perhaps because it conflicted with his version of "dispensing" in his proprietary "God's economy".

I cite Didache as a window into "God's economy" because it's a well-attested first/second-century letter which is sub-titled "the teaching of the Twelve to the Nations". It's an early commentary on the apostles' teaching, as valid (or moreso) than a commentary supplied centuries later by Darby or Nee or Lee or Spurgeon or whomever.

Witness Lee properly stressed teaching God's economy which is in faith (1 Tim 1:4), but how do we know it is what he said it was? "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" and "The Spirit witnesses with out spirit"? Is that God's economy?

Didache says, "Let your alms sweat in your palm before you know who to give it to." When the apostles were in Jerusalem, it was simple: give your alms through the Twelve. "And they sold what they had and laid it at the apostles' feet" ~Acts 4:34,35, cf 2:45. And this continued with Paul: "They (the apostles) asked us to continue to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do" ~Gal 2:10

The NT gives another window into "dispensing" and "which is by faith" than the one Witness Lee stressed. You know, masticating the processed Triune God and becoming God in life and nature.

Jesus taught, "When you give a feast, invite those who cannot repay you, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous". Luke 14:12-14 This is the dispensing that Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 12, and the Twelve did in Acts 6.

Now look at Paul as he fulfills the Apostle's commission cited in Galatians 2. Romans 15:25 "Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way"

So Paul is repeating the dispensing of Acts 12 and Acts 6.

1 Cor 15: 1 "Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem."

Is alms-giving a "dead work" in the NT? Here's Paul in Acts 24:17 "After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings."

Here is Dorcas in Acts 9:36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor.

Here is Cornelius in Acts 10:3,4 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.” And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.

Perhaps that's closer to what Paul meant when he wrote to "teach God's economy, which is in faith". Certainly Witness Lee's explanation isn't the only possible one. We just passively accepted it as though it were. First he made us brain-dead by repetitive shouting, then he fed us his home-made theories. I think we should question them, and probe for alternatives.

Didache was written later, when the Twelve were not together in Jerusalem, so it might be harder for the [gentile] recipients scattered abroad to know to whom to give alms. Jerusalem may well have been in ruins by then. So the writer is saying, Hold your alms in your hands, look round, and God will show you how to participate in His economy.

[Raptor]

The Bible starts with God, ends with the New Jerusalem and in the middle, Jesus Christ crucified.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Bible starts with God, ends with the New Jerusalem and in the middle, Jesus Christ crucified.

Paul writes not to teach other than God's economy, which is in faith. And then the New Jerusalem has 'nations' [Gk: ethnoi] bringing their glory to it... seems to have shades of Solomon indeed.

1 Kings 4:21 And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon's subjects all his life.

1 Kings 10:25 Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift--articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.

Lee told us that these ethnoi in Rev. 21 weren't Christian believers or Jews but were unbelievers who did good works for 3.5 years. Seems like good works can save you in the NT? Sometimes? That's God's economy?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by aron

Paul writes not to teach other than God's economy, which is in faith.

The Bible
starts with God, ends with the New Jerusalem and in the middle, Jesus Christ crucified.

Ephesians chapter 1
starts with God, ends with the Church, His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all (New Jerusalem), and in the middle, In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses (Jesus Christ crucified)

[aron]

Continuing post #261, Paul devotes 2 whole chapters, 2 Corinthians 7 and 8, to the collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Here are the first 4 verses from chapter 7.

"And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people [the Jews]."

It's an interesting meditation on "grace", a word Paul uses frequently in this section. And let's not forget the 2 books written by Paul's traveling companion, Luke. Both his gospel and his acts begin with a preface dedicated to the presumably generous gentile benefactor, the "most excellent Theophilus". All of this gives us a window into God's economy as it was understood by Paul.

More in 2 Cor 7 (vv 13-15): "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: 'The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little' "

And this view was shared by the other apostles, to read Paul's word in Gal 2, and the word-picture painted by John in Revelation 21. Maybe, then, the stories that sprinkle the first few chapters of Acts are not disparate and puzzling anecdotes, unrelated and easily passed over and forgotten, but rather a coherent narrative whole, which lies behind Paul's missionary thrusts. The grumbling of the Hellenist widows in the daily dispensing, the desire of Ananias and his wife to with-hold some of their resources while feigning absoluteness. Luke has a story here.

Now, Witness Lee's ideas may be better than mine, as to what Paul meant in 1 Tim 1:4. But WL's ideas can be challenged and critiqued, same as anyone else's. I read an interesting anecdote on the FB discussion recently. RK was expounding on something, and when someone told him that WL taught different, he said, "Well I'm not the minister of the age". Just like that he renounced his God-given right to think, and to possess his own thoughts. I'd rather not passively receive one man's thought as a replacement for mine.

We're ultimately responsible for not only our behaviours but the thoughts that lie behind them. Trying to understand Paul's thoughts helps us to grapple with our own, and to take full ownership thereof.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

But WL's ideas can be challenged and critiqued, same as anyone else's. I read an interesting anecdote on the FB discussion recently. RK was expounding on something, and someone told him that WL taught different, and he said, "Well I'm not the minister of the age". Just like that he renounced his God-given right to think, and to possess his own thoughts.

Yeah, that's the linchpin that holds the whole thing together. The great trump card. "I'm the MOTA. You have to agree with me. Discussion over. Any further talk is rebellion."

If you are in the LR, that's what you have signed up for. That's the deal. Either you like that or you don't. If you don't, leave.

But then they say, you can't leave. At some point you have to stop believing those lies, and turn on your heel. Don't expect those people to understand. That's what it comes down to.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, that's the linchpin that holds the whole thing together. The great trump card. "I'm the MOTA. You have to agree with me. Discussion over. Any further talk is rebellion."

If you are in the LR, that's what you have signed up for. That's the deal.

In some ways I've used this forum for similar purposes as WL did with the LR. I use it as a sounding board for my ideas. However, I'm not the MOTA, and my ideas get pruned by others, or ignored, or even - gasp - rejected.

But every now and then I may say something useful, or helpful to others, and that is worth it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

In some ways I've used this forum for similar purposes as WL did with the LR. I use it as a sounding board for my ideas. However, I'm not the MOTA, and my ideas get pruned by others, or ignored, or even - gasp - rejected.

But every now and then I may say something useful, or helpful to others, and that is worth it.

Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. The beauty of it is that if we all are faithful to follow the Lord, then he will tell each of us when someone is speaking the truth. Yet we are all free. No one is controlling.

God never says, "This person is my mouthpiece. Never contradict anything he speaks and always do what he says and I will reward you greatly!" That's the stupidest thing ever, a guaranteed disaster sooner or later.

But that's how the LR thinks. The insidiousness of it is that once you let that hook get planted in your mind, its hard to free yourself from it, because it is self-reinforcing. It's like one of those traps in which the more you struggle the tighter it gets. The more you question it the more it condemns you. It defies all reason to the contrary. People succumb to it out of exhaustion and fear.

If you just think about that one idea, grasp it, you have the LR dilemma in a nutshell.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In some ways I've used this forum for similar purposes as WL did with the LR. I use it as a sounding board for my ideas. However, I'm not the MOTA, and my ideas get pruned by others, or ignored, or even - gasp - rejected.

But every now and then I may say something useful, or helpful to others, and that is worth it.

Is not this the real meaning of "fellowship" between God's children? Is not this also the way we grow properly? Is not this also the way the body is "tempered" together.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God never says, "This person is my mouthpiece. Never contradict anything he speaks and always do what he says and I will reward you greatly!" That's the stupidest thing ever, a guaranteed disaster sooner or later. But that's how the LR thinks. The insidiousness of it is that once you let that hook get planted in your mind, its hard to free yourself from it, because it is self-reinforcing. It's like one of those traps in which the more you struggle the tighter it gets. The more you question it the more it condemns you. It defies all reason to the contrary. People succumb to it out of exhaustion and fear.

It is so stupid....how can it be so effective? There has to be an evil spirit working behind the scene. It´s a spell, just like in 3:1 "O foolish Galatians....."Who has bewitched you.."

other translations say, ....senseless, stupid, thoughtless Galatians, who...

cast a spell on you
cunningly deceived you
hypnotized you
cast an evil spell on you
put you under a spell
put you under an evil spell
sophistry has bewitched you

There must be spiritual forces of evil, an authority of darkness, maybe even something specific like a "prince of the Recovery". These are deceiving spirits and teachings of demons. Similarly, the same forces behind allowing fornication, adultery and drunkenness to go on unreproved in the name of "life", respecting persons over God, man's word over God's word, and fearing man and not in the fear of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

There must be spiritual forces of evil, an authority of darkness, maybe even something specific like a "prince of the Recovery". These are deceiving spirits and teachings of demons. Similarly, the same forces behind allowing fornication, adultery and drunkenness to go on unreproved in the name of "life", respecting persons over God, man's word over God's word, and fearing man and not in the fear of God.

Paul said that "God has not given us a Spirit of Fear," yet that is exactly what grips these folks, preventing them from thinking, from voicing their conscience, from comparing the Recovery to the Scripture, from protesting unrighteousness, from expressing opinions, from even dressing a little different.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The insidiousness of it is that once you let that hook get planted in your mind, its hard to free yourself from it, because it is self-reinforcing.

And the very term "God's Economy" is the hair hiding the hook. It's a brilliant catchphrase. A shinny object. It has an appealing ring to it. But in the end it's hubris. If God does have an economy, isn't it arrogance upon arrogance to claim to be the accountant that can figure it? If it's Gods' only God can figure it.

Just who did Lee think he was?

[UntoHim]

God’s economy is God’s plan, God’s arrangement, for God to dispense Himself in His element, life, nature, and attributes, and all that He has achieved and attained into His chosen people that they may be rebuilt by being constituted with the divine essence in the divine element of the divine source to be something divine. Before receiving God’s dispensing, we were merely human. After God’s rebuilding with the divine constitution we, like the Lord Jesus, become divinely human and humanly divine. Before incarnation Christ was only divine, but after His incarnation He became a God-man, a man with the divine nature. Now He is divinely human, and He is also humanly divine. Having been regenerated by Christ, we have become a part of Him, and now we are the same as He is—divinely human and humanly divine.
(Life-study of Job, pp. 57-58)

I'm not sure when the Life Study of Job was....but whatever happened to "Hallelujah eating Jesus is the way!"? No wonder the Training banners kept getting longer and longer. "rebuilt by being constituted with the divine essence in the divine element of the divine source to be something divine"? Wow, I'm out of breath just reading this! Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical.

"and now we are the same as He is"? I think there is a verse that says that "we will be like Him"....but how did this get transformed to "we are the same as He is". Sounds like quite a leap. "Divinely human and humanly divine"? Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"and now we are the same as He is"? I think there is a verse that says that "we will be like Him"....but how did this get transformed to "we are the same as He is". Sounds like quite a leap. "Divinely human and humanly divine"? Very novel. Very interesting. Not very biblical. [/COLOR]
-

Could they just start with a little love? Brotherly love, and not brotherLee love?

And stop condemning their brothers, suing their brothers, quarantining their brothers over endless petty nonsense?

Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Timothy 1.5)

[aron]

The following is a continuation of post #259

Originally Posted by aron

Is alms-giving a "dead work" in the NT? Here's Paul in Acts 24:17 - "After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings."

Matthew 6:2-4 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

I know that giving alms was ignored in the local churches and actively suppressed in the FTTA. But it does fit a pattern of both teaching and practice in the NT, starting in the gospels, as seen above.

The idea is that you give to someone who cannot pay you back, "pay it forward" by faith, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous. "Store up for yourselves treasure in heaven." ~Matthew 6:19-21.

This preserves the giver from being weighted down by earthly cares. "Will not your Father in heaven also clothe you, of so little faith?" And see Zachaeus, who gave half his wealth to the poor -"Salvation has come to this house".

And it also saves the receiver: not just from want, but from thinking that God doesn't care for them. This is the good news: God loves you. God hasn't forgotten you. God's outstretched arm can reach you and save you. If we give a cup of cold water to a thirsty one, in the name of Jesus, it will be remembered.

And it makes the word in Didache timely: "Let your alms sweat in the palms of your hands before you know who to give them to." In the Book of Acts it was easy: lay your gift at the apostles' feet. They were a sort of clearing-house for alms (I blame the RecV repeatedly using the word 'dispensing' in Acts for putting me on this path ).

But today it's not so straightforward regarding how to participate in "God's economy" in this manner, which is why the Didache's advice is so useful.

[aron]

In Acts 21:20 James is telling Paul about the many thousands of Jews who have believed the resurrection/Messiah-ship of Jesus. When James said, "They're all zealous for the law", Paul didn't exclaim, "No! James! That's not God's economy!" That's what our LC exegete did as he read us the passage in a "training meeting". Everyone chuckled at his theatrics.

But Paul didn't say that, nor did Luke say James' speaking was wrong.

It took me years post-LC to begin to think again, to look at the passages for what they said and not what some Bible expository wished they said.

Let me digress for a moment before I get to my point. Clearly the world, like the universe beyond, is filled with diversity. "All creatures, both great and small, the LORD God made them all." So why were we supposed to become identical mindless automatons in the Robot Factory? Was that supposed to please God? Or, rather, some control freak usurping God?

If a 38 year-old mother of two writes an open letter to the saints in the Lord's recovery, and two months later they have to convene a Special Synod to urge 900 ex-trainees not to look at or discuss the contents of that letter, is that the kingdom of God? Doesn't look very robust, to me. Does God really forbid that anyone should actually read, think, question, speak or write?

Well, it took me years, and this forum helped me immensely. I too could read, think, hold forth ideas. Some might be good, some might be clunkers, but that is what the 'ekklesia' or assembly is for.

So I read the end of Acts, and Paul says, "After many years I came back to Jerusalem, bringing alms for my nation" and I thought, "Hey! Maybe that's God's economy!" I mean, look at how many times in Acts the RecV uses the word 'dispensing' in just this manner. Plus Paul devotes what, 4 separate chapters on the subject. ~2 Cor 7 & 8, 1 Cor 15, Rom 15.

And in Galatians 2:10, when James & co tell Paul to continue to "remember the poor" he doesn't say, "No! That's not God's economy" but he says he's eager to do that very thing. Not just to do it, but to continue doing it. Because it's God's economy" Those who have excess have none left over, and those without do not lack. Again, see 2 Cor 7:13-15.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Could they just start with a little love? Brotherly love, and not brotherLee love?

And stop condemning their brothers, suing their brothers, quarantining their brothers over endless petty nonsense?

Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Timothy 1.5)

Hear Hear . . . and AMEN!

Love is the missing ingredient, and without love there is nothing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Isn't the goal of God's economy love out of a pure heart? (I Tim 1:5)

Linking God's economy with love, as Ohio does, is probably important. Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you in this age, and you'll be rewarded in the resurrection of the righteous." To those who ask for a coat, yield your shirt also. And Paul talked a lot about being made poor, so that others might be blessed. Jesus did it, now we do it. In 1 Timothy, God's economy is based on faith (1:4). Let go of what is "yours", what's in your hand, believing that the Father will take care of you. And the issue of letting go, the goal, is love out of a pure heart. Love isn't a merely a feeling, it's a doing that endures ~1 Cor 13:7. It's a consistent reaching out, beyond oneself, to those too weak to reach back, and to repay in this age. Do you love? Then give. If you give, then you truly love.

Now, Paul's collection for Jerusalem in this light makes perfect sense. Paul says that he was told to by the elders in Jerusalem and he was eager to comply. And note that the charge in Galatians 2:10 was to "continue" the collection - it was an ongoing affair... note the repeated use of the word "dispensing" in Acts 6:1 and 12:25 (RecV).

But it wasn't merely cash transfer from Gentile to Jew. It was love. It was remembrance, it was recognition, emotion-fueled acknowledgement, fellowship, grace. It was no different from Dorcas making shirts for the widows, or Barnabas selling a certain property an laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet. It was faith, letting go, storing treasure in heaven. For where your treasure is, your heart will be.

It was God's economy. Now, my point in all of this isn't to say Brother Lee was wrong and I'm right. But there's probably more scriptural support for my position than for his. I can think of 4 whole chapters by Paul (1 Cor 15, Rom 15, 2 Cor 7,8) that are focused on this theme. Not to mention the climax of Galatians 2 and the bulk of Acts.

The two positions aren't "right" or "wrong" per se, but Brother Lee simply said, "God's economy is such-and-such" even when Paul never defined it that way. Lee's position was his conceptual overlay on scripture, and I've briefly outlined my alternative (and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive).

But "masticating the Processed Triune God and becoming God in life and nature" is entirely conceptual and can go on and on without any actual earthly analog. (In fact it seems to go on without much 'transformation' in some of its principals!) But love needs earthly expression, or it's not love. And the "God's economy" I see in Jesus' teaching, and lived out and taught in Acts, and recommended in epistles, is clearly based on faith, and has a goal of love. Love expresses itself by giving, by sharing, by reaching out to those who cannot currently reciprocate. So I'm tending myself more toward the latter interpretation. (now I just have to live it- haha)

2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

10 And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.

11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.(KJV)

Paul's gospel of Jesus Christ was very specific, what he gave up and what he got. And Paul was also clear, if you know how to read his epistles, in what he wanted his Gentile converts to give up, what "perform the doing" in v.11 entailed. Those 4 chapters cited above, combined with the pattern of Gospels and the Acts, make a compelling case for what Paul referenced in 1 Timothy 1 when he held them to teaching "God's economy".

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, my point in all of this isn't to say Brother Lee was wrong and I'm right. But there's probably more scriptural support for my position than for his. I can think of 4 whole chapters by Paul (1 Cor 15, Rom 15, 2 Cor 7,8) that are focused on this theme. Not to mention the climax of Galatians 2 and the bulk of Acts.

The two positions aren't "right" or "wrong" per se, but Brother Lee simply said, "God's economy is such-and-such" even when Paul never defined it that way. Lee's position was his conceptual overlay on scripture, and I've briefly outlined my alternative...

If God's economy per Witness Lee was what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 1, wouldn't there be some explanation by Paul corroborating this? Instead it was conceptual fabrication by WL. There's more textual support by Paul on "continue to remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10) and "he who had abundance had no excess and he with little had no lack" (2 Cor 8:15) than there for "eating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature."

WL made his idea the cornerstone of his ministry, but if Paul did likewise, he surely didn't do so in writing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If God's economy per Witness Lee was what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 1, wouldn't there be some explanation by Paul corroborating this? Instead it was conceptual fabrication by WL..... "eating the processed and consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature."

WL made his idea the cornerstone of his ministry, but if Paul did likewise, he surely didn't do so in writing.

I'd like to bring forward a comment I made on another thread. But I was already off topic, so will continue here.

Originally Posted by aron

... the burden of proof is on Witness Lee to show that "God's economy" was what he said it was. Where does Paul or Jesus or anyone say "God's economy is this Processed Triune God and spiritual dispensing"? No, it was stitched together out of disparate pictures and types.

I only offer my alternative as a reply to one who says, "Well, what else could it possibly be?" It could be something like what I have briefly outlined. Or it could be something else. But there's no proof that it was what Lee said it was. And Lee's version was self-oriented, which makes me doubly suspicious. My version is more closely aligned with the great command "Love thy neighbor as thyself". As are all the examples which I cited above.

My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. Man is like a water bottle. Made to be filled. Man is like a glove, needs a hand inside. All these analogies may have some merit but I wouldn't build doctrine on it.

Second is that it gets the believer to focus on self. "Am I going to make it" was the watchword. First they start out with your "enjoyment" and then they go to anxiety, which can only be relieved (temporarily) by succumbing to ministry machinations. You are set up for a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship.

Third, to hold it together it seemed that Lee had to pan great swaths of scripture as "low" and "dead works" etc, which seem to include works by Jesus and Paul. See my previous posts.

My advocacy of an entirely different 'economy' which I encapsulate in Galatians 2:10 -- "They (the Jerusalem elders) asked me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" -- is based on three things. First, it better aligns with the mass of scripture, both OT and NT. So both the apostle to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul) agreed that this was a desirable aim, and one sees Paul carry this out, in detail, in his epistles and the Acts.

Second, it lines up better with the Great Command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not focus on your own things.

Third, my experience, however tentative and fraught with failure, bears this out. When I was in the LC, I got euphoric rush hollering, "OHHH Loooooord Jeeeeezusss!!" with the crowd. But eventually I found myself with the same issues I came in with. The elders didn't want to deal with me. So I left. Then followed the proverbial 'wilderness' experience. One day, I had an epiphany -- I was here to serve others. God gave me the Servant Heart of Jesus. Suddenly I realized that I was here, not for myself, but to serve others. It completely transformed me. Suddenly everything changed. And as I began to focus my energies to care for others, God began, slowly and fitfully, to heal me.

As long as I was oriented on self - "making it" - I had misery and discontent. As soon as I found someone to minister to, not caring for any return, I felt the Spirit come alongside. Occasionally I still call "Oh Lord" but it's the doing that really matters. It is truly better to give than to receive.

And to me, that is God's economy.

2 Cor 8:15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."

Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[JJ]

Aron, your posts re God’s economy have stirred a reaction and response from me for a number of reasons. One is that God first came to make his presence known to me while I was reading God’s Economy by Witness Lee. And at the time He made clear to me that He wanted me to read that book. The experience was so moving that even to this day it is clear that my calling as a Christian is related to this term “God’s Economy”. So, imagine my questioning what that was all about years later when the same God clearly leads me to see big problems with Witness Lee’s teachings (including that very book) and out of “the local churches”.

I have spent hours and hours researching in the Bible the use of the word and of its roots that Bible translators (including LSM) inconsistently translate as economy, stewardship, and other words. I have posted elsewhere on these boards a synthesis of my conclusions. So, I won’t fully repeat that.

What I would like to do is suggest that the definition and explanation you give for God’s economy is what maturity as a steward in God’s house rightfully (which is the assembly or ekklesia of God, commonly called “the church”) rightfully includes: a life of serving others, even dying and “pouring out” so that others may live in Christ. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is part of that stewardship (probably a better English word to use), and one never graduates from that (witness “communion”... “the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘this is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”)

Paul clearly said to Timothy that God’s stewardship “is in faith”. The writer of Hebrews says faith is “the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11) He also goes on to show us many examples of how men and women of God first believed God, were counted righteous by God, then lived out that faith out in righteous acts of service that rendered blessings to God’s people, at great cost to themselves during their lifetimes. And, Paul in Romans (10:17) says “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ”.

So, I conclude that God’s stewardship (or economy) involves faith (hearing and believing the word of Christ, and doing what Christ’s word calls us to do; that includes eating his body and drinking his blood (matters He said are of the words He speaks to us which are spirit and life https://biblehub.com/text/john/6-63.htm) and that he who does that will live by Him). What does living by Him look like? Paul said “through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me (Gal. 2:19-20). We know from reading Acts and the epistles that the life Paul lived in the body was one of being a steward of God. That stewardship included preaching the gospel of Christ (which he laid before the apostles who were in Christ before him plus “remembering the poor, which very thing I was eager to do” {Gal. 2}). We also know that Paul remembered the poor by helping to bring them material aid as documented in Acts and his epistles. Serving others through preaching the gospel and aiding the poor are therefore the end result of God’s stewardship. Eating and drinking Christ through his word in spirit together with other believers sustains it and neither that nor serving others selflessly should be dismissed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. . . .

This is what so many have been pointing out, both directly and indirectly, for years.

Lee used analogies as proof of concept.

But analogies are, at best, a means of clarifying or understanding a concept that has already been proved.

In other words, you have to establish that something is true, then if that something needs further explanation, an analogy might be useful.

An analogy is descriptive. It has no power to establish, but rather to better understand something else. If you haven't established anything, there is nothing to which an analogy can be made.

An example I like is Lee's extrapolation in some verse (one of Paul's letters, but I can't remember which — makes me feel a little like the writer of Hebrews who says "and somewhere it is written . . .") where the Greek word used is one that has been transliterated in English to dynamo (not in the Bible as such). Then he goes on to bring every related bit of technology related to dynamos into the discussion. So a single statement of the power of God (or Christ) becomes evidence of the power plant, the wires, and the electricity — the triune God.

But nothing is actually there except the power of God. The rest is supposition based on milking a metaphor.

In the case of Lee's theory on God's economy, he creates a lens through which the entire Bible must be filtered, modified, and even excised because of his extrapolations as he declares "it is like when . . . ."

But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."

If God's economy is claimed to be a basis for dismissing the word of God as written in favor of something not written, or for simply dismissing parts of the word of God, then it cannot rightly be "God's economy." Maybe the economy of some"god," or self-proclaimed 4th of the godhead. (Can't call it the Godhead because there are only three in that Godhead.)

[UntoHim]

Many thanks to OBW, JJ and aron for your incredibly insightful posts! I don't think it is any coincidence that the views that these brothers have shared are coming from longtime former Local Churchers who have gone through the crucible of years within the LC movement, some years in the wilderness, and many years working their way back to some semblance of a biblically healthy place. Of course I wholeheartedly agree, for I have gone through the very same crucible.

The simple fact is that Witness Lee's "God's Economy" is man-centered, man-focused, and when all the dust settles, entirely man-made. And this is the reason that Lee and his followers have such a poor appreciation of the Gospel. They virtually ignore all the biblical passages that plainly show that the focus of the entire Bible is God-centered and God-focused. - "In the beginning was God". "Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". "The end of the matter; Fear God and keep his commandments". "For God so loved the world". "The Kingdom of God is at hand!". "Then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God".

Of course these are just a few verses out of the thousands in the Bible, but I think when taken as a whole - the whole counsel of God - the Scriptures are shown to be altogether God-centered, God-focused, unlike Lee's "God's Economy", which is altogether man-centered and man-focused.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

One is that God first came to make his presence known to me while I was reading God’s Economy by Witness Lee. And at the time He made clear to me that He wanted me to read that book. The experience was so moving that even to this day it is clear that my calling as a Christian is related to this term “God’s Economy”.

In and of itself, Lee's book is not bad, and actually has many good points. Like many ministers, Lee made numerous inferences. They become problematic when taken to the extreme. Having spent some time in a Pentecostal-Lite congregation, I see the same problems there. To some zealots, every mention of "spirit" is an exhortation to speak in tongues.

As I have said before, the Bible alone is balanced. All commentaries are skewed. Sure they can be helpful, just as long as they are not your only source. Lee had a structured accounting mind, and he saw everything in structured columns. Thus Satan must be the tree of knowledge now occupying our flesh, and so forth.

This is how I eventually viewed God's economy. In our human economy money is everything, the medium by which all exchanges are made. We work for money so we can spent our money. All we do, and every part of our life, is fueled by money in some way. Likewise God's Economy is the grace of Christ. Everything in our Christian life is fueled by His grace in our lives. His grace is our fellowship with one another, our love for others, our spiritual supply when exhausted, our wisdom when confused, our encouragement during failures, our gospel to others, etc.

I know this analogy might sound bad, but it worked for me. Perhaps it was no more than a survival technique or a coping mechanism during all of those messages I had to sit thru on God's Economy.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by aron

I'd like to bring forward a comment I made on another thread. But I was already off topic, so will continue here.



My critique of the WL model of "God's economy is threefold: first that it has no basis - nowhere did Paul say, "God's economy is 'X'" and WL continued or fleshed this out. No, WL simply said, "God's economy is 'X'" and fleshed out his interpretation with various homespun analogies. Man is like a water bottle. Made to be filled. Man is like a glove, needs a hand inside. All these analogies may have some merit but I wouldn't build doctrine on it.

Second is that it gets the believer to focus on self. "Am I going to make it" was the watchword. First they start out with your "enjoyment" and then they go to anxiety, which can only be relieved (temporarily) by succumbing to ministry machinations. You are set up for a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship.

Third, to hold it together it seemed that Lee had to pan great swaths of scripture as "low" and "dead works" etc, which seem to include works by Jesus and Paul. See my previous posts.

My advocacy of an entirely different 'economy' which I encapsulate in Galatians 2:10 -- "They (the Jerusalem elders) asked me to remember the poor, which I was eager to do" -- is based on three things. First, it better aligns with the mass of scripture, both OT and NT. So both the apostle to the Jews (Peter) and the apostle to the gentiles (Paul) agreed that this was a desirable aim, and one sees Paul carry this out, in detail, in his epistles and the Acts.

Second, it lines up better with the Great Command: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not focus on your own things.

Third, my experience, however tentative and fraught with failure, bears this out. When I was in the LC, I got euphoric rush hollering, "OHHH Loooooord Jeeeeezusss!!" with the crowd. But eventually I found myself with the same issues I came in with. The elders didn't want to deal with me. So I left. Then followed the proverbial 'wilderness' experience. One day, I had an epiphany -- I was here to serve others. God gave me the Servant Heart of Jesus. Suddenly I realized that I was here, not for myself, but to serve others. It completely transformed me. Suddenly everything changed. And as I began to focus my energies to care for others, God began, slowly and fitfully, to heal me.

As long as I was oriented on self - "making it" - I had misery and discontent. As soon as I found someone to minister to, not caring for any return, I felt the Spirit come alongside. Occasionally I still call "Oh Lord" but it's the doing that really matters. It is truly better to give than to receive.

And to me, that is God's economy.

2 Cor 8:15 as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."

Luke 6:38 "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Amen Aron!

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is what so many have been pointing out, both directly and indirectly, for years.

Lee used analogies as proof of concept.

But analogies are, at best, a means of clarifying or understanding a concept that has already been proved.

In other words, you have to establish that something is true, then if that something needs further explanation, an analogy might be useful.

An analogy is descriptive. It has no power to establish, but rather to better understand something else. If you haven't established anything, there is nothing to which an analogy can be made.

An example I like is Lee's extrapolation in some verse (one of Paul's letters, but I can't remember which — makes me feel a little like the writer of Hebrews who says "and somewhere it is written . . .") where the Greek word used is one that has been transliterated in English to dynamo (not in the Bible as such). Then he goes on to bring every related bit of technology related to dynamos into the discussion. So a single statement of the power of God (or Christ) becomes evidence of the power plant, the wires, and the electricity — the triune God.

But nothing is actually there except the power of God. The rest is supposition based on milking a metaphor.

In the case of Lee's theory on God's economy, he creates a lens through which the entire Bible must be filtered, modified, and even excised because of his extrapolations as he declares "it is like when . . . ."

But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."

If God's economy is claimed to be a basis for dismissing the word of God as written in favor of something not written, or for simply dismissing parts of the word of God, then it cannot rightly be "God's economy." Maybe the economy of some"god," or self-proclaimed 4th of the godhead. (Can't call it the Godhead because there are only three in that Godhead.)

Yes, silly me. I believed Nee and Lee’s books that told us to look in the Bible for what other verses say about the same matter first. But since they supposedly had already done that (Nee was a Savant, remember, and Nee his prized pupil). So, all we had to do was sit there jammed into those awful gold chairs an inch between us listening to the little man in the suit with a white shirt, tie, and coke bottle glass eyeglasses explain to the thousands of us around the world for the 10,000th time at least 7 times a year what God’s economy was and how every single verse in the Bible was about it.... and the local churches were the procedure for building the New Jerusalem today....

Well funny thing happened. Sounds like a bunch of us started doing that. Reading what other verses in the Bible say about a matter, and listening to what other Christians were reading from the Bible and fellowshipping with them. And, the Savant and his self declared #1 follower missed some things that were as plain as the noses on their face. Like “God’s economy is in faith” right there! And gee, Hebrews gives a definition of faith and examples of it in action. No need for analogies. Put the two together and there’s the answer.

Hundreds of verses with relevant insights elsewhere were totally ignored because “they were from the wrong tree”, according to Lee. Those very verses fill in key matters that could round out and fill in deficiencies in teachings that ultimately led to abuses. God’s mercy, loving kindness, lampooned, Biblical leadership models, good works, helping the poor, orphans, widows, not showing favoritism. What fruit of the Spirit looks like and doesn’t. Works lived out from a life of faith, Singing and reading every Psalm, Hymns, and spiritual songs with all your heart to the Lord and instruments, James, all of Job, every Proverb. What the Bible really says about husband and wife relationships, brothers, and sisters, the body of Christ, Jesus the Head and not MOTA, the list goes on. Nee and Lee missed a lot! God-men bleh! How about men filled with The Holy Spirit obeying The Lord Spirit to do as Jesus did and lay down equality with God to reach sinners, work together, and relate to them where they are? How about we are all members of the same church... really! One Ekklesia. That’s what I thought we were about!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

Well funny thing happened. Sounds like a bunch of us started doing that. Reading what other verses in the Bible say about a matter, and listening to what other Christians were reading from the Bible and fellowshipping with them. And, the Savant and his self declared #1 follower missed some things that were as plain as the noses on their face. Like “God’s economy is in faith” right there! And gee, Hebrews gives a definition of faith and examples of it in action. No need for analogies. Put the two together and there’s the answer.

I never got that much out of all this discussions in the LC about God's economy. I realized there was an administration in the universe, but in the LC I saw it more as a heavy-hand God used to roll out His purpose . . . and if we got in His way, we would be crushed.

But a couple years ago we were going over God's administration and I received some light. It's the structure He uses, in His house, to ensure everyone gets what they need. God's purpose is not somehow apart from us, it is fully involving us as the "objects" of His great love and His caring purpose toward us.

A good picture is how the human household should be. The father of the house provides the safety, security and necessities for all who live in the house. The wife/mother is a partner in this, and together they supply all the needs, in love, to every member of the household. This greatly benefits the whole family and love is flowing between each member. Sometimes a little discipline is needed, and it is provided - again, in love and for the benefit of the family member.

I saw that the God-given structure of husband/wife, father/mother/children was all about love, and the growth & development of the family members. I believe this picture is a more proper understanding of God's household economy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

. . . I realized there was an administration in the universe, but in the LC I saw it more as a heavy-hand God used to roll out His purpose . . .

And in that little bit is a revelation of the nature of God's economy as seen by Nee and Lee. It is a lens through which to view everything else. And the nature of that lens was defined in a manner that was effectively useless as a true lens.

But more than that, it seems to me that thinking of it as "an administration in the universe," while not simply incorrect, tends to miss the direction of the verses that introduce the concept. They are not introducing a divine administration that doles out everything or runs everything. Rather it is pointing to things (in the particular case, teachings) that result in God's economy. So the emphasis is not on the administration and what it does, but on the things that bring it about. To use a poor analogy, it is not a discussion of horsepower generated by internal combustion engines, but on the factors that result in that horsepower. Lee was focused on God's economy as being the source and cause rather than the result of something else. So God's economy is the result of so much. It is not the cause. Not saying that it has no results, but that is not what the verses were saying.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Hundreds of verses with relevant insights elsewhere were totally ignored because “they were from the wrong tree”, according to Lee. Those very verses fill in key matters that could round out and fill in deficiencies in teachings that ultimately led to abuses. God’s mercy, loving kindness, lampooned, Biblical leadership models, good works, helping the poor, orphans, widows, not showing favoritism...

At one point I learned about esoteric (private) versus exoteric (public) teachings. In the gospels, Jesus taught his disciples privately. He had public utterances, then would pull his disciples aside and go further. See, e.g., Mark 4:34 "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything."

Of course, this continued, post-gospels. There were public utterances, and private conversations, some alluded to in written scripture. And so it remains for us to puzzle out some of the cryptic references, and the variously-placed allusions.

Witness Lee put it this way: "The Bible… does not always give us all the details about a matter in one place. Rather, it reveals a small portion in one place and another portion in another place. We may compare this to a jigsaw puzzle. We do not keep the pieces of a puzzle in a meaningless pile. Rather, we need adequate time and wisdom to put all the pieces together in a significant way. Do not ask the reason that the Lord reveals His mysteries in the divine Word in such a puzzle-like way. This is simply the case." ~WL "The Producing and Building Up of the Church..." p. 19

Of course, church teachers have been doing this for centuries: formulating coherent doctrines from disparate sections of scripture. But what happens when, as JJ says above, that formulation required the discarding of significant sections of scripture? What happens when that interpretation tells us parts of scripture are "low", some are "fallen", some are "natural concepts", some are "mixed sentiments" and so forth? Instead, in the NT Jesus taught that "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" and Paul said "all scripture is God-breathed".

Witness Lee's abstract derivations were promoted as "high peaks" while scriptural commands like visiting widows and orphans, the sick, the imprisoned, were denigrated. I heard it in the FTTA: "Don't waste your time" we were told. So any esoteric (not plainly written) teaching that leads us so far away from the actual written scripture (exoteric teaching) should be seriously examined and critiqued, as we're doing here.

When the apostles in Jerusalem told Paul to "remember the poor" did he reply, "I'm not here for that. I'm here for the high peaks of the divine economy"? No, he said he was "eager to do it". So, maybe THAT was the divine economy, to Paul? At the very least, the "pieces of the puzzle" ask us to consider it.

Originally Posted by OBW

But worse than that, when Paul wrote those few verses in which the term "God's economy" appears (in some translations), he did not say that God's economy was something to teach. Rather it was the result of the collection of healthy teachings. So God's economy is not the source of how to teach, or what to teach, but is what comes from whatever is profitably taught. In other words, God's economy is a very broad thing that encompasses everything that derives rightly from the teachings of the word of God. It is not a limiter by which the word of God is straight-jacketed into some narrowly-defined thing (falsely) labeled "God's economy."

This point is actually crucial. 1 Timothy doesn't say, "Teach God's economy" but "teach things that result in God's economy" Healthy teachings bring profitable behaviours.

What are good behaviours? "Give to those who cannot repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven". This giving today, with expectation of reward in the resurrection of the righteous, is "in faith", as Paul says: "God's economy, which is in faith." If you look at this kind of repeated, open teaching in the gospels, and see it carried out by the apostles in the Book of Acts, you do see a pattern. Again, look at the "daily dispensing" in Acts 6:1; look at Paul and Barnabas' "dispensing" in Acts 12:25. Etc.

Suddenly, James' plain, 'exoteric' prescription that true religion is to visit widows and orphans in their afflictions doesn't look all that "low". And Witness Lee's esoteric derivations, while perhaps not untrue in and of themselves, don't seem like the "central lane of the divine economy", as one LSM cheerleader (BP) used to sell it.

[JJ]

God’s Economy: The House Law of The House of The Living God and how one should conduct himself in it (words copied from 1 Timothy, Berean Literal Bible)

God: Father who gives grace, mercy and peace. A Savior God through Jesus Christ our Lord

Contrasting approaches are given to Timothy by Paul so that he may know how it behooves one to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth.
And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness:
Who was revealed in the flesh,
was justified in the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Right Approach:

In faith with a goal of instruction that is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.

Like Paul who had thankfulness to Christ Jesus his Lord who had strengthened him and esteemed him faithful, having appointed him to service, being formerly a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and insolent; but was shown mercy, because he did it in unbelief, being ignorant. And the grace of our Lord surpassingly increased with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Trustworthy is the saying, and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom the apostle Paul wasthe foremost. But because of this he was shown mercy, that in him Christ Jesus might display perfect patience, as a pattern for those being about to believe on Him to eternal life. This Christ is King of the ages, immortal, invisible, only God. To him be honor and glory to the ages of the ages. Amen.

Those who are children of such a sent one are charged according to prophecies going before as to them that by them they might wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience.


Wrong approach: Those who teach other doctrines and/or give heed to myths and endless genealogies, which bring speculations. Having missed the mark, have turned aside to meaningless discourse, desiring to be teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they are saying nor that about which they confidently assert. These don’t understand that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully. It is not enacted for a righteous one, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for slayers of man, for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and if anything other is opposed to being sound in the teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God

Having cast away faith and a good conscience have caused a shipwreck concerning the faith. Among whom were Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom Paul handed over to Satan, that they may be disciplined not to blaspheme.

Instructions to ministers regarding what their exhortations and instructions to others in the house of God should be:

https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/2.htm

Qualifications for overseers and serving ones are in Ch 3:1-13

https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/3.htm

But the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars, having been seared in the own conscience, forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods that God created for reception with thanksgiving by the faithful and those knowing the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving, for it sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Laying before the brothers these things, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good teaching that you have closely followed.
But refuse profane and silly fables. Rather, train yourself to godliness. For bodily exercise is of a little profit, but godliness is profitable for everything, holding the promise of the present life and of the one coming. Trustworthy is the saying, and worthy of full acceptance.

For this we toil and strive, because we have hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. Command and teach these things.

Let no one despise your youth, but be a pattern for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

Give heed to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

Do not be negligent of the gift in you, which was given to you through prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elderhood. Ponder these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to all. Give heed to yourself and to the teaching. Continue in them; for doing this, you will save both yourself and those hearing you.

Guidelines for Reproof, supporting widows, and a final charge are in Chapter 5

https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/5.htm

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

God’s Economy: The House Law of The House of The Living God and how one should conduct himself in it (words copied from 1 Timothy, Berean Literal Bible)

First, is this some version of the scripture, or is it a section heading?

In any case, it is good stuff. But I have this problem with phrasing it in that "house law" way because it then suggests that it is something needing to be ferreted-out. Something that needs to be defined. However, it is actually nowhere defined. Instead, it is stated as being "by faith," not "by careful following of a set of rules." But that is how Lee treated it. "God's economy" became a rule that could rewrite scripture to mean something it did not say, or even insist that certain parts should be ignored or used as an example of a violation of "God's economy."

But God's economy is the sum total of what arises from those who have been taught properly. It is seen in the actions of the church as a group in providing aid — both spiritual and physical — to the people both near and far in the form of shelters, aid, missionaries, urgent labor for disasters, and healthy teaching for righteous living. It is seen in the actions of individual Christians as they act responsibly and righteously in everything that they undertake in all aspects of their living.

And how does this happen? Through healthy teaching that encourages right/Christ-like living. That doesn't presume that there is some unmet need for more of something before stepping out in faith to do the righteous thing — or at least try even if you come up short.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

In any case, it is good stuff. But I have this problem with phrasing it in that "house law" way because it then suggests that it is something needing to be ferreted-out. Something that needs to be defined. However, it is actually nowhere defined. Instead, it is stated as being "by faith," not "by careful following of a set of rules." But that is how Lee treated it. "God's economy" became a rule that could rewrite scripture to mean something it did not say, or even insist that certain parts should be ignored or used as an example of a violation of "God's economy."

To me "house law" is just the order of things God establishes to make sure all those in His house receive the care they need. The picture of the loving father - mother - children household works for me, as the structure is all in place for the riches to flow to everyone in the house. In this structure, all works well for that purpose.

To contrast that, if things aren't orderly in a household, then things don't flow well. For instance, if the father is absent or irresponsible, or the mother isn't faithful or vindictive, or the children are rebellious - then things don't flow nearly as well. But if the ordained administration is well in place (house-law), then the members of the household grow and develop properly, getting the love, nourishment, care and even discipline they need.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

To me "house law" is just the order of things God establishes to make sure all those in His house receive the care they need. The picture of the loving father - mother - children household works for me, as the structure is all in place for the riches to flow to everyone in the house. In this structure, all works well for that purpose

But that view is restrictive. It only deals with how the riches of the estate are distributed to those who live there. God's economy encompasses so much more than the doling out of clothing and food (spiritual or otherwise). It is everything that s Christ-follower does in his life. It is the way that we live our lives, not just some dispensing that we need more of so that we can.

The picture of the "care we need" is short of the whole of any complete administration. This picture of God's economy would be like rewriting Matthew 5 to say things like "blessed are they that eat the food on the table; blessed are they who hunger and thirst for what is dispensed" and so on. No righteousness required. No need to hunger and thirst for that. It will just happen once you get enough food from the table. I fear that this kind of nonsensical teaching is reasonably included in the warnings later in Matt 5 where those who teach the reduction of the "rules" are the least.

Maybe that kind of teaching is an example of wood, hay, and stubble.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

But that view is restrictive. It only deals with how the riches of the estate are distributed to those who live there. God's economy encompasses so much more than the doling out of clothing and food (spiritual or otherwise). It is everything that s Christ-follower does in his life. It is the way that we live our lives, not just some dispensing that we need more of so that we can.

The picture of the "care we need" is short of the whole of any complete administration. This picture of God's economy would be like rewriting Matthew 5 to say things like "blessed are they that eat the food on the table; blessed are they who hunger and thirst for what is dispensed" and so on. No righteousness required. No need to hunger and thirst for that. It will just happen once you get enough food from the table. I fear that this kind of nonsensical teaching is reasonably included in the warnings later in Matt 5 where those who teach the reduction of the "rules" are the least.

Maybe that kind of teaching is an example of wood, hay, and stubble.

Huh!? You had me until that last sentence . . .

So I think what you were saying (up until the last sentence) is that there is more than just receiving the riches in the house, right? And I think I agree. That is, the supplying that goes on in the household provides the base and strength to go out and supply others - is that what yer saying?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Huh!? You had me until that last sentence . . .

So I think what you were saying (up until the last sentence) is that there is more than just receiving the riches in the house, right? And I think I agree. That is, the supplying that goes on in the household provides the base and strength to go out and supply others - is that what yer saying?

Sort of — in part. But I'm not sure that I am actually saying what you think.

I am saying that the supply in the house is just part of the whole of what is God's economy. We surely need a supply. But the economy/administration of God is far beyond supplying spiritual food so that other things can happen. It is also the outworking of all those other things. From teaching in meetings, to praise and worship of God, to living righteously in everything we are and do, to caring for the poor, oppressed, and alien. It is everything that we do as the intentional followers of Christ in bearing his image.

So thinking of God's economy in terms of a household administration of its riches within the context of those who live there is, at best, only part of the whole that should be understood as God's economy. The household administration part is sort of like declaring that breakfast, lunch, and dinner is the sum total of our interaction with "God's economy" and that everything else — work, shopping, driving, resting, etc. — is something else. Instead, assuming that we are living and walking according to the Spirit (with our minds set on the Spirit to Use the terminology in Rom 8), then all of our living is part of God's economy. And having people qualified to better open the Word to us is part of God's economy. And sending evangelists/missionaries out to continue the spread of the Word is part of God's economy. And living like people who actually reflect the righteous God on this earth in everything we do is part of God's economy, in both the "spiritual" and "secular" things that we do. In fact, many say that for the Christian there is no such thing as a spiritual/secular divide, but everything is spiritual since it should flow out of our desire for, and obedience to Christ and everything he is doing on the earth in all things (not just preaching the gospel).

And if we don't live/walk according to the Spirit, then we are not, at that moment, participating in God's economy. Doesn't matter how much scripture you read in the morning, if you don't live it, then there is a failure. Doesn't matter how much enjoyment we get in some meeting.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sort of — in part. But I'm not sure that I am actually saying what you think.

I am saying that the supply in the house is just part of the whole of what is God's economy. We surely need a supply. But the economy/administration of God is far beyond supplying spiritual food so that other things can happen. It is also the outworking of all those other things. From teaching in meetings, to praise and worship of God, to living righteously in everything we are and do, to caring for the poor, oppressed, and alien. It is everything that we do as the intentional followers of Christ in bearing his image.

So thinking of God's economy in terms of a household administration of its riches within the context of those who live there is, at best, only part of the whole that should be understood as God's economy. The household administration part is sort of like declaring that breakfast, lunch, and dinner is the sum total of our interaction with "God's economy" and that everything else — work, shopping, driving, resting, etc. — is something else. Instead, assuming that we are living and walking according to the Spirit (with our minds set on the Spirit to Use the terminology in Rom 8), then all of our living is part of God's economy. And having people qualified to better open the Word to us is part of God's economy. And sending evangelists/missionaries out to continue the spread of the Word is part of God's economy. And living like people who actually reflect the righteous God on this earth in everything we do is part of God's economy, in both the "spiritual" and "secular" things that we do. In fact, many say that for the Christian there is no such thing as a spiritual/secular divide, but everything is spiritual since it should flow out of our desire for, and obedience to Christ and everything he is doing on the earth in all things (not just preaching the gospel).

And if we don't live/walk according to the Spirit, then we are not, at that moment, participating in God's economy. Doesn't matter how much scripture you read in the morning, if you don't live it, then there is a failure. Doesn't matter how much enjoyment we get in some meeting.

Gotcha - and I think we really are saying the same thing. I don't mean to say His economy only has to do specifically with His house (the church). But because of the riches of what He's brought us into, we are all enabled by Him to do His work, no matter what or where that might be.

It's like the riches in my household. Because I receive all that I need here (love, food, security, safety, shelter, etc.) I am in a good place to go out and help others.

Are we all copestetic here?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, is this some version of the scripture, or is it a section heading?

In any case, it is good stuff. But I have this problem with phrasing it in that "house law" way because it then suggests that it is something needing to be ferreted-out. Something that needs to be defined. However, it is actually nowhere defined. Instead, it is stated as being "by faith," not "by careful following of a set of rules." But that is how Lee treated it. "God's economy" became a rule that could rewrite scripture to mean something it did not say, or even insist that certain parts should be ignored or used as an example of a violation of "God's economy."

But God's economy is the sum total of what arises from those who have been taught properly. It is seen in the actions of the church as a group in providing aid — both spiritual and physical — to the people both near and far in the form of shelters, aid, missionaries, urgent labor for disasters, and healthy teaching for righteous living. It is seen in the actions of individual Christians as they act responsibly and righteously in everything that they undertake in all aspects of their living.

And how does this happen? Through healthy teaching that encourages right/Christ-like living. That doesn't presume that there is some unmet need for more of something before stepping out in faith to do the righteous thing — or at least try even if you come up short.

Good question re header. I wrote the header and the rest was taken verbatim from the contents of 1 Timothy (Berean Literal Bible with a few tense changes, as some things written as present sense are to us now past tense).

House law is the literal translation of the Greek word sometimes translated economy. Since Paul said his purpose in writing to Timothy was so he would know how one should.conduct oneself in the house of God , and God’s house law is a term Paul used in it... rather than look elsewhere in the Bible for a definition like I did in my previous posts just look at this book itself and follow what it says for clues to its meaning. Thus the long post (my apologies).

Great comments! That leads me to wonder if Paul’s second book to Timothy and/or to Titus where the terms healthy words and healthy teaching relate to what you are saying.

[aron]

There are two rich men portrayed in the gospels. One refuses to aid the beggar laying at his gate. That rich man ends in torment in Hades. Another rich man told Jesus, "See, the half of what I own, I give away to the poor" and Jesus replied that the kingdom had come to his domicile.

Now, who among us is rich? I hardly qualify. But each one has something. It could be time, attention, prayer, a kind word, or some thoughtful gesture. Holding a door for an older person, smiling and saying "Good day".

I love the story of the bread and fish. The disciples were troubled at their poverty, their lack. "What are these, among so many?" ~John 6:9 But Jesus had the people sit down in orderly groups, and blessed and thanked the Father, and broke the bread, and gave it away. Now, what do you suppose the one who got the bread did? Sat down and started "masticating God" selfishly? No, he broke it and gave it away. Every good gift needs to be broken (spiritually) and passed out to the ones around. If you have bread, and your neighbour is empty, you are the rich man. What will you do? That is what "God's economy" asks. Do you really love your neighbour as yourself, or is it just lip service?

Seen in this light, James 2:16 doesn't look like the "low gospel" at all, but rather "the high peak of the divine revelation" and "the central lane of God's New Testament economy", to use LC terms.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

House law is the literal translation of the Greek word sometimes translated economy. Since Paul said his purpose in writing to Timothy was so he would know how one should conduct oneself in the house of God . . . .

I would not presume that just because Paul was talking about the house of God that the term should be understood in its most primitive form. There are many words that may have origins in separate terms spliced together that over time almost never mean what the original terms meant.

If we go back to find what kinds of teachings that might be included in the collection that Paul referred to as resulting in God's economy, I think we should consider what it was that Jesus commanded the disciples to preach/teach. It is found in the typically ignored part of the so-called great commission where he said to "teach them to obey all that I have commanded." If you look back at the breadth of His teachings over the prior 3+ years, there is much that goes way beyond what would be distilled down to a household administration. Surely that is included in there, but there is so much more.

And that is the point. It is not "simply" anything. It is always so much more. It is clearly not some straight jacket by which to restrict the content of teachings, but the descriptor of the tremendous diversity of what the combination of all the healthy teachings produce. While it may seem that this is much more than how we ought to conduct ourselves in the house of God, I would disagree. If you do not see the fullness of what God is doing, you can't properly realize the fullness of the God in whose house you are coming to worship and fellowship.

As for Paul's other letters, I was struck by a particular phrase in the letter to Titus in which Paul said that grace teaches us to obey. And for those who think of grace as some unmerited favor, and the thing that keeps us from needing to do works, it would seem that it also directs us on how to obey (i.e., do works). And if we are not obeying (doing) then we are not really experiencing what grace provides. I'm pretty sure that taking your spiritual temperature and determining that you do not yet have enough (whatever — dispensing, grace, time in the faith, etc.) to do the obedient thing is to reject the call of Paul to walk in (set your mind on) the Spirit. To reject Peter's word when he said we have all we need. To reject that Jesus is the way — not just to some future reward, but to live the life abundant right now.

[OBW]

I first wondered how to consider aron's most recent post "on topic." Then I realized that without ever saying the words, it is a prime example of God's economy. It is the result of healthy teachings. In this case, the most basic teaching of loving your neighbor as yourself. We could flood this thread with examples of obediently living out the various teachings of Christ and we would see, over and over, total love for God and equally total love for mankind (OK, humankind for those who are stuck on the gender-neutral bandwagon).

And why do I say for all people rather than just our neighbor? Because we live in an age in which the world is our neighbor in some sense. We may not actually walk by them on the road, but we still see them, whether on the evening news or as we travel around wherever we live or roam. Otherwise, the Samaritan would have had just cause to ignore the battered man on the side of the road because he wasn't his neighbor, but some Jew's neighbor.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I first wondered how to consider aron's most recent post "on topic." Then I realized that without ever saying the words, it is a prime example of God's economy. It is the result of healthy teachings. In this case, the most basic teaching of loving your neighbor as yourself. We could flood this thread with examples of obediently living out the various teachings of Christ and we would see, over and over, total love for God and equally total love for mankind (OK, humankind for those who are stuck on the gender-neutral bandwagon).

And why do I say for all people rather than just our neighbor? Because we live in an age in which the world is our neighbor in some sense. We may not actually walk by them on the road, but we still see them, whether on the evening news or as we travel around wherever we live or roam. Otherwise, the Samaritan would have had just cause to ignore the battered man on the side of the road because he wasn't his neighbor, but some Jew's neighbor.

Yes, this is why the book of Acts suddenly looms so large in my consciousness, because it isn't about the details of what they taught, so much, as the details of what they did. They taught the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, they taught that Gentiles didn't have to keep the law, but confess and be baptized. But what they did was lay their treasures at Peter's feet, and what he did was give it all away to those who had nothing to give back, save gratitude. Again, the tears of the widows when Dorcas died tells me more than reams of doctrine. And Peter saying, "Silver and gold I have none" after people had put their life savings on the ground in front of him tells me so much.

All of the teachings lead to the behaviours we see in Acts. Or they should. Peter taught the rapt Gentiles in Cornelius' house that Jesus went around doing good (10:38), and everything I see in Acts is consistent with conscious and deliberate attempts to follow the clear model that Jesus had left them.

[OBW]

It is, after all, the ACTS of the Apostles, not the Teachings of the Apostles.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is, after all, the ACTS of the Apostles, not the Teachings of the Apostles.

And are we to surmise that the acts (activities, actions, doings) of the apostles are fundamentally different than the disciples' actions which are caused by healthy teachings and are encapsulated in the terms "God's economy" in the RecV? I don't suppose so, and wonder why anyone else would. After all, the Acts of the Apostles follow close upon the gospels, both in time and spirit. And this was the same gospel that Paul was exporting to the non-Jews. The "right hand of fellowship" phrase in Gal 2 makes this plain to his intended readers.

For more corroboration from his epistles, we have the two chapters in 2 Cor on how Jesus became poor that they (the gentiles) might be rich (8:9). Should they not also be inspired to follow? Okay, then: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem." ~1 Cor 16:1-3

We also have Paul's eager assent to the Jerusalem apostles to "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) in his outreach to the nations, we have Roman's 15:22-29 telling them of the contributions of Macedonia and Achaea for the poor of Jerusalem.

Now, this collection and distribution may not constitute the sum total of "God's economy" but it lines up well with the overall theme. Give to those who can't repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven. Giving takes many forms, which forms fill the NT, and which satisfy the original mandate. "Love is the end (apotheosis, or culmination) of the law"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

And are we to surmise that the acts (activities, actions, doings) of the apostles are fundamentally different than the disciples' actions which are caused by healthy teachings and are encapsulated in the terms "God's economy" in the RecV?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the activities of all of Christ's followers are the same? That everyone engages in the acts that are demonstrated by the apostles?

I am not saying that various activities of the apostles are not found among some of the followers. But some of their activities are the result of their calling to be among the primary trainees who then were specifically given a commission to do what they did.

You referred to Corinth. In the first letter, Paul was clear that we do not all have the same calling when he indicated that we do not all have the same gifts granted by the Spirit. We all get a calling, but not for the same things or activities.

And I know that Lee liked to say that the verses in Ephesians that refer to the "gifting" of certain types of individuals was so that they can develop more of the same kinds of gifts in people. But where is that the way things work? Doctors are not here to heal people so they can be doctors. Teachers do not teach so that those receiving their teaching can be teachers. I recognize that a few may be. But the primary purpose of shepherds is to lead and care for a flock, not help the flock become shepherds. The purpose of teachers is not to raise up teachers, but to raise up those who use the knowledge from the teacher to do other things.

Everyone does not have the same gifts. Jesus sent out the apostles to do three things. The third was to teach the new followers to obey all that had been commanded. There was no charge to teach the new followers to learn how to teach the new converts to teach other new converts, although there will surely be some among them that receive the calling to be the next generation with a primary calling to that activity.

But we are all "called" by commandment(s) to live a life that demonstrates the love of God and of neighbor. And while this seems simple, it is really quite hard because we often get confused about what is "love." We think that honking at the guy in front of us 1 millisecond after the light changes demonstrates love for the people behind us, yet we clearly show no love the guy in front of us when we do that. Just a simple example. And despite feeling like we can figure it all out ourselves, we find ourselves supporting "tough love" on people we hardly know, if at all.

But in the body, there are many members, and all do not have the same function. Some are eyes. Some are the mouth. Some are hands. Some are the big toe (and others the little toe). Some are pumping blood throughout the body while others filter out waste for disposal. Don't overthink the comparisons, or consider anyone as excessively pigeonholed.

But the calling for everyone is to obey the call to love, righteousness, humility, etc. Many of them are rightly advised to "go and sin no more." Others are asked to "follow me." This does not mean the first type is not really Christian and the second is. But those in the second type are the ones with specific callings that will require special time with the rabbi to learn his "trade." They are the ones who must be clear that leadership is not a perk, but a service that has a cost.

The priesthood of believers is about access to God, not responsibility as co-leaders of the movement. This is one of the most insidious things of evangelicalism (of which even the LRC is a part). This "wretched urgency" (as, oddly enough, a Baptist preacher called it) to be compelled to always be trying to turn conversations to spiritual things so you can whip out your Roman Road or Four Spiritual Laws tract and lead then to Christ. Surely, if you are asked about your faith you should have something to say (as Peter wrote). But the so-called great commission was not given to the 500+ who saw Jesus after the resurrection. Nor to the 70 who were sent out some time eearlier. As recorded, not even the other 109 who were eventually in the upper room with the 11 at Pentecost. Only the 11 are mentioned as receiving this charge. I cannot assert that this removes all responsibility from the rest of us. But the charge given wasn't even to all who were by that time believers. It is only an unsubstantiated belief that we all have this charge. It is never stated in such a manner. Many verses that are used as further support can only be read that way if you start with the presumption that it is true. This fuels the tendency to border on shaming the members of the body who are not constantly coming back to report their latest adventure in preaching the gospel. It reduces the purpose of the church to propagation. It insists that the fruit of a vine is more vine. (Or the fruit of a branch is more branches.)

It seems that the only places that fruit is mentioned in any kind of detail never includes converts. Only evidence of the life of Christ within the lives of his followers expressed in peace, righteousness, compassion, etc.

We are all called to be righteous. To love our neighbor as ourselves. To bear the fruit of the Spirit.

Even if some of us have some level of calling to activities like evangelism, we need whatever for us is the equivalent of 3+ years of time with Jesus coming to understand righteousness in all that we do; humility in everything; love for even the worst sinners (think "abortion doctors" or "illegal aliens" if you consider some to be unlovable).

God's economy is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. It reflects in everything we do in which there is no verbal mention of anything spiritual. In serving at a homeless shelter that has rules against any kind of proselytizing (and doing it without violating those rules). In driving righteously and friendly (even without having the car buried in religious bumper stickers). And even more so in being righteous when another driver is just plain mean to us in some way.

It turns out that St Francis of Assissi never actually said that thing about preaching the gospel without words. The first recorded reference to it was in about 1991, so it is probably misattributed, if not simply made-up. But the sentiment is important. If we can't speak volumes without words, then we probably should keep our mouths shut because we will speak volumes without words. They just may be the wrong words. Our actions are always speaking. What are they saying? Will those loud but unspoken words support some gospel message or mock it? That does not mean that everyone who actually has a calling to preach must be perfect. No one is. But they probably should at least be reasonably so. And honest about their shortcomings.

But you can't sell Jesus as the changer of lives if yours isn't. It's like sending a filthy, stinking bum out to sell soap door to door.

None of this says that the activities of the apostles are fundamentally different from that of the average believer/follower. They are all the outflow of what has been planted in them by the Spirit coupled with the calling they have received. The result is not simply the same thing, but it is all part of God's economy. There are cooks, floor sweepers, farmers, merchants, children, teachers, factory workers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, accountants, bankers, etceteraaaah, etceteraaah (from The King and I). Don't try to make direct comparisons. Just note the diversity. Yet they are fundamentally the same as they are all normal activities of the variety of people who populate an estate, town, city, etc. About the only thing we have completely in common is that we all eat, sleep, breathe, and some other standard functions. The rest varies by gift. Gift of birth, upbringing, training, age, experience, etc.

The same can be said of the body of Christ in the context of the thing referred to as God's economy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the activities of all of Christ's followers are the same? That everyone engages in the acts that are demonstrated by the apostles?

I am not saying that various activities of the apostles are not found among some of the followers. But some of their activities are the result of their calling to be among the primary trainees who then were specifically given a commission to do what they did.

You referred to Corinth. In the first letter, Paul was clear that we do not all have the same calling when he indicated that we do not all have the same gifts granted by the Spirit. We all get a calling, but not for the same things or activities...

None of this says that the activities of the apostles are fundamentally different from that of the average believer/follower. They are all the outflow of what has been planted in them by the Spirit coupled with the calling they have received. The result is not simply the same thing, but it is all part of God's economy. There are cooks, floor sweepers, farmers, merchants, children, teachers, factory workers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, accountants, bankers...

Don't try to make direct comparisons. Just note the diversity. Yet they are fundamentally the same as they are all normal activities of the variety of people who populate an estate, town, city, etc. About the only thing we have completely in common is that we all eat, sleep, breathe, and some other standard functions. The rest varies by gift. Gift of birth, upbringing, training, age, experience, etc.

The same can be said of the body of Christ in the context of the thing referred to as God's economy.

When I speak of activities, noted in detail in Acts and referenced in Paul's letters (e.g., Corinth) I am thinking of those who have, sharing with those who don't have. That I see as a universal rule, a key aspect of "God's economy" even if not entirely all-encompassing. I don't see differences. Giving is giving and sharing is sharing. Everyone has different gifts to share, but they all have gifts.

And note Paul's word which I quoted: "each of you should set aside a portion of income" for the poor of Jerusalem. Not just those who are bankers and lawyers and such, should set a portion aside, but everyone.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

When I speak of activities, noted in detail in Acts and referenced in Paul's letters (e.g., Corinth) I am thinking of those who have, sharing with those who don't have. That I see as a universal rule, a key aspect of "God's economy" even if not entirely all-encompassing. I don't see differences. Giving is giving and sharing is sharing. Everyone has different gifts to share, but they all have gifts.

And note Paul's word which I quoted: "each of you should set aside a portion of income" for the poor of Jerusalem. Not just those who are bankers and lawyers and such, should set a portion aside, but everyone.

Well, that would definitely be part of God's economy. And if someone had tried to define it to not be a part, then it clearly should be included.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

And are we to surmise that the acts (activities, actions, doings) of the apostles are fundamentally different than the disciples' actions which are caused by healthy teachings and are encapsulated in the terms "God's economy" in the RecV? I don't suppose so, and wonder why anyone else would. After all, the Acts of the Apostles follow close upon the gospels, both in time and spirit. And this was the same gospel that Paul was exporting to the non-Jews. The "right hand of fellowship" phrase in Gal 2 makes this plain to his intended readers.

For more corroboration from his epistles, we have the two chapters in 2 Cor on how Jesus became poor that they (the gentiles) might be rich (8:9). Should they not also be inspired to follow? Okay, then: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I will send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem." ~1 Cor 16:1-3

We also have Paul's eager assent to the Jerusalem apostles to "remember the poor" (Gal 2:10) in his outreach to the nations, we have Roman's 15:22-29 telling them of the contributions of Macedonia and Achaea for the poor of Jerusalem.

Now, this collection and distribution may not constitute the sum total of "God's economy" but it lines up well with the overall theme. Give to those who can't repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven. Giving takes many forms, which forms fill the NT, and which satisfy the original mandate. "Love is the end (apotheosis, or culmination) of the law"

1Tim 1:5 says
“Now the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.” I think y’all are onto something

[Sons to Glory!]

I read this in a daily devotional from T. Austin Sparks for March 29th, and thought of this thread:

"For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire." Hebrews 12:18

How vast is the movement from that old economy to the bringing in of the New Economy . . .

I must pause to ask, is this where Christendom has gone astray?

Is it still holding on to the old economy?

Is it still in the grave clothes?

Is it still that old Mosaic economy with its forms and ways?

Is it not emancipated into the Heavenlies?!

That is what the Lord wants to do with us here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

1Tim 1:5 says
“Now the goal of our instruction is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith.” I think y’all are onto something

Luke 12:21 NIV “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Jesus was giving a parable about a guy who amassed goods for himself. He died and they were then nothing for him. Even James 5:1-6 said, "They will burn you like fire".

But Jesus says, "Be rich toward God". In other words, use your possessions to help others, then your treasure will be in heaven. This is God's economy.

Contrast this to Witness Lee, who dunned church members for $$ for his son's Motor Home business. Even today, I believe the LSM is cutting residual checks in the tens of thousands of dollars for Lee family members.

Imagine if in the beginning chapters of Acts, Peter had people laying their $$ at his feet, then we found out it wasn't going to the poor but Peter had a ski area on the side, with family members running it? Imagine if Paul was collecting $$ for the poor of Jerusalem, per Galatians 2:12 and Romans 15, and we found out that Paul had a little side business of import/export, again siphoning off for his cronies? What would happen to the gospel then?

I'm not saying that "holding the bag" is wrong. But there is danger. Witness Lee failed miserably. Hank Hanegraaff failed. KP Yohannon, Hank's new buddy, failed. That is the economy of man, not the economy of God.

[aron]

On an FTTA-promoting website a testimony said, "They never exalted one man and never said we were part of any organization. On the contrary, my father would tell me during our car rides that we follow God, His economy, and nothing else." This was written by an ex-Church Kid, FTTA graduate, current "serving one".

We follow God, His economy, and nothing else. This is how the strong concept of "God's economy" controls the LC. Yet where does the NT define it as "to eat God by pray-reading Bible verses"? Or PSRP the HWMR?

Does Jesus say, "Blessed are those who, when the Master returns, finds them pray-reading Bible verses"? No, he says, the blessed are found to be giving food to others. Helping others. Visiting the sick, the prisoners, the widows, the orphans. What did the apostles (Peter, John, James) tell Paul: "remember the poor". Paul replies, "I told them that I was eager to do this very thing" ~Gal 2:7-10 This reminds of Jesus' core teachings to "give to those who can't repay you, and your reward will be great in heaven."

Yet when James writes a similar thing in his epistle, to share with the less fortunate, the critique in the Lord's Recovery was, "That's not God's economy". I argue, to the contrary, this probably was "God's economy" that Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus, to remind them to teach (1:4). Paul devotes several chapters on this, the collection for the poor of Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:1- 9:5; 1 Cor 16). Rom 15:26,27 also mentions Achaia and Macedonia giving to the poor. Then, at the end of his final missionary journey, he says that he's back with alms for the poor of Jerusalem (Acts 24:17). Paul isn't just writing about it but demonstrating that this is central to his work.

What should we say - "No, Paul! That's not God's economy!!"?? Paul's teaching this to Macedonia, Galatia, Rome, Corinth, Phillipi, Cenchrea, Thessalonica... don't you think he's also asking Timothy in 1:4 to make sure it's taught in Ephesus, also? And, what were they 'dispensing' to the widows in Acts 6:1? Ministry tracts? Rainbow Booklets? Gold-bar life-studies? No, food. And, what was the 'ministry' or 'mission' that Paul and Barnabas completed in Acts 12:25? Training sessions on church affairs? Lectures, or food?

Of course the NT says to "be in spirit" but where does that mean incessant shouting, heel-rocking, fist-pumping, repetitively ''amen, amen'' -ing? Jesus went around in Spirit, doing good. Not repetitively chanting. (in fact he warned against that, as a practice of the gentiles). Maybe going around helping others in the name of Jesus Christ is being "in spirit, on the ground", not shouting slogans. It certainly seems much more in line with the NT examples and exhortations.

Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."

John 4:34 "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work."

John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."

Where is pray-reading stated here, or even implied? No, it's to obey the Father (and us to obey Jesus) and do what He commands. To love those around us, to help those who can't help us, to give to those who cannot repay. "Go around and do good" as Peter testified in Acts 10. The collection for the poor of Jerusalem by the gentile churches was clearly in this vein. Paul uses considerable ink and parchment in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans 15 to make this plain. We don't have to guess, or surmise. It's clearly laid out, what Paul expected of the recipients of his letters.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

God's economy simply means God wanting to dispense Himself into man, so that may might become god. What does "become god" mean? It means man might partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In short, God became a man so that man might become god. In general Christian theology this is called divinization (deification, making divine, or theosis).

Not covered in this is the prerequisite "being filled with spirit" and "exercise your [human] spirit" which means, shout repetitively and say amen constantly. Members greet each other with "Amen, amen". During lapses in meetings you'll hear a constant, "Ohhh Looooord Jeeeeesussssss, amen". It's deliberately mindless noisemaking, used to suppress conscious thought.

The linch-pin of this "spiritual exercise" is something called "pray-reading", where they'll take Bible verses and say "amen" to each word, or "Hallelujah" or "Praise the Lord"... like this: "Amen, amen BLAH", "praise the Lord BLAH", "Oh Lord Jesus BLAH" - whatever the word is. This is "eating God" to make you "filled with S/spirit" and supposedly cause inward organic metabolic change to make you God. It's a kind of ritual Pentecostalism which claims "God dispensed into man to make man God", as the quote above says.

But where does it say that pray-reading is eating God? Scripture does say, "Thy words were found and I did eat them" but Jesus explains this clearly: "My food is to DO the will of the Father", not to pray-read. To obey God's commands is to eat, a word fulfilled by Jesus. It also says, "I come to DO thy will, O God - behold, in the scroll of the Book it is written concerning me". It doesn't say, "I come to pray-read thy words, Oh God" but to I come to DO them. The contrast could hardly be more clear.

Then Jesus transfers this to the disciples, saying that his work is to do the Father's will, and when they ask what works they should also do, he says, "To believe into the one that the Father has sent". His work is to obey the Father's words, and our work is to believe into his obedience. Nothing is said about pray-reading on either part. It's obedience that's stressed - his obedience to the Father, and ours to him. Not mere noisemaking.

And Paul's lengthy sections on offerings by Achaia and Derbe and Galatia and Philippi to the poor of Jerusalem are seen in this vein. Our work is to believe, and evidence of that faith and the indwelling Spirit is by our unsolicited, generous gifts of love reaching those unable to pay back. Just as the Samaritan in love yielded for the wounded man, with no thought of return, so were the gentile churches to succor the poor of Jerusalem. The theme is consistent through the NT: it's laid down in the gospels, shown in Acts, written about in detail in epistles.

When John the Baptizer asked of Jesus, "Are you the Christ, or should we expect another?" Jesus said to tell John what they saw: the deaf heard, the blind saw, lame healed, the dead raised, and the poor had the gospel preached to them. Nothing about "Here you'll see us pray-reading". No spectacle of jumping up and down or heel-rocking, arm-waving and shouting "amen". What Jesus was doing was "in the power of the Holy Spirit".

By contrast, the Lord's Recovery model of God's economy doesn't care about helping others, instead it's to look for "good building material" that can pay you back. At FTTA I heard, "Don't waste your time" with widows and orphans, the sick and the poor.

And then, where's evidence of inward metabolic transformation? Many have spent decades pray-reading and still look untransformed to me. Many of the leaders are similarly lacking evidence of grace. Yes, some are transformed, but then some Baptists and Anglicans are transformed, too. I don't see pray-reading doing what it's supposed to. The only magic I see is what the minister wove, charming the audience, a la Psalm 58:5. But Jesus didn't charm the serpent, he crucified it.

But pray-reading doesn't magically "make us God", sorry. There's no evidence either in scripture or in experience.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Perhaps the reason that it seemed to come out of nowhere is because it did. It didn't come from Scripture or Christian tradition. It was a 'revelation' of Lee, i.e. a construct.

Now if Jesus had said, "My food is to pray-read the Bible" in John 4:34, well, there you go - but he didn't. If Paul had written Timothy, "Remain in Ephesus and charge certain ones not to teach myths, but things that result in God's economy, which is to get the Processed and Consummated Triune God dispensed into you to make you God in life and nature", well okay. But he didn't.

Instead it was a teaching constructed with the barest of ill-fitting parts, and with the necessary ignoring of others, like "food" actually being to obey God's word. To Jesus, God's word wasn't condemnation but the source of life, and now our faith in Jesus' obedience is our source of life.

"Even as I live because of the Father, so you shall live because of me". And how do we follow, and live? By doing as Jesus did, not bruiting noises. By obeying his commands, just as he obeyed the Father. Just as he lay down his life for his sheep, so in laying down our things, we'd be a sweet-smelling savour of Christ. Note that Paul in 2 Cor gives them an example, of Macedonia:

"And now, brothers and sisters, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. In the midst of a very severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the Lord’s people. And they exceeded our expectations: They gave themselves first of all to the Lord, and then by the will of God also to us. So we urged Titus, just as he'd earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. But since you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you—see that you also excel in this grace of giving."

To Paul, this is the "sweet savour" he wrote of in 2:15. This is God's economy, what Paul was teaching in all the churches. This is the overflow of love toward those who can't repay in this age. Remember - they weren't subsidizing the apostle's Golf Club membership, or his-and-hers Lexus' (cough, cough, Hank, cough, cough...) but the poor. It's not man's economy but God's economy.

Now, the objection may be, "But how do you know that 'When you have a feast, invite those who can't pay you' is God's economy? Maybe it's something different from Lee's idea, or yours." Perhaps. But look at the fruit of the idea. In Lee's world, we didn't actually have to DO what the Bible said, that being "dead works" but instead we just "masticated" them and became God. Dead letters became living spirit if we shouted them over and over again. We didn't care for right and wrong, until the stench of the wrong became too great and we had to create yet another web site quoting CWWL chapter and verse, how we had nothing to do with it. That's where pray-reading got you.

So where does 'give to others' get you? All I know is that Jesus said that the servants would be blessed if the Master returned and found them so doing - not delivering lectures and trainings and selling pamphlets, but 'dispensing' and 'ministering' the same way that they were in Acts 6:1 and 12:25. Those men saw Jesus, heard his teachings. Don't you think that their pattern should be closely followed? I do. We have Jesus example, and we have the apostles' interpretation and execution of his commands, and not a word of it on pray-reading. (Yes, 'pray unceasingly' but that also can mean 'pray when you give aid to the poor'.)

[aron]

The title should more correctly be ''The Overlooked Writings of Paul" or "The Ignored Writings of Paul" but I like dramatic turns of phrase, nyuk-nyuk.

I'll argue that sections of Paul, chapters even, get a short shrift in the Lord's Recovery because they show a view of "God's economy" very different from that of WL. I start with the climax of Paul's Chapter 2 of Galatians: the meeting in Jerusalem, where the right hand of fellowship was proffered - Paul to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews. "Only, they urged that I remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do." How much ink did that get in WL's output? I don't remember any commentary.

Then Paul declares that he returned to Jerusalem after his mission to the gentiles with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17) and suddenly there's a conceptual book-end for large swaths of Paul's epistles, most of it passed over by WL. Typical is Romans 15:25-27 "Now, however, I'm on my way to Jerusalem to serve the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual blessings, they are obligated to minister to them with material blessings."

When one pokes around in Paul's writings, one finds it's not only a common but a ubiquitous theme. 1 Cor 16:1-3 "Now about the collection for the saints, you're to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed. Then, on my arrival, I'll send letters with those you recommend to carry your gift to Jerusalem."

2 Corinthians 8 and 9 have the probably the most well-developed conceptual working-out by Paul of this mission. 2 Cor 8:1-4 says "Now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the churches of Macedonia. In the terrible ordeal they suffered, their abundant joy and deep poverty overflowed into rich generosity. For I testify that they gave according to their ability and even beyond it. Of their own accord, they earnestly pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints."

And it extends into chapter 9: "Now about the service to the saints, there's no need for me to write to you. For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting to the Macedonians that since last year you in Achaia were prepared to give. And your zeal has stirred most of them to do likewise..."(vv 1,2) And it's held together with a lengthy explanation in chapter 8 of those who have means being kind to those without, summarized with the adage, "He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little had no lack." (v.15)

Now in this focus, much of Acts, likewise downplayed, jumps back to the fore. The chapters in the beginning where disciples shared, where widows got the 'daily dispensing' (6:1) etc. Now, Jesus' exhortation in the gospels to "feed my sheep" gets new light (Unless John, Peter, Luke, Paul didn't know to take this 'spiritually', until it got 'recovered' by WL [ha-ha])

Suddenly we remember the unbelieving gentile Cornelius being told by the angel that "your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial offering before God". And likewise Paul's word to the gentiles in Romans 15:27 makes sense. Yes, there's no male or female, no slave nor free, no Greek nor Jew, but Christ is all in all... yet our voluntarily offered aid and submission to one another (female subject to male, slave to free, gentile assemblies offering to the poor of Jerusalem) is the out-worked love that Jesus taught us. It's the power of the resurrection, in our faith, seen in our acts. Remember, it's the "Acts" of the apostles that were seen, not just words that were heard.

As the travelling Samaritan gave of his excess so that the wounded man by the roadside had no lack, so also it was with the churches of the gentiles remembering the poor in Jerusalem. Consider Agabus' prophecy of the famine, and the aid which followed (Acts 11:28-30) - there was no social services back then, but there was continual expression of real love among the churches and Paul regarded his mission as central to that. Else, why highlight his collection for the Jerusalem poor so prominently in Galatians 2?

Perhaps this is what Paul was teaching in every church: not to heed myths and genealogies but to have a heart for helping one another. All those sections in his writings on the generosity of the churches point to that scene in Galatians of the meeting of the apostles, their encouragement and his eager assent... it's not mysterious at all, unless one deliberately ignores it... but if so, then one has these remainders, these 'odd' sections of scripture that don't fit, to be passed over with little comment or even dismissed.

But if you see Paul's word in 2 Cor 8:15 as his summation of "God's economy, which is in faith", then it comes together nicely. Then, we don't need to pan the epistle of James, for example - quite the contrary - James was rather in "the central lane of the divine economy". The whole of the NT coheres, without "fallen", "low", and "natural" bits to be excised.

[aron]

As I remember, WL's version said that God got processed: incarnation, inclusion, intensification. Then humanity gets processed: redeemed, reconciled, regenerated, conformed, transformed, transfigured (into God but not the God-head).

But if we examine this process as actually lived out, we see its untenability in Lord's Recovery practice. Consider transformation: how can the "apostle of the age" with such a "rich ministry" fail at even the basics of church behaviour that Paul outlined in Titus 1:6? WL's sons Timothy and Philip showed little if any indication of spiritual interest, and ran roughshod over the churches under WL's watch. Where's evidence of transformation in these cases? The church leaders that abetted this and who now run LSM were there at every meeting, listening to every message, reciting outlines and footnotes, singing every song, pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord at every turn, yet showed little evidence of the Christian expression that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John gave in the NT. They're respecters of persons, they dissemble, they overlook evil, they're man-pleasers.

Look at Jane Anderson's testimony. Where's evidence of Christian faith in how she got handled by those who now run LSM? I don't see it.

How much money did WL siphon off for the Daystar Corporation, run by son Timothy, it's President? We know the church in Boston handed over $100K; we don't know the other cities, but I daresay it perhaps totaled in the millions, when a million could buy something. How much went into the inner circle of the WL Guanxi Network, and how much (or little) made it back out? "That's my personal business" said WL, when asked about it by Sal Benoit. Where's evidence of transformation in WL's creation and handling of Daystar?

Or son Philip, who repeatedly preyed upon women in the offices of the Lord's Recovery HQ? Where's evidence of transformation - all the "Oh Looord Jeeesus' " don't mean anything, do they? All the PSRP of HMWR.. where's the issue? How can you have transfiguration without transformation?

We heard the view that nobody could obey God, which ignores Jesus(!), and instead we just "masticated the Processed and Consummated Triune God" and inwardly we'd be metabolically transformed and conformed and then outwardly transfigured. It was a kind of grace-on-steroids, where our magical incantations did everything, and we'd just "enjoy the riches". Yet if Christian essentials were overlooked, then what are the riches?

Contrast to the NT, where Hebrews 5:8,9 dovetails neatly with John's gospel: "Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him". In John's gospel, Jesus said that as he obeyed the Father, we should obey him, as he lived because of the Father's word, so we'd live by his word, as the Father sent him, so he sent us. Nothing about pray-reading HWMR outlines and footnotes. To me, it's a completely different gospel. WL manufactured a reading of Paul that overturned or ignored parts of the NT, but in the last post (#311), I noted that this reading even depended on ignoring much of Paul's (and Luke's) own writings!

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

"Exercise your spirit, brother!" is a push to shout and jump and wave. But where does this shouting and waving come from? The Bible says, "Exercise yourself to Godliness" but does that mean jump up and down and shout repetitively? I think such interpretation is error.

"Don't think - drink!" Remember that one? Unthinking, reflexive action was how the error got disseminated widely.

"Exercise yourself unto Godliness" really means what James meant - Godliness (true religion) is to visit widows and orphans and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. God so loved us that he sent His only begotten Son to save us. This son was holy, as the Father is holy.

The Son then said that we his disciples are to obey his commands, just as he obeyed the Father's commands. So we're likewise sent as emissaries to the unlovely, the unloved, the unlovable (in our eyes). That's what James meant by "visit widows and orphans". To love them, in this context, is to show some actual blessing. Healing, comfort, encouragement, food, clothes, shelter, something. Pay attention to them, listen to them.

And the second part is to keep unspotted from the world, like Jesus did. That is "exercise yourself unto Godliness". Not jump up and down and shout. And notice where the jumping and shouting got us: 1) We were told to ignore obvious sin in church leadership; 2) We were told to despise the poor, the widows and orphans. "Don't waste your time" was the word at FTTA. Get good building material instead.

I'm bringing this forward here, as it points to how the creation of an erroneous thought - "Exercise your spirit in God's economy" became widespread. The thought was that we no longer cared for right and wrong, because nobody's without sin [ignoring Jesus!], and instead we should simply "enjoy NT grace on the proper ground" by shouting, calling, yelling, crying, screaming, declaring, fist-pumping, pray-reading.

The Bible does say, "Cry out and shout, O inhabitants of Zion". Opening our mouths is part of salvation. But it's nowhere held as the "God's economy" of Paul's epistles.

But the pray-reading, calling, shouting, crying, screaming, yelling, groaning all were used to suppress the critical thought which might at some point set off alarms. Why is the Apostle of the Age violating basic Christian principles, set down in the epistle to Titus for every local church elder? "Don't think, brother!! Just Drink!! Exercise your spirit!!" See how it works? The doctrine has its own dissemination kernel. Don't think, just yell loudly, repeatedly, and be "one" with leadership. (As Ray Graver told Bill Mallon, "Here, we do what we're told". That's a non-mystical way to put it.)

And the fact that the LSM-affiliated cryers, screamers, yellers, shouters in Mainland China went from a stated membership of several tens of millions in the mid-90s (per WL, from the podium) to a stated membership of zero ten years later (per Chris Wilde, to the press) shows where all the noisemaking took them. If LSM, unbalanced as it is, couldn't control the Shouters, how bad must it have gotten in the People's Republic?

Getting people excited by yelling is the doctrine, and it very neatly contains the means of aiding dissemination of the doctrine itself (what WL called "propagation"). But ultimately we don't see transformation as a result of widespread and longstanding adherence to these teachings. This corroborates what we see from the NT text, that it isn't God's economy.

[aron]

A commonly used phrase in the LC was derived from or at least connected to Song of Solomon 1:8. "If thou know not thyself, thou fair one among women, go thou forth by the footsteps of the flocks, and feed thy kids by the shepherd's tents" (Brenton Septuagint Translation). This was the allied phrase "closely following the apostles" which WL & Co were fond of (see Phil 3:17; 2 Tim 3:10, 1 Tim 4:6; cf Acts 2:42).

Here is a song of the same title, sung in the LC

https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/680

If Peter, James, and John sent Paul and Barnabas out with "only remember the poor", to which he eagerly consented by his own admission (Gal 2:10), don't you think similar eagerness would also be evidenced by Nee and/or Lee? Instead, the subject of caring for the poor was carefully avoided. When the topic was once broached by a naiive trainee at the FTT in Anaheim, the answer (from PH) was summarily dismissive: "Don't waste your time." Go for good building material instead; it was all quite explicit, blunt, and categorical. There was no equivocating with PH. He got his position by letting everyone know WL's position.

How can we follow the footsteps of the flock, or closely follow the apostles' teaching, if we so strenuously avoid the implications of Gal 2:10? As I wrote earlier, that also means we need to downplay chapters of Paul, and to overlook Luke's account of Paul returning to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" (Acts 24:17), and likewise to minimise Jesus' "sell what you have, give alms to the poor, and you'll be rich in heaven" (Luke 12:33). And so on... it stretches back to the OT, where being kind to the destitute is repeatedly held as a way to connect to the Most High, who gives liberally to all. So simple even a gentile can follow it - Acts 10:1-4! As I wrote earlier, Paul develops this theme in 2 Cor 8.

No, instead we were to selfishly masticate God by pray-reading Bible verses to make ourselves God. Don't waste your time (or money!) with the poor. So I ask, which of these two distinct and separate ideas, seems more like "God's economy" to you? Which more closely adheres to the consistent and plain pattern of scriptural behaviours and teachings?

I daresay that Watchman Nee saw in his example (JN Darby) that with proper 'revelation' he didn't have to follow anybody! He could just get a 'vision of the age' and everyone would instead have to follow him... how attractive, no? He could even reverse himself, and with one 'revelation' declare churches were all local and independent, removing the taint of the hated West, and then with a later 'revelation' could declare that all churches tie to a geographical center, a la his "Jerusalem Principle", which now would be Shanghai, not London or Rome. All of it self-serving, contradictory, and only tenuously biblical, but who cares? As long as you closely follow Nee you're good!

From this swirling milieu did Witness Lee's version of God's economy emerge. It was a personal creation, then put to captive assemblies (because we're all one, right?). Nobody questioned because it came from WL and we didn't question God's oracle. But if one questioned it soon fell apart, as did many of his teachings. But look at the big, thick books he could sell in the meantime.

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

This confused me immensely. Are they saying that Good is Evil? That doesn't make sense.

Very late to the party here but I wanted to comment on this as it's something I've been thinking about since leaving the LC. WL in his theology talks a lot about the Tree of Life vs. the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, how one represents life/dependence on God, the other represents independence/oneness with Satan. However, that's a false dichotomy and is un-Biblical. The Bible never says the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil IS evil. In fact, God reviewed His entire creation after making and said it was ALL good. Presumably this included the TotKoGaE. Nothing is ever said to be inherently wrong about that tree in and of itself, the problem is that man DISOBEYED God and ate it when God told them that they shouldn't. The disobedience was the problem, not the tree directly. For all we know the tree may represent moral maturity and the fact that eventually we ARE supposed to be able to discern righteousness (in fact I sorta suspect it does), however, in his infantile state in the Garden of Eden man might not have been ready for that so God told him not to eat of it because if he did, he would sin and thus definitely die. Seems like God knew what He was talking about...

Hebrews 5:14: But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

(So, uh, how is that tree so bad, again, in light of what the Apostle Paul says above? I'll put it another way, is sex bad (in the proper context of marriage at the proper age)? Is sex when you are 3 years old bad?)

Anyway, that's my two cents for the day!

[Trapped]

Awoken,

I couldn't agree with you MORE. I've posted about this in some other threads here somewhere, but the TOTKOGAE is described in three ways:

1) pleasant to the sight,
2) good for food, and
3) makes you like God.

No idea how Lee got "evil" from any of that. The Bible very clearly says "the wages of sin is death", in other words, death is our wages, our punishment for sin. And that's exactly what Adam and Eve got. Death as punishment. Their punishment was being cut off from the tree of life so they would not live forever, i.e. die.

The TOTKOGAE was not death, or evil, or bad, or anything Lee claims it is.

Totally agree with you about the Hebrews verse. Mature believers discern between good and evil! Lee liked to say that God "doesn't care" about good/evil, or right/wrong, but if you think about it.....if you forbid something, it usually doesn't mean that you forbid it because you "don't care" about it, but rather the opposite. Because you care about it a lot. Like premature sex, or a rare artifact, or a dangerous weapon. Those things are forbidden from touching at certain times not because we "don't care" but because we DO care.

Not only that, in Corinthians Paul gets on their case for not having anyone wise enough to judge a dispute and tells us that we will judge angels as well as the earth. Do you think we need to be able to discern good and evil in order to do that? YEAH!

Seriously, Awoken, your two cents for the day is worth more like a million dollars. There are numerous twisted and fear-based teachings from the ministry just in these 1-2 chapters in Genesis alone, and you have managed to untangle them all and present it more truthfully, scripturally, and clearly than Witness Lee EVER DID. This is one of the big ones that qualifies the local churches to be characterized as an abusive church. They use this false teaching often to control the behavior, emotions, and thoughts of their members.

They say "good and evil are on the same tree" and that we "don't care" about either of them. Well, that's what we would call "calling good evil and calling evil good". They are, somehow, unbelievably, associating good and evil with each other, grouping them together. What kind of insane church does that?!

Trapped

[Sons to Glory!]

Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

Yes, food is all over the Bible. And what does Jesus say about it? "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." I have noted this repeatedly on this forum. God's word became food to Jesus because of Jesus' obedience.

John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." The Father sent Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the sending, and this became life to Jesus. (he was raised from the dead - eternal life). So also we should obey him, and live because of him. Through our obedience to him, we also live. This entire section of John's gospel goes over this in detail.

And yes, this is food to us. We eat the living bread. We obey his commands. "Just as I obey the Father's commands, so you should obey mine." If you see the verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them" it doesn't say or even imply, "Pray-read the words, don't try to obey. Just organically assimilate the words and they will metabolically transform you." No, rather, implied is the process of our obedience by faith, to the eternal life which we receive as a crown.

And what is this obedience? To love our neighbour, even when you don't think they deserve it. To give something to them (attention, encouragement, support, or a sandwich), as we hope for reward in heaven. If you allow yourself to be 'robbed' to aid someone else, because you believe, hope, trust that God is watching you, and paying attention, that is a transformational experience. If you just go, "me, me, me" that isn't very transformed at all. Only if you give will you be given to.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, food is all over the Bible. And what does Jesus say about it? "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." I have noted this repeatedly on this forum. God's word became food to Jesus because of Jesus' obedience.

John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." The Father sent Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the sending, and this became life to Jesus. (he was raised from the dead - eternal life). So also we should obey him, and live because of him. Through our obedience to him, we also live.

And yes, this is food to us. We eat the living bread. We obey his commands. "Just as I obey the Father's commands, so you should obey mine." If you see the verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them" it doesn't say, "Pray-read the words, don't try to obey. Just organically assimilate the words and they will metabolically transform you." No, rather, the process of our obedience by faith becomes intrinsic to the process, to the eternal life which we receive as a crown.

And what is this obedience? To love our neighbour. To give to them, as we hope for reward in heaven. If you allow yourself to be 'robbed' to aid someone else, because you believe, hope, trust that God is watching you, that is a transformational experience. If you just go, "me, me, me" that isn't very transformed.

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me. Therefore, I need Another life. We can step out on faith and obey, but just to be clear - it's His living through us that does the genuine loving.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

Sons to Glory,

Yes. The TOTKOGAE is only described positively. Forbidden to touch does not always mean the forbidden thing is bad. And as Awoken and I have described, it often times means the thing is actually valuable. I know a forum is the worst place to decipher much of people, but it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.

God said in eating of it, literally, "dying you shall die". The origins of this phrase are judicial (judgment) in nature, not having to do with the "taking in" of something. Sons to Glory - sins are actions, not an "element" that you take in. How did Adam and Eve die? Read the verses - by being cut off from the tree of life so they would not live forever (i.e., die). Death was their punishment. The verses are clear. Death came from being cut off from the tree of life, not from eating something that was only ever described positively. The verses elsewhere are also clear: death is our wages for sin. That is what death is: our punishment from God for our sin, not something we "take in". In Romans the issue was the offense, the transgression, the one act, not something negative about what they ate.

It is not what goes in that defiles someone but what comes out.

Scripture repeatedly contradicts what you are saying.

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me. Therefore, I need Another life. We can step out on faith and obey, but just to be clear - it's His living through us that does the genuine loving.

You are talking about your experience, I'm talking about scripture. Jesus said, "I obey". The common refrain of "nobody can obey God" excludes Jesus, yet the gospel narrative centers wholly on Jesus, on his being sent, his obedience, his resurrection, his exaltation. Not your inability, or mine. It is the 'gospel', the good news - not our failure but his success. And his success was his obedience. His obedience allowed him to receive the Father's life, and now our obedience to him allows us to receive his life. I can quote all the verses again.

"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." Do you see the 'just as'. Jesus' eating was to obey. Our eating is to obey.

"When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love." Again, the 'just as' is here. Jesus obeys, abides in the Father's love. We obey, abide in his love. Don't look at your inability, look at his ability to obey. By faith you we follow, and yes of course it's HIS ability. "No longer I but Christ." We believe in his ability, his being sent, his obedience, his propitiation, his intercession, and his rule. And we by faith obey. And we by faith love those around us. This is his command, and we obey. He is king.

It's even called "the faith of Christ", not the "faith of aron" or Stg or WL or whomever. Gal 2:20, 2:16, Rom 3:22

Now, the scripture doesn't forbid praying as we read the word. But the scripture doesn't tell us what WL sold us, that pray-reading would "eat" the tree of life and "assimilate" God and so forth. The Bible rather talks of obedience. Jesus' to the Father, and ours to him. This is our food.

Hebrews 5:7 While Jesus was here on earth, he offered prayers and pleadings, with a loud cry and tears, to the one who could rescue him from death. And God heard his prayers because of his deep reverence for God. 8 Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 In this way, God qualified him as a perfect High Priest, and he became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey him.

You have obedience, suffering, life. That was Jesus. Then, obedience, suffering, life. That's us. We follow the Master.

On the flip side, disobedience brings death. Right? Not "eating the wrong tree".

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Nothing about eating or metabolic assimilation but rather disobedience. God gave a boundary, and the angels trespassed it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

I'll add that, yes, somehow when we eat of the tree of life we keep living, and when we eat of the TOTKOGAE we get the knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge is not a bad thing in scripture, and neither is discerning good/evil. So I continually do not see any evidence for "what they took in" being bad.....possibly just premature (since discerning good/evil is a characteristic of mature believers, as shown in Hebrews).

[Awoken]

Hosea 4:6 is pretty explicit about that: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Kinda drastically different from what we were taught in the LCs - "Knowledge, good, and evil all come from the same tree!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Awoken

Hosea 4:6 is pretty explicit about that: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Kinda drastically different from what we were taught in the LCs - "Knowledge, good, and evil all come from the same tree!"

I was looking at the quote from WL on this:

"Both our goodness and our badness belong to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Whether you are moral or immoral, whether you are honest or dishonest, whether you steal or do not steal, whether you are a robber or a gentleman, whether you are quarrelsome or peaceable, whether you are a shrewd woman or a virtuous woman, all belong to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Someone should have cued in that poor angel that spoke with Cornelius in Acts, who said that Cornelius' good works had ascended as a memorial before God.

Acts 10:1-4 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God."

According to WL, being devout and God-fearing is from the wrong tree. Helping poor people is from the wrong tree. But Cornelius was not yet a Christian. He was just trying to do the right thing. Was this vain? Did the angel (and Luke the storyteller) err?

It seems that WL trafficked in our ignorance and lack of knowledge as the quote from Hosea 4 above shows. And then our ignorance was reinforced by the saying, "Don't think. You will only be confused". I was told this repeatedly. "Just exercise your spirit", i.e. shout a lot. Preferably, shout WL slogans.

At some point, everything seemed to circle back to that, or the "ground of oneness". Why do we shout simplistic, made-up slogans? Why, because it's God's economy, that's why! Of course, how silly of me to ask.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'll add that, yes, somehow when we eat of the tree of life we keep living, and when we eat of the TOTKOGAE we get the knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge is not a bad thing in scripture, and neither is discerning good/evil. So I continually do not see any evidence for "what they took in" being bad.....possibly just premature (since discerning good/evil is a characteristic of mature believers, as shown in Hebrews).

Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?

I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.

I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?

I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.

I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.

Knucklehead Who Won't Read Scriptur-----I mean, Sons to Glory,

The result of their sin was death. The result of their disobedience, the offense, the transgression was death.

The wages (what we are due, what we are paid, what we EARN) of sin ("the offense") is death. Not "the wages of what we eat is death".

It couldn't be more explicit in Genesis where death came from. From their being cut off from the tree of life. There is no verse, no record, no statement that says death came from what they ate. None. There is an explicit verse that says they were cut off from the tree of life SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER LIVE FOREVER -- i.e DIE.

As to what the result of eating is, it is in Genesis 3:22:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

When God named the trees, He didn't name them deceptively. If you eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you get -- the knowledge of good and evil! And this very verse shows us that: "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil", just like God said.

If it was the tree of "allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes", then God would have called it that.

I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again. I've written plenty on this topic and have no intention of banging my head against a wall that won't put eyes on the verses. I'm showing you verses, scripture, explicit references, explicit words, and you keep responding with things Witness Lee taught that have no basis in scripture. Other posters have grasped the concepts right away, so I know the issue is not the way I'm explaining things.

Trapped

P.S. this is going to sound frustrated, and it is a little bit, but can you tell me - in all the discussion about this topic, have you gone back and actually re-read Genesis 2-3? Or are you simply speaking from what you know of the story? If the latter, I would ask you to go back and read Genesis 2-3, with the intention of actually looking for proof of what Lee taught (which is what you seem to still espouse).

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?

I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.

I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't "allow" man to do anything. It's a tree. GOD gave man the "freedom to independently decide for himself"...not the tree. God is not a puppet-master...or a tree. He gave us a free will. Man has the freedom to seek the Lord or not. Witness Lee's ministry was to take away the freedom of believers to choose for themselves.

What is our freedom? Obey or disobey. Mankind isn't still eating of that tree, are they? Is much of mankind still living a life of disobedience?

What they consumed in the garden that day was pooped away...3000 years ago. But man still lives in obedience or disobedience. Mankind lives with the consequences of decisions to choose God or not.

Who decides what the source of knowledge is? You? Witness Lee?

I prefer blockhead to knucklehead.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't "allow" man to do anything. It's a tree. GOD gave man the "freedom to independently decide for himself"...not the tree. God is not a puppet-master...or a tree. He gave us a free will. Man has the freedom to seek the Lord or not. Witness Lee's ministry was to take away the freedom of believers to choose for themselves.

What is our freedom? Obey or disobey. Mankind isn't still eating of that tree, are they? Is much of mankind still living a life of disobedience?

What they consumed in the garden that day was pooped away...3000 years ago. But man still lives in obedience or disobedience. Mankind lives with the consequences of decisions to choose God or not.

Who decides what the source of knowledge is? You? Witness Lee?

I prefer blockhead to knucklehead.

Nell

Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.

Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?

(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.

Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?

(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)

I didn’t say it was just a tree. You did.

You also said a tree “allows” as though it was some sort of “sentient being”. Trees don’t “allow”.

You are shortchanging the effect of disobedience.

It was disobedience that resulted in spiritual death, not food.

How did sin get into the flesh? Disobedience. Again, disobedience.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.

Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?

(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)

You are trying to ascribe some kind of responsibility to the fruit as the cause for mankind's continued disobedience against God. Really? Do you really think that our sin nature came from a piece of fruit? That death came from a piece of fruit from a tree that God Himself described as "good for food" as well as "makes you like God"? Can you see how those things (what you are claiming plus what scripture says) cannot go together without contradiction or without creating a false or malicious God?

You surely recognize that Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them, do you not?

No one is short-changing the tree's effect. You are creating an effect that isn't there and telling others who disagree that they are shortchanging what is actually your unscriptural overlay onto the text.

Before you write any more posts about this topic:

Pleeeeeeease go back and read Genesis 2&3. Where did death come from in Genesis? From the fruit or from God cutting them off from the tree of life? Give me specific verses, please.

Pleeeeeeease go back and read Romans 5. Does it say sin entered "through the offense/trespass/disobedience" or does it say sin entered "through the fruit"? Give me specific verses, please.

Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?

[Awoken]

Or, as Jesus put it...

Matthew 15:8-20 NKJV
"'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

Then His disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch." Then Peter answered and said to Him, "Explain this parable to us."

So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?

Gen. 3:13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The (1) serpent deceived me, and (2) I ate.”

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.

But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.

But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?

Why? Because...“Descriptive passages describe what happened; they give us the historical narratives and the stories of the events that took place. Prescriptive passages give us clear commands and instructions as to how we are to live our lives.”

The operative being “clear commands.”

http://theologyfortherestofus.com/20...ible-passages/

Witness Lee built his ministry by turning descriptive biblical language into “commands”, some of which, he admitted not even he could keep, much like what you are doing with “eating”. “Eating”, in the Bible, is largely a metaphor or word picture as a means of spiritual growth.

Bill Mallon shared this with a group of us one time, and the lights came on for me. I began to look at Lee’s ministry from that perspective from that point on, asking “is this teaching based on prescriptive verses or simply describing something that happened?”

Example: Lee’s delegated authority prescriptive teaching based on the verses describing an event among Noah and his sons.

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?

Hi Unregistered,

The long story is that it's just what the Bible says and shows. I've always had a problem with Witness Lee's teaching that "God doesn't care about right and wrong" and so a while back I sat down to read the verses, as well as some of his ministry, to see where the Biblical support is for that, because it's a pillar of a teaching in the local church. Much to my surprise, there is nothing in scripture where the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is described as containing poison, or death, or any of the things Lee said about it. It's described only positively, but yet is forbidden to eat. I read numerous other Christian articles online to confirm that others also saw that there is no reason to claim the TOTKOGAE was itself evil, and they confirmed it.

Lee went so far as to call it the "tree of death" and said that Satan was crafty and subtle in hiding what it really was, but the problem with that is you would also have to call God crafty and sneaky because God also called the TOTKOGAE the TOTKOGAE, and not "the tree of death". So Lee's being off on just where death came from ends up making God an evil God, which is obviously not true.

Once you realize the TOTKOGAE is not "the source" of the problem, it's not where death came from, it's not where sin came from, it's not "forbidden because it's bad" but "is 'bad' only because it's forbidden", then you start thinking "okay, why DID they eat of the tree then?"

Listening to Christian apologists who have to answer these kind of questions all the time like "why did God put the tree in the garden in the first place", the apologists hammer home pretty hard that God gave man free will. Free will to choose to eat of it or not eat of it. So I started looking for things in the verses that I could blame God for. And the more I scoured the verses, the less there was to blame God about! God created a garden with thousands of trees in it (by the presumed size of the garden based on it's description by numerous rivers), all pleasant to the sight, all good for food, and He forbade literally only one. God didn't trick them, He didn't make it difficult, He provided countless other choices. It's like someone takes you to a large buffet restaurant with 500 different dishes hot and ready to eat, and they tell you not to eat that one dish marked with an X. And you go over and eat the one X-marked dish! Why? You had 500 other choices!

Man really had free will. And man chose to use that free will to disobey God. It really was a fair situation, and God told them exactly what tree was the problem, exactly what would happen if they disobeyed, the whole thing. It wasn't fruit that got into them that caused it. It was their free-will choice to do so. And because man had free will, and he chose to disobey, God can punish him rightly. And He did. With death.

The short story is, yes, I've never had to state specifically that Adam and Eve disobeyed before the fruit got into them until this particular discussion.

Trapped

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by Nell

Example: Lee’s delegated authority prescriptive teaching based on the verses describing an event among Noah and his sons.

Or Lee's (and maybe also Nee's, and maybe also the Plymouth Brethren's) prescriptive teaching about the "ground of locality" based on a very shakily discerned descriptive pattern in the NT epistles.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Awoken

Or Lee's (and maybe also Nee's, and maybe also the Plymouth Brethren's) prescriptive teaching about the "ground of locality" based on a very shakily discerned descriptive pattern in the NT epistles.

That too. We should start a list. There are many.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. This was all discussed before. May the Lord open my eyes if there is something here.

But just to be clear, I may be unduly discounting the disobedience aspect . . . however, don't discount that God used a fruit-bearing tree. That is, something to be eaten. Lots of talk about eating that is emphasized in the Bible, right? So why is that?

You are going to get an echo into silence of a response because the Bible never makes an issue of the fruit of the tree itself. It's not there. Jesus said his food is to do the will of the Father. So even if you try to point to fruit or food.....Jesus just keeps on pointing straight on to obedience instead.

Sons to Glory, did you read the chapters I mentioned in my previous post where I implored you to do so and answer the two simple questions before saying anything more about the topic? Why are you avoiding everything I and others are saying and yet turning around and praying for your eyes to be opened "if" there is something here?

You are praying for your eyes to be opened while your Bible is closed. What's going on here?

I'm actually being genuine in my concern. It has been very, very strange to repeatedly encounter a straight refusal to comprehend plain words, plain language, plain inference, plain implication by a professing truth-seeking Christian.

Is this too uncomfortable of a mental shift for you?

If so, I'm sympathetic to that discomfort, but in this particular case, there's nothing to lose by it. The truth of what the word says with this story doesn't condemn you, doesn't blame you, doesn't mean you've committed an unforgiveable sin. It's just means sin in general is a bigger deal than Lee ever taught it was. But you know that already. So what's going on?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory.. it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.

The effect of the block, as noted, is that it results in the ignoring of 'unhelpful' Scripture. I once shared happily of a vision of Christ that I'd had, in a LC meeting. Problem was, it wasn't from one of the verses that supported Lee's teaching on God's economy. The lead elder, who'd been sent from Anaheim to run my small local church and provide guidance to the region, fell silent. Everyone else in the room froze. The formerly lively group conversation instantly shut down.

I remember going home, thinking, "That was really weird." I'd simply brought up a "wrong" verse and noted that it clearly pointed to Christ.

If you look at the gospels, Jesus repeatedly brings up one aspect of the OT, that is the treatment of those who are sick, weak, poor, indigent, and are nothing in the eyes of the world. Those who have, he said, should voluntarily out of love and compassion try to help such unfortunates. This is how you love your neighbour. Paul goes into this at length in 2 Cor 8, and touches it in various epistles. James also addresses this directly. Nope - "Not God's economy", said Lee.

Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

No, not God's economy, says Lee.

Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

No, that's not "exercise your spirit on the local ground". So we can pass by that one. Etc etc.

When one shows a textual pattern to the Lee-affected mind, they'll dismiss the corpus of Scripture with a simplistic and categorical statement meant to displace all that Scripture from their consciousness, where it might trouble them, cause them to think, reconsider. (This is why it's called a "block") Something like, "All I know is..." then a statement of their cued-in impressions.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me.

The statement isn't wrong, but is completely mis-oriented. The subject of the NT is Jesus. He loved us when we were yet sinners. Then he says, "As the Father sent me, I send you. As I do the Father's will, so you do mine. As I lived because of obedience to the Father's word, so you have life by "eating" me [obedience to my word]."

The Lee programme is to focus on self, and thus Jesus' obedience to God, and ours to him, is minimized... we're all sinners, right? So don't even try, we're just here to "enjoy Christ"...it's God's New Testament economy! When I went to my first LC meeting, the stress was, "YOU can exercise YOUR spirit!!!" The focus went off Jesus, what he had done, and was on what I could do (and not do). I could "exercise" (yell) and "enjoy" doing nothing and receiving everything. The poor? Too bad for them, we're not here for dead works of the flesh.

And I've seen this pattern continually since then. That's why all these extensive sections of Scripture are ignored, dismissed, explained away. Even when there's a clear and consistent pattern, possibly much stronger than the snippets - 1 Cor 15:45(b) - that are used to hold Lee's version together. Yet verse after verse after verse, many either directly from Jesus himself, or echoing him, or foreshadowing him in prophetic utterance, are set aside. Here are some from Psalms and Proverbs:

Originally Posted by ESV

“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” Psalm 41:1-2

“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Proverbs 19:17

“Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.” Proverbs 28:7

“For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.” Psalm 9:18

“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:19

“The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all.” Proverbs 22:2

“All my bones shall say, ‘O LORD, who is like you, delivering the poor from him who is too strong for him, the poor and needy from him who robs him?'” Psalm 35:10

“‘Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will place him in the safety for which he longs.'” Psalm 12:5

“Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people.” Psalm 113:5-8

“A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.” Proverbs 29:7

“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Proverbs 22:16

“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” Proverbs 22:22-23

“The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.” Psalm 37:14-15

“Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.” Proverbs 14:21

“Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13

“Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.” Proverbs 22:9

God cares for people. The world cares for people with money. Jesus clearly taught, be generous with the mammon that perishes, that you may be blessed in the eternal realms. This wasn't his invention, but rather his stress on what was a clear pattern in God's word. Then think about what Paul meant, when he wrote, "God's economy"; there's nothing, nothing in Scripture that shows it means what Witness Lee taught. The whole thing was a self-oriented, self-serving construction. And Jesus' clear teaching, and pattern (and Paul's 'eager assent', per Gal 2:10) was dismissed out of hand. "Not God's economy".

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Hey StG, just want to point something out here...

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

This is all 100% true.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

God said in eating of it they would die.

This, however... is not really accurate, at least I don't think it's accurate in the context you're espousing. Nothing is wrong with the act of eating and nothing was wrong with the fruit. God didn't say "in eating of it they would die". Nothing negative is ever said about the fruit itself, nor is the fruit of the TOTKOGAE ever called sin, disobedience, death, or whatever. The description given by God, as pointed out by others, was "was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise" (Gen 3:6). He said IN THE DAY they ate of it, they would die. That's a distinction, and for the purposes of this discussion a really important one, maybe. Here is the Hebrew itself, in interlinear form with the English translation. God said "בְּיוֹם֙", "in the day", i.e. there is clearly a temporal element to this. As for me I feel like this indicates that God knew it would happen already, so it was not only temporal but prophetic (He was telling them something that was already going to happen, after all, wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world for their sake?).

Trapped's "buffet" example is pretty good here. Another one I heard is in this video of one of David Pawson's sermons (I'm not necessarily saying I agree with 100% of what he says, but I do agree with his assessment, as in the book of James, that faith should be something we largely DO, not just believe). In that video he gives a great example that when a young, cocky man came up to him asking why he should believe in the Genesis story because it seemed silly - why would man have done something so stupid like eating from that ONE forbidden tree? - Pawson gave him an example of being put in a giant library with thousands or hundreds of thousands of books you could spend your whole life reading on every subject you could possibly find interesting and be happy with, and being told "there's only ONE book you can't read, that one on that shelf up there, that one is off limits". The young man thought about it briefly and then decided the Genesis story made perfect sense and he believed it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.

I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

[Trapped]

Just to add one more thing to this trees discussion: remember that Jesus came to take the punishment for the sin of the world.

Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.

And it makes all the sense in the world for The Book that speaks of this gospel would start out with a story that feeds right into why Jesus had to come for us.

The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient.

We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.

..The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient. We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.

Because of his obedience, his righteousness in death was imputed as our propitiation. We believe this: we believe in his experience of obedience, not in our experience of eating.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

The original post asked a straightforward question:

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's [sic] Economy?

In reviving this question on post #308, I tried to explain what the Local Church means with God's economy, why I find it unsatisfying, and I proposed an alternate reading. Then Awoken came in with Lee's Two Trees theory, which is part of it, and you've addressed the "eating" part.

Yet StG you never acknowledge my repeated remarks on what Jesus termed his "eating", and the accompanying NT texts stressing Jesus' obedience, and it seems you're trying to do an end-around back to Lee's pray-reading and "enjoyment" leading to some kind of metabolic transformation. Am I right?

But nowhere does Paul write, "I hope that when I return to Ephesus (or Laodicea or Thessalonika) I'll find you pray-reading scriptures". Instead he says, "Lay aside some money for the poor of Jerusalem", and he repeatedly points to other churches doing the same thing, or he says that other churches are noting the letter's recipients as an example of diligence in this matter. This, says Paul, is love, this is the giving as in Jesus' "Do unto others", this is our faith in action. This is fellowship with one another, this is what it means with remembrance of the hungry and weak and sick.

So I asked, if Paul is repeatedly teaching this in all the other churches, what's he asking Timothy to focus on as he remains in Ephesus? Something like "masticating God to become God [in life and nature]? Where is the connection of that, to any teaching or act of Paul?

Conversely, if his idea of metabolic transformation follows his idea of eating and organic assimilation, why did WL repeatedly place his ne'er-do-well sons where they could prey on the flock? Where's evidence of his own transformation? Instead, we see an untransformed man still in his fallen human culture - family (sinful or not) comes first. And closer to home, why did Bill Freeman's "Christ" allow Patsy Freeman to bulldoze the lives of the various church couples in their captive assemblies? How can we think that some kind of "enjoyment" trumps all that? Just because the Bible has food in it?

And then, saying that there are different equally valid aspects is another way of brushing it all off.

But the unrighteousness that we all repeatedly saw should not be brushed off. And many of us here have said that the failure of theology led to pretending that we didn't care for righteousness, only "enjoyment'' and "eating" and "exercising our spirit" and so forth. This is mere noisemaking, and suppression of thought, and eventually suppression of conscience, when evil is ignored. "Just be simple, drop your concepts, eat that tree." To me, you're perilously close to that world, if not still fully ensconced within it.

[Sons to Glory!]

One more comment on this, then I think I'm done as I have little heart to engage in endless whatever. Justification is toward sin - it cleanses the vessel and makes it right/fit for filling. Then, after being saved by His death, there is the much more of being saved by His life. So there are both these aspects.

Peace.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One more comment on this, then I think I'm done as I have little heart to engage in endless whatever. Justification is toward sin - it cleanses the vessel and makes it right/fit for filling. Then, after being saved by His death, there is the much more of being saved by His life. So there are both these aspects.

Peace.

The "much more" and "his life" and "filling" are perhaps dependent on obedience to our Master. If by faith one does what the Lord (gk: 'Kurios') wants, the Holy Spirit will come alongside. Just as Jesus obeyed the Father and lived by the Father's life, so we are to obey Jesus, and live. This is our "eating", our "being filled" unto all the fulness of God.

James 1:1 says, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." What does a servant do? They obey their Master. Pretty straightforward concept of relations seen in consistent patterns of action. The Master commands, the servant obeys.

Regarding food - it's interesting that Jesus said to Peter, "Feed my sheep" and in the first few chapters of Acts we see Peter giving actual food to actual hungry people. Not selling tracts and booklets on how "mystical" it all was. Peter was obeying Jesus: feeding Jesus' sheep meant giving food to people. That's God's economy, which is in faith. "Freely give to those who can't pay you today, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous."

[Trapped]

Sons to Glory,

I think it would be really great if you responded accordingly as you said you intended to a few posts ago, and didn't peace out without facing the discussion. I honestly think this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who has had any instruction by Witness Lee about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly here is the most important thing.

Your response about "much more being saved by His life" really doesn't have much to do with the discussion of the TOTKOGAE, as far as I can tell. Kind of a non sequitur.

Did you cancel your planned fellowship with another person about it? Or did you have fellowship, and if so, how did it go?

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who's had instruction by WL about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly is important

I apologise for taking any gratuitous swipes at passersby, as the goal was to discuss and rightly divide the word. We have this phrase used by Paul twice, and translated variously. In the LSM it was called "God's economy" and it occupied a central spot in their thinking and practices. I've gone over this at length, using Paul's letters, and Acts, to show a focus of his activities among the churches of the gentiles (his term per Rom 16:4), and how that lined with Jesus' teachings, as well as James, John and Peter.

WL's "Two Trees" motif was central to his "God's economy" platform, which led us to the "Don't think, just eat that tree!" mantra. And I've noted a stress on a vague amorphous thing called "life" in the LC. It's one of their central 'mystical' terms, meaning it can be whatever MOTA & Minions want. As in, "I don't have life" to do something, including to pay attention to the Bible, which when ignored they call "dead letters". I kid you not, this is how their "life" rules the LC.

And I wrote before that in John's gospel, "Life" is altogether tied with and dependent on "Light". My point was that the LC leadership hates the light, and I asked, then what's this "Life" they pursue? I repeat my points:

~In reading John 1, we see how many intertwined references there are to "light" and "life". They're inseparable, in John's eyes. This relational theme, once introduced, then continues throughout John's works. With light is obedience, with obedience is life.

~The light of the gospel once came to me: God loved me, and sent his Only Begotten Son Jesus to be my Saviour. This information, derived from the text of Scripture, changed my life. The light of God's sending and redeeming love flooded my heart. The light changes us, changes our conception of the world we live in. When you say, "Jesus is Lord" you're giving someone information that can change them forever. That's what John was doing: "God loved us so much, that He sent His Son..."

~The only reason we independently know any LC history is because of a tiny, tiny opening - when WL said, "We should find out what happened" to those who left. Let's reconcile, he said, forgive one another... Paul's "ministry of reconciliation" etc... Steve Isitt decided to obey the directive from the pulpit, and find out what happened. When he did, and presented his findings, per WL's directive, how did LC leaders, locally and regionally, react to the light? They were horrified! Even now, DCP won't mention Timothy's role in Daystar. They won't mention Philip, and expose what a sham WL's "Fermentation" book is. My point is that they hate the light. So I ask, how can they have the life? It's probably not coincidence that vampire expert Walter Martin keyed in on WL. I heard that Count Dracula also hated the light.

When we talk about "Life" in context of WL's oeuvre, we should mention all this. The word of Scripture demands it. Just like with Bill Freeman's Subjective Christ and his wife Patsy's machinations. You can't tout one, and pretend the other doesn't exist. I wasn't trolling StG at all, but strongly felt that the point needs to be made. Again, I apologise if it seems unpleasant or antagonistic. This forum is called LC "Discussions" for a reason, because they're needed: discussions bring more light, and we need the light.

"I’ve studied the cults now since 1950. I’ve learned many thing about them. One of the things I’ve learned about them and it’s been very, very profitable, is that the cults exceed most accurately and powerfully when they imitate the church most closely. The closer they look like us, the worse the deception. The closer they can get to our vocabulary, carry our bible, mention the name of Jesus and talk the lingo of Christianity, the more dangerous they become.

You don’t need anybody to put a red flag out when somebody gets up and teaches Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam because you know you’re dealing with non-Christian religions. But if somebody gets up and says “I agree with Christianity, I believe in Jesus Christ”, and then you say “oh that’s wonderful!” And you take that person on faith, going no further when the person really doesn’t believe what the gospel says at all, they’re just using the language. At that point you're in great danger of deception. Deception comes when you think you're believing what’s right when in reality, you're being misled and deceived.”

https://churchwatchcentral.com/2016/...-wolves-cults/

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory,

I think it would be really great if you responded accordingly as you said you intended to a few posts ago, and didn't peace out without facing the discussion. I honestly think this story in Genesis is a critical one to get right, especially for anyone who has had any instruction by Witness Lee about it. I know there have been a few potshots in your direction, but understanding the word divided rightly here is the most important thing.

Your response about "much more being saved by His life" really doesn't have much to do with the discussion of the TOTKOGAE, as far as I can tell. Kind of a non sequitur.

Did you cancel your planned fellowship with another person about it? Or did you have fellowship, and if so, how did it go?

Trapped

I did have some initial fellowship with a brother, whose immersion in the word I greatly respect. I told him what we were looking at on here and then came back to him this weekend about it. At that time he said, "Honestly, I don't have much appetite for this sort of thing." When I heard that it caught me off guard a bit, but I must admit that I came to believe this was a word from the Lord and my appetite for it is mostly gone now too. Sorry, but it's just not in me to pursue further. I think part of this has to do with a rich word that a brother shared this Sunday here, about the amazing riches of the fullness of Christ in Colossians chapter one. I guess after having a taste of that, that is what my appetite is toward right now.

However, I think I owe you one last comment, so I will share what came to me this morning. I realized that I probably short-changed the "much more . . . saved in His life" aspect I mentioned in my last post. What came to me, and I hope this helps, is that there is a comparison of the two Adams. There are two main aspects of the final Adam (Christ) - His justification work and His life-giving. To fully return us to God's purpose both are needed - the cleaning and then filling of the vessel. And this is to correct what happened with the first Adam. He disobeyed, and through that act something got into his vessel. So there's a two part problem with the first; and a two part solution with the last. Hope that helps.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Economy refers to the administration in God's house to minister the riches of Christ to God's children. To this end the apostles were given a stewardship, which is the office of this administration to minister, shepherd, teach, preach the gospel, etc. for the household of God.

Also stewardship means to give [dispense] things: food to hungry people, shelter to the dispossessed, healing to the sick, care to the lonely, clothing to those shivering with cold. Stewardship means to share. The NT is full of this theme, from the gospels onward. In NT times there were no social services. Widows starved, sick people had no hospitals. Orphans ended up in some bad place. There were no "human rights". What Jesus taught, that the strong should help the weak and not prey on them, to share with those who couldn't repay you, was revolutionary. Still is.

Paul's letters continually mention the collection for the poor of Jerusalem, and in 2 Cor 8 he goes into lengths about it. "Those who gathered much had no excess, those who gathered little had no lack." In Acts, people sold their possessions and laid them at the feet of the apostles who distributed [dispensed] them (4:35); they held possessions in common (2:44). This was God's economy, which is in faith.

I remember being told by WL or RK or someone, that if I just went to the back of the meeting and dozed off, I'd wake up with "more God" than when I arrived. That, to them, was the "dispensing" in God's economy. The "much more saved by his life" wasn't obedience or righteousness but in the LC was rather called "dispositional sanctification" which meant if you just hung out with WL you got "more God".

And if you bought his books, said, "Amen" every time he spoke, sat up front and pumped your fist - "exercise your spirit, brother!" - well wowee zowee you got the express elevator to the top. More God, more God, more God! Amen! A selfish, me-first view, in which you didn't have to love anyone, didn't have to give to the poor and dispossessed, didn't have to visit the sick. Just hang out on the "local ground" and get the "dispensing" and then get ''sonized''.

Which one makes more sense - An economy/stewardship in which your orientation is to serve others, or a self-focused one that "makes you God in life and nature but not the Godhead"? Remember Jesus' teaching: "Do unto others" and "love your neighbour"? If you focus on self, is that really the way of Jesus?

In Acts 12:25 Barnabas and Paul finished the "diakonon" in Jerusalem and returned to Antioch, taking with them John Mark. Diakonon means "service" or "dispensing". What were Barnabas and Paul doing there? Pray-reading? No, they were dispensing the goods from Antioch to the hungry people of Jerusalem. (See Acts 11:27-30)

"Eating Jesus is the Way"? Or, "Jesus is the Way"? I don't think they're two aspects of the same thing, rather they're diametrically opposed. The first is self-oriented, the second is other-oriented. Barnabas and Paul were aligned with the NT orientation: love your neighbour - the other person - as yourself. Love is doing unto others, not pray-reading or listening to a message. Love is dispensing unto others - not just flattery. ~James 2:16; 1:22.

[aron]

If the apostles in Jerusalem - James, Peter, John - told Paul, "only remember the poor" and he said, "this very thing I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10), don't you think we'd consider this as a candidate for God's economy? Especially when Paul repeatedly goes into this in his various epistles, occasionally at length, and Luke also makes prominent place for it in his apostolic narrative? And even more so if this also dove-tails with the gospel message, "do this unto the least of these my brethren and you also do it to me"? Are the "least of these" of Jesus' flock perhaps the same "poor of Jerusalem" of the apostolic agreement?

No, that's not God's economy, we were told in the LC... how are you so sure?

Remember how Witness Lee's doctrines were developed, following Watchman Nee's pattern. Mr. Lee like Nee his mentor was supposedly the "Seer of the divine revelation" whose visions from God had a distinct pattern of abetting his own interests. Watchman Nee's "vision" could switch from local autonomous assemblies (to help shed Western control) to centralization - the "Jerusalem Principle" - for coming under Nee's control. Concurrently, Nee's "Handing Over" thrust was likewise beneficial for the Church [of Nee], for the Work [of Nee], for the Ministry [of Nee].

Later, Lee's version of "God's New Testament Economy" ensured that we'd be buying books, yelling slogans over and over, telling each other not to think or question, flying to Anaheim twice-yearly for trainings, sending our children to his FTT, scouring the campus for College Freshmen, writing our testimonials online about his "rich ministry".

Yet what if Chicago believers sent funds to help the poor of Detroit, and Detroit's believers helped the poor of Flint, and Duluth helped the poor of Bismark? What would happen to the flow of funds to Anaheim, to support the Ministry and the Work of Building up the Body? What would happen to the residuals flowing to the Lee family? Who'd fill the reflecting pool at Lee's mausoleum?

So there was an interest in NOT seeing the economy of God as outlined in the consistent pattern in gospels, Acts and epistles. Instead it became a selfish orientation. Do what Lee says, and you'll be God in life and nature but not in the Godhead. You'll be "filled unto the fullness of God" by sitting in a chair, pumping your fist and saying 'amen' along to sing-song cadence. You will be "enjoying the riches". The message is, you, you, you. You are the center of the universe. "Oh I'm a man, I'm the center of the universe!" we all sang.

Then, once you're seduced and co-opted into pursuing selfish ends, then you can be manipulated. Then the Bible can be ignored, as "dead letters". Certain half-verses of Paul can be obsessed over for clues, whilst whole chapters of Paul are ignored. Likewise teachings of Jesus are waved off, or given 'mystical' interpretations. James' epistle is "low" and "not God's economy". Jesus' talk of his "food" being to do the Father's will, ignored.

At some point the disconnect should become alarmingly obvious. The teaching that leads to the "God's economy" as sold by Living Stream Ministry benefits LSM and its ilk, but it's at variance with Scripture, and look at its fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we're no longer naïive. We don't have to keep going down that path.

[Awoken]

Here's an awesome video - the speakers touch on the points being discussed here in a very relevant way. If you don't have an hour to invest start at about the 23:00 mark and listen as the discussion progresses for the next few minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt8AJrF2GCg

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Yet what if Chicago believers sent funds to help the poor of Detroit, and Detroit's believers helped the poor of Flint...

If the reader wonders why I mention Detroit helping Flint Michigan, my reference was Acts 11 and 12, where a famine occurred, and the church in Antioch sent aid via Barnabas and Paul to help Jerusalem. Whether it was food, money, goods or some combination we don't know, but it was collected, sent, and distributed - I believe the RecV translated diakonon as "this dispensing" in 12:25. Probably not coincidentally, Paul later continues and expands this theme in his writings, to the Romans (15:25-32), the Corinthians (I Cor 16:1-4), the Macedonians (2 Cor 8:1-4), and Luke then concludes with Paul saying that he's returning with "alms for my nation."

Now, we no longer have Paul coming by the local churches, to collect for the poor of Jerusalem. But Detroit can care for Flint just as Antioch and Macedonia once did for Jerusalem. When the angel told Cornelius, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial offering before God", I ask if there's anything in Peter's subsequent message, or Luke's story, that overturns this. Where did Peter or anyone preach or suggest that alms to the poor, once lauded, were now superseded? No, Paul's word in Acts 24:17 rather confirms the Lukan message.

Peter told Cornelius that Jesus displayed a pattern of "good works" toward those in distress (10:38), and Cornelius' same pattern in v. 31 now pointed this reverent, seeking gentile to Jesus the [Jewish] Messiah and Saviour of the World.

And my larger point is that when Paul wrote Timothy ask him to make the Ephesians heed teachings that resulted in God's economy, which is in faith, how do we know that this isn't what he meant? If you give to the least of these my brothers, you give to me - that was the original command of the Master, and now Paul was extending this beyond Jerusalem to the wider world. Remember that the gospel flowed out from the center: "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth" - Paul was going abroad now, to Macedonia and Corinth, then hopefully to Rome, Gaul and even Spain, and was returning with "alms for my nation." And his word to the gentile churches was, "You owe the Jews" for the gospel. (Rom 15:27)

How so? Paul's bringing funds back to the poor of Jerusalem was a way to tie the Macedonians, the Achaeans, the Romans, the Corinthians, the Spaniards, with the law-keeping Jews of Judea. Now the "two" are "one" - see Ephesians 2:15,16. The Jews send out the gospel of peace through Paul, and the gentiles send back acknowledgement through Paul. There is one body. Jesus is it's cornerstone, its head, yet Paul's reciprocal travels effect to knit together this one body.

And going back to Detroit and Flint: in the early manual of instruction for the gentiles called "Didache", the word on alms was, "Let your alms sweat in the palms of your hands, before you know who to give them to." Paul was now gone, probably Peter, James and John as well, and Jerusalem had been razed by the Romans in AD 70. Now instead of saving up for Paul's visit a la 1 Cor 16:2, the recipients of Didache had to figure out who was truly needy, and worthy of the Lord's rescue. Detroit may not send to Flint but to Mississauga Ontario, who knows? They have to hold this gift before the Lord, and inquire.

I say, look at the larger and consistent pattern of behaviours in Acts and Paul's epistles, tie them back to the commands Jesus gave to the Twelve, and ask yourself what Paul meant by "God's economy." What is more consistent with the overall pattern of the NT: "masticate the processed God and become God" or "do [good] unto others, even as you'd have them do to you" and "give to those who can't repay you"? I'm inclined to say, the latter is more consistently supported by NT Scripture and aligned with Jesus' central message.

[UntoHim]

I heard a pastor/teacher somewhere say something like "if anyone ever preaches/teaches something you've never heard, or has never been taught by any other teacher, there's a good chance it's not biblical."

At the risk of sounding crass or flippant (UntoHim flippant?....say it ain't so -) I would suggest that the whole notion of Witness Lee's "God's Economy" is simply T.M.I. at best, and actually takes disparate passages of Scripture and attempts to make one, universal theme of the Bible that simply does not exist. No reputable, renown and widely accepted Christian teacher has ever taught such a thing, much less emphasized it in the way that Lee and his followers do.

As with all things Christian, the crux of the matter is the Gospel. The true, irreducible, essential and unadulterated Gospel is altogether God-centered. The center and core is God himself, and his glory, his majesty, his power, his love, his grace, his mercy, his wisdom, his nature, his character, his omnipotence, his omnipresence. Of course all these wonderful things come together in the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The gospel of Witness Lee and the Local Church is altogether man-centered. The core teachings are focused on man. This is how Lee's followers could come up with these unbiblical and absurd lyrics:
O I'm a man —
I'm the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I'm a man —
I'm the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I'm the center and the meaning of the universe.

No, my dear Local Church brothers and sisters, you are not the center and the meaning of the universe. Since the beginning God's enemy has attempted to get man to think he is indeed the center and the meaning of the universe. Satan's first declaration to Eve: "God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4) "You will be like God" - You will be the center and meaning of the universe! "God made me such, I am so much". Actually we were made from the dust of the ground. And because of our disobedience at the Fall: "for you are dust, and to dust you shall return". God in his wisdom and mercy would not let man remain forever in this this fallen state. God would not allow man to consider himself the center and the meaning of the universe.

And this is where the Gospel actually starts. God's first act of redemption was to rescue man from spending eternity considering himself the meaning and the center of the universe. Since God called out Abraham, when God's people have ever considered themselves anything more than lowly creatures made from the dust of the ground, disaster has ensued. God ended up sending prophet after prophet to remind the Children of Israel. Sometimes he even sent the heathens - the unbelievers - to remind them. I am quite certain that the Scribes and Pharisees considered themselves and the religion they invented as the center and the meaning of the universe.

And here we are thousands of years later, and what has been the bane of the existence of God's latter day people here in the age of grace? How could people like Joel Osteen be considered a Christian leader? How can the leading Christian apologist of our generation be found to be a user and abuser of women? How is it that a Local Church elder can use and abuse his wife and children for years without facing discipline or consequences of any kind? How can the "co-worker" who was supposed to be overseeing and protecting the local church members from this evil, unrepentant man, instead turn against the flock and assist the wolf in attacking them further? Shame on them. And shame to many of us for being neglectful and cowardly for not reproving and reminding everyone that we are just dust of the ground.

Yes, God does have an economy - an oikonomia - but I'm afraid that those of us entrusted with the management of this household have messed it up big time. This house is a filthy pigsty. Instead of keeping it neat and clean, we have let it go to hell. We have ignored, abused and abandoned the innocent children of this household, and instead invited in and honored all sorts of people who don't belong. Brothers and sisters, let's not wait for God to have to do the work that we should be doing ourselves. Yes in the end he will clean house: "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev:22:15) But God's house should be a house of prayer. It should be a "safehouse" where the innocent, the wounded and fatherless have a safe haven, and are protected from the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters. Everyone who loves and practices falsehood should be evicted. When this is done maybe the house can be put in order. Maybe God will have his economy then.
-

[aron]

I wanted to try a kind of recap, starting with the first post and it's question:

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

My answer is: the Local Church says God's Economy is that God got processed and is now within man as the Holy Spirit, and now man is getting processed to become God.

God went thru a process: incarnation, inclusion, intensification; and now man is processed: redemption, justification, regeneration, transformation, transfiguration.

But my question has been, how do we know that's what Paul meant when he used the words translated as, "God's economy"? It turns out there's no justification whatever for this explanation. There's absolutely nothing that in the surrounding text that indicates that Paul meant anything like what WL spent page after page of printed books to promote.

Originally Posted by OBW

The Lord's economy, or "God's Economy" is taken heavily from the opening verses in 1 Timothy. Specifically 3 & 4. If you read the opening chapter of his book on the subject, Lee mentions no other verse and argues a peculiar meaning that is essentially not taken by any other. And he uses some tricks of argumentation to stop the listener/reader from questioning his certainty of position. For example, he says something like "a thorough investigation of the entire Bible will reveal that . . . ." Of course, no one is going to actually do such an investigation. And he has hinted that he has done it. And declared that it will reveal his answer. So you either go along or you have to start into just such an investigation.

In the realm of logical discussion, his method is designed to provide no actual information but suggest that the requirements to contradict are so difficult as to be impossible, thus shutting off debate. The astute arguer will simply reject such an assertion and ask for actual evidence that it is so.

I use the quote above to say that I've considered alternatives and found that Paul may mean something quite different. I've outlined my conclusions at length in preceding posts and won't summarize. But I bring it up because one of the possible arguments of the Lee School is, "What else could 'God's economy' possibly mean besides what Brother Lee said it was?" Like OBW says, it's presented as self-evident and the only option when it's neither. It's neither very defensible nor is it the only possible meaning to defend.

In order to keep a focus on "God's economy" as held by WL & Co, one must ignore other possibilities as if they didn't exist, even when the plain text of Scripture repeatedly suggests them. If the RecV Acts 12:25, it says that Barnabas and Paul were "dispensing".... um, hellooooo??? Dispensing? What were they dispensing - Rainbow Booklets? (that's an inside joke: back in the day, our local meeting halls had boxes of pastel-colored tracts sent from Anaheim, piled in their attics and closets and basements).

Then, it's focused on self. That should be a huge red flag right there.

Then, it leads to other quasi- or non-Biblical motifs like "exercise your spirit" when the Bible never says to. Instead it says, "exercise unto Godliness" which probably means, visit widows and orphans and keep yourself unspotted from the world, a la James' advice.

Then, this "exercise" ensures that you don't think. Instead, you bark like a dog: "arf-arf-arf Rivers!"; and "amen-amen-amen Rivers"; and "praisethelordpraisetheLord RIIIVVERRRS!!!!" (Ayyyeeeemeeeennnnn!!!). All this yelling and sing-song makes one thoughtless which is held to be "in spirit". But now I think it's a clever conjurer's trick: the teaching leads to the yelling, which yelling practice distracts one from realizing that the teaching has no basis.

Lastly, if "God's economy" involves subjective, selfish enjoyment, why doesn't that "eating" and "enjoyment" lead to personal transformation? Why then are leaders so untransformed, so crafty and manipulative and bullying? Why are members so miserable and depressed? Why are teens leaving in droves? Why are we "covering drunken Noah"? I though Noah was supposed to be getting transfigured - why is he getting drunk? Even the Christian basics get upended.

Just look at the fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we've plenty of evidence to see where this unbiblical practice has taken people.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No, my dear Local Church brothers and sisters, you are not the center and the meaning of the universe. Since the beginning God's enemy has attempted to get man to think he is indeed the center and the meaning of the universe. Satan's first declaration to Eve: "God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4) "You will be like God" - You will be the center and meaning of the universe! "God made me such, I am so much". Actually we were made from the dust of the ground. And because of our disobedience at the Fall: "for you are dust, and to dust you shall return". God in his wisdom and mercy would not let man remain forever in this this fallen state. God would not allow man to consider himself the center and the meaning of the universe. -

A little side note if I may: I agree that WL goes too far in many of his prognostications regarding man. I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture? The Bible describes man in the lowest terms, but also in very high terms, such as sons of God. (i.e., unregenerate vs. regenerated)

It says in Psalms 8:3-6 (NASB):
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You have him rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put everything under his feet"

(BTW - I just discovered this morning that the word that many times was translated as "angels" in this passage is actually "Elohim." Makes better sense to translate this as "a little lower than God" rather than "a little lower than angels" - which appears to be a rendering we received from the Vulgate.)

So yes, man is formed of the dust . . . but also we were created with the breath of God in our nostrils. (Gen 2:7)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

A little side note if I may: I agree that WL goes too far in many of his prognostications regarding man. I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture? The Bible describes man in the lowest terms, but also in very high terms, such as sons of God. (i.e., unregenerate vs. regenerated)

It says in Psalms 8:3-6 (NASB):
"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You have him rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put everything under his feet"

The "him" in Psalm 8 is Jesus Christ. "These things were written concerning me" - Luke 24:27;44. He is the Sinless One. We are the believers into his status as Obedient Lamb of God. But if we put the focus on ourselves or our faith, we're near to error if not already in it. He's errorless, we are error-prone. Why gaze on ourselves?

The author of a song that says, "Oh, I'm a man- I'm the center of the universe" has taken their eyes off Christ. In fact, any Christian song using the word "I" is probably mis-aiming at least in part. Remember, "No more 'I' but Christ" - how then is "I" re-introduced, and as the center of the universe!? Please!

Again, I see a seduction: we're lured to gaze on ourselves, as the conjurer projects an image onto us, and we see ourselves as the conjurer wants us to. Instead of Christ we see the conjurer's "I" - "Oh! I'm a man!" Then, the wheels of manipulation begin to turn, and at some point we find ourselves in the Full Time Training getting our socks and underwear drawer inspected, or our wife wants to move yet again, for another "migration", or... the incessant "needs" and "musts" and "have tos" follow unending. All because we took our gaze off Jesus. And now, like Peter floundering down into the water, we can only cry for help. "Lord! Save us!"

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

The "him" in Psalm 8 is Jesus Christ. "These things were written concerning me" - Luke 24:27;44. He is the Sinless One. We are the believers into his status as Obedient Lamb of God. But if we put the focus on ourselves or our faith, we're near to error if not already in it. He's errorless, we are error-prone. Why gaze on ourselves?

I don't think so . . . at least not exactly. What Christ says in Luke 24 cannot be construed as about Him to the exclusion of mankind. If you read this Psalm it talks about God making the heavens then considers man. Christ came as a man, showing that man was not some lowly afterthought, but something grand in God's design. Christ came to bring man back to our rightful position . . . sons of the Most High --> not God, but sons of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What Christ says in Luke 24 cannot be construed as about Him to the exclusion of mankind.

I completely and strenuously disagree. There is one Christ. No one else has his status. Nobody should elevate themselves. In due time, yes he'll elevate his servants at the Bema. But any who elevate (or 'centers' as in, 'I'm the center') themselves will err. Only Christ is sinless obedient Lamb of God. He has status unshared. We are excluded. We believe, and vicariously do share in some sense, but only as we believe in him. To focus on ourselves, our faith, our status, our position, is to fall away from him.

It's like the Gorgon. If you look at the Gorgon you die. Only by looking at the Shield (Christ) you live. The only 'reality' is through the Shield. Everything else, including and especially us, is tainted. Because of sin we are the Gorgon. Because of his sinless obedience is the Way.

You just have to look at Jesus. Look at nothing else.

(when I say 'you' of course that is self-talk. Anyone is free to do whatever they please)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

I completely and strenuously disagree. There is one Christ. No one else has his status. Nobody should elevate themselves. In due time, yes he'll elevate his servants at the Bema. But any who elevate (or 'centers' as in, 'I'm the center') themselves will err. Only Christ is sinless obedient Lamb of God. He has status unshared. We are excluded. We believe, and vicariously do share in some sense, but only as we believe in him. To focus on ourselves, our faith, our status, our position, is to fall away from him.

It's like the Gorgon. If you look at the Gorgon you die. Only by looking at the Shield (Christ) you live. The only 'reality' is through the Shield. Everything else, including and especially us, is tainted. Because of sin we are the Gorgon. Because of his sinless obedience is the Way.

You just have to look at Jesus. Look at nothing else.

(when I say 'you' of course that is self-talk. Anyone is free to do whatever they please)

I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?

And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.

[Awoken]

Well, relating to all of this perhaps, I read John 12 today. Listened to it while I was on the treadmill via my convenient British-accented Bible reading bot, then used a parallel Bibles app to compare between 5 versions. Here is what I was "touched by" (to coin an LC cliché) -

Berean Study Bible: "And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say."

Darby Bible: "and I know that His commandment is life eternal. What therefore I speak, as the Father has said to me, so I speak."

NASB: "I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

Amplified: "I know that His commandment is eternal life. So the things I speak, I speak [in accordance with His exact instruction,] just as the Father has told Me."

Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (Lamsa): "And I know that his commandment is life everlasting; these things therefore which I speak, just as my Father told me, so I speak."

I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?

God is the self-existent One. Our existence is only to the extent that we recognise this, not only in abstract theory but in practice. As soon as we say, "I am" then we are not. When we efface ourselves then the doorway is opened for him to create us in his image. But only then. As soon as we think and act selfishly we are removed from Christ. Peter looked around to see the sights and his sight became onrushing water and death.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.

Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. She saw the gilt, she didn't see the guilt. (that's a pun) So "who we are" is the Gorgon. Christ is the Shield. Focus on the Shield.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I don't think that observation is balanced with other scripture, bro! So what do you do when Hebrews (2nd chapter) says, "He is not ashamed to call them brethren?" And when Christ says He is one with us? Just figures of speech?

God is the self-existent One. Our existence is only to the extent that we recognise this, not only in abstract theory but in practice. As soon as we say, "I am" then we are not. When we efface ourselves then the doorway is opened for him to create us in his image. But only then. As soon as we think and act selfishly we are removed from Christ. Peter looked around to see the sights and his sight became onrushing water and death.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And to keep saying this is just a distraction from Christ isn't true - it's who He has made us! We shouldn't be unaware of who we are, as scripture endeavors to tells us over & over in much detail who we are.

Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. Because of sin, she only saw the gilt, and missed the guilt (a pun, yes)

So "who we are" is the Gorgon. Christ is the Shield. Focus on the Shield.

[Nell]

The Psalms were a collection of poems set to music. Many were written by David and most agree that David wrote Psalm 8. For a hymn that begins and ends with "O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!", a little context would be helpful.

Picture David, out stargazing, talking to his excellent Lord and telling him "3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;"...

David can't help but ask his Lord, "4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" David also might have had the thought "Who am I?" Do you think David had the thought "Oh I'm a man, I'm the meaning of the universe?" I think if he did, he would have written it down in this poem.

Or, why did you, the God of the universe, make me (v5) just a little lower than the angels, you crowned me with glory and honour. (v6) The man you made, Adam, you made to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: (vv 7-8) All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. Wow! Lord! how excellent is your name in all the earth!

So the real question is not "what is man" but "who is this one with the excellent name in all the earth!" What is man...in his lowly, fallen state...who, in his own lineage, brought forth the Savior of mankind.

So, when you say, "I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture?" I think man is fallen, sinful, narcissistic, and thinks of himself more highly than he ought.

When we stand before Him, in that day, we will declare "worthy the Lamb", not worthy the Lee.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

This is kind of a circular thing, is it not? Man was created with God's highest intentions, and Adam blew it. Christ came to take care of the problems Adam brought on us and through Him we are restored. I agree we are to look to the lifted up One and focus on Him, and thereby be healed. And what is His focus? His body, house & bride - us. Love God & each other with the love we've received.

My paraphrased/amplified take of Revelation 12:11 - "They overcame the deceiver by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony (which is Jesus), and they loved not their soul-lives unto death, because they see Him of peerless worth."

So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by aron

Because of sin we are continually at peril. The beautiful woman of Revelation 17:4 and 18:7 said, "I sit a queen". Of course she was a beautiful woman, and she did sit a queen. But because of sin she was unaware of the abominations. She only saw the gilded cup and the robes. Because of sin, she only saw the gilt, and missed the guilt (a pun, yes)

Or how about the word of the Lord to the Laodicean church in Revelation 3 -

17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.

This really sums up, I believe, a lot of the problem in the "Lord's Recovery"... the gross self-reflection and belief that the richest doctrines, the highest speakings, the most sanctified believers all belong to us. Well, the Lord says it ain't so, bub. This is actually what started bothering me and caused me to realize I needed to leave the LCs. I couldn't get the picture of Moses in front of the burning bush out of my head, and God telling him - "take off your sandals, you're on holy ground" - oh, wow, I've stumbled on the presence of God, I need to take off my shoes and humble myself because I'm about to stand in His presence and need to make sure I'm not disrespecting Him.

And the image of the river flowing out of the temple in Ezekiel 47 - which keeps getting BIGGER AND BIGGER - and Ezekiel, being led out further and further by the Lord/Spirit, who when the river got so big he couldn't stand in it, asked him, "Son of man, have you seen THIS?" Not a piddly little puddle of doctrinal "superiority". No, a giant river, too big to take in, too big for a man or a denomination to claim, and everything that it touched it healed, but all the swamps (the places that were cut off, the places where there was no flow and connection to the source) - were given over to salt. Dead.

Edit: By the way, I have it on good authority that at the last conference he ever gave, Witness Lee repented publicly of his attitude towards Christianity and calling other churches "degraded" for so many years. Somehow, however, that never made it into the Living Stream canon.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10)

In a sense, perhaps true. This morning I read Psalm 27 - David saying "of who shall I be afraid?" - realizing I need more boldness in Christ. There are times I've come across situations where I should have acted with confidence in Christ and instead shrank back, which is something necessary to repent of, so I have been asking God - put a backbone in me, Lord, give me a spirit of boldness and confidence in You, not of pride, but not a spirit of fear. One time I was with my wife in a city, visiting, and some lady began cursing at me randomly in a parking lot - I didn't even look at her, she just started cursing at me, vitriolic and evil stuff that was clearly the result of a demon possession. I think in retrospect I should have cast out that demon in the name of Jesus and prayed for her right then and there. But I wanted to get my wife out of there, probably not a terrible idea, and then we did pray for her. But I can't help but thinking - perhaps I should have had more confidence in Christ. The Lord says that in the last days he will be doing miracles through His people.

Esther 4:14: For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?"

However, StG, I have a feeling we really can't aim too low in terms of humbling ourselves. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)

Actually you got it backwards my brother. Fallen man thinks of himself too low, and we believers perhaps think of ourselves too high.

I think part of the issue may be that you are not taking into account that we are still living in a fallen world. We are not in heaven...not yet. Yes, God will indeed "transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself" (Phil 3:21) He has not subjected all things to himself...not yet. So we are still living within a fallen, unsubjected world, full of fallen and unsubjected people. If she is nothing else, the church is a place where people can come together and have a small taste of what it is like when people are subjecting themselves to God and his Kingdom. And the church should be a safe haven and refuge for the lost, the fatherless, the innocent children, the rejected and abused. And above all else, the church should be a place where the leaders are shepherds as well as teachers. Where the leaders are pastors as well as elders, and where the regional leaders are servants as well as super apostles.

I know the church I have described here sounds like something so impossible. But it is not only possible, it is the church as described in the New Testament. It is the scriptural church. If God has an "economy", then this economy can only function within this household - within this scriptural church. And it can only function properly if the head of the household is a shepherd as well as teacher, and a pastor as well as and elder, and a servant as well as a master. To whom much is given, much is required.

I know this thread is about Witness Lee's teachings regarding "The Economy of God". These teachings are at the very center and core of what Lee taught for about 50 years. It is fitting and it is appropriate that we discuss these teachings. But due to recent events among Christian leaders in general, and even leaders within the Local Church of Witness Lee specifically, I feel the need to speak of things in a more practical way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If "God's economy" involves subjective, selfish enjoyment, why doesn't that "eating" and "enjoyment" lead to personal transformation? Why then are leaders crafty and manipulative and bullying? Why are members miserable and depressed? Why are teens leaving in droves? Why are we "covering drunken Noah"? I though Noah was supposed to be getting transfigured - why is he getting drunk? Even the Christian basics get upended.

Just look at the fruit. It's no longer 1964, and we've plenty of evidence to see where this unbiblical practice has taken people.

There are many such testimonies as below, from ones who grew up there, who were immersed in it for years and even decades. Where is the transformation, after all that "eating" via pray-reading?

"Attending numerous meetings including the practice of pray hating behind your back under the guise of fellowship and any deviant behavior or with regards to decorum or personal style will be gossiped about shamed and punished secretly behind your back while proclaiming the love for OLJ to your face. The sisters do this. They were the meanest women I have ever met in my life. My worldly girlfriends where kinder and nicer."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I did have some initial fellowship with a brother, whose immersion in the word I greatly respect. I told him what we were looking at on here and then came back to him this weekend about it. At that time he said, "Honestly, I don't have much appetite for this sort of thing." When I heard that it caught me off guard a bit, but I must admit that I came to believe this was a word from the Lord and my appetite for it is mostly gone now too. Sorry, but it's just not in me to pursue further. I think part of this has to do with a rich word that a brother shared this Sunday here, about the amazing riches of the fullness of Christ in Colossians chapter one. I guess after having a taste of that, that is what my appetite is toward right now.

However, I think I owe you one last comment, so I will share what came to me this morning. I realized that I probably short-changed the "much more . . . saved in His life" aspect I mentioned in my last post. What came to me, and I hope this helps, is that there is a comparison of the two Adams. There are two main aspects of the final Adam (Christ) - His justification work and His life-giving. To fully return us to God's purpose both are needed - the cleaning and then filling of the vessel. And this is to correct what happened with the first Adam. He disobeyed, and through that act something got into his vessel. So there's a two part problem with the first; and a two part solution with the last. Hope that helps.

Sons to Glory,

If the Word of God tells us to test all things, and discern the truth, and divide the word rightly, I can almost all but guarantee you that it's not the Lord who's telling you to not pursue the truth further.

You may have re-read those passages I asked you to read, but from everything you've said so far, there's no indication you have. You'll make unrelated statements, you'll try to distract by referencing "richer" portions, you'll make claims that are not supported by the Bible, and you'll go ask other people, but you won't read the words of Scripture. It's telling.

No one is disputing that "something got into [man's] vessel". The discussion was about where that something came from. This is not an unimportant thing. Particularly when the false teaching at question has been used to depress, oppress, and distress your fellow brothers and sisters for decades.

You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.

Trapped

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory,

If the Word of God tells us to test all things, and discern the truth, and divide the word rightly, I can almost all but guarantee you that it's not the Lord who's telling you to not pursue the truth further.

You may have re-read those passages I asked you to read, but from everything you've said so far, there's no indication you have. You'll make unrelated statements, you'll try to distract by referencing "richer" portions, you'll make claims that are not supported by the Bible, and you'll go ask other people, but you won't read the words of Scripture. It's telling.

No one is disputing that "something got into [man's] vessel". The discussion was about where that something came from. This is not an unimportant thing. Particularly when the false teaching at question has been used to depress, oppress, and distress your fellow brothers and sisters for decades.

You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.

Trapped

I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

You are skilled at avoiding truths you don't like. But unfortunately you are the one who is bearing the negative impact of that avoidance.

Stg says that we're categorizing him, and perhaps so, but the impression is of promoting vague "riches" and then declining to discuss. And perhaps we paint broad-brush but the similarities with the LC are there. Whenever one notes the unpleasant realities of what life on the ground, the answer is, "I just want to be positive" or "I don't have a heart" "I'm just here for God's economy" etc. (Think of RK's quote, when the Santa Ana newspaper reporter asked about Philip Lee)

This selective participation is instructive for showing avoidance patterns we remember well. And Stg's nicer about evading discussion than others have been. One one website, I was told that my heart was dark, that I'd had ambitions thwarted and was now throwing sour grapes. And when I showed LC teaching having contradictions on this forum, one poster replied that I was just confused, without actually addressing my points or the scriptures.

But did the writer quoted in #368 have ambition thwarted, or were they merely done with the manipulation and abuse? It seems the latter. And she didn't get poisoned by this forum because she left at 18 and is now 43. No, she made her remarks after two decades of close personal observation of LC "experience" and "enjoyment''. Trapped is likewise connecting disjointed teaching with what's happened as a result. And I repeat that one can't tout the "rich Christ" of Bill Freeman without including Patsy Freeman's machinations. One can't retreat to some supposedly safe and clean abstraction, far away (one hopes) from the miseries on the ground that followed as it got practiced, promoted, and even enforced via shaming.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Awoken

I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."

This is similar to what I was saying, that to Jesus, the Father's word is the Tree of Life, because Jesus obeys. "My food is to do the Father's will." John's gospel has repeated variations on this theme. Then I quoted Hebrews 5: Because of Jesus' obedience he got eternal life, and with our obedience to him we get also eternal life. Again, no suggestion of pray-reading, but rather obedience. The word becomes life not by repetitive shouting or "mastication" of letters but by obedience.

Heb 5:7-10 "In the days of His earthly life, Jesus offered up both [specific] petitions and [urgent] supplications [for that which He needed] with fervent crying and tears to the One who was [always] able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverent submission toward God [His sinlessness and His unfailing determination to do the Father’s will]. Although He was a Son [who had never been disobedient to the Father], He learned [active, special] obedience through what He suffered. And having been made perfect [uniquely equipped and prepared as Savior and retaining His integrity amid opposition], He became the source of eternal salvation [an eternal inheritance] to all those who obey Him, being designated by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek." (AMP) He was heard, not because of volume or repetition but because of obedience. And now it's our turn.

Obedience, perfection, eternal life. It could hardly be more clear. It starts with Jesus and flows to us. Now, in 2 Cor 8, Paul says that the sign of obedience is to share with others. Again, Paul says it started with Jesus: "He was rich but for our sakes he became poor." And then Luke has people selling what they have, and laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet (note well that Peter still has "no silver or gold" in Acts 3:6, but gave it all to the poor). If you go back and re-read 2 Cor 8 in this light, along with Paul's many epistolic exhortations for the poor of Jerusalem, you see what "God's economy" probably meant: "Give, and it shall be given to you; pressed down, shaken, and running over." ~Luke 6:38

(And I cannot overstress on this forum, that this proposed giving is NOT funding Hank Hanegraaf's his-and-hers Lexus', or Timothy Lee's Motor Home business. These shysters are soooo obvious when you know what to look for. For example, Ravi Zacharias said that profits from the Touch of Eden massage parlour in Alpharetta were for the furtherance of the gospel, just like WL & DCP said about his son's Daystar.)

[Awoken]

aron, somewhat related, reading John 13 today with Wesley's Explanatory Notes; what I found amazing about Mr. Wesley's notes are his thoughts on verse 13:26. When John asked Him which of them was going to betray Him, he was "leaning back" or "leaning down" to speak to Jesus privately, and Jesus answered him privately that it would be the one to whom he gave the bread after he dipped it. This wasn't an open pronouncement against Judas but a secret told privately to John (if you compare this against the other gospels you see that Judas is never actually openly called out by the Lord, who rather just said "One of the twelve who dips his hand with me in the cup" - and only when Judas asked him directly (in Matthew 26) did he say, "You have said it").

Wesley's note:

"Jesus answered - In his ear. So careful was he not to offend (if it had been even possible) even Judas himself. The sop - Which he took up while he was speaking. He giveth it to Judas - And probably the other disciples thought Judas peculiarly happy! But when even this instance of our Lord's tenderness could not move him, then Satan took full possession."

Before this you have the scene of Jesus washing Peter's feet and then teaching the disciples to wash each others' feet - to exhibit humble, servile love to each other. I think even when He was extending the bread to Judas He may have been trying to show him servant-like love, even knowing Judas was going to betray Him. I always used to think Jesus handing the bread to Judas was a kind of pronouncement of guilt, now I think it was a last-ditch extension of mercy and hope that he would repent even when Christ knew it wasn't going to happen. It explains why the disciples were so confused about why Jesus said "What you do, do quickly" - they had no clue this exchange had taken place, so they thought He was telling Judas to go run out and get groceries or something. Can you imagine the heart of God?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Awoken

Wesley's note:

"Jesus answered - In his ear. So careful was he not to offend (if it had been even possible) even Judas himself. The sop - Which he took up while he was speaking. He giveth it to Judas - And probably the other disciples thought Judas peculiarly happy! But when even this instance of our Lord's tenderness could not move him, then Satan took full possession."

I key in on one word in particular: "careful". So careful was Jesus not to offend. If you read the gospels, Jesus offended many! But the Father had decreed something and Jesus was careful with Judas, not to manipulate the Father's will, but that "Thy will be done, on earth as in heaven". Reference two nearby verses:

John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; (NIV)

John 13:18 I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: ‘He who shared my bread has turned against me" (NIV)

Jesus knew the Father's will, what the Father was doing, and was therefore "so careful" to obey. And v. 18 quotes Psalm 41:9, that the sharing of bread will be linked to the betrayal. The Scripture was written and now must be fulfilled, so in faith Jesus is "so careful" to share the bread and not stumble Judas, knowing all things. In this care we can see Jesus' faith and obedience. He didn't force the issue, as Awoken wrote, as the Divine Will had decreed, the Scripture was written, and cannot be broken. Jesus never failed to fulfill and obey.

I refer to the earlier quote from John 12

Originally Posted by Awoken

I especially like the Amplified Bible on this one. Very clear explanation from the Son of God - "I know that God's command itself IS eternal life, therefore I make sure I speak/do EXACTLY what He says."

Because Jesus did exactly as the Father's will decreed in Scripture, he was raised from the dead to glory (Psa 16:10 [Acts 2:27]; Psa 18:16-24). We do the Father's will by believing into him whom the Father has sent (John 6:29). And "him that is sent" is by definition singular and categorically unique. Psalm 8 "what is man" refers distinctly to One Man, the Last Adam, who was lowered into the earth, and now in resurrection is "crowned with glory and honour". Even Paul conceded, "I have not yet laid hold", but Jesus has, as the singular and categorically unique Christ. We throw our crowns in the dust before him.

Psalm 40:7 says, "I come do to Thy Will, O God, behold in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me." This "me" can only be Jesus. Only Jesus Christ did the will of the Father, the rest failed. In the scroll of the book was written detailed instructions to the Obedient Son, who fulfilled the prophecy. We're the formerly disobedient goats who now believe into the Obedient Lamb and live. But we don't believe in ourselves, our collective expressions on Sunday morning, our faith, our position, our doctrine, our ground, our church order, our ministry or work, our status, or our Bible translations. We focus on Him who gives life.

Yes, "Christ loves the Church" but the Church should not love the Church lest in a flash she become the Great Harlot. Just as Peter instantly fell by looking away from the Master, so can the Church. She should only look to Him. Pretty simple, really.

Back to 2 Cor 8 and "God's economy" as Paul taught in every church, and asked Timothy to make sure got taught in Ephesus. Paul told the Corinthians that Jesus emptied himself, and now the gentile ekklesia should empty their pockets for the poor of Jerusalem. This emptying was a sign of obedience to the gospel. Just as Jesus performed signs that he was obedient to the Father as Messiah, up to and including the pouring out of his very life, so should his believing disciples now demonstrate signs of their faith, in charity.

In the beginning of Acts, the giving and sharing to the poor weren't an anomaly to ignore in our search for a "normal Church life" but rather a pattern of discipleship signs that extend to Paul declaring that he'd returned to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" in chapter 24. In the gospels Jesus had taught, "Give, and it will be given to you", and "Love your neighbour", and "visit the sick and feed the hungry and you do this to me". Now the far-off gentile disciples had opportunity to do so. Paul was bringing that very gospel message to the world.

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, "Christ loves the Church" but the Church should not love the Church lest in a flash she become the Great Harlot. Just as Peter instantly fell by looking away from the Master, so can the Church. She should only look to Him. Pretty simple, really.

Always a good reminder. Thanks!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So yes, fallen man thinks of himself too high. But perhaps regenerated ones think of themselves too low . . . (e.g., 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 2:10) Regardless, He gets the glory! (which He shares with us)

Originally Posted by Nell

So the real question is not "what is man" but "who is this one with the excellent name in all the earth!" What is man...in his lowly, fallen state...who, in his own lineage, brought forth the Savior of mankind.

So, when you say, "I am curious - what do you think man is then . . . what is the accurate view from scripture?" I think man is fallen, sinful, narcissistic, and thinks of himself more highly than he ought.

It might be worth considering Jesus' answer to the question. When someone called him, "Good Master" he replied, "Why do you call me good. No one is good but the Father." If Jesus didn't allow himself to be called good, why would any of his disciples?

Of course we are called to glory, but the path to glory is by humbling oneself. Because of sin, those who lift themselves will be abased, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. The pattern is clear, and it is explicit.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)

Welcome to the club.

What about us? You do understand that anyone who leaves the LC has been judged, categorized and "found wanting"? Right? (e.g., "negative", "opposers")

We didn't acquire an appetite either...for being cursed with the end of our walk with Jesus for leaving the "non-recovery".

What is your definition of "real fellowship"? Anything "real" has to be TRUE. We hold all posters to this standard.

We are here to discuss the Local Churches, which includes its so many, vast teachings of hypocrisy. This is what we focus on, because this is the LocalChurchDiscussions.com forum. There is sometimes a little heat in this kitchen.

Nell

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Nell

Welcome to the club.

What about us? You do understand that anyone who leaves the LC has been judged, categorized and "found wanting"? Right? (e.g., "negative", "opposers")

We didn't acquire an appetite either...for being cursed with the end of our walk with Jesus for leaving the "non-recovery".

What is your definition of "real fellowship"? Anything "real" has to be TRUE. We hold all posters to this standard.

We are here to discuss the Local Churches, which includes its so many, vast teachings of hypocrisy. This is what we focus on, because this is the LocalChurchDiscussions.com forum. There is sometimes a little heat in this kitchen.

Nell

It would take me several lifetimes to investigate and understand all that was/is wrong with the Local Churches. I don't have that much time. Do you?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I believe I've been judged, categorized and found wanting. Sorry, lots I could say, but - as said somewhere on here earlier - I have no appetite to continue this type of discussion . . . there are just so many, vast riches of Christ we could focus on and have real fellowship about. Blessings to you. (I do ask that you please try not to categorize me further bro)

StG,

Describing plainly obvious and repeated behavior and facets of behavior is neither judgment nor categorization, bro.

Your response, in which you try to pass blame for simply identifying what you are doing, try to deflect from what's going on, and try to imply that the truth in one part of the Bible is inferior to or is less rich than other parts of the Bible, or that this fellowship is not "real", is a form of gaslighting. You use the phrase "this type of discussion" (contrasted with "riches of Christ" and "real fellowship") in a clearly denigrating and dismissive way. The reality is that the discussion is the type that is highly interested in what the Bible says.

Untangling an abusive doctrine and setting it right so it can set people free from decades of entrapment isn’t “real” fellowship? You’re deceived, bro. Something inside of you doesn’t seem to like hearing that sins are so serious in God's eyes that they deserve the death penalty, and that we are responsible for our actions……rather than simply being able to skip around blaming a piece of fruit for our problems.

You continually tout the riches of Christ, but your behavior has repeatedly been very subtly manipulative......the furthest thing from Christ.

The reason I'm spending continued time on this is for the benefit of current and future readers and lurkers who have probably encountered this kind of thing in the LC. It's a critical part of the mental exit process to be able to see through forms of manipulation, deflection, and blame, particularly when it is done using Christian-sounding phrases.

The reason I keep responding to you is because you keep using "Christ" and flowery spiritual language to avoid the truth. You take a name that should be held in high regard and misuse it for disingenuous purposes. You use the name of the One who is truth in order to avoid truth. It doesn't affect me in the slightest whether you live your life thinking something came from the fruit or not; it's the repeated deceit behind your responses that I won't ignore. You could have responded any number of honest ways without using “Christ” that way, but you kept doing it, over and over again. That behavior......misusing "Christ" to avoid truth.....is what is at the core of the spiritual abuse in the local church. I will never stop calling that kind of behavior out as long as you do it.

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

It would take me several lifetimes to investigate and understand all that was/is wrong with the Local Churches. I don't have that much time. Do you?

zeek,

You're going to need to explain your non-sequitur post. I'm lost as to what you mean.

Trapped

[Trapped]

aron,

Just wanted to say I agree very much with all your postings the last few weeks on God's economy. Obedience to His commands, love God, love your neighbor, give honor to those who are uncomely, care for the needy, eagerness to take care of the poor, widows, hungry, etc.......I absolutely agree that is God's economy as shown in Scripture.

I'm the first to admit I'm so short in those areas.

A few verses after the LC-famous verse on God's economy, Paul says "the end of the charge is love". Some translations say "the goal of the command is love."

In other words, he charged Timothy not to teach the unhealthy things which produce questionings, but to teach the healthy things which produce God's economy. And that charge.....the charge to teach healthy things which produce God's economy.....the end of that charge, Paul says, is love.

The whole point of that charge is love.

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

A few verses after the LC-famous verse on God's economy, Paul says "the end of the charge is love". Some translations say "the goal of the command is love."

In other words, he charged Timothy not to teach the unhealthy things which produce questionings, but to teach the healthy things which produce God's economy. And that charge.....the charge to teach healthy things which produce God's economy.....the end of that charge, Paul says, is love.

The whole point of that charge is love.

Right. And love is in doing, not lip service. Love is seen in a pouring-out of oneself. God loved us so much that He sent His only-begotten Son. Jesus loved us so much that while we were yet sinners, he died for us. Now, Paul goes into some length in 2 Cor 8 about how Christ was rich and emptied himself in love, and how the gentile churches can likewise empty themselves. To me this points back to what was stressed by the Jerusalem pillars in Galatians 2, a word that Paul so eagerly assented to: "Remember the poor".

Jesus had taught to lay up for oneself treasures in heaven. Paul was now bringing this message to the Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Macedonians, and Achaeans. The 'economy of man' is to store up on earth, to make safe nests. The 'economy of God' is to give to those who can't repay you, making yourself poor for the benefit of others. Then you'll have riches that moths don't eat, that rust can't corrode, that thieves don't break through and steal. This giving is done in faith, the end result of which is love expressed.

And I imagine that Zacchaeus after donating half his wealth to the poor may still have been fairly rich, who knows? The point is that he was generous, happily giving to ones who couldn't return the investment. The story of the rich man with Lazarus shows the opposite - someone who has abundance, but out of selfishness won't share it with someone who lacks. It's in this light that James' prevarication, "Howl, ye rich" (KJV) makes the most sense - it's not riches of themselves that's the issue, but the selfishness, hoarding, avarice, and injustice.

In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul was in crisis mode and made his point briefly (16:1-4;cf Rom 15:25-29), but his second letter allowed expansion, and in chapter 8 he did. There Paul said in effect that Christ was rich and for you he became poor; now you can follow suit unto others likewise. This is the economy that Paul was teaching in every church.

By contrast, where's the chapter that Paul wrote on masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature (but not in the Godhead)?

Originally Posted by Trapped

Obedience to His commands, love God, love your neighbor, give honor to those who are uncomely, care for the needy, eagerness to take care of the poor, widows, hungry, etc.......I absolutely agree that is God's economy as shown in Scripture.

I'm the first to admit I'm so short in those areas.

I'm also short. And now that we've seen something, we no longer have the excuse of ignorance. But as fighters we're no longer blindly flailing in air, as Paul put in 1 Cor 9. The forces we fight aren't flesh and blood but disobedient spirits, very adept at masquerade. But we're no longer their patsies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul was in crisis mode and made his point briefly, but his second letter allowed expansion, and in chapter 8 he did...

By contrast, where's the chapter that Paul wrote on masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God to become God in life and nature.

Correction: it's not one but two consecutive chapters in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 7, Paul remarked on the reception of the Corinthian church to his first epistle, via Titus, who'd delivered it, and had reported back to Paul. "What zeal, what repentance!" See, e.g., 2 Cor 7:7

Chapter 8 then starts off with a stated expectation, of the hoped-for effect of the repentance and zeal. Paul mentions the generosity of the Macedonians for "the Lord's people" (v4) and then adds, "see that you also excel in this grace of giving"(v7). Then follows the verses cited earlier, that "for you Christ became poor" (v9) on "one who gathered much had no excess" (v15), and "show these men (Titus et al) proof of your love" (v24). Then chapter 9 continues this theme of giving unabated, for 14 more verses.

So I ask again, where's any section of Paul's writing comparable to this, that lays out the "economy of God" as portrayed by Witness Lee? DCP has some explaining to do.

Add to that, what about Paul "hurrying to be in Jerusalem for the Pentecost" in Acts 20:16? He had the gifts from the gentile churches that he'd mentioned variously in his epistles, that he publicly said in Acts 24:17 were "alms for my nation". The symbolism of that's quite pregnant. "All the nations shall gather and pay tribute for the king" a la Psalm 72:10, 11, and Psalm 102:21, 22.

As I said, Paul took the gospel out of Jerusalem, and the pillars of the church said, "remember the poor", and Paul said that he was eager to do so (Gal 2:10), and now Paul had came back to the city, with the remembrance of the gentile churches for the poor of Jerusalem. This was the race that Paul ran, to proclaim the faith to the ends of the earth, then to tie them back to the source. Look at Ephesians 2 in this light. "You gentiles were once without hope, alienated from Israel, but now you have been brought near, and the two (gentile and Jew) are made one in Christ". This was Paul's mission.

The collection for the poor of Jerusalem was not incidental, to be ignored, as the first few chapters of Acts and Jesus' "give and it shall be given" and "store up treasure in heaven". No, it's all the same story. Faith makes us love, and love makes us generous. Caring is not lip service but action, sharing. And Paul was right in the middle of it, and preaching this "economy of God" to every church.

Anyway I propose this reading of "God's economy" as an alternative to Witness Lee's. I don't say it's the only possible reading, but to me it presents a compelling alternative to the WL version, which I find overly broad, speculative and make-shift. Paul never even read the Apocalypse, so how can the "seven-fold intensified Spirit" be part of this "God's economy"? You're left with the notion that nobody but WL truly understood God's economy - not even Paul. And this manufactured 'vision' goes back to the title WL gave WN in his hagiography: "Seer of the Divine Revelation". WL as WN's spiritual heir also had that gift and title, and could "see the divine revelation" even when Paul could not.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The collection for the poor of Jerusalem was not incidental, to be ignored, as the first few chapters of Acts and Jesus' "give and it shall be given" and "store up treasure in heaven". .. Paul was right in the middle of it, and preaching this "economy of God" to every church.

In post #311 I jokingly referenced the "lost writings of Paul" with 2 Cor 8 and 9 as examples. In the LC, when we'd read about the collection for the poor we'd say, "That's not God's economy", or about the Jerusalem pillars asking Paul to only remember the poor, and his eager assent [!] and then we'd say, "Sorry, not God's economy", or reading the first chapters of Acts, the selling of properties and giving to the apostles, who distributed proceeds to the widows, and we'd say, "Not the Normal Christian Church Life of Watchman Nee." No, in the LC we were on a mystical plane, above the actual doing good to others. In fact if someone made issue it was called "dead works". In FTTA we were told point-blank, "Don't waste your time".

Instead, we focused on a half-verse, 1 Cor 15:45(b), and on writings not penned by Paul, probably not even read by him (John 1:14, Rev 1:4). Somehow this WL construction was the revelation of the age, and yet Paul gave no evidence of teaching this as "God's economy". What an impressive confidence game - we'd fly cross-country or from foreign locales to sit in front of this supposed Seer.

I'm not in agreement with the teaching, but I'm definitely impressed that such a rank con job got pulled on so many otherwise intelligent folks. The genius of the plan was that the incessant shouting made one oblivious to the fact that the slogans we shouted had little Biblical basis. Those warm fuzzies derived from group shouting were probably not the Holy Spirit but something else, verified when we overlooked plain Bible verses, even chapters of Paul's writings, and turned a blind eye to repeated gross sin in the leadership. This doesn't seem like restored or recovered Christianity at all, but some perverse invention. I think of Walter Martin's quote (paraphrased): "The worst cults are those that most closely imitate genuine historical Christian faith expressions when they're actually nothing of the sort".

[aron]

Someone recently asked here, if WL's "Economy of God" made any inroads in Christianity. Did it get taught in any seminars? Did any influential Christian teachers or thinkers validate the work, and recommend it?

Originally Posted by aron

Paul never even read the Apocalypse, so how can the "seven-fold intensified Spirit" be part of this "God's economy"? You're left with the notion that nobody but WL truly understood God's economy - not even Paul... we focused on a half-verse, 1 Cor 15:45(b), and on writings not penned by Paul, probably not even read by him (John 1:14, Rev 1:4). Somehow this WL construction was the revelation of the age, and yet Paul gave no evidence of teaching this as "God's economy"..

Imagine if a graduate student wrote a paper showing that this was "God's economy" as promoted by Paul in the NT era: "Incarnation, inclusion, intensification"... The professor would probably ask, where do Paul's epistles cover these aspects? What basis makes one think that Paul was urging Timothy to stress this theological construct?

The student might respond, "We're shaped like a glove, and a glove is meant to contain a hand", and other folk syllogisms. Do you think the professor would give that an "A", and push it to get published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society? I doubt it. I don't even think it would make much of an impression as an undergraduate paper. The problems are obvious. Why would Paul be teaching something that only John wrote, and that much later? How does this make sense? How do your folk analogies, derived from other sources, transpose themselves back onto Paul's epistles?

Yet we never asked these questions in our meetings, since we were roaring at each other - "Ohhhhhh, I'm a man - I'm the center of the uuuuniverse!" and "when weeee exercise our spirit, our vision is so clear!" There was no place for objective critical response. It was a contest to see who could be more "on fire" and "positive" and so forth.

If millions of people around the world follow the conman named Joseph Smith, It is not a surprise if there is a following towards a man named Witness Lee. I mean a doctrine that degrades certain scripture because it does not meet it's ideals of belief is one thing, the mormons have their own book that they prioritize over the Bible (Book of Mormon). They call Joseph Smith's names and give him titles that are similar to witness Lee, such as oracle of God and many more exalting titles. There is also the eastern lightning group that has millions of members and look at their crazy beliefs. Honestly the world is full of strange groups.

1. Witness Lee maintains the perceived legitimacy of his doctrine because of fear and control. His doctrine has so many holes and false teachings but no one questions it because he is the "Oracle of God's and I quote by Big Daddy Kangas- " Greatest Apostle Since Paul". He is supposedly all these things but no one gives a crap about his false doctrine except for a small group of loonies that excommunicate and shun everyone who does not align with them. Greatest apostle since Paul, absolute bull-crap. Greatest Con-man since Joseph Smith- perhaps so? Hey fellas, supposedly gods move on earth is a cult that that relies on using an alias on college campuses to pilfer gullible and ignorant 18 year olds who know nothing of the Bible- Oh WOW!

2. As for witness Lee degradation of scripture that has no real solid ground to do so, is only done and gotten away with because of his authority and position. Actually his distaste for scripture reflects who he is as a person.

- Epistle of James, they simply don't like works and anything that involves spending resources and time outside the use of the LC. Also their emphasis on getting only college graduates with income potential (Building Material), really goes against James teaching of not discerning based wealth huh. I mean gotta get as much money as possible and keep it in the LC as much as possible so the higher ups can start business scams such as Daystar! Honestly their hate for James is reflective of their actions. In fact, witness Lee is to blame cause they all really just follow him- he is the greatest Con-man since Joseph Smith right? I mean ingnore all the teachings of gospel and Pauline Epistles in regards to works and just add a little concoction of "dead" to it and you get a bunch of little scared sycophants staying away from such things. Lee has a habit of saying doing this act of God is not correct and leads to death or most of Christianity has this interpretation of scripture wrong such has John 13:34. Does not explain how it's wrong but just says it is for the sake of pushing his agenda of having sychophants emain loyal to the ministry/church.

3. The LC people know of all the scriptures of works and of love for one another, they just don't care because of the great Con man telling them, those scriptures don't matter. In fact the LC don't even consider witness Lee "God's Economy" as doctrine. I think they are crazy enough to believe that they are Sola Scriptura. The elders and coworkers are always saying "IT IS NOT DOCTRINE". Well I'm sorry to say that, you validation and approval of scripture comes from an outside source of teachings/material known as "God's Economy", which is Con Man Lee doctrine. Don't worry there are many groups like you in the world such as the Mormons. You guys are like brothers and have a lot in like. Although I think Joseph Smith is definitely the better Con!

- Brother Aaron, there are many groups like this and the people who fall for it are gullible and ignorant college age kids with hardly any real world experience. Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee. They did not have the capability to cross reference with sound orthodox teachings because of their ignorance, so they literally think Lee doctrine is the Golden standard of Christianity and their interpretation of scripture, and practice of Christian Life is all rooted in the Con Man Witness Lee. Therefore you have an entire group of pompous, hypocritical, and individuals void of love for one another (no friends/affection) and their fellow neighbors (dead works doctrine).

[Awoken]

Hey Toronto Guest, thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by Toronto

Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee

That's probably a good reason to pity them. I believe the guy who baptized me is actually a genuine believer in Christ and I'm sad he's in the LCs. I hope and sometimes pray for him that one day the Spirit will break through and call him out. I always felt I wanted to develop a friendship with him and the teachings of W. Lee stopped that. In Lee's system, you don't need friends, and you shouldn't form "worldly" connections. Sometimes maybe believers have the "innocent as doves" bit down without having developed much of being "wise as serpents". That is part of the deception of Lee's system; it not only discourages but actively punishes discernment and truth-seeking.

In Revelation you see there are overcomers in all the churches. In the NKJV version of the Bible some of those churches are titled "The Loveless Church", "The Compromising Church", "The Corrupt Church", "The Dead Church", "The Lukewarm Church".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Toronto

...there are many groups like this and the people who fall for it are gullible and ignorant college age kids with hardly any real world experience. Most of the elders were also ignorant college age kids with no biblical background and all their biblical knowledge comes from Lee. They did not have the capability to cross reference with sound orthodox teachings because of their ignorance, so they literally think Lee doctrine is the Golden standard of Christianity...

There's a place that I've seen many go, that I call the Grey Zone. They're physically out of the LC, or at the margins anyway. Discouraged after years of waiting for the Shiny New Move of God to pan out, they know that something isn't right. Red flags are waving all around. So they're no longer "sold out" in LC parlance, and have withdrawn, at least partly.

But they're stuck. In my case, I'd left the LC Brother's House, was meeting with 'Christianity' again, but the LSM still partly owned my head. "That's not God's economy" a voice would say, after the Community Church minister was done speaking on Sunday morning. Not too surprising, in retrospect, as I'd been 24/7 immersed in "the church life" for years prior to physically leaving. I wasn't in, I wasn't out, I was in the Grey Zone. Unable to move on in any meaningful way. Not really able to hear God outside of the Subjective Christ in my inner voice, which was highly conditioned to say the least, and thus compromised. Sometimes that inner voice was useful as a guide, often not.

A question therefore, for any who doubt the LC on the ground today, yet still hold many (or all) of their teachings and doctrines in high regard: how can God's economy include intensification, if Paul wrote before John's Revelation was even composed? Where does Paul promote intensification of the Holy Spirit? If he doesn't, how then could he write Timothy to tell him to remain in Ephesus and teach it? If Timothy didn't teach intensification in Ephesus, why call it God's economy today?

It's rather an amalgam, something made up later, and then read back onto Scripture, and presumed to have been there all along. But there's no indication in Paul's writing that it was there. Yes, Paul said, "In the last days mockers will come" and thus shows expectation of degradation, but where does Paul show a seven-fold intensified Spirit as a result of said degradation?

I know some LC members will say, "I don't have a heart for such conversation, I'm just here to enjoy the Lord", but why give yourself to enjoy a teaching that you don't have a heart to discuss? It can only survive in a realm of thoughtless reflexivity. Is that where you want to live? Whether you're currently meeting in the LC, or hardly, or not at all, is that where you want to live, mentally? Christ has called us for freedom.

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.

I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

Well, I do believe they are two aspects of the same thing but also believe that you can't separate them.

We fallible humans take up one side or the other and use it to try to condemn people who look at it imperfectly from another angle. Best to just believe the Bible, period.

Jesus said we COULD be condemned even after professing belief in Him and doing a lot of works in His name - the gospels make this plain, when He said those who eat/drink with the drunken and beat their fellow slaves will be "cut into pieces and have their portion with the hypocrites". That doesn't sound much like salvation, to me; it is reminder to us that we need to be humble and not take the matter of our walk lightly. I think we have a human responsibility to be humble and to walk out our faith, and that we could even lose our salvation if we don't. "Faith without works is dead", says James. You can't save yourself but that doesn't mean you can't do things resulting in judgment/punishment after you have professed faith, and the Bible never says God CAN'T take your salvation away if He chooses (saying God CAN'T do anything is a recipe for disaster, I believe we don't get to say some salvation prayer once and then we have a magical "gotcha" card against God's judgment - the Bible tells us plainly to fear Him who can destroy our very soul). This is where I believe in Arminianism/syncretism.

On the other hand I also believe God is sovereign and can elect to FULLY save somebody, eternally, by His power alone, and that we can have faith that He knows all our weaknesses and our failings and is fully able to get us through them and even save us unto eternal salvation. How could He do that if we need to depend on Him eternally but we can fail and depend on so many other things? I don't know - I just believe the answer is God Himself. I believe He knew us before time itself was created and elected us and it wasn't up to us, in that sense. This is where I believe in Calvinism/fatalism.

Here's a simple way to look at it. You are drowning in the ocean with a 1,000 pound dead goat you really loved in the past chained to your leg and no way to get it off. A man in a huge boat comes along. You have NO way to save yourself and no way to get the dead goat off your leg. Only the man in the boat can save you. He tosses you the key and says "get rid of the dead goat and come on my boat, I want to save you but I don't allow dead goats on my ship". You now have a choice, take off the dead goat and climb on the boat, or not. If you don't take off the dead goat (repent), you will die in the ocean. If you DO get on the boat, the man will tell you - okay, you are totally safe here; just STAY on the boat until it reaches land and do what I say. I'm the captain. When we reach land you'll be totally safe and in my kingdom forever, but if you get off the boat and don't repent and ask me to come back and get you back on the boat, you will die and have your portion with those who didn't take off the dead goat.

So stay on the boat, listen to the Captain and do what he says (live out your faith, don't be a hypocrite), and realize you couldn't do a single thing to accomplish your salvation at ALL. That was totally up to the Captain. He did not take your free will away and you can still jump off the boat if you are still so stupidly/stubbornly inclined, so be afraid and ask Him for His help/wisdom so you don't do that.

(Here's a nice picture that I believe helps to fully explain the gospel truth given by Jesus.)

I believe we have both a true free will and a totally sovereign God. The Bible doesn't lie. Rather, men take up their doctrinal interpretations and love them more than the truth and that's where we run into trouble.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Question: do you believe in 'God's economy' as taught by Lee? Were you ever influenced by it? If so, have you dropped, modified it? Or just sort of ignored it, let it sit quietly on the shelf?

I ask this for three reasons: first, that when I left the LC physically I continued to promote WL-sourced interpretations/teachings like this; second, Tomes' essays on this forum don't include this subject, which makes me wonder; and third, it was one of WL's most referenced notions and becomes a kind of bellwether for his lingering influence.

I asked this on another thread, but was probably in danger of side-tracking the thread, so move it here. I wanted to bring this over because I forgot the most important reason to talk about 'oikonomea theou' - because Paul told Timothy remain in Ephesus and to teach things that resulted in this 'oikonomea theou'. So then what is meant by this, and what teachings result in this?

First off, there's nothing in the surrounding text that suggests that 'oikonomea theou' is the 'Processed Triune God in us as life and everything' or 'God becoming flesh becoming intensified Spirit' or 'God becoming man to make man God' or anything similar. In fact, it's hard to believe that Paul taught intensification, as it doesn't appear in his written works - so how could he charge Timothy to teach it?

What then is 'oikonomea theou', which is said to be 'in faith'? My guess is that the answer is found in the line of Paul's letter to the Galatians: "remember the poor", which Paul says that he's eager to do. This is the sending charge of the Jerusalem leaders to Paul the Gentile apostle. When Jesus had said, "Feed my sheep" to Peter, what do we see Peter doing afterward? In the early chapters of Acts Peter and the Twelve were feeding the widows in Jerusalem. There was no Salvation Army, no Homeless Shelter, no Medicaid, no Social Security. If you were a widow, you starved. So the disciples gave food to the poor, as Jesus had asked them to.

Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you and it will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous." Isn't this "in faith" as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:4? If you give, "in faith", believing in the resurrection and hoping in the reward of the righteous, isn't this following Jesus' command to trust and to give, and his promise of reward?

Then what do we see Paul writing continually, in his epistles? "Store up something and lay it aside, that when I come I may have something to bring to the poor of Jerusalem". Then Acts closes with Paul coming "bringing alms for my nation". Now, is that God's economy? I don't know for certain. But it's more in line with the actual text of the NT that Paul was associated with. I don't see Paul associated with sevenfold intensification at all. Textual support for that concept came considerably later.

Then what do we see James teaching? If you have food, share with those who don't have food. That kinda sounds like this 'oikonomea theou'.

[OBW]

A recent post quoted a post from a month earlier, so I will just provide the one sentence that I am commenting on:

I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction. If something is true yet its contradiction is true, then it is also false. And that is impossible. If it is true it is not also false. Therefore Lee's "two sides of truth" which he used to tie together all kinds of contradictions together as truth cannot actually represent the truth.

If it appears that there are two things that are contradictory yet true, then either:

1. one is actually not true and we have not yet figured that out, OR

2. we have not yet figured out how the two are not actually talking about the same thing.

I did not try to back-track to find the thing that is compared to the Calvinism/Arminian issue, but my study on that issue is that Calvinism is taught as a kind of over-arching lens that colors other things. Some of the passages that they use to claim that it so does not so easily read as they want unless you start with the assumption that it is true (classic begging the question or circular reasoning). Yet there are clearly some aspects to which a kind of predestination is applied. The Calvinists take their predestination, and application of grace so far as to make the very act of desiring God completely given. In fact, for someone to suggest that they had to believe to be saved is, to a Calvinist, wrong because you cannot believe unless it is also part of what is given to you. (And in my book a bit beyond what any of the scriptures actually say.)

But Arminianism is dismissive of the aspects of predestination that are clearly stated.

So what do we do? Decide which group we like and despise the other as heretical? Or accept that we do not understand how the application of one applies to one thing and the other applies to something else and we have just conflated them together as a single item?

I can accept that we do not understand it all. The doctrine of the Trinity is fairly well-conceived. Yet it does not tell it all. We like to give analogies, but like that "Lutheran Satire" video on YouTube, each analogy also runs afoul of the overall tenets of the doctrine. The rather verbose restatement of the doctrine in the Athenasian creed does a better job because it makes statements, then warns to not try to take any aspect of it too far. In effect, we think we have the outer boundaries, but do not have a cohesive map of the interior. That is acceptable.

Same for the Calvinism–Arminianism divide. Each describes an aspect that does apply to something, but not to the same thing. Yet they do bump up against each other in some way. It is as simple as conflating different aspects of the same word or concept? Like when we note that "salvation" clearly is used for the simple fact of belief and conversion, and also for something that requires working out with fear and trembling. Same word, different meaning. Semantics. Or equivocating when we try to make the two different aspects into a single thing.

And since Lee seemed to like to keep everyone off-balance and willing to accept anything, even if it seemed contradictory, having a "two sides of truth" teaching to get people to stop trying to analyze what was wrong came in real handy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction...

And since Lee seemed to like to keep everyone off-balance and willing to accept anything, even if it seemed contradictory, having a "two sides of truth" teaching to get people to stop trying to analyze what was wrong came in real handy.

A few years back we had a poster who was ready to answer everything, at length, and explain how it was all just a misunderstanding, that the LSM position was clear but we were confusing the issue. If you'd post 200 words, the reply was 400 words. If you cited an author, he'd cite two authors.

Then I asked, "How can one RecV footnote in Psalm 34 say that the psalmist was being 'natural' and 'fallen' by cursing his enemies, that we are supposed to love our enemies, and a footnote in Psalm 67 treats a similar passage of imprecation as a type of Christ defeating Satan?

"Maybe that's how it is", was the only reply. Suddenly dogmatism became equivocation. You show how Lee painted himself into a corner, which he's repeatedly done, and then they decide there are many paths to truth.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OBW

A recent post quoted a post from a month earlier, so I will just provide the one sentence that I am commenting on:As we have discussed in previous threads, the idea of two contradictory yet valid aspects of the same thing is a violation of the law of contradiction. If something is true yet its contradiction is true, then it is also false. And that is impossible. If it is true it is not also false. Therefore Lee's "two sides of truth" which he used to tie together all kinds of contradictions together as truth cannot actually represent the truth.

If it appears that there are two things that are contradictory yet true, then either:

1. one is actually not true and we have not yet figured that out, OR

2. we have not yet figured out how the two are not actually talking about the same thing.

I did not try to back-track to find the thing that is compared to the Calvinism/Arminian issue, but my study on that issue is that Calvinism is taught as a kind of over-arching lens that colors other things. Some of the passages that they use to claim that it so does not so easily read as they want unless you start with the assumption that it is true (classic begging the question or circular reasoning). Yet there are clearly some aspects to which a kind of predestination is applied. The Calvinists take their predestination, and application of grace so far as to make the very act of desiring God completely given. In fact, for someone to suggest that they had to believe to be saved is, to a Calvinist, wrong because you cannot believe unless it is also part of what is given to you. (And in my book a bit beyond what any of the scriptures actually say.)

IIRC, the comment on "both being true" was made regarding the two trees in the garden of Eden. One side was that "something got into man" from the TOTKOGAE fruit itself....and that the fact that God chose "eating" was significant; the other side was that nothing got into man from the fruit because the Bible describes the TOTKOGAE only positively, just forbidden, and that disobedience was the issue.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Trapped

IIRC, the comment on "both being true" was made regarding the two trees in the garden of Eden. One side was that "something got into man" from the TOTKOGAE fruit itself....and that the fact that God chose "eating" was significant; the other side was that nothing got into man from the fruit because the Bible describes the TOTKOGAE only positively, just forbidden, and that disobedience was the issue.

And my response is that the only thing we know from the scripture is that there was disobedience and consequence. Everything else, even if actually true, is not commented on and therefore supposition. That is the problem with so much of what Lee said and taught. There is some that is clearly false. But much of it is not stated either way, but insisted upon by Lee as being true and important as such. That is why it is so hard to simply defeat it. It is not clearly wrong, but neither is it clearly right. And it is stated in terms that seem so spiritual. And after you have taken your followers on an exciting trip down "amen!" lane, just saying it seems reasonable since the speaker (Lee) has just established his credibility with that sequence of true statements.

So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).

And the cause of the curse is given as disobedience, not becoming infected. And neither is the curse itself described as being linked to what was eaten. The disobedience began as a willful exercise of disobedience before the teeth met the fruit.

No evidence that it was something invading man through the ingestion of the fruit. Only supposition. Not known fact. Could be. And could not be. The record here doesn't say. And even the wording of Paul's discourse in Romans 7 doesn't make either clearly right. So we are left without a reason to insist on anything.

However, if you presume it to be true, you could read Romans 7 to support it. But that results in the error of begging the question (circular reasoning) — using the unestablished premise as true to cause the otherwise unclear evidence to support the unestablished premise. (And this is not the only place that Nee or Lee used this kind of logical error to support a teaching.)

The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.

And it really isn't like the Calvinist/Arminianism debate. Those at least are dealing with verses that somewhat support their positions. That means that there is a lack of understanding of the differences and context for the different verses. And possibly the lack of understanding of certain terms and their extent of application.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

So here we are. Genesis 3. God says don't eat, but they did anyway. Lee's premise is that since eating is the process of getting something into the body, then it must mean that the bite invaded our body with bad stuff. But the Bible never says that. And it never even hints that the tree is evil or bad, or that what is in the fruit is itself harmful. Only the warning that eating results in death (not in permanent invasion by Satan).

As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As we've discussed numerous times on here (and I think most know my position) - I still wonder why God used the instance of eating something to start this all out. He could have used many things rathering than fruit eating . . . Jus' sayin'

I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.

To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand the presumption. But it is just that . . . presumption. There is no overarching theme, no built-in lens that makes it so.

To arrive at that conclusion requires that you take what is written beyond what is written. That you layer on an extension to what is there does not make it relevant to the issue. And I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that insisting on either is not supportable, therefore not a basis for claiming a superior theology or ministry.

I won't go into everything I've already said about this, but from the verses I do think it is thoroughly supportable. ("It" being that there wasn't any bad element in the fruit).

The TOTKOGAE is described as 1) in the center of the garden, 2) being good for food, 3) pleasant to the sight, 4) makes you like God, and 5) forbidden to eat.

That's the information we are given. I don't know about you, but "good for food" simply cannot be said of something that is bad/death/poison, etc.

It also cannot be said that the TOTKOGAE was actually the "tree of death". To hold that view means that God was deceptive in referring to it as the TOTKOGAE, if it was actually a TOD. Not only that, but reading a few verses later shows where death came from - not from the TOTKOGAE, but it was punishment from God for their sin, by cutting them off from the tree of life.

I am a church kid who believed Lee's interpretation for decades. I went looking for support of his teaching - that there was some negative element in the TOTKOGAE - and found none.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands? (But you ignore this every time it's raised, will do so here as well)."Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus contextually being interpreted by Jesus as obedience to commands. Do you willfully ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it begins to look like.

The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The real problem is that you buy in and subsequently end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that his theology was built on. (Or you generously concede that there are various understandings, all equally true-ish, including yours.)

Originally Posted by OBW

I actually believe that if it was really so important to think in this way, the command would have been more specific. Or the confrontation afterward would have been more about something that got inside rather than how the outward would be.

What came afterward, cited repeatedly in NT epistle, is thematic continuation of the Genesis 3 episode. First there's some connection with God, meant to be maintained through strict obedience to God's command, yet disobedience follows and then there's separation, and consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish.

The first that comes to mind is Genesis 6:1-6, cited by Peter and Jude. The angels kept not their appointed place, but transgressed, and were given up. Nothing about eating, but rather about disobedience breaking the relationship with God. Then the famous wilderness episode, cited by both Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 and also the writer of Hebrews (chap 3). God saved them from bondage in Egypt, yet afterward this rescue was severed by disobedience, and they fell. (note that this was written as instruction to believers!) In the narrative structure, there's assumed a relationship, a command, some disobedience, and then a giving-up by God. Similar to Genesis 3, no?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

And didn't Jesus say that his eating was to do the will of the Father, and just as he obeyed the Father, we were to obey his commands?

"Thy words were found and I did eat them" is thus interpreted by Jesus as obedience. Do you ignore this interpretation, in favor of Lee's? That's what it looks like.

The problem with Lee's version isn't just that it's unprovable, though he presented it as though it were proved. The problem is that you end up ignoring, downplaying, or waving-away of other verses, just as 'crucial' as the ones that the theology was built on.

What came afterward, cited heavily in NT commentary, is a continuation of Genesis 3: some connection with God, to be continued through obedience to God's command, yet disobedience followed, and there was separation from God, and the consequences of separation: death, darkness, chains, gloomy pits, cries of anguish. And in none of it is "eating" linked to the disobedience.

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.

There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.

Do you know what eisegesis is versus exegesis? Here is an example from this website of eisegesis: https://deeperstudy.com/out-or-in-ex...-bible-study/:

"A notorious example of this kind of eisegesis is the following chain of passages: “Judas… went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). “What you are about to do, do quickly” (John 13:27). These three verses are unrelated to each other, but throwing them together in this haphazard way almost sounds credible."

Can you see the problem?

You're doing the same thing. Trying to take random verses that are not related and mashing them together to form a teaching unsupported by actual scripture. This is the foundation of leading people astray, of deceptive doctrines.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

That chapter contains references to Exodus and Isaiah. There is nothing in that chapter to connect it to Genesis. No reference. No throwback. No quote.

There is no reference to trees. Or fruit. Or gardens. Or Adam and Eve.

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

[aron]

One thing that the interpretation favored by Lee does, is it presumes that Paul was a seer of the high peak of the divine revelation, and James is left behind, stuck in the old ways, soon to be superseded. Yet the NT never shows this.

In this, it must be conceded, WL is not the originator but continues an antipathy held since the early Greek Fathers that the Jewish believers were stuck in some old way. Martin Luther, for instance, expressed dislike for James and wanted it and Hebrews to go away with Tobit and Maccabees. But he conceded and left them at the end, after (!!) Revelation. Even today, those two books are apocryphal tag-ons in the Lutheran Bible.

WL used terms like "mixed sentiments" and "low" and "fallen" and "natural" to separate that which could be safely ignored. It was pretty clear that he was all about Paul and Paul's abstract concepts, which could lead one to an abstract and malleable Christ, a processed Christ.

But if you look at Galatians 2:10 as God's economy (oikonomea theou), then you have one holistic bible, not a two-tiered Bible of the Recovery Version footnotes. There, Paul relates one specific command from the original disciples as they send Paul forth to the gentiles: "remember the poor", and Paul says that he eagerly assents. Does Paul consider this "low" or "fallen" if he receives the command with eagerness?

Jesus had taught, "Store up treasure in heaven" and "give, and it will be given to you" and "give to those who can't repay" and in this command in Galatians 2 we see both the Jerusalem home base and the outreach to the gentile world in lock step with Jesus' commands. There was a unified command.

Then, Paul's requests in Romans and 1 Corinthians to set aside for the poor of Jerusalem, Paul's 2 chapter explication in 2 Cor 8,9 about sharing with those who don't have as fellowship in love (Just as Christ who was rich became poor for you, so you become poor for others), the return to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" per Acts 24:17.

Then look at James: "Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food." This theme is constant in his epistle, to care for the widows and orphans, to respect those who are in filthy rags. If you realize this is 'oikonomea theou' in Paul's epistle, then James and Paul are both following the Master's commands. There is no two-tiered scripture. Galatians 2:10 shows, in Paul's own words, what they both were eager to do: follow the Master's commands.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

I said that you would ignore my reference, in search for another, and you did. Jesus' interpretive grid of John 4:34 puts 'eating' as 'doing' -"My food is to do the [expressed] will of the Father" - i.e. to obey God's commands. This puts "Thy words were found and I did eat them" in Jesus' context of doing. This puts "Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" in Jesus' operational understanding of doing the Father's will. "I always see my Father, because I always do his will". (John 5:19; cf John 8:29)

As Jesus ate the Father's words by obedience, and lived, so should the disciples eat Jesus' words by obedience, and live by him. See also John 15:10. Quite explicitly put - as Jesus lived by the Father's word, so we live by his. Again, continued, unbroken obedience is the theme. Yet all of this text must be ignored when one oversimplifies. When people would argue like this in front of Jesus, he'd say, "Have you no knowledge of scripture" or "Have you not read scripture". One must use all of the available text, not a few 'crucial' verses to support doctrine.

So yes, Jesus did say that; if you were on a desert island, and one sheet of the Bible washed up with John 6 on it, you might be forgiven that reading. But with the whole scripture available, to retreat to that one section, there to resolutely remain, I don't think reading is very strong. It should cross through and connect with the whole text, not jump haphazardly from one unrelated verse to another.

This is especially my critique as stated in post #403. In order to maintain his view, WL had to create a two-tiered scripture, one which supported his thesis, and one which didn't. I don't think such readings are healthy at all. You have your 'crucial' sections, often quite small, then the 'middling' sections, of some use, and then the surprisingly large 'fallen' and 'low' sections, to be forgotten and ignored.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. Are they both about eating? And what about the tree of life in Revelation 2 & 22, is it just to look at?

Fruit is for eating, which means it gets in you, right?

Revelation 22:2 mentions two issues of the TOL: fruit, and leaves. Fruit is assumed to function, but leaves are explicitly listed in function, as healing the nations (i.e. the gentiles, or non-Jews). If you truncate scripture it doesn't strengthen your case. You end up living in a world where only your special verses exist, and the constellations of readings that feed off of them. I was there once.

Of course we all must interpret, and understanding means contextual placement, and placement means subordinating and elevating. But a reading which simplifies to that extent? In which better readings (more scripturally-consistent) are ignored? In which a two-tiered Bible exists, with verses that support your understandings and others which are "low" and "fallen"?

(I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic reading is too close)

StG, if fruit in Revelation 22 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being explicitly spelled out. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 to fruit in context in Rev 22, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

I sympathise with your worldview, having been there once. I just ask you to consider another worldview, in which John 4:24 also exists, in which John 15:10 also exists, in which "leaves" and "nations" also exist besides "fruit". In which obedience means eating, and eating means life, and disobedience means death. That worldview is explicitly spelled out in the pages of the NT text.

If you read Revelation 22:2, the tree of life is not ''just to look at''. But what does the text actually say? All of it, please.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

I don't think StG aligns with all of that, but his overly simplistic "this means that" kind of reading is too close to it for my comfort.

StG, if you think the fruit in Revelation 22:2 is important, then the leaves and the healing of the nations are moreso, being more explicitly spelled out in msg #44. You can't just hop about, pulling words out of context. That doesn't make a coherent argument. The leaves and the healing of the nations should be 3 to 1 in context, but the WL context is 1 to 10. It's unbalanced. A worldview must be coherent, executable.

Sorry I didn't address your specific reference earlier, as you pointed out! I am hoping around today with various business Zoom meetings & communications, personal and other practical items, as well as responding on this forum - hopefully I'm doing at least half of these things effectively!

Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was that the last significant reference to eating in the Bible? (And didn't Jesus saying something about eating Me and living?)

And, consistent with Lee, if you find eating anywhere in the Bible, then everything must be about eating in the same way.

Yet so many of the references to eating are metaphorical or typological, not literal. And, just like we have seen about leaven, every instance of eating is not just like every other instance of eating. It makes for a great overlay that "so many others have missed."

Don't go beyond what is written. Don't presume that eating always has the same meaning. It does not necessarily imply anything about the process of spending time chewing, but possibly only about taking in whatever is in question.

And while the eating of the forbidden tree in Gen 3 surely included the chewing and swallowing, there is nothing in the account that indicates that anything more the the act of disobedience was relevant (in other words, the mere act of eating was the forbidden thing). The command did not say that "in the day you eat of it, you will be infected with a poison that will kill you," or "you will ingest Satan himself into you." It just says (in a few more words) "don't eat it or you will die." It didn't even state clearly what "death" meant. Most think that it is probably separation from God. But it could also be that the very fact of physical death is a result of it. But since we get to see it in hindsight, it didn't mean that we drop dead "in the day you eat of it." There was another meaning.

When God came to find them hiding, he didn't say "see, you now have Satan in you." He asked them a question, and they acknowledged that they had eaten. And God said "because you have" to both the serpent and to Adam. In short, because of this, things are going to be bad. If it was simply what went in with the fruit, then no declaration by God was needed.

The point is not that it could not be but that there is nothing we can see that makes it so. Therefore it is not worthy of making declarations about it. Not worthy of being taught.

And if it is not worthy of being taught, then to teach it is to invite . . . guess what . . . questions. Aud you find yourself teaching the things that Paul said to avoid. Like endless genealogies.

So a good Berean is looking for reasons to stand on it as true, not merely the lack of evidence that it is false, or a forced overlay from somewhere else to cause what it written to say something it does not otherwise say.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me just say, that this is another instance where I see both. That is, that it was BOTH the disobedient act of our predecessors in the Garden of Eden, and that they ate a forbidden fruit which got into them. Most on here seem to think it's one way, but again, I suspect it's both aspects. That's because I don't think God does things haphazardly for no reason, and I think this also applies to all the talk about eating in scripture.

But even if your point is true (containing some objective validity), then sitting here typing about the "which got into them" might well be an out-welling of "which got into them" and not any closer to "the leaves for the healing of the nations" - or the fruit! - of Revelation 22:2. And any talk of 'eating' which resolutely (so it seems to me) ignores Jesus' own talk of 'my food' in John 4:24 doesn't seem like having a validity of any real application. It's a talk, a book, a pamphlet.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Didn't Jesus say "He who eats Me" right after presenting Himself as the bread of life in John 6?

Well, there you have it. Jesus said "he who eats me shall live by me." That means that Gen 3 was about what was taken in, not just disobedience.

A = B, thefore B = C.

You are too captured to the whole system of error that is wrapped up in the kind of logic that I demonstrate in the simple illogic above.

I know I have said this many times, and I assume you have heard it from me. But if not, here it is again. Studies show that things that have been taught and accepted as true for some period of time will be held as true despite later evidence (overwhelming and incontrovertible) that it is actually false by more than 50 percent of people.

That means that we are prone to simply believe it because we have always believed it. Or have for a long time. "I'm a Baptist like my father and grandfather before me." (Not saying anything about Baptists. Just pointing to the lack of willingness to even consider that it could be wrong.)

And I say this now to you because you have not actually given me any evidence that what you believe is correct other than unrelated facts about eating. Nothing that actually speaks directly to Gen 3, either there or elsewhere.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know I have said this many times, and I assume you have heard it from me. But if not, here it is again. Studies show that things that have been taught and accepted as true for some period of time will be held as true despite later evidence (overwhelming and incontrovertible) that it is actually false by more than 50 percent of people.

Hey, now yer "stealing" my line! Yes, I do believe that to be true too. And as my wife is fond of quoting, "A mind convinced against its will, is simply of the same mind still." I am prone to it. You are prone to it. We all are! And as Thomas Sowell astutely points out in his seminal book, "A Conflict of Visions," what we accept as true or not is largely governed by the vision one has previously accepted. This is why the energies we expend trying to convince others of our perspective is frequently an uphill battle, to say the least!

With all that said, it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture. Plus, it's not one of those core, essential items of the faith that I feel a need to die on that hill for. What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

.. it just seems simple to me to accept both the disobedience thing and the eating thing as I see both in scripture... What am I really missing by believing my way or your way in this case?

In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.

I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?

I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

In this case, you're missing John 4:24 (among many others). Jesus offers us a window into his world, which you apparently refuse to look into. Why is that? It offers a reading of "Your words were found and I did eat them, and they were to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." It offers a reading of, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." It is a world of absolute and continual obedience: not ours but his.

I don't think Jesus lived in a world of partial truths. He lived in a world of absolutes. "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me." Jesus aligns himself with this absoluteness consistently. Yet your interpretive "fruit" in Genesis 3 rolls on past, oblivious to all this, it seems. Why is that?

I think the only explanation we Christians should seek is the one Jesus gives. Everything else finds its relative place within his absolutes. Where there's uncertainty on Jesus' view, or mixed readings, we're quiet, and careful. But is John 4:24 equivocation? Or is it ignored, in pursuit of our equivocation?

This seems like a false dilemma to me . . . does it mean if I accept John 4:24 that it negates something else?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This seems like a false dilemma to me . . . does it mean if I accept John 4:24 that it negates something else?

A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.

(Yet this misses the outer actions of Jesus. He told the Baptizer's followers to go back and tell John what they saw Jesus doing unto others.)

StG, do you remember the songs by which we learned the WL theorems? I do.

I’m walking down the road
That leads to glory.
I’m pressing toward the mark
By enjoying God!
I don’t know so much,
Just to love Him.
I’m walking down the road,
Glory, here I come.

"I don't know so much" - negation of knowledge = enforced ignorance. Only a few select "crucial" verses are enough. "Get out of your mind, brother!" Cult-speak 101

With the brothers and the sisters,
We enjoy Him day by day.
It’s so simple and easy,
Our worries flee away.
Now we’re growing together,
As one big family,
Abiding in the joy of the Lord

"It's so simple and easy" - an oversimplified world-view in which any difficult reconciliations of various creative tensions in the scripture, e.g., faith v/v works, are dismissed out of hand. Just eat the Tree of Life - yell more, yell louder.

We enjoy You, Lord Jesus,
In our experience.
We’re getting to know You—
It’s making us leap and dance.
Just eating and drinking,
It’s what we do the best,
Delighting in the love of the Lord.

"Just eating and drinking." - don't worry about doing, just get filled with the Triune God, and get conformed, transformed, and transfigured. This is God's economy, in verse, for the masses. (Yet look at behaviours of the leaders - where's evidence of transformation?) The word "just" is key - anything but "eating and drinking" is categorically rejected as TOKOGAE.

I could cite a dozen other songs I learned in my first few months, as I was programmed with the WL world-view. Today I don't think this world-view is either self-consistent or matches the span of NT scripture. So when you presented a seemingly-simple verse, where Jesus tells us to "eat him" in John 6, I showed what Jesus meant by his food in John 4, and later (John 14:15,21,23; 15:10) that his "eating" of obedience to God's word must be matched by our experience of obedience to him. This, per Jesus, is our eating of him. There is a clear and consistent line in John's gospel, and John 6 must stay in this line. If you go, "Genesis 3, John 6, Revelation 22" you create a truncated and oversimplified scriptural narrative.

(I may not be reacting to StG's ideas as much as they seem to be at least partly aligned with the WL world-view, which I do negate on its face.)

Jesus continually lived in the Father's presence. The fall and the curse didn't catch him. He always did the Father's will, saw the Father's face. The Father's word was not disobeyed, to bring judgment and condemnation, but was obeyed, to become approval and eternal life. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight; you must hear him."

So Jesus, via obedience, continually lived at the TOL and "ate" via following God's word. Now to his disciples, he's Word incarnate, the Logos of God. He is our very life. Again, we obey him as he obeyed the Father, and he is indeed our life supply. We live by him. But it's doing. Not yelling slogans.

Again, I may not overlap fully with StG world-view, and apologize if I've dragged it afield. I'm just reacting to what I've read, and how it apparently matches the WL world-view that I was once immersed in.

--

Suppose the Jerusalem brothers had said, "only remember the poor" and Paul had replied, "No, I'm not here for that - I just want to enjoy Christ!" Then you'd have a case. But he didn't say that and there's no case, but simply a very deep read-between-the-lines by the self-proclaimed Seer of the Divine Revelation, who happened to self-publish and sell his books to a captive, stupefied audience.

No, Paul was eager to remember the poor, and we repeatedly see him doing this in epistle and in Acts. I've gone over this in detail. And this is a continuation of Jesus' command to Peter - "Feed my sheep" - which Peter and the Twelve did with real, actual physical food, in the early chapters of Acts, and which Paul and Barnabas also did in Acts 12:25, and now Paul was traveling and doing with the gentile churches.

With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

A philosophical or theological world-view must be coherent, i.e. internally consistent, and must engage all the data/input/experiences [i.e. scripture] available. We were talking about "God's economy" as expounded by WL, and someone raised Lee's Two Trees idea, which you seem to consistently affirm. The Two Trees theorem holds that it's not about doing but about eating. Not outward action but inner life, life-union, and life-supply.

With this view of God's economy, we don't have a two-tiered NT, but rather a self-consistent reading that covers all the available scriptures, not just a few so-called crucial verses.

I do think it's both. But if you had to force rank, that is, if you only had one (inner life vs. works), which should you have? In my mind, works springs from Him, and He lives in me.

And to me, much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life.

Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.

And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And to me, much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life.

I find this to be very skewed based on the assertions of the leadership of groups that propose to rely on just letting His power do it all. Don't even try.

I have observed the speaking of the preachers at two different Bible Churches over a 33-year period, followed by listening to an Anglican Priest online during the last year. None of them argue that we just buck it up and live right. None of them push lists of dos and don'ts. None of them say we just have to do it. They all recognize the current living God within is our strength to do any of it. And they all assert that through it, we have been given the tools we need for it.

None of them deny the power of Christ in any way. They recognize our need for it.

I honestly believe that the inner-life teachers, in general, think that if you don't focus almost wholly on it, you deny it. That is to make as skewed a gospel as any who make it entirely about works.

And I am not sure that hardly any actually make it entirely about works. It is just a boogeyman to point to as evidence that "our" way is superior. Yet most of us have demeaned works of any kind. We argue to let the government do it, then send people to Congress to stop even that. Wow, what hypocrites we are!

The liturgicals may not speak like inner-life extremists, but they do not deny the inner-life. Oddly, both the inner-lifers and the standard evangelicals act as if the liturgicals are totally deficient spiritually because they are so "regimented." Yet their regiment is to read the word and pray. Almost more than any of us. I know it is more than I would on a good day.

Then they go out to do what God has commanded us to do. That is in all aspects of our lives. From our driving, talking, actions in the marketplace, charity, etc. All demonstrating love for our neighbor (which is everyone we come in contact with). Does everyone always do that perfectly? No. And neither do those who don't even intend to TRY because it might not be "in the Spirit." But I would argue that those who pray and set their minds on the Spirit have everything they need to be doing it all "by the power of Christ."

So the liturgicals may not be constantly engaged in trying to figure out a lot of spiritual stuff, but are still managing to "put on the new man" and all that goes with it, and are "setting their minds on the Spirit" and then are carrying out the commands of God. They are not waiting for God to do it all. They are not avoiding the implication that the commands are just that — commands.

The inner-life people seek knowledge and an inner sense and reject calls to obedience. Meanwhile, those at the other end of the spectrum are obeying in the manner in which they have been taught. And that seems to show that their leaders are actually following the Great Commission.

Do you understand my problem with the inner-life teachings? Especially when they are the predominant diet of an assembly? It is an extremely off-balance view of a small part of the truth in the Bible which effectively rejects other truths that don't fit its view. It is truth so divorced from the rest of truth that it begins to resemble a lie. And the lie is the idea that it is the whole thing rather than only a part.

[OBW]

aron,

I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?

But they are pretty pathetic. I might have had a problem with at least some of them if I had heard them. My experience was not from within "corporate living" since our whole family "came in" together. We were our own unit. At least while I still lived there.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you understand my problem with the inner-life teachings? Especially when they are the predominant diet of an assembly? It is an extremely off-balance view of a small part of the truth in the Bible which effectively rejects other truths that don't fit its view. It is truth so divorced from the rest of truth that it begins to resemble a lie. And the lie is the idea that it is the whole thing rather than only a part.

I think I do understand - when taken to the extreme. Herein lies the problem I think. And it's a lot like our hyper-polarized political system. We get to a place where things match-up to our conception pretty well, then we make our mental home there. This is human tendency, as we've discussed a bit. Then we look out and see things that people are doing differently and start considering why they are doing it differently than me. As Christians, we then bring in scripture to measure what and how they are doing, and how that differs from us. Some exaggerations may follow - "they are always like such-n-such." We may start seeing them as practicing something or believing something they actually aren't, because in our mental framework, that's how people of that particular ilk just operate. Then when we communicate with them, we tend to speak out of these things we assume, and tend to think they're all one way toward some over-our-threshold extreme. Then we start miscommunicating and talking past each other. Our divided political environment is like that, and the atmosphere on this forum is often like that I think. One has political ideology as it's generator; the other has our own particular biblical view as it's generator.

But we're just talking here, trying to come to some understanding of what it is each other believes and practices. I'm not disparaging you and you're not disparaging me. In fact, we love each other because that's what Christ told us to do . . . and He lives in us! (covers both bases, right?)

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have never heard any of those songs. Was I already too old when they came along? I graduated high school in 1973 just after joining up with the LC. And was gone in mid-87. Or was I just in the wrong city/region?

It was from the Grey Song Book, from Bellevue WA, a spiral-bound version of the 3-ring Supplement from the 1970s. This song is also on the LSM hymnal site, ascribed to a T.R.

https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/98

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And nothing wrong with that song per se, but when you overlay it with certain LC ideas like you point out (e.g., "get out of your mind"), then I can understand your issue with it.

On the contrary, there's something wrong with the song - it's an extract of WL's message, and is a vehicle for his "just eating" theme. Those words convey the core of his Mind Control Programme; the words "just" and "simply" are essential. There's no overlay, here.

NOT HAVING METHODS BUT SIMPLY EATING THE LORD JESUS

The Lord Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly.” The Lord Jesus came to be eaten by us. But what a shame it is that there are many who read the Bible, many who listen to sermons, and many who give sermons, but there is none who eats the Lord Jesus! May I ask you, How much of the Lord have you eaten today? The tree of life is not for studying but for eating. Where is the tree of life today? It is the Spirit of life in your spirit.

Forty years ago, the newly married young men always liked to come and ask me, “Brother Lee, please tell me how to be a husband.” At that time this was the kind of question I liked the most. I immediately gave them at least five commandments and told them, “Take these back with you and do them accordingly!” In doing that I also was helping people to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But today if you go to the United States and inquire of the young brothers and sisters, they will say, “If you have problems in your married life, don’t bother going to Brother Lee. He will not give you any method but will say to you, ‘Just eat the Lord Jesus, and that is good enough.’” Their word is true. Now I have no methods at all. This is not a joke. Simply eat the Lord Jesus. Dear brothers and sisters, no matter what question you bring to me, I can give you only one answer. There is only one way. There is no need for you to prepare to do anything. Simply say to the Lord, “Lord, You are in my spirit, and I am one spirit with You.” This is good enough; do not say anything more.

https://www.ministrysamples.org/exce...ORD-JESUS.HTML

These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE. In the FTTA, when we asked about "remembering the poor" as the Jerusalem brothers had asked Paul, we were told, "Don't waste your time." There was a categorical division, of what to "just" and "simply" do, and all else was negated.

And WL's "we don't have a method, we just eat" was itself a method, a focus on enjoyment, so-called. The conceit behind the "inner life" stress is that outward expressions, or doings, or works are vain. StG tells us that "works without Christ'' are unprofitable - but who's to judge which work is which? You're left to subjectivity. Is that infallible? Instead of relying on Jesus' command, we rely on our feelings, which are ripe for external manipulations.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

...much of the system of Christianity tends to practice the Christian life by "denying the power thereof." Therefore the Bible just becomes largely a set of outward principles, philosophies and ideas to follow, often without the joy of knowing Him and His resurrection life. Paul and other writers, as has been pointed out, include both. Some gravitate more toward one side or the other. I see the so-called "inner life" teachers, such as Sparks, as trying to point out that works without Christ working through us is not profitable.

Jesus told of the Good Samaritan helping someone and then said, "Go, and do likewise". Is that "largely a set of outward principles to follow, without the joy of knowing him"? If you obey Jesus' command, is that outward and joyless works? I say it's relationship through faith, obedience through faith.

The Bible tells of humankind being disobedient to God, and cut off from God as a result. Then the Last Adam came, and was obedient, and through this One, humanity's relationship to God is restored. His obedience is stressed continually in the NT. And our connection to God is through his obedience. Is that an alien concept?

"I will obey your word." Is that vain? Fallen humanity trying to be good? Or is it the Christ, in unbroken relation with his Father in heaven? A set of lifeless rules, or the Author of Life himself? Hebrews 5:8,9 make this explicit: it's the latter. He obeys, now we obey him. In Psalm 119, the "I" is none other than Jesus Christ. He obeys, and we by faith apprehend, and and believe, and confess, and live. And now as disciples we obey him. He is the King.

I will obey your teachings forever and ever. So I will live in freedom, because I want to follow your orders. I will discuss your rules with kings and will not be ashamed. I enjoy obeying your commands, which I love. I praise your commands, which I love, and I think about your demands. Remember your promise to me, your servant; it gives me hope. When I suffer, this comforts me: Your promise gives me life. Proud people always make fun of me, but I do not reject your teachings. I remember your laws from long ago, and they comfort me, LORD. I become angry with wicked people who do not keep your teachings. I sing about your demands wherever I live. LORD, I remember you at night, and I will obey your teachings. This is what I do: I follow your orders.

When Jesus came, he did the Father's will. This, he said, was his food. Then he told his disciples to obey him, even as he obeyed the Father. This was the bread that came down from heaven, to obey every word that proceeds from the Master. We have his teachings. They are not lifeless rules. As he obeyed the Father, and lived, so we obey him, and live. In John 14, v.20 "I am in you and you in me" is followed by v.21: "keep my commands". Outward obedience to commands equals inner ongoing relationship. They're not separate things, to choose to stress one or the other, as if they're somehow appositional.

Jesus told them, "Feed my sheep" and then in Acts we see Peter and Paul feeding the sheep. Obedience. Similarly, we see James' epistle repeatedly stressing to share food with those who are hungry, clothing with those who are naked. In this command/obedience framework, we can now fully appreciate the fellowship given in Galatians 2: "Remember the poor", to which Paul immediately gave eager assent. Later we see Paul writing to Romans and Corinthians, telling them to lay aside something for the poor of Jerusalem. There's here a continual unbroken narrative, should one choose to look, stretching back to the gospels, of obedience to God's specific and direct command, to love one another, not merely in word but in deed. According to Paul, the gentile churches are meant to obey, and share from their riches, just as Jesus had commanded his Galilean disciples. This obedience, and sharing (love expressed) is a sign of discipleship. Without the outward sign, there's no evidence of any inner life.

This is so completely different from ritualistic noisemaking. So completely antithetical to WL's teaching. The song lyric, "Just eating and drinking" was about ritualistic noisemaking, nothing more. The song is conceptually wrong in orientation, and is error, and a stumbling, a turning-away.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

These words ''just" and "simply" mean, do only this, or risk censure, being labeled vanity, or fallen, or natural, or eating from the wrong source, the TOKOGAE.

I wanted to add to this, but first will look at the NT as a contrast. The idea of revelation is paramount in NT text. Paul says he "knows a man" who was caught up to the third heaven, 14 years ago (2 Cor 12:2). John writes, "We beheld his glory", referring to the vision on the mountain, of the scene of transfiguration. It's interesting that in 1:14, John doesn't say that we beheld his resurrection, or his ascension, but his glory. Peter as John's companion on the mountain confirms this in some detail in 2 Peter 1:17-19.

Nowhere in this do I recall "eating" being a central motif, or even a peripheral one. Yet there was a kind of transfer: both Jesus in receiving glory as the only-begotten of the Father, and the disciples receiving revelation that changed then forever. Once they came down from the mountain, they couldn't go back, and could never see Jesus again as before. Something transcendent had happened, and irrevocable transfer from one state to another. There was a revelation, a change in their consciousness, their world-view. "We with unveiled face beheld his glory and were transfigured into the same image, from glory to glory" says Paul.

There's a reason John put his revelation of Jesus at the forefront in 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory". John is using this "beholding" to establish his position as narrator of the gospel that follows. He's not relating folk tales or hearsay, or conjuring abstract theology, but relating an established and corroborated eye-witness account.

Now look at WL's so-called revelation, his construct, his version of God's economy. "Just eating" and "simply eating" by definition exclude all other options. And the basis for these exclusionary criteria are what? That the supposed apostle and revelator Witness Lee said so. He prominently called Watchman Nee the Seer of the Divine Revelation, and he (WL) was clearly understood to be positioned as heir of WN's apostolic 'mantle' (as it was called in the LC).

So I see two very distinct revelations: one established by John, Paul, Peter, and James et al, and the other an interpretive overlay, established by a self-proclaimed apostle, which upon examination doesn't rest comfortably on the NT text at all. But because he was supposedly the apostle we didn't question it. That's the most reasonable explanation I can come up with, that one person could put out so many novel and questionable assertions, even categorically exclusionary statements, of what is and isn't in the NT and the Christian life, and nobody called it out. That's some very powerful mojo he had working there.

Imagine if someone stood up at the end of the message, and said, "I don't see where Paul is going to ask Timothy to remain in Ephesus and teach intensification of the life-giving spirit as part of 'oikonomea theou'. Where's any textual basis of asserting this?" What would happen? "Exercise your spirit, brother! Don't think, just drink!" No, just enjoy the Processed God. Why? Because I said so.

Those words "just" and "simply" are codes, and show us what's really operating in this so-called ministry. It's a subtle and powerful form of mind control. And we sang the songs lustily, not realizing what we were doing, that we were allowing ourselves to be programmed by WL. The lusty singing prevented the thinking, the critical examination, even as the words of the song replaced the former contents of our thinking. Et voila. Presto, change-o.

And lastly, I want to repeat that any understanding we have, any personal interpretation or public profession, should be toward a seamless and coherent narrative emerging from the received scriptural text. Anytime we relegate substantial sections to lesser position, to maintain our so-called revelation, we're in danger of precipitous decline from truth. John and James and Paul and Peter and Matthew and Luke were all saying the same thing. (And there's no indication that the Psalms or Job or any other OT source was treated by them in a second-tier fashion, either).

[Sons to Glory!]

Aron, I've read through what you've posted, and rather than address specific things, I've been thinking in a more general way recently - which I think actually addresses much of what we're talking about here and is possibly the actual elephant in the room with this entire forum:

Inner Life

Perhaps the real core of what this forum is about (and who it might often attract) is to a big degree related to how they view so-called "inner-life teachings." Some time ago there was a rather heated thread about inner-life teachers, or as some called them, "Christian Mystics." This includes WN, WL, Guyon, and perhaps Hannah W. Smith, Freeman, TAS and Major Ian Thomas, and some might even throw John Piper in there on occasion (plus others I'm sure).

So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is the real aversion on this forum really about how different ones see inner-life teachings (and of course, how the LC promotes these and its own specific teachings)? Whenever - at least most of the time it seems - any of these ones' teachings are brought up, there is serious blowback from several forum members.

Or am I totally overreaching in this?

FYI - My definition of inner-life teaching is that we have Christ in us as the beginning and foundation for the Christian life.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm asking myself (and Jesus), is there real aversion on this forum about how different ones see inner-life teachings?
. . . .
Or am I overreaching in this?

I suggest the latter.

The aversion is not to simply all they are saying. At some level, there is a reality to the things that we call the inner-life. But no matter how you phrase any particular type of teaching, whether inner-life teachings, personal piety teachings, Holiness, works, etc., they all are part of what we should consider the fullness of God's working earth. I avoided using any reference to the term "economy" because that has too much baggage associate with it in an LC context.

The inner-life teachers key on the vine/branches/abiding and certain other parts of the gospels, then on the spiritual underpinnings (as I call them) that the writers of the epistles, most notably Paul, speak of in their letters to the various churches as they try to help them set a better course regarding certain practical issues. For example, Paul wasn't writing to the Corinthians to get aligned behind the right teaching, to all speak in meetings, or to understand that Christ had become the Life-giving Spirit. He was writing to get them to stop squabbling about teachers; to stop pulling social rank at the Lord's table, to stop the three-ring circus that was their meetings, and to get past arguments about what kind of body they would get in resurrection. Instead, besides the specific items Paul eventually said, he also showed them a more excellent way for all of it.

But neither was the whole of the NT about getting saved and getting everyone to go out and preach the gospel to get more people saved. It sounds good, but it is not THE purpose of the church and the Christian life.

Turns out that there is a lot to consider. We do need to hear the word — both to be ready for salvation and to learn what it is that Christ taught. We need to pray. We need to continue to learn — but at what level? Is it reasonable to presume that just because we now have the ability to read and own our own bible that it was intended that we each become fully conversant in the whole thing and exert the kind of constant time that this would entail relative to what would have been considered reasonable for the average person just a very few centuries ago? Back when we mostly heard (not read) and considered a little at a time. And went out daily to live consistent with what we had heard? I think that the increase of general education has created an artificial presumption that each person's participation in more detailed study and such likewise grew. And in the process, we started to consider that the "practical" aspects of living are secular, and therefore something to disdain as opposed to the spiritual aspects of study, contemplation and prayer. We changed our understanding of the full Christian life to virtually exclude aspects of the mundane human existence. And thus came the secular-spiritual divide that is not seen in scripture.

So it is not just the inner-life teachers. It is any who distill the whole of the Christian life down to any part to the near exclusion of the other parts.

But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.

* I am speaking of the presumption that certain groups make relative to other Christians. For example, Evangelicals relative to the older mainline Christian groups (e.g., emphasis on personal salvation through crisis event v classes to learn about Christ and slowly come to believe). And inner-life v the rest because the rest aren't as spiritually committed. And either v liturgical groups (thinking that a good sermon but winging everything else is better than structuring it all). I admit to having some quandary in that last one, but I think that some of those old, written prayers might be more meaningful if you take them seriously than some off-the-cuff hodgepodge of popular snippets of scripture are.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

But among "serious*" Christians (meaning the "out there" groups that make waves), the problem is that without the emphasis, it is a part of the Christian life, but with the emphasis, it sets so much of the rest of the Christian life aside, or relegates it to an afterthought, or something that will "just happen" if we put on enough Christ, become crucified enough with Christ, and so on.

So what would you say was the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians, in simple terms of a few sentences?

[UntoHim]

What does the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians have to do with this thread? Does the word oikonomía even appear in Galatians? If so, in what context?

Let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is God's Economy.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What does the purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians have to do with this thread? Does the word oikonomía even appear in Galatians? If so, in what context?

Let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is God's Economy.
-

I was going to say the same thing. The topic is, What is God's economy? I gave my summation of WL's take, which was to be filled in spirit with the mingled Spirit of God, to be metabolically transformed inwardly to become [the same as] God in life and nature.

Now that may be a noble and fine thing indeed, and we can of course offer Bible verses, but where does Paul say that this is God's economy? Nowhere is where. I've also made the point, and haven't yet seen a reply from Shepherding Words, that it seems odd to think that Paul asked Timothy for 'intensification' to be taught to facilitate God's economy, since there's no record whatsoever that Paul ever taught intensification. So how then do they say, "God's economy is carried out in 3 stages"? Whatever is carried out in 3 stages, it isn't what Paul was writing about.

No, the "God's economy" of WL was a hodge-podge, an amalgam of disparate verses, some unrelated to Paul[!], read back onto the scripture. I've gone into this already.

My proposed alternative was that Paul's view of "oikonomea theou" was best seen in his second epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9. There, he goes into some detail about how the gentile churches can share with feeding the poor widows of Jerusalem (cf Acts 6:1). The verse which seems to sum it up best is, "He who gathers much has no excess, he who gathers little has no lack." (2 Cor 8:15). In this nod to the Exodus journey, the Great Commandment is fulfilled - we should love one another not merely in word but in deed, in generosity.

(And I can't overstress that if reading James' epistle in this light confirms that James and Paul shared the same vision. This is probably the most crucial benefit of this interpretation: the NT becomes whole. [I remember reading that Luther wanted to exclude James from the canon, along with Tobit and Maccabees, but was convinced to include it, yet only after Revelation!])

Now, how does Galatians fit into my proposed reading? I daresay the climax of Galatians isn't the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch. It occurs right before that, when Peter, James and John tell Paul, "Remember the poor", and Paul readily accedes. Paul was sharing this vignette with the Galatians to make them understand the core of his mission. The gentiles were now grafted into the body of believers, as full members, not associate members. Ephesians 2:11-21 has probably the clearest explanation of Paul's view, but it applies here: the Galatians were once cut off, alienated from the hope of Israel, but now have been brought nigh by the blood of Christ. The two, gentile and Jew, are now one in Christ Jesus. It's a remarkable vision, which I believe is the capstone of Paul's written ministry. The two have become one. Paul has been given the ministry of reconciliation, and the enmity, the dividing wall is gone. It is truly a revelation from God.

Now, what to do? Circumcision, dietary laws, observing days and feasts, Sabbath remembrances? No, faith in Jesus Christ. And, "lay up something for my return to Jerusalem", as he writes to all the churches. The offering to the apostle, to bring to the poor of Jerusalem, unites the gentile and the Jew in fact, in deed, just as the gospel going out from Jerusalem "to the uttermost parts of the earth" brought the hope of salvation out to a darkened world. Paul's eventual return to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation" would complete the circle.

So the request in Galatians 2:10, "Remember the poor" from the pillars of Jerusalem, and Paul's "eager assent" were to show the Galatians where they fit into the picture - not with converting to Judaism, but as obedient gentiles to the gospel, and participants in that very gospel by helping the poor of Jerusalem. Look at how Paul writes chapter 7, how the Corinthians had repented and received Titus with "trembling obedience" (v14,15)! Now they were ready for Paul's message of sharing, in chapters 8 and 9. He is glad for their repentance, and now wants to see some fruits, some issue.

For confirmation, see Romans 15:25-31, and 1 Cor 16:1,2, which I'll quote in full, as it's relevant to this post: "Now about the collection for the saints, you are to do as I directed the churches of Galatia: On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed." Paul consistently delivered one message, of the crucified and risen Christ, and the discipleship and obedience of all nations in his name. The gatherings of the offerings of the far-flung churches were central to this mission, and united believing Jew and Greek.

[OBW]

So let's show how Galatians fits into the whole of the administration/plan of God.

Ch 1: Paul spent the first chapter laying out that Christ was the gospel, not the law. He also provided his credentials to speak on the subject.

Ch 2: He continues his standing among the apostles by telling of his acceptance by the other apostles, and his stature to even put Peter in his place for duplicity.

Cn 3 & 4: Paul lays out how salvation is because of faith in the works of Christ and not because of our own works of any kind. This carries on through both chapters.

Ch 5: Paul states that we are free and to not allow themselves to become enslaved. Without saying anything about all aspects of our freedom, this passage is talking about freedom from the ritual, dietary, etc., laws of Judaism. Then he turns to living by the Spirit, providing both negative and positive evidence.

Ch 6: Helping each other when temptations arise. Doing good, living in the new creation.

Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.

The point of the letter was not to provide a bunch of spiritual things they needed to work at, but a bunch of spiritual truths that they could rely on to live and follow in the manner Christ desired.

Short enough? (I thought that the overview of the book would be worth the extra words.)

One the whole, my observation is that the inner-life teachings are too engaged in dealing with the spiritual and too disengaged from dealing with life and Godliness

[OBW]

And Christians engaged in life and Godliness as image-bearers of God is a good description of "God's economy."

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Within most of this, Paul makes reference to the reasons that we can stand strong. For example, he notes that he is crucified with Christ. The implication is not to encourage the Galatians to work at becoming crucified with Christ, but to understand that it is the truth and that they can rely on that as a means to succeed. As Peter would put it, to recognize that we have what it takes for life and Godliness.

Although this seems different from my post, at least in emphasis, they run on parallel tracks. The gentiles have by faith been given everything they need, if they would just believe the truth of the gospel. There is no need to judge one another if their works are "empty and joyless" or "filled with the indwelling Christ." Simply believe, and obey. The truth is the truth, irrespective of your current status, whether you subjectively lay hold or not. (because of sin, we should never judge ourselves as having attained, or others as lesser - "most Christians don't see"...)

I'd like to tell a short story to illustrate my point. Jesus told them, "Wait in Jerusalem for the coming power" (Acts 1:4-8), and it says they waited, praying day and night for this (1:14; 2:1). Now, if they didn't yet have the power, how could 120 people pray together for 10 days? If you heard of a gathering of 120 people all together praying day and night, wouldn't you say they were filled with the Holy Spirit? But the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out! But what did they have? They had the command. They were not empty. The command also has power. So if God tells you to do something, don't stress if you are "doing it with Christ" or not. Just do what God's word says. It is very plain. The "inner life" will follow. The command is in black-and-white.

Don't put the cart in front of the horse. If you focus on the cart, you will be led astray by your feelings, and those who'd manipulate you based on your feelings. Haven't we seen this played out in full?

(The above is my attempt to say 'amen' to OBW's post.)

[OBW]

One of the more troublesome things in Galatians to me is that Paul says Christ becomes of no effect to them if they put their trust in works of the flesh. But I believe that this is being sent to people who first believed in Christ, then were hoodwinked into following after Jewish rituals. So the question is whether Paul really means that Christ is of no effect (as in some kind of losing, or almost losing of salvation) or is he saying that their continued life has ceased to follow on according to Christ and the Spirit, and become stagnant because they have put their daily trust in those rituals.

I know that someone will suggest that doing the kinds of "works" that even Christ directly commands is included in these works of the flesh, but I do not agree. This is about the befuddlement brought on by the Judaizers, not by obeying the commands of Christ. And Paul's words about being crucified with Christ, and living "in Him" (among other things) is not to direct them to chase after this experientially (though they will experience it), but to move on like it is true — BECAUSE IT IS.

[OBW]

What is God's economy? it is living the life commanded as the result of what we are taught. As examples:

• Being poor in spirit.
• Hungering and thirsting for righteousness
• Being generous and loving to your neighbor as you would to yourself
• Being salt and light in the world
• Showing "justice" to those in need (e.g., the widow, orphan, alien, etc.)
• Fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law
• Being a servant to all
• Obeying all that God/Christ has commanded (continue in my word then you will know the truth . . . . That means follow it; do what it says; not just read it a lot)
• All the "one anothers"

And so on.

[UntoHim]

I would suggest that if God does have "an economy" (a dubious notion I believe), then it cannot be in contention with, much, much less, antithetical to the Gospel as presented to us in the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is great danger in taking the teachings and theology of the apostle Paul, and taking them to be superseding those teachings, sayings and parables of Jesus Christ during his life and ministry here on earth.

There is a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Laying aside for a moment the identity of the messenger (which is questionable anyhow) I have always considered this stinging condemnation of us modern day Christians as a legitimate indictment from God himself. Also, taking into consideration the life and times and history of the main proponents of this notion (God's economy) - Witness Lee and his followers - we should all find it painfully obvious that this teaching is not only unbiblical, it is virtually antithetical to the Gospel.

Witness Lee claimed that Paul's teachings in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were "the heart of the divine revelation". Well I would contend that the heart of the divine revelation can only be discovered in the heart of the divine Revelator, and the heart of the divine Revelator is originally, and most profoundly, revealed to us in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Our beloved apostle Paul did not teach "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:48) "You therefore" follows 5 crucial verses: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?"

Brothers and sisters, friends, enemies, lurkers. There is a very good reason why the wise men who decided to order the books of the New Testament in the order that they did. The Gospels are first.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And Paul's words about being crucified with Christ, and living "in Him" (among other things) is not to direct them to chase after this experientially (though they will experience it), but to move on like it is true — BECAUSE IT IS.

I think this is a very important point, and can hopefully be seen by some out there who are currently being recruited to chase after the experience via ritualistic noisemaking, what they call "exercise your human spirit." I was caught into this trap, and was in it for years. Even when I was in the FTTA and heard "Don't waste your time" with the widows and orphans, which I knew to be a direct reversal of the gospel message, I stayed. Even when it was clear that I wasn't getting better, and my problems were not magically disappearing, like I'd been told - "Just eat Jesus, brother", I hung on, convinced there was no other way. Even after I left, in disgust and discouragement, after years of 24/7 immersion in the so-called "church life", I still went out to the Community Church in my town and told them (politely of course) how they were deficient by not following "God's economy."

If you can see what OBW's words represent, before you get sucked into the LC vortex, you might find a path more true to the NT text. Because once you are in the house of mirrors that is the LC Hive Mind, it can be very hard to get out. Your thoughts are gone, and you run on their programme. It is hard to rewire yourself.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee claimed that Paul's teachings in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians were "the heart of the divine revelation".

There was a participant several years back who drove us crazy with some of his dogmatic views on things. But one of his dogmas, while overdone, was to assert that the core of the NT is the gospels. In this one item he was (and probably still is) right.

During the recent era of "emerging" and "emergent" church thinking, there was a general disdain for Paul because they see in the bulk of Christianity a tendency to use Paul as the gospel and almost dismiss the actual gospels. Turns out that they didn't really dislike Paul, but rather the inverted way of viewing the NT. So many start with Paul and try to shoehorn the gospels to fit what they think they are getting out of Paul. And they mostly ignore the parts of the gospels that they cant fit into their "Paul" narrative.

But the real way to look at the NT should be similar to what the Jews say about the OT. They essentially say that there is the Law and the Prophets, and the rest is commentary. Layered over the NT, that would be "The gospels are the Gospel. The rest is commentary."

Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels. It is that kind of focus that has brought me to realize that Paul's letters are not about uber-spiritual stuff with a side helping of discipline about their issues. Instead, virtually the whole of each letter is about correcting the totality of the lives of the believers and the rest is very sound spiritual facts that are in their toolbelts for the purpose of succeeding in their daily lives in all aspects. For Paul, there is no spiritual-secular divide. Driving in a manner displaying the image of God is as spiritual as praying — or any other item we think of as "spiritual" when we are considering activities in the totality of our lives. There is no secular living unless we are failing to set our minds on the Spirit and therefore failing to fulfil the righteous requirement of the law.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels.

Great point! I would add that if you consider the epistles of Paul as the "higher gospel" and the 4 canonical gospels as a "lower gospel", then you are reading both Paul and the gospels wrong. -
I should hasten to add that the term "the heart of the divine revelation" is virtually synonymous with the thought of "a higher gospel".
-

[Covert]

I see a lot of good post going on here recently in this thread. I want to expand on the highlighted post done by OBW.

OBW recent post- "Christians engaged in life and Godliness as image-bearers of God is a good description of "God's economy"

The core teaching of the lord’s recovery is to live as Godmen or be like God. Yet if anyone who knows the bible knows and reads it. Can clearly see that the lord’s recovery cuts off a lot of scripture to pertain to not "Gods" image but "their" image of the Christian life. It is just not the lord’s recovery thing, or I should say witness lee since the modern-day lord’s recovery is an offspring of witness lee doctrine.

Witness lee is one of the many people who use the bible to fit their narrative. Putting aside witness lee for a second, let us take another group of believers who believe that Jesus Christ is their savior and only way to salvation. But these group of believers are practicing sexual immorality and think that the sins described in 1 Corinthians 6 are just minor and not significant to the Christian life. They think to themselves this is just a little flaw of mine and it needs no correction because Jesus has my back, and he is savior. These individuals I have meet lots of time in my life, have their narrative of the bible that does not have an emphasis on correcting sexual immorality and believe the "central line" of the bible does not have an emphasis or include abstaining from sexual immorality. For these people, the commandment of God regarding sex between a married man and woman is of no relevance.

Let us to back to witness lee now. Witness Lee and his narrative of the Christian life/bible, de-emphasizes and contests the commandment of God regarding caring for your fellow man/neighbor. He claims that the central line of "Gods Economy" does include things such as good works. Yet, there is no scripture to be found that will contradict the act of doing good works. Jesus Christ and the teachings of his apostles reaffirm the act of good works in the Christian faith. It is not a necessity for salvation but the fruits of the Christian faith in practice. Just like those group of believers who in their narrative and agenda of the bible does not emphasize or value abstaining sexual immorality, there is also witness lee, who has his agenda/narrative of the bible does not value good works.

The local churches like to say that they practice the "central line of Paul’s Ministry". As if there are only 14 books in the bible/new testament? Where do you even get the idea that the practice of the Christian life is restricted only to Paul's Epistles? Well as I said the local churches in modern day are witness lee offspring. So, the real question why did Witness Lee personally try so hard to condemn good works to the extent of tarnishing much scripture in the bible to fit his agenda/narrative? Honestly, I am sure I can answer this question in full as I am not witness lee himself but from various testimony of local church history, I can make my guess and probably will make a post about it one day.

Regardless, to the coworkers, dcp, local church lurkers. There is no such thing as the "central line" or "only this part of scripture matters". It is not biblical, and really is just a tool used by certain men who just to propagate their agenda/narrative of the Christian life. The local churches are really no different than those group of believers who try to tarnish the commandment in regard to sexual practices. While one group of believers tarnish the commandments regarding sex and marriage, there are another group of believers who tarnish the commandments of God regarding caring for your neighbor/ good works. Can witness lee/local churches honestly say they are full of Christ and have his life and nature when they perpetuate evil with no rebuke/repentance and say things like “don’t waste your time with the poor/orphans/widows/suffering ones since they don’t have good building material”. Can you honestly say this of God? When the Co-workers sully and demonize John Ingalls year after year and exalt Philip Lee, can you say this is full of Christ? When you make your atonement before the lord will you not bow your head in shame for your slanderous and murderous tongue that slays men of God, sheds innocent blood, and fortifies evil doers and wolves in sheep skin? You think you got away with everything because you can fool everyone in the lord’s recovery, yet you surely cannot fool the lord? You honestly think that in the end when judgement comes, that fooling many men throughout the years will matter and or save you?

I know that the lord’s recovery the famous verse of “love covers all sins”. They abuse and use it perpetuate evil. Yet, while indeed the love of Christ is merciful and boundless, but before forgiveness comes rebuke and repentance and you (LR/LC) have none of that. I mean how is the love of Jesus Christ going to forgive you when you have no rebuke and repentance. You can try to pluck verses that fit your practices, but you know as well as I, that there are many other verses in the bible that exposes your narrative/agenda. Yes, the love of Jesus Christ covers all sins, but you have to rebuke and repent (much scripture detailing this).

2 Corinthians 5:10
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for [a]his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.

The verse speaks truth, I could care less that the lord’s recovery has this off the rail interpretation of TOTKOGAE. Again, witness lee your narrative/agenda of the bible is hogwash. I do not care if you do not like practicing the Christian life with any emphasis with the words of “good or bad”. You will appear before the judgement seat of Christ in accordance with your deeds whether “GOOD OR BAD”. You can cry yourself to sleep at night or vent of frustration or whatever, but it is going happen, I have to say to those who perpetuate evil in the local churches and refuse repentance/rebuke along with murdering brothers and sisters with hateful/tarnishing/deceitful words- are you ready for the time of judgement?

So OBW gave a brief explanation of what Gods Economy is in “theory” the local church doctrine. Here is what is in reality/practice- “Gods Economy in the local churches is a false doctrine/agenda of witness lee that describes a practice of the Christian life that tarnishes the commandment of God in relations to good works. While also attempting to practice being amoral, which inevitably leads further downward to being immoral and perpetuating evil doers with no rebuke and or repentance. Just one of the many false teachings from a false prophet who is spoken well by many and propagates his agenda/narrative of the bible. The local churches are one of many strange groups that has this weird and skewed/obscured practice of the Christian life. They usually try to hide and are very open to their beliefs cause of blatant biblical contradictions and rely on deceiving gullible and uninformed new believers to maintain their numbers. That is all it really is.

Gods Economy in practice of the Lords Recovery- A false doctrine that tarnishes the commandment of God in relations to good works/caring for one’s neighbor and perpetuates evil with no rebuke and or repentance.

Some verses to take away
Ecclesiastes
13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.[a] 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with[b] every secret thing, whether good or evil.
1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God
John 15:10 ESV
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
John 14:15 ESV
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
1 John 5:3 ESV

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
John 14:21 ESV

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
1 John 2:4
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him
2 John 1:6 ESV / 1

And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.
Hebrews 13:16 ESV /

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
1 Timothy 6:17-19 ESV

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
Titus 2:14 ESV

Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Message to Ephesus, Revelations Chapter 2

2 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks [a]among the seven golden lampstands, says this:
2 ‘I know your deeds and your labor and [b]perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil people, and you have put those who call themselves apostles to the test, and they are not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have [c]perseverance and have endured on account of My name, and have not become weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Therefore, remember from where you have fallen, and repent, and do the [d]deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. 6 But you have this, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 The one who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who overcomes, I will grant to eat from the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.’

These delusional people think they are the church in Philadelphia, when in reality they fall very far from even the church described in Ephesus. Witness Lee doctrine is so flawed, the bible really is the truth and the way. Anyone who reads the bible consistently can see the flaw of witness lee doctrine. He tries to throw all these false man-made teachings/doctrines like “central line of Gods economy”, “don’t keep the law/commandments” and “good works are dead works” but the bible will show you the truth and eviscerate false doctrines that attempt to twist and tarnish it. Read the bible with in spirit and not of witness lee false doctrine corrupting you. Look at all those verses destroy witness lee false doctrine.

Every servant of God whether going from the old testament to Solomon and or the apostles in the New Testament all reaffirm the same thing. They don’t contradict each other trying to put forth their own agenda or narrative on how they think the life of believers should be. They speak the words God has unveiled to man since long ago. For those who try to pit the books of the bible/scripture against each other as if they contend with each other for the truth, are liars. Those who say they know God and say strange things like only they have the “high truth”, and do not keep his commandments and worse, teach against them is a liar and false teacher, this reaffirmed in the warning John gives in his epistle. There is no Paul vs Jesus or Paul epistles are above everyone else.
I will end with this scripture- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.

[Covert]

Minor typos from previous post

Original Sentence- He claims that the central line of "Gods Economy" does include things such as good works

Fix-
He claims that the central line of "Gods Economy" does "not" include things such as good works.

(im pretty sure there are some other minor typos, these post take a long time and I hope it does not bother you too much).



Now continuing my thoughts on this thread.

1. Aaron, I got your back brother, you are indeed correct works are part of the christian life. I just had to help my brother out and give economy pitches it cannot hit and strike it out.

2. The idea that God only wants you to seclude yourself, and sit around with a bunch of narcissistic and vainglorious group of delusional individuals 4-6 times a week is a lie. Unless someones bible is corrupted and missing tons of scripture, I don't know how someone comes that conclusion. Well although the recovery bible is not missing pages/scripture, it sure is filled with endless footnotes that takes up more space than scripture. All that corrupted agenda destroying the word of God.

3. Got some threads coming up and look forward for all these wonderful posters contributing

[aron]

Originally Posted by Covert

Aaron, I got your back brother, you are indeed correct works are part of the christian life. I just had to help my brother out and give economy pitches it cannot hit and strike it out.

And to my point of Paul supposedly being apart with "salvation by faith", what "work" does James keep stressing? Circumcision? Dietary laws? Observing feasts, weeks and new moons? No - he says to visit the widows and the orphans in their afflictions. That's pretty much it. James' listed work is to be generous, and share with others. You know, what that guy Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you, and you'll be repaid in the resurrection".

That's James' idea of "works". And per Galatians 2:10 that's what both Paul and James were eager to do. When the gentile churches gave to Paul, he then brought those alms to Jerusalem, to James and the rest, who distributed it to the widows and orphans.

Another term might be used here: 'sign'. A sign that Jesus was the Messiah, was the work which he did in the world, culminating with the sign of resurrection. The gospel record pointing to Jesus' signs, or works, is too numerous to cite. And a sign of discipleship was established early in Acts, with all disciples selling what they had and giving to the aid of the poor, and then Paul carried this messgage out to the world. Be generous to those who lack. That is the sign, that you believe, that you obey the gospel message. Love others, not merely in word but in deed. Again, read 2 Cor 8, 9 - the "lost writings" of Paul.

Another example is Cornelius. The angel said, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial offering to God." Now, was that angel in error? He hadn't read the Epistle to the Romans? Here is a gentile, not a believer [yet], but whose gifts to the poor were praised by God! In fact I'd argue that his position as a God-fearing and right-behaving gentile positioned him to hear the gospel from Peter! So his gifts to the poor were not vain. They were received by God. Of course he needed the gospel - we all do - but to think that "works were vain" is flat nonsense in that story.

So that's the first pitch to give them - that there are other ways to interpret "God's economy" than what WL proposed. OBW in #429 has also given some good ways to look at it. His list is relevant, and the last point of "one another" dovetails neatly with my take on both Paul and James following the lead of Jesus to think of others. They're all in lockstep, Peter/Paul/James/John, there is no "high" versus "low" gospel. And the "one another" part means, the gospel is NOT self-oriented, but other oriented. It's not about you but your neighbour.

(I was right up front going, "IIIIIYYYYYEEE CANNNN EXERCISE MMYYYYYY SPIIIIIIRRIIIIIITTTT!!!!" [AYYEEEEMMEEENNNNN!!]. No, sorry, the "I" and "my" of the gospel isn't Aaron. It's Jesus Christ.)

The second pitch that I offer up is to ask, Where does Paul include 'intensification' as an essential component of his "oikonomea theou"? Where's the basis for saying that "oikonomea theou" as taught by Paul and Timothy included intensification? And if Paul and Timothy can't be seen teaching this, why are you including it?

There are of course other points to be made as well, and I'm not being comprehensive. But even my few notices serve to show that the "economy of God" as taught by WL and disseminated the Local Churches beholden to his ministry was deficient and unsatisfactory at best, and complete mis-aiming and stumbling at worst.

[Trapped]

Well, this is a massive thread, which is not surprising given that "God's economy" was almost Witness Lee's magnum opus. But I'll throw into the discussion mix here what was presented on God's economy on the YouTube channel "The Lord's Recovery Unchained", in this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalxSHAj_II

I won't reproduce all the details, but basically he makes a very compelling case from scripture that the economy of God is not God dispensing Himself or anything that Witness Lee said it was, but is actually "the stewardship that God gave to Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles". A responsibility entrusted to Paul that Paul carried out. I had previously concluded that the economy of God was some kind of way that the believers were supposed to relate to each other in the church, an overarching love, a sharing of possessions, etc, but the video goes through the context of all the times "oikonomia" is used in the New Testament, and it's pretty obvious it is the stewardship Paul was given to make the gospel known to the Gentiles.

I continue to be blown away just how far Witness Lee's teachings are from what the book he CLAIMS his teachings are based on actually says, and how much wasted brain space I have of those totally meaningless and useless teachings!!

Trapped

[Sons to Glory!]

(FYI - I made this post as a response to Trapped's post, and then realized that I was part of significant dialog in this thread over a year ago! So this response was not a continuation of any of that previous rather complex communication - just a simple response to another brother. BTW - I did watch the linked video, which makes a good point in the Greek grammar.)

I must admit this was one teaching of WL's that I didn't look at that much - it always seemed a little esoteric, or at least I didn't have much of an inner registration to look into it deeply. Perhaps the Anointing was preserving me in this area and thereby not exposing me (He did that in several ways during my time in the LC). So not sure exactly what the finer points were that WL was espousing here . . .

But what I do see in the Greek usage in this verse (1 Tim 1:4 oikonomia) is simply the administering or stewarding of God's house . . . whose house we are (Heb 3:6). And since the main principle in the Bible is love, to me this just means to make sure everyone in the house is loved, cared for and supplied as they need. Now, by extension, what God is supplying us is the "bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ," (Phil 1:19) along with, of course, our physical/psychological needs as well. To the end that we will all be transformed into His image, a perfected* counterpart with "no spot or wrinkle or any such thing."

I don't know if this aligns with what WL taught or not - this is just what I see in scripture (and which I believe the Lord has shown me). In the opinion of those here, is this view very far off the mark?

* LOVE = perfection

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

...many start with Paul and try to shoehorn the gospels to fit what they think they are getting out of Paul. And they mostly ignore the parts of the gospels that they cant fit into their "Paul" narrative.

But the real way to look at the NT should be similar to what the Jews say about the OT. They essentially say that there is the Law and the Prophets, and the rest is commentary. Layered over the NT, that would be "The gospels are the Gospel. The rest is commentary."

The gospel version of God's economy was plainly laid out in Matthew 6- “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

The epistolic commentary of Paul aligns with this fully. I list 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 as the canonical example, spelled out in liberal detail but it's consistently referenced in his epistles (e. g., Rom 15:25-29, 1 Cor 16:1-4) and in his Acts.

Originally Posted by OBW

Effectively, if you can't make Paul and the gospels fit together, you are more likely reading Paul wrong, not the gospels. It is that kind of focus that has brought me to realize that Paul's letters are not about uber-spiritual stuff with a side helping of discipline about their issues.

Paul's acts show him bringing food for the widows of Jerusalem. "11:29 The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul...12:25 When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.."

Then there is the "right hand of fellowship" scene portrayed in Galatians 2, where the pillars of the Jerusalem church ask Paul to remember the poor, to which he replies he's eager to do so. Then to Acts 24:17 where he says that he has returned to Jerusalem with "alms for my nation."

Then all the epistolic enjoinders to set aside something for the poor of Jerusalem make perfect sense. Paul was doing a continuation of the gospel message of Jesus, giving the gentile believers a chance to store up riches in heaven, by giving to the poor while on earth. This is God's economy. Paul told Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and teach things which result in God's economy, which is in faith, believing that while they are deprived on earth, they have treasure in heaven, where moth cannot consume, and rust cannot destroy, and thief cannot steal.

It's simple, it all fits together, and the gospels and Acts and epistles fit together in lockstep. Jesus, Paul, James, Peter and John are all teaching and doing the same thing.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I'm unsure if I'm in the correct forum

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's Economy?

While I was there I heard people talk about it (at times it seemed to come out of nowhere), but they never explained it to me.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if others have touched on this, I haven't read every comment on this thread, but the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself. But I do have an issue if it's used to gloss over everything else about our lives. If it's used as a scapegoat for things ("just turn to your spirit brother" in any given scenario), and i do have an issue if it brainwashes people into being automatons and live robotic lives. Which I have experienced myself from time to time while meeting with the LC

Another way to look at God's economy, as told by Lee, is that God became a man in order to make man God in life and nature but not in the godhead. To accomplish this he was incarnated, lived a human life, was crucified, died and resurrected, ascended and descended as the spirit to get into man. All of this is covered by Lee extensively and repeated over and over again in the LC. Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself

The economy of God is NOT the same thing as the recovery of the church ground, the local meetings, or calling on the Lord. Those things are merely practical parts that are related to the economy of God insofar as the recovery of the local church was necessary for God to get his unique meeting place (Deuteronomy 12:11), for the believers to have a practical way to meet (at the homes as seen and practiced in the book of Acts), and have a practical way for God to infill them with the spirit by calling on the Lord. I find all of this to be doctrinally sound and one of the best things about the recovery in general. As far as theory goes at least, it is a fantastic biblical discovery and I see no fault in implementing it's practice

Now maybe others saw these things and practiced them before Nee and Lee. But we can say that Nee and Lee consolidated these truths and practices and implemented them in a practical way for a large group of people. Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means- Proverbs 29:18 When there is no vison the people cast off restraint

But the economy of God does not directly touch on any kind of unique oracle or all powerful human leadership. We might see what looks like examples of these concepts in the word, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can and should be applied to people like Nee/Lee, the elders, the speaking bros, the blended bros etc. And that doesn't mean that what Lee said is a 1:1 comparison with what actually happened in the word. Yes God can and did raise up one person to lead at certain times. But if we read the Bible carefully we can see that that's not always the case. Many times God raised up two or three people to take the lead at any given time. And also we see that most often when God raises someone or a couple of people up it's for a specific purpose at a specific time. To say that because someone was used by God at one time that somehow this makes them "the oracle or unique leader of an entire generation for as long as they live" is as dangerous as it is unbliical

That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

That's where there can become lots of problems, and much of what I'm reading and seeing in these threads is troubles and strife that stem from power and control abuse from leadership. Of which I myself have experienced. So those are NOT a part of the economy of God. As far as leadership is concerned, I do see an impetus for it in the word and objectively it's necessary, but the scope and sphere of how far that power and control reaches and what it can and can't do is debatable. Or we could ask the question- should there be ANY power and control with the leadership? A lot of the problems i see amongst myself and others is misuse of the leadership in the LC. That is not a part of the definition and concept of God's economy directly. But the leadership, speaking bros, apostles, and eldership is a part of the practical church life. So probably the issues are not with the doctrine of God's economy, but rather the practical affairs of the church. So I find it very difficult to tear down and attack the doctrinal aspects of the LC. But it's rather easy to point out glaring errors that surround misuse of power, exclusive church culture, cover ups, and things relating to abuse and mind control (at least insofar as all of these testimonies are concerned)

Jay, concerning the abuse of power, I have found issues with both doctrine and practice, as they go hand in hand. For example, much power was secured by the exclusive appointment of elders by “apostles.” Yes, that was described in scripture, but never prescribed as Lee taught. This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.

The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, This doctrine and practice guarantees both the power of these appointing apostles and the loyalty of those elders. These, however, were used to supplant both the truth of scripture and the needs of the saints.

Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay,
The N.T. never mentions the “church of the apostles” nor the “church of the ministry,” but that is what we had become. An independent and healthy eldership would have prevented this. Thus we were not “the church of Christ” or the “church of the saints” which are both spelled out in the Word. Hence God’s economy, God’s “house rule,” or God’s household administration, were seriously violated. Actually, Nee’s “Normal Christian Church Life” spells this out fairly clearly.

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Now if Lee and co. encroached into that territory, which it sounds like they absolutely did (and I myself have experienced this with other leaders in the church), then they are just flat out wrong. And it sounds like this is Lee's lifetime major fault, and those who covered him at the expense of the body of Christ are complicit in his errors. And those who stood up against it were right to do so. It's possible he should have stepped down from any type of leadership position he held, and just relegated his sphere of function to speaking. But I suppose ultimately that's up to God. When king David sinned God didn't remove his kingdom from him, but he punished him in other ways and ultimately David's kingdom was split in half between his son's fighting. So there were major major consequences. Also with his seed Solomon, who eventually became degraded to the inth degree. But then why would I even be talking about Lee as if he was the king or ruler of the recovery? That's a funny thing right? It just means that the recovery revers Lee as if he was a king in a way. Which maybe is human nature, but it's something that is kind of hidden but obvious too. Strange thing. At any rate, how much Lee's failures damaged the church is what it is. I think at this point in time it's in the past mostly. Granted many who were caught up in the problems had their church life ruined and there should be accountability for that before God. Jesus said clearly that the stumbling blocks would be judged harshly

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

Actually this is pretty interesting. I read a bit of authority and submission when I was younger but didn't get very far into it. I just now went and read a little bit of chapter three and Nee is talking about Moses being a chosen deputy authority by God. He also mentions Noah and the sin of Ham by uncovering his father

The problems I have with these two examples is:

1. Noah's sin was a personal sin that didn't effect other people. He was simply drunken and naked, and in that sense sure Ham was wrong for exposing his father's personal sins. That is true, but with regards to the sins that Lee is accused of it doesn't fit the same category. If Lee was covering his son and not removing his son from office while his son was breaking the law and harming women then Lee was beyond wrong. That type of thing simply can't exist in the church and be covered like it was. Totally unacceptable and that type of thing SHOULD be exposed so that we don't foster that type of environment. And it has happened again since Lee's son did it. Other brothers have done it and got away with it. So clearly Lee's son should have been made an example of. This shows how damaging the misuse of scripture can be

With regards to Moses, the whole thing just sounds like a soap opera. Moses's sister and brother were all mad because he married an Ethiopian woman or whatever, is just a silly thing. And then God coming around and giving them leprosy or whatever is kind of unnecessary for such silly drama. I'll have to go back and read more of that but it just sounds like a soap opera. There's many examples in the Old Testament of God being petty and cruel. The example of the bears coming out and devouring the children who were mocking Elisha is a shining example of misuse of power and God being petty. But anyway

2. I can't go along with someone holding a position over a large group of people while harming a large number of them at the same time. Maybe I'm just "natural" or maybe I'm a rebel, but it seems to me that one should lose their position of leadership if they make grave errors and sins. Saul lost his position due to his sins. So why didn't David? It's God playing favorites I suppose. So this type of wonky scripture could absolutely be exploited by leaders who want to cover up their misdeeds or leaders who are corrupted by their own position

I don't say any of this to say that I believe Lee was a false prophet or a cult leader etc. I don't believe he was. I do believe he was used by God to set up the local churches and to speak a lot of great things with regards to the deeper meanings in the Bible. However it sounds like his personal life had a lot of major drama in it and that carried over into the church when he appointed his unworthy sons with high positions, of which they misused and abused. This was no doubt nepotism on Lee's part, and it sounds like this was his major flaw- his love for his sons. So despite the great things Lee did he also did a lot of damage and probably should have lost his position. But then we get into another argument of what exactly should the positions in the church be, and how should they be maintained and how should they function. This is something that is not talked a lot about in the recovery. But I think it's safe to say that if you have a position it should not be permanent and if you behave badly you could and probably should lose your position. Are positions hierarchy? Such a grey area right. I have also heard of elders being asked to step down. So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors. Which he clearly made huge ones and they were just covered up because of this prevailing thought that the lower ranking members shouldn't expose the wrongs of the higher ranking members. Well this led to many lives being ruined and many thousands of people leaving the recovery

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Jay

So why was Lee never asked to step down. Probably because they revered him to almost a deity status. They felt he was the "speaker of the age" just like Paul and this gave him a 'get out of jail free' card for any misdeeds or errors

I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Are you referring to them taking money from the saints to fund Lee's business ventures?

I’m referring to one of the mechanisms used by them which ensure total control over member churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I see what you're saying here, but it doesn't invalidate Lee's doctrine on the economy of God. Actually it just shows that Lee himself misused his position, and the elders and coworkers around him were complicit in his errors. I have read nothing that eludes to Lee believing that the apostles, elders, coworkers etc. have any type of authority over the personal lives of the saints. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I have never read it. And I've read a great deal of LSM material from Nee and Lee in my lifetime. The only thing close to that thought is 'Authority and submission' by Watchman Nee, but I don't think even that thought is in there because Nee is touching on spiritual authority, which is spiritual, and not personal, and doesn't have anything to do with people's personal financial decisions as far as I know. Also being in the church for as long as I have, we rarely if ever talk about authority; spiritual or otherwise. It just never comes up

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

I've heard the story of his excommunication, but I haven't heard of the "handing over" part. Do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on this?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, are you familiar with Nee’s excommunication by the Shanghai Church? When he was “restored,” which was done without repentance, his first ministerial act was the matter of “handing over.” Members could not be a part of his ministry unless they were willing to “hand over” everything they owned to Née. This was a false spiritual authority which definitely controlled their personal lives.

Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jay

I suppose though that many elders and leading ones from other localities DID make it known that they were not ok with what happened and they were not ok with just covering it all up. Very interesting to know now where these "storms" that the speaking brothers are always talking about actually come from. Funny how they never go into detail about what caused these storms and funny how they always advise the saints to not go online and read about them

I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Frankly I don't see any error in it according to the word of God, particularly the book of John with regards to abiding in the Lord, and Paul's epistles with regards to taking Christ as his inner secret of sufficiency. All of it lines up and is synergistic and compliments the word of God from not just Paul and the other apostles/disciples, but from Jesus himself.

A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

Originally Posted by Jay

Frankly if I'm being objective I see that as God's move to recover a corporate people similar to him recovering the children of Israel out of Egypt. Otherwise you just have scattered believers going their own way and doing whatever they think their personal interpretation of the Bible means-

There is irony here is that your proposed consequence is in itself the result of a personal interpretation of the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

Also do you have any links to info or testimonies that could shed more light on WHY he was excommunicated in the first place. The story that I heard was that they falsely accused him of having inappropriate contact with a sister. From the story that I heard it was M.E. Barber whom he was visiting personally at her home and she was simply just his spiritual mentor, which was the reason for the personal visits

Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.

We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.

Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.

My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church

Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

I tend to say many of the current leaders in the recovery were part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you were to read about Rosemead, Speaking the Truth in Love, etc there were young ambitious elder wannabe's that had their fingerprints over those situations. A saying attributed to Phillip Lee "out with the old and in with the new", I took as a double meaning. It also implied, out with the older elders and in with the younger ones.
January 2004, I met Bill and Barbara Mallon at Steve Isitt's apartment in Bellevue. They had stopped by on their way to Moses Lake. I had always heard Bill left because of unfulfilled ambition. I asked Bill, did you leave because of ambition. Bill looked at me and said, "if I was ambitious, I never would have left".

Another Philip Lee saying, "we don't care for right or wrong, we only care for life." And another, "Even when Brother Lee is wrong, he's right."

Concerning Bill Mallon, I heard this condemnation: "Bill Mallon said we should return to the pure word of God, but that is a tactic of the enemy."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

A lot of things can line up to the Bible, putting ideas onto the text rather than drawing them from the text is something that the Recovery is very good at. They cherry pick verses that support a bullet point on an outline. Witness Lee selected verses that supported his ideas. Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

Zezima, great points, I love this tried-and-true maxim about knowing the Bible:

A text without context is a pretext for a proof text.

How I wish we all knew this years ago!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Is the Bible telling you that man is becoming god in life&nature but not in the godhead, or is that an idea you can cast over the book & find support for?

2 Corinthians 3:18. Romans 12:2. 1 Corinthians 2:16. Colossians 3:10. 1 Corinthians 15:49. Etc.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, years ago I heard a different story, went something like this: WN's mother was living with him. Rumor went out that he was living with a woman. The SCC elders asked him if he was "living with a woman," and he answered "yes." The elders promptly excommunicated him. This just proves how "pure" WN was, he let his "yes" be yes, and his "no" be no.

We all believed that story, thinking WN was the holiest man on earth. Later on I re-thought the whole story. The elders of the Shanghai Christian Church were all appointed by WN, and worked with him for years. To believe this story one must also believe that these elders were all complete dunces, who never checked out the facts of the matter.

Several years ago a book was written by Dr. Lily Hsu, a retired doctor now in the US) who was a witness to these events in Shanghai before the Communist takeover. There has been much discussion on this forum concerning her (auto)biography. The book was also available online to read free of charge. Many of the posters here found Hsu's account of facts quite compelling and changed our long-held hagiographical views of Nee. You are welcome to investigate for yourself.

My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church

Before this book on Nee was written, I had already done a somewhat extensive study on both WL (from 2006 to 2010) and JNDarby (from 2002 to 2005), with WN were supposedly all successive "ministers of the age" or MOTA's. After that study I no longer believed any history that I ever heard from WL without second source corroboration. Also I no longer embrace any of JND's writings, based on how he treated other Christian ministers. In order to accept any of them as MOTA's, one must believe untold lies and exaggeration of facts.

I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

...the economy of God as told by Lee is God's household arrangement of dispensing his riches into the members of the body of Christ. Meaning God is sovereign over the lives of the local church members to the extent that all the things that happen to them are in view of God wanting to dispense Christ as the spirit into the members so that Christ can be their content and expression. This is a mantra that is constantly repeated over and over again in the LC. As far as I know it is 100% biblical and I see no fault in the concept itself.

I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.

I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.

First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.

Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.

My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.

My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.

I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.

Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

I welcome Jay and other new posters on this forum, I hope that you have as much fun as I have. I really like having a forum where I can express my views, and often I hear the view of others as well, very encouraging to consider what others see and think.

I mostly agree with the tenor of Jay’s writing, but like Zezima find the interpretation of “God’s economy” by Lee to be far short of the mark. I see three related issues.

First, like Zezima said, there is no verse in the Bible, either OT or NT, where it says, “Pray-reading the scripture is God’s economy” or “Pray-reading the scripture is food to us.” It says the Word is food to us, but it doesn’t say pray-reading. Jesus says, “To obey God’s word is food to us”, not to pray-read, in John 4:34.

Later, in John, he also says, “As I obey my Father’s commands and live, so also you shall obey my commands and live.” (15:10). Again, not pray-reading scripture, but obedience. Not repetitious noise-making but actions of compliance with the divine will as expressed in scripture.

My second issue with Lee’s interpretation of God’s economy is that it is centered on the believer, not on Jesus Christ. I (the believer) can exercise my human spirit!! That was the focus, they sold me a fantasy version of myself and I believed it. And notice, it doesn’t even say, “exercise your spirit” but “exercise yourself unto godliness” – again, behavior, not noisemaking.
So the believer gets enthralled with the idea of “making it”, when it is Jesus who made it. The believer gets focused on himself or herself, instead of loving the neighbor. We were told at FTTA “don’t waste your time” on the poor, the widows, the orphans. Get the “good building material.” Completely selfish in orientation.

My third issue is that it doesn’t work. I tell one story as an example. A few years ago, I sat in on a meeting with Ron Kangas. He told us a story about a woman in the church, who 38 years ago was flighty, nervous and vain. Now, he says, 38 years have gone by, and no transformation! However, he, Ron, was in a meeting with WL who told them to pray that God would make his home in their hearts. So Ron has been praying the special prayer every day and he’s assured that he’s transformed, not like this sister.

I heard this and thought, so “Just call O Lord/he’ll change your life” doesn’t work! She didn’t pray the special prayer. Every day for 38 year she called, “O Lord” but she missed the special meeting with the special overcomer prayer and didn’t get the inward metabolic transformation that we were all promised.

Of course it’s good to call on the Lord. Whoever calls on the Lord shall be saved. But the Bible doesn’t say, “Just call O Lord.” You also have to obey. But WL’s version of God’s economy reduced it to “just call”. That is deceptive.
I’ve already gone into some detail elsewhere what I think Paul meant by “God’s economy”. It was a riff on Jesus’ “Give to those who can’t repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven.” See 2 whole chapters on this theme, in 2 Cor 8 and 9. Where did Paul spend 2 chapters on pray-reading? Or even 2 verses?

As far as I can tell the economy of God is a fully Biblical. And yes transformation is implied in the economy of God if the believer taps into the spirit. This is like describing the components of an engine to determine how it works. If a believer doesn't turn to their spirit and let the spirit of God saturate their inward being then how could they be transformed? The "engine" won't work. With that said, even if a believer is turning to their spirit for many years, it does not annul their dormant flesh which will always be with us until our body dies. This is also biblical. If "the engine" of the spirit isn't turned on then the "car of holiness" won't go forward

Here is a quote from a website on the economy of God-

The Greek word for economy is oikonomia (Ephesians 1:10; 3:9), which means a household government or a household administration. God's economy is His plan to dispense Himself into man so that He can gain a household to express Himself. This household is the church, the Body of Christ (1 Timothy 3:15)

https://amanatrust.org.uk/post/what-...mothy%203%3A15).

Some people might make it hard to understand, some might leave out key elements. But the basic gist is that if we turn to our spirit and live our lives in the spirit we will receive God's dispensing and we will live by him (John 6:57), this will bring transformation (2 Corinthians 3:18). Does it mean that we will be infallible? No. But insofar as we have partaken of and assimilated God we should be transformed to that degree. I see no fault with this concept and it is very Biblical. I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe it's the core message of the Bible and aligns perfectly with God's original design in Genesis with man and the two trees. The concepts of eating, partaking of, and assimilating God himself to be transformed into his own image is a concept that runs throughout the entire word of God

The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life

Genesis 2:16-17 “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

If you approach this text as is, it’s clear that man is allowed to eat of EVERY tree in the garden apart from the TOKOGE. If you approach this text with the concept you’re referring to, then you’re inferring onto the text that since man is commanded to not eat of the TOKOGE, then man must have been commanded to eat of the TOL.

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.

This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Jay

If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

Another double-take......complements of Jay!
For decades the followers of Nee and Lee have vehemently denied that they consider or treat the writings of these two men as equal to the Word of God. And now our new friend Jay has confirmed this inevitable conclusion for us in real time.

In all fairness to Jay, many (prob most?) of us who were in the Local Church of Witness Lee for any significant length of time held this view of Watchman and Witness, conscientiously or unconscientiously, even if we didn't shout it from the rooftops to a world-wide Internet audience. To be sure, this should not be considered as a mere "Freudian slip" - I am quite certain that Jay actually believes that the 20th century ministry and writings of these two Chinese gentleman are equal in value and authority to the living and abiding Word of God. It is this kind of attitude that caused the late Benson Phillips to proclaim that any Local Church member who leaves the movement will become "spiritually bankrupt and will never be a great spiritual person on earth" (close paraphrase) and that also caused the most blended of Blended Brothers, Minoru Chen, to boldly declare that he is "altogether filled with the spirit of Witness Lee". This is what happens to people who give over their hearts and minds to the person and work of mere, mortal men, and abandon the the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, AKA the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the actual, genuine teaching of the Apostles, and the current leading and fellowship of the Spirit of Truth. May God have mercy on us all.
-

[Jay]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Another double-take......complements of Jay!
For decades the followers of Nee and Lee have vehemently denied that they consider or treat the writings of these two men as equal to the Word of God. And now our new friend Jay has confirmed this inevitable conclusion for us in real time......-

You're just taking what I said and running with it, and adding your own twist with cute little sprinkles of extra layers of things I never said or even implied. Which is whatever. You're a hurt person, I get it. I'm hurt too. I'm just trying to be fair

I believe that the local churches are biblical in concept. But probably the leadership and clergy-laity aspects are very wrong and unrighteous. Which we can talk about that. But please don't put all this extra crap on me that I'm not saying or implying

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Zezima

The concept of the two trees is a perfect example of placing an idea onto the text. There is no command given by God in the garden of Eden, to eat of the Tree of Life...

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it

Before this, you're quoting my post so I'll respond as if the "you" in this sentence refers to me. Nowhere in my writing did I say to throw out the concept of the economy of God. I said to throw out Lee's concept. Instead I offered mine, "Give to those who have no means to repay you in this age" which is surely just as Biblical as "God's plan to dispense Himself into His chosen people".

First, it was a core teaching of Jesus, repeated over and over. Love your neighbour as yourself. Give, and it will be given to you. Second, it was repeated by the disciples. It is better to give than to receive. How can you say that you love your neighbour if you don't share? Third, it was done, even in a focused way, by those same disciples. In his account in Galatians 2, after Paul describes himself as the openly recognized "apostle to the gentiles", he's told by the Twelve to "remember the poor".

How many footnotes did that get, even after he replies that he was eager to do this very thing? Paul's mission to the gentiles is tied to reconnecting them with the poor of Jerusalem, and this enthusiastically affirmed by Paul, and yet how many conferences did WL give on this matter, even though it was being presented as the "central lane of God's New Testament economy" in Paul's own account?

Talk about throwing out the Bible! WL's concept of God's economy is like asking someone after watching a western movie, what it was about, and hearing, "It was about men with hats riding horses". True enough - the whole movie, you could see men, hats, and horses. But by insisting that was the unique and central theme, it necessitates ignoring a lot else! In this case, pray-reading and repetitive shouting get lots of attention, and the poor are not remembered but instead dismissed.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe I read some of her accounts awhile ago regarding Nee. If what she claims is true about Nee then it doesn't sound like the CCP was wholly incorrect for accusing him of being a sexual degenerate. At any rate, I can't say I believe one thing or another. I don't know. It's possible. We all have a strong flesh that wars against our spirit. Does this disqualify him from being a MOTA (or we could argue that there's no such thing as a MOTA anyway, which I've heard others on this site claim)? Maybe, we could also infer that if it's true then God did come in and damage his ministry, and maybe Nee went downhill after that. How long was the resumption of his ministry? 5-10 years? I forget the timeline but he was always under scrutiny and suffering. Not like he had an easy time. And his twenty year imprisonment was probably hell. So maybe God came in and judged idk. Or maybe those sufferings were just general and prescribed for his transformation (Hebrews 2:10). But it doesn't discount what he set up in my view. That's like disregarding the message because the messenger isn't fully right. The message may still be true regardless of the behavior of the messenger. Where this focus on the messenger needing to be totally blameless for the message to be true or received idk where that concept came from. But I will say that if that behavior from Nee is true then it disqualified him from a leadership position according the Bible. Does that annul his message? Does that annul the local churches? I'm sure satan would like it too. But God uses highly damaged, highly fallible men. Look at the personal lives of David, Solomon, and Paul. They were lechers and murderers. Yet they have the highest experiences of the spirit in the entire Bible, and they are personally responsible for setting up God's kingdom on earth. If we throw out the work of Nee and Lee then certainly we have to throw out the books that David, Solomon, and Paul wrote. Do we not?

Jay, the questions you ask at the end of your post here are the kind of questions the co-workers rhetorically ask in their articles, as if the obvious answer is "no" and the juggernaut of the ministry and the local churches should just continue on unabated, crushing all the victims in its path forever. But there are real answers to those questions.

What is the difference between David, Solomon, and Paul's sins versus Nee and Lee's sins?

REPENTANCE.

This distinguishes these two camps as far as the east is from the west. Rather than genuinely repent after committing sins and perpetuating evil, Nee and Lee would instead double-down, dig in further, and tighten the controls even more, driving out and slashing/burning anyone with a conscience who got in their path. This behavior does indeed annul the message, disqualify them from leadership, and throw the entire concept of the local churches -- founded on the shoulders of two abusive, controlling, unrepentant predators and predator-protecters -- into question.

Trapped

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Jay

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also?

Yes, that would be appropriate for this thread.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?

Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.

In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Jay

If you throw out the concept of the economy of God you might as well throw your entire Bible out with it.

Ya know Jay, if you really want us to believe you when you say you don't hold the ministry and writings of Witness Lee as equal to the Bible, you might not want to go around making statements like this. That being said, I will refrain from giving any "cute little sprinkles" on this doozy for the time being.

Originally Posted by Jay

....But probably the leadership and clergy-laity aspects are very wrong and unrighteous. Which we can talk about that.

Oh Jay, we've been talking about many things very wrong and unrighteous in your little sect for about 20 years now on these Internet forums. Unfortunately, "the leadership and clergy-laity aspects" are the very least of these very wrong and unrighteous things. But I think you've probably figured that out by now.

Don't know if you'd consider this as just a "cute little sprinkle" or not, but this is the best advise I've seen on this thread so far:

Originally Posted by Zezima

This is a common response many have had when the beliefs they hold so dearly begin to wobble or collapse. I’d urge anyone with this response to consider a different approach. Read the Bible for yourself, get a reader version or non-study Bible, and just read it. No footnotes or commentary, no subject headers or outlines. Make an effort to set aside your beliefs, start from 0 as best you can and let the Bible tell you what it’s about.

Such a novel idea! "Let the Bible tell you what it's about". Of course Nee and Lee were not the only well-intentioned people who were so self-aggrandizing as to think they were the only guys on the planet uniquely qualified to tell everyone what the Bible is about, (and they won't be the last) but since they are the ones we are all most familiar with, then our sites are going to be squarely set on them and their teachings.
-

[aron]

Paul wanted Timothy to stay in Ephesus so that certain ones don’t teach myths, genealogies and such things as lead to speculations and controversy, rather than God’s economy, which is in faith. Nothing about pray-reading, just that it is in faith. To understand what Paul meant in referencing God’s economy, one must look at the ministry of Jesus, of which Paul was disciple, herald, and apostle. Jesus had taught, “Don’t store up for yourselves on earth, where moth consumes and rust destroys, and where thief breaks through and steals. Rather, give to those who can’t repay you on earth, and your reward will be great in heaven.” Clearly this is an economy based on faith. If you don't believe in a heavenly reward, why would you give, on earth? Remember, there was no 7-11 corner store, no Social Security or Medicaid. If you gave away your stuff, you died.

It is also clear that this economy or dispensational arrangement was at the forefront of the gospel work of the early church. In addition to the selling of all things and leaving the proceeds at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:32-35), a clear mark of discipleship, and the feeding of the widows (6:1-7), there was the case of the collection in Antioch for the hungry of Jerusalem, sent through Paul and Barnabas (11:29,30), even called in the RecV a dispensing (12:25) “And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having completed the dispensing; they took along with them John, who was surnamed Mark.”

The dispensing was to give food to the hungry. Again, look at Jesus’ command: “Blessed is the servant whom the Master returns, when he finds him so doing, truly I say that he will set him over his whole house.” Doing what? Pray-reading? No, “…to give them (i. e, dispense or distribute) their food at the proper time" (Matt 24:45). That, according to Jesus, is God’s dispensation. Those who have, should give to those who do not. And it surely requires faith (and love) to do this!

According to Paul’s account in Galatians 2, when the Twelve acknowledged him as apostle to the gentiles as Peter was to the Jews, they only asked one thing – that he remember the poor. Did he cry, “No! That’s not God’s economy!”? No, rather he said that he was eager to do so! Then, when writing the Corinthians, he opens this up. Remember that in 1st Corinthians he was dealing with many critical issues in the church, but in 2 Cor these were now resolved (7:11) and he could really express his heart's full burden to the gentiles, as seen in chaps 8 and 9.

And he concludes with this: “This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, others will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (9:12-15) The obedience of the gentiles to the gospel of Jesus Christ was their generosity for the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.

To conclude, while the scripture (cf Jer 15:16) does say that God's word is food, and gives life, it never says that this occurs via pray-reading. Instead, Jesus says that his food is in his obedience to the Father's will, expressed in His word (John 4:34). And now, just as he obeyed God’s command (or, word) and lives in the Father's love, so likewise we obey Jesus (15:10). Our obedience to God's will as expressed by Jesus' commands becomes our food, and the basis of our life.

Humankind was made in God’s image but disobeyed, and fell, with the ruinous trail of murder, theft, and lies. Then, just as sin entered through the disobedience of one man, so through the obedience of One, the redemptive path was opened (cf Rom 5). Our singular work is to believe into him, and in his one righteous obedient act, the death on the cross, and then we follow this with our obedience to the gospel, working it out by cooperating in being generous to one another, just as gentile churches were to Jerusalem through Paul.

That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God." This is our daily bread.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

That is God’s economy as I see it. Nothing here about pray-reading. In order to promote pray-reading and repetitive noisemaking as the “central lane of the divine economy”, WL, BP et al set aside portions of scripture as of no effect, deeming it fallen human concepts, and natural, and only showing what not to do and say! Where did Jesus or Paul ever teach this kind of interpretive approach? No, our concepts should allow, and follow "every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God."

Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.

Jeremiah 15:15-17
15 LORD, you understand; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors. You are long-suffering—do not take me away; think of how I suffer reproach for your sake. 16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty. 17 I never sat in the company of revelers, never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation.

Jeremiah speaks of when the word of God came to him. This is exactly what we see in the first chapter of his book. “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Jeremiah initially shows apprehension at such a word, but the Lord insists. “‘Alas, Sovereign LORD,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am too young.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 1:6-8). We can see that Jeremiah immediately proves that he “ate” God’s word by showing that he was keeping God’s word and doing what God asked of him. As our Lord Jesus declared, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:34). In James we also see the importance of keeping God’s word rather than just hearing it: “My dear brothers and sisters, take not of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it — not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it — they will be blessed in what they do.” (James 1:19-25).

The scriptural concept of “eating” can never be divorced from “doing,” yet somehow Lee has conjured up this doctrine of pray-reading which is effectively just a doctrine of verbal phylacteries (Matthew 23:1-12). There is indeed precedent for praying over the scriptures, but Lee’s specific formula for “pray-reading” and for “eating” God’s word is no better than the vain and repetitive actions that Jesus warned against.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ACF

Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.

Yes I think we're in full agreement on this. And yes, we were warned explicitly not to follow the repetitive noisemaking path, yet on it we went most of us anyway... it was so enjoyable! But at the end, no transformation, just frustration. I mean, group chanting was such a head rush. I was 'in spirit, on the ground'!

But really, I was just in a state of heightened suggestibility in which I sat through meeting after meeting, training after training, conference after conference, absorbing all the Lee teachings. At that point, he could have sold us fried eggs, told us it was God's economy, and we would have congratulated ourselves on being so fortunate. It was a golden opportunity, his cheerleaders would say, as we sat raptly, transfixed.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes I think we're in full agreement on this. And yes, we were warned explicitly not to follow the repetitive noisemaking path, yet on it we went most of us anyway... it was so enjoyable! But at the end, no transformation, just frustration. I mean, group chanting was such a head rush. I was 'in spirit, on the ground'!

But really, I was just in a state of heightened suggestibility in which I sat through meeting after meeting, training after training, conference after conference, absorbing all the Lee teachings. At that point, he could have sold us fried eggs, told us it was God's economy, and we would have congratulated ourselves on being so fortunate. It was a golden opportunity, his cheerleaders would say, as we sat raptly, transfixed.

I must admit that for a time I subscribed to this as well. By the end of my tenure, I saw how vain it was when it all came together: their obsession with Lee's ministry, the neglect of scriptural study, the neglect of their members, their history of intimidation and litigation. My trust in The Lord's Recovery died slowly but surely, and all the while painfully.

[Ohio]

As I exhorted thee to wait at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a differently, neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than *God’s Economy” which is in faith. But the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith

God’s economy, God’s household arrangement, God’s plan, God’s stewardship, etc. has been diversely translated by every translator of the Bible. WL preferred the transliteration of “economy” from the Gk. Oikonomia. That’s fine. Many Greek words just don’t have perfect English words to use and convey the Apostle’s thought.

What really troubled me about WL’s and the Blended’s insistence here was yanking it out of context. We can argue words, but remember the old adage: Text without context is a pretext for a proof text. This saying never was so true as with these verses. How many times (e.g. “a faithful word”, “shepherding words”, etc to start) have I read LSM articles using God’s Economy as a sledgehammer to beat others down? Concerning LSM and DCP how true is another saying: A little knowledge is dangerous.. Never think that LSM is gifted in knowledge from God because they exclusively teach what others do not. Knowledge merely puffs up. But what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?

Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?

Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.

A good example of this is the story of Dorcas/Tabitha. She sewed cloaks for the widows. Again, think about what it meant to be a widow back then. No husband, no children, no income, no Social Security and social safety net. No human rights. You didn't exist. It never mentions "God's economy" in the narrative, but the outreach of real help based on real love is palpable.

Or the flip side, with the rich man with Lazarus the beggar. There was no love there... there was enjoyment, but it never reached outside the walls. Jesus says, "When I was hungry, you didn't feed me..." (Matt 25:42) You may tell me, that's not God's economy, but I would reply, if that isn't God's economy, then what is?

[aron]

A question that I'd asked previously, which LSM (to my knowledge) has never answered: If Paul told Timothy to stay behind in Ephesus to make sure that they taught things that resulted in God's economy, how can we say that part of the charge included the teaching of intensification? If there's no evidence that Paul included intensification as part of his oeuvre, why did WL say it was part of the teaching of God's economy? It must have been added in later, by somebody else - namely WL.

Originally Posted by aron

As a recent example of discrepancy, I found myself reconsidering "God's economy" as taught by WL: where does Paul promote intensification? If not, why pretend that Paul was urging Timothy to remain behind in Ephesus and teach it? And if Paul wasn't telling Timothy (or anyone else) to teach it as part of "God's economy", why the presumption that we should? (And, where to broach such questions as a basis for respectful and mutually profitable exploration? Not in the Local Church!)

Perhaps John "saw" or "taught" intensification based on his vision of seven spirits on Patmos, but if we can't see John passing this on to Paul somewhere (and of course Paul was deceased by then), how can we include it in Paul's teaching, or imagine that Paul wanted Timothy to make sure it was taught in Ephesus? Unless we see Paul teaching a sevenfold intensified Holy Spirit, we can't assume that he wanted it taught in Ephesus as part of God's economy. And if Paul didn't, neither can WL or anyone else. It's pure fabrication. The only reason WL got away with this amateur-hour theology is that he preached in an Echo chamber, where all he could hear was "Yes, amen" from the crowd. A critical audience would have called this out.

[aron]

Psalm 29:7 (kjv) says that the voice of the LORD divides the flames of fire. To me, that hearkens to Moses and the seventy elders eating before God, seeing Him as recorded in Exodus 24. Then, in Exodus 25, God told Moses to build everything according to the pattern seen on the holy mountain, and he built a candlestick with seven flames.

God "divides the flames of fire" according to His good pleasure. We were conditioned to see "division" according to negative cant, but in this case the division is according to divine fiat.

So I think "One Spirit, sevenfold intensified" is not a necessary leap of logic. Second, there are seven Angel's, seven churches... does one imply one angel sevenfold, or seven Angel's? Likewise, churches? Why have one interpretation in one verse, then abandon that method in the next? The only consistency here is inconsistency.

Back to my first point - even if one took "One Spirit sevenfold" on face value, where does any NT usage indicate this was taught as God's NT economy? Rather, it looks like a late 20th- century creation, passed off as though it was formulated in the 1st century. Even if it were, it's doubtful that Paul taught it. There's simply no scripture.

"All Asia has abandoned me" doesn't mean that Paul taught intensification. It just means Witness Lee taught it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Jay

Would you like me to literally quote the verses that talk about God's economy? And the verses that go into depth about it also? Do you read the Bible much?

Jay? Where are your verses?

Nell

[gr8ful]

I find this one of the best treatments of the way 1 Tim 1:4 is used by some today.

Originally Posted by Ohio

...
What really troubled me about WL’s and the Blended’s insistence here was yanking it out of context. We can argue words, but remember the old adage: Text without context is a pretext for a proof text. This saying never was so true as with these verses. How many times (e.g. “a faithful word”, “shepherding words”, etc to start) have I read LSM articles using God’s Economy as a sledgehammer to beat others down? Concerning LSM and DCP how true is another saying: A little knowledge is dangerous.. Never think that LSM is gifted in knowledge from God because they exclusively teach what others do not. Knowledge merely puffs up. But what was Paul saying here? What was on his heart? What was his burden to convey to Timothy?

The use of an obscure reading on a single verse to condemn every other teaching other than one's own teaching should be a red flag enough. Grabbing a single word and deciding the entire Bible must be read through the lens of that word as interpreted by a 20th century Bible expositor should be another red flag.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul tells us in plain words: “the goal of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith.” LSM loves to fight for “God’s Economy,” but they completely miss the goal. The miss love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith. How many times have I seen them totally miss out on love, and instead minister a spirit of condemnation which damaged many a heart, many consciences, and the faith of many.

All the other red flags aside, this here is the only standard by which we need measure the proponents of "God's Economy" as promoted by partisans today: the plain words of the biblical author in context of the touted verse. We need not fear the brow-beating podium thumping partisans demanding fealty to their leadership; we only need to read the "goal of the charge" and discern the real situation with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Lee’s concept of “eating” God’s word always irked me. His use of Jeremiah’s heartfelt declaration to the Lord to justify his concept of “pray-reading” is disheartening, for it leaves out a crucial aspect of this metaphor of “eating,” which is the fact that in order to truly “eat’ God’s word, we must “do” God’s word.

Jeremiah 15:15-17
15 LORD, you understand; remember me and care for me. Avenge me on my persecutors. You are long-suffering—do not take me away; think of how I suffer reproach for your sake. 16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty. 17 I never sat in the company of revelers, never made merry with them; I sat alone because your hand was on me and you had filled me with indignation.

Jeremiah speaks of when the word of God came to him. This is exactly what we see in the first chapter of his book. “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Jeremiah initially shows apprehension at such a word, but the Lord insists. “‘Alas, Sovereign LORD,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am too young.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 1:6-8). We can see that Jeremiah immediately proves that he “ate” God’s word by showing that he was keeping God’s word and doing what God asked of him. As our Lord Jesus declared, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:34). In James we also see the importance of keeping God’s word rather than just hearing it: “My dear brothers and sisters, take not of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it — not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it — they will be blessed in what they do.” (James 1:19-25).

The scriptural concept of “eating” can never be divorced from “doing,” yet somehow Lee has conjured up this doctrine of pray-reading which is effectively just a doctrine of verbal phylacteries (Matthew 23:1-12). There is indeed precedent for praying over the scriptures, but Lee’s specific formula for “pray-reading” and for “eating” God’s word is no better than the vain and repetitive actions that Jesus warned against.

John 6:57 He who eats me, he also shall live because of me
Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out through the mouth of God
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is God breathed
John 4:24 God is spirit, and he who worships him must worship in spirit and truthfulness
John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God
John 1:14 And the word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the father), full of grace and reality
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil


These verses all talk about spiritual eating. The Bible is a spiritual book, God himself is spirit (John 4:24), the Bible is actually God himself (John 1:1). If God is the word, then surely the Bible is good for eating (John 6:57). It's not only biblical to say this, it's literally what God wants from us. He wants to be assimilated into our being so that we express him. Otherwise what are we saved for? Simply for our own ticket to heaven? That's not the scope of what the Bible says. From Genesis chapter 2, directly after creating man he put man in the garden in front of the two trees with the idea that man would eat him. This is the major running theme throughout the entire Bible, and it's how God accomplishes his goal. The Bible is one big book of eating, from the beginning to the end. If you don't think so I'd encourage you to read your Bible more often

Modern Christianity loves to say God's goal is to do things, and to accomplish works. This is a common trope in mainstream Christianity. But actually God didn't tell Adam and Eve to do much. They only had to upkeep the garden. But his central goal for them was focused around their eating. "God cares more for what we are than what we do." -Watchman Nee. God cares for the quality of his craftsmanship. What better material to build with than with himself

But with that said, yes there's more to the Christian life than eating. And works are something that is talked about a lot in the Bible. I went into detail about this on another thread regarding the oneness of the body. Someone said that he experienced oneness in the works. I contend that without the spirit the works are something of the soul. Whether it's the soul or the spirit matters (Hebrews 4:12)

Lee says in the footnotes for Hebrews 4:12-

According to the Bible, man is a tripartite being — spirit, soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23). Here, in this verse, are the joints and marrow — which are parts of the body — and the soul and spirit.

The foregoing verses describe the children of Israel as falling away from entering into the rest of the good land. With them there were three places:
1) Egypt, from which they were delivered;
2) the wilderness, in which they wandered;
3) Canaan, into which they entered. Their history in these three places signifies the three stages of their participation in God's full salvation.
This is a type of us, the New Testament believers, in our participation in the full salvation of God. In the first stage we receive Christ and are redeemed and delivered from the world. In the second stage we become wanderers in following the Lord; our wandering always takes place in our soul. In the third stage we partake of and enjoy Christ in a full way; this is experienced in our spirit. When we pursue the pleasures of material and sinful things, we are in the world, typified by Egypt. When we wander in our soul, we are in the wilderness. When we enjoy Christ in our spirit, we are in Canaan. When the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, they were always murmuring, reasoning, and chiding. This surely took place in their soul, not in their spirit. But Caleb and Joshua believed in the word of God, obeyed the Lord, and pressed toward the goal. This surely took place not in their soul but in their spirit. At that time the receivers of this book, the Hebrew believers, were wondering what they should do with their old Hebrew religion. This wondering in their mind was a wandering in their soul, not an experience of Christ in their spirit. So the writer of this book said that the word of God, i.e., what was quoted from the Old Testament, could pierce into their wondering like a sharp two-edged sword and divide their soul from their spirit. As the marrow is concealed deep in the joints, so the spirit is deep in the soul. The dividing of the marrow from the joints requires mainly the breaking of the joints. In the same principle, the dividing of the spirit from the soul requires the breaking of the soul. The Hebrew believers' soul, with its wondering mind, its doubting concerning God's way of salvation, and its considering of its own interests, had to be broken by the living, operative, and piercing word of God that their spirit might be divided from their soul.

Our soul is our very self (Matt. 16:25; cf. Luke 9:25). In following the Lord we must deny our soul, our very self (Matt. 16:24; Luke 9:23). Our spirit is the deepest part of our being, a spiritual organ with which we contact God (John 4:24; Rom. 1:9). It is in our spirit that we are regenerated (John 3:6). It is in our spirit that the Holy Spirit dwells and works (Rom. 8:16). It is in our spirit that we enjoy Christ and His grace (2 Tim. 4:22; Gal. 6:18). Hence, the writer of this book advised the Hebrew believers not to stagger in the wandering of their soul, which soul they had to deny, but to press on into their spirit to partake of and enjoy the heavenly Christ that they might participate in the kingdom rest of His reign in the millennium. If they staggered in the wandering of their soul, they would miss God's goal and suffer the loss of the full enjoyment of Christ and the kingdom rest.

In this complex footnote we see how intricate our being is, and how closely related to God's plan the faculties of our being is. We see that the soul life is asked of us to deny (Matthew 16:24) and we see the spirit is the focal point of the Christian life (Romans chapter 8). All of these clues are indicators of what God wants- EATING. God wants us to eat of him as the spirit and to exercise our spirit. The works come out of this practice

Now, as I said on the other thread I believe that the local churches are short in the works department. I believe this is a shortage or a lack that they have for whatever reason. But we can't contend with their theology on eating of Christ as the spirit. To do so would be to contend with the Bible itself. It may be that in fact they themselves are short on eating and enjoying the Lord and this is why they lack in works. But the error of modern Christianity is to focus only on works and totally ignore eating Christ as the spirit. This is a defunct situation. Dead works like Thyatira. However many in the local churches exhibit the condition of Laodicea. They have the knowledge but they've lost the first love. They are in a stagnant condition with no works. Both scenarios are wrong. Christ was balanced in both life and his humanity that exhibited love and care for people through his works of healing, helping, loving, etc. This is short in the local churches from my experience. But we can't say that the Bible is not a book of eating, and we can't say that eating isn't the central theme of God's plan

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.

In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.

Nell

Ephesians 3:9 And to enlighten all that they may see what the economy of the mystery is, which throughout the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things
Ephesians 1:10 Unto the economy of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him
1 Timothy 1:4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God's economy, which is in faith
1 Timothy 2:4 [God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth

Economy is a Greek word meaning household law, implying distribution (the base of this word is of the same origin as that for pasture in John 10:9, implying a distribution of the pasture to the flock). It denotes a household management, a household administration, a household government, and, derivatively, a dispensation, a plan, or an economy for administration (distribution); hence, it is also a household economy. God's economy in faith is his household economy, his household administration, which is to dispense himself in Christ into his chosen people that he may have a house to express himself, which house is the church (1 Timothy 3:15), the body of Christ. The apostle's ministry (Paul) was centered on this economy (Colossians 1:25; 1 Corinthians 9:17), whereas the different teachings of the dissenting ones were used by God's enemy to distract his people away from this economy. In the administration and shepherding of a local church, this divine economy must be made fully clear to the saints- Witness Lee, 1 Timothy 1:4 footnote

As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works

Jay, then what do you do with these verses? This short section encapsulates the whole of God’s Economy - God’s Plan of salvation, the goal of His redemption, our Hope and our living in this age, with His final desire that we be “zealous of good works.”

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2.11-14

No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, then what do you do with these verses? This short section encapsulates the whole of God’s Economy - God’s Plan of salvation, the goal of His redemption, our Hope and our living in this age, with His final desire that we be “zealous of good works.”

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2.11-14

No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.

I never threw out good works. My point is that if we are not abiding in the Lord (John 15:4) then we cannot produce good fruit (good works). Jesus said 'apart from me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). So as I said before, good works ties into God's economy in the sense that good works or good fruits are the result of God dispensing himself as the spirit in his economy. Also righteousness and sanctification are results of our abiding in the spirit. Otherwise our Christian walk and righteousness would just be an outward performance. Which is a major problem with modern Christianity and the denominations. They do things FOR God but ignore God's method of sanctification and transformation. Essentially they ignore Christ and they ignore their spirit. Or we could probably say that they are ignorant of Christ in their spirit. satan loves to keep people in ignorance

We all have to solemnly read Matthew 23:27-28 and question whether we have God's subjective righteousness through the transformation of the spirit, or our own kind of outward righteousness according to the dead letter of the law. One has life, the other is death-

2 Corinthians 3:6b for the letter (the law) kills, but the spirit gives life

The letter of the law, which only requires of man. It is unable to supply man with life (Galatians 3:21). Because of man's inability to fulfill the requirements of the law, the law kills man (Romans 7:9-11) - Witness Lee, footnote 3:6, 2 Corinthians

The law was able only to demand and condemn; it could not give life. (See note Rom. 7:101.) There is no life in the law; there are only commandments. Life is in Christ (John 1:4). He is the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45), the only One who is able to give life. The giving of life is the focal point of the apostle's revelation. We should take only the One who gives life

There must be righteousness in order for life to be given. Righteousness, however, is not of law but in Christ (Rom. 5:17-18). Hence, the law is not able to give life. Furthermore, since the law cannot give life, it has no power to fulfill its requirements so that righteousness may be produced. Hence, in this sense also, righteousness is not of law- Witness Lee, footnotes 3:21, Galatians

What Lee is basically saying here that works (whether righteousness or whatever) that is not out of the spirit, is out of the law. Most Christians fail at this one point. They are unable to gain their good works from out of abiding, and their righteousness doesn't come from the spirit of Christ, it comes from somewhere else. They think they have to DO for God and to be approved by God through their DOING. This is fully wrong according to the Bible. The doing and the working comes out of the spirit (Philippians 2:13). If the spirit is not the source then it's wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12). Unfortunately most of modern Christians are to some degree caught up in this major error

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes please. Quote the verses, not Lee.

In addition, please give us a brief, clear and concise (not wordy) definition of “God’s economy”.

Nell

Non-answer.

You just couldn’t do it could you? You had to get all wordy and quote Lee. No surprise there.

Lee’s “ministry” consists of taking verses describing something in the word and turning it into a prescription that must be followed for all time ……”eating” for example.

Nell

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Nell

Non-answer.

You just couldn’t do it could you? You had to get all wordy and quote Lee. No surprise there.

Lee’s “ministry” consists of taking verses describing something in the word and turning it into a prescription that must be followed for all time ……”eating” for example.

Nell

I think I answered very adequately and concisely. It's not my fault if the answer wasn't according to your palate

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No mention of “eating” here, rather lots of “doing,” the right kind of “doing.” I’m not demeaning “eating,” but Apostle Paul never focused on it.

I believe Paul was an eater of Jesus. I believe his ministry focuses on eating the spirit. Read Romans 8:6 and Romans 10:13

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe Paul was an eater of Jesus. I believe his ministry focuses on eating the spirit. Read Romans 8:6 and Romans 10:13

Jay, you are reading “eating” into these scripture. Had the Spirit of God inspired Paul to minister about “eating” then we would see it in his writings. Please try to understand the word of God using the context, instead of the ministry of WL.

Remember that Text without Context is a Pretext for Proof Text. Whether you know it or not, that’s what you just did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I never threw out good works. My point is that if we are not abiding in the Lord (John 15:4) then we cannot produce good fruit (good works). Jesus said 'apart from me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). So as I said before, good works ties into God's economy in the sense that good works or good fruits are the result of God dispensing himself as the spirit in his economy. Also righteousness and sanctification are results of our abiding in the spirit. Otherwise our Christian walk and righteousness would just be an outward performance. Which is a major problem with modern Christianity and the denominations. They do things FOR God but ignore God's method of sanctification and transformation. Essentially they ignore Christ and they ignore their spirit. Or we could probably say that they are ignorant of Christ in their spirit. satan loves to keep people in ignorance

We all have to solemnly read Matthew 23:27-28 and question whether we have God's subjective righteousness through the transformation of the spirit, or our own kind of outward righteousness according to the dead letter of the law. One has life, the other is death-

2 Corinthians 3:6b for the letter (the law) kills, but the spirit gives life

What Lee is basically saying here that works (whether righteousness or whatever) that is not out of the spirit, is out of the law. Most Christians fail at this one point. They are unable to gain their good works from out of abiding, and their righteousness doesn't come from the spirit of Christ, it comes from somewhere else. They think they have to DO for God and to be approved by God through their DOING. This is fully wrong according to the Bible. The doing and the working comes out of the spirit (Philippians 2:13). If the spirit is not the source then it's wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12). Unfortunately most of modern Christians are to some degree caught up in this major error

When the Blendeds decided to excommunicate the Midwest LC’s some 20 odd years ago, one of their chief criticisms was that our young people’s conferences were engaged in “good works” rather than sitting around and “eating” the ministry of WL.

What you say here may sound “balanced” to you according to the Bible, but has never been practiced in a “balanced” way by LSM. Operatives from LSM/DCP literally came to Midwest LC’s and held divisive training sessions for young people using WL’s teachings about “works” to undermine the leadership in these churches.

It’s not “most of modern Christians” who are “caught up in major error,” but evil workers, what Apostle Paul called religious “dogs,” following WL’s teachings who are in error, and should be “marked out” for causing divisions and stumbling the saints. Read Romans 16.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

As I said in my last post in this thread; God is concerned with our eating. In his economy God has given us Christ as the center of his distribution, for us to eat spiritually (John 6:57, John 4:24). This is the core theme of the Bible. God wants an expression on the earth, and he gains it through willful assimilation of his spirit. This is the point and goal of salvation and regeneration of our human spirit, not simply works

I've been in the Christian assemblies for decades and don't recall anyone teaching that the point and goal of salvation is simply works. Faith is usually stressed along with behaviour. The two are integrally related. It appears as though Jay is constructing a "straw man" and then saying, "We don't want to be like that." When no Christian assembly is promoting simply works.

And yes, God is concerned with our eating. But the Local Church tactic in discussing our eating is to leave out verses that indicate it's something other than what they say. I will bring them forward, again, with germane sections capitalized for emphasis. I am paraphrasing by memory but I doubt that I'm distorting the meaning much if at all.

"My food is to DO the will of the Father in heaven" [which will is expressed in scripture] Here eating is obedience to God's will, explicitly stated.
"Even as I DO the will of the Father [as written in scripture] and live, so you [disciples] should DO my will [expressed in my commandments] and live"
"Behold, I come to DO Thy will, O God, behold in the scroll of the book [God's command written in scripture] it is written concerning me [the Messiah, Jesus Christ]"
"Blessed is the servant whom the Master comes and finds so doing [i.e. distributing food to the hungry]. Behold, I tell you that He will set him over His whole house"
Peter, in preaching to the gentiles, said, "Jesus of Nazareth went around DOING GOOD, for God was with Him"

Remember that pray-reading and calling on the Lord repetitively are also a doing, based on another faith, that Witness Lee was a "seer of the divine revelation" (his own words for Watchman Nee, which he associated with himself explicitly, as well). We believe in WL as MOTA, go to his supposed "proper ground" and incessantly call, shout, and amen, thinking that in our multiplicity of words we somehow fulfill the divine command. No, the divine command was to be kind to one another, distributing (dispensing) to those who lack. Again, I remind of the RecV translation: "And when Paul and Silas were finished with this dispensing [of food to the poor of Jerusalem], they left..."

Being obedient to God's command to love one another, which obedience is fueled by our faith in Jesus as God's Obedient Lamb (and our King) and our obedience to His commands to love one another (in deed [DOING] and not just in word). Confession of faith is naturally followed by obedience in activity.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It’s not “most of modern Christians” who are “caught up in major error,” but evil workers, what Apostle Paul called religious “dogs,” following WL’s teachings who are in error, and should be “marked out” for causing divisions and stumbling the saints. Read Romans 16.

You can say what you like, but I know from first hand experience that modern Christianity is very focused on works, and very lacking in the eating Jesus department. I said it before and I'll say it again; most of them don't even know they have a human spirit, nor do they know they are a soul, let along how to differentiate the two

I'm for balance. As I said before I believe there is a lack of works in the recovery

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, you are reading “eating” into these scripture. Had the Spirit of God inspired Paul to minister about “eating” then we would see it in his writings. Please try to understand the word of God using the context, instead of the ministry of WL.

Remember that Text without Context is a Pretext for Proof Text. Whether you know it or not, that’s what you just did.

We don't need to see the word "eating" in his writings though sir. Jesus himself said it (John 6:57). Who has precedent-Jesus or Paul?

In Matthew 15:26-28 Jesus likened himself to bread crumbs for the dogs (gentile sinners) to eat. Yet another example of the blatant and obvious running theme of eating Jesus which permeates the Bible

With basic Bible study we know that Paul persecuted those who called on the name of the Lord in the book of Acts before his conversion, which is how he identified them. He literally heard them calling audibly and that's how he caught them. And later on he was taught in the ways of the church life by the same people who called on the name of the Lord. Calling on the name of the Lord is a running theme throughout the entire Bible. It's a basic practice of the church. It's also how we touch our spirit. And it's how we eat and assimilate the Lord. This is all pretty clear unless someone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

You can say what you like, but I know from first hand experience that modern Christianity is very focused on works, and very lacking in the eating Jesus department. I said it before and I'll say it again; most of them don't even know they have a human spirit, nor do they know they are a soul, let along how to differentiate the two

I'm for balance. As I said before I believe there is a lack of works in the recovery

Jay, I agree. Serious lack of balance and focus.

A while ago I read that half of the professing Christians spoke in tongues and half did not. Basically split down the middle. While I never spoke in tongues, I have met with a mildly Pentecostal community church. I found it sad that there was no balance, no crossover, no learning, from one side to the other. A huge wall existed. Unfortunately.

The same wall exists around the Recovery. I definitely felt that many riches in the Recovery could have benefitted the greater body of Christ. That definitely was more true in the early days of the 60’s and 70’s. Now, however, many Recovery practices have become so robotic, so structured, so mandated by headquarters. Eg, the last LSM meeting I watched was the Quarantine meeting of Titus Chu some 15 years ago. Things went quite long, and someone said “let’s rise and call on the Lord 5x.” That was vain, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and made me sick.

That’s why in his later ministry Paul exhorted us to call on His name out of a pure heart. No practice should become mechanical, void of faith, void of reality. Like Jesus said, “this people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far away.” The Recovery boasts in their unique practices and teachings, yet they are puffed up. Their ministry now conveys a feel-good pride that makes them feel so special, better than everyone else.

During that quarantine excommunication meeting they should have been crying. So intolerant of meany differences. They totally lost sight of our common faith, the real oneness of the Spirit. We in the Midwest were like 98.6% identical to them, but that was not adequate. They demand 100% submission to their authority. That is more totalitarian than Christian. But that was one thing that opened my eyes to see how far off things had become.

[aron]

When I was young, recruited off the college campus, during the New Way era push for good building materials, I was just what they wanted: vulnerable, impressionable, and uncertain. Witness Lee was anything but uncertain. So I borrowed his certainty. He would show us a verse or two or three, and say, "This shows us that..." or "This indicates that..."

It was not until years later, after immersion in this world of reflexive non-thought, that there are other Bible verses, indicating other possible narratives, should one reflect, and consider. And when I showed these "other" verses to the LSM-affiliated brethren, a curious thing would happen.

If it was a public meeting, there would be silence. I had brought out the "wrong" verse, that couldn't be used in the Lee narrative. Or, I'd be told that I was confused. Or, in a private conversation I might be told that I was being stubborn, argumentative. But in all cases there was a refusal to consider the scripture that I had offered. If it couldn't be made to fit the Lee narrative, it couldn't exist. What kind of a Bible is that?

I would remind our readers that to assemble in Meeting Hall 3 of the Church in Taichung and read Week 8 of HWFMR is also a work, based on faith. You believe the WL narrative and it alters your behaviours. Pray-reading is an action, with a hoped-for result.

But the NT is about Jesus, in fact both Testaments look to him. He said, "These things were written of me"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jay

We don't need to see the word "eating" in his writings though sir. Jesus himself said it (John 6:57). Who has precedent-Jesus or Paul? In Matthew 15:26-28 Jesus likened himself to bread crumbs for the dogs (gentile sinners) to eat. Yet another example of the blatant and obvious running theme of eating Jesus...Calling on the name of the Lord is a running theme throughout the entire Bible. It's a basic practice of the church. It's also how we touch our spirit. And it's how we eat and assimilate the Lord. This is all pretty clear unless someone just wants to argue for the sake of arguing

I wasn't able to finish my previous post because the cows got out & had to break off. But I was attempting to approach the above. I have repeatedly shown Jesus equating eating with obedience, and divine bread and the eternal life which follow the result of obedience to God's word. But those verses are never acknowledged but rather a few others are repeated which "show" the desired position. But even those proof texts lack. Where does it show calling on the name of the Lord as eating? Or, pray-reading? Yes, it says to do them, but never that they constitute the focus of our Christian life, that they equate in any way to God's economy. WL made that association. It was a confidence game, and we fell for it.

And if one brings up other verses which "show" alternative paths of understanding, like "my food is to do the will of the Father", those verses are ignored and aspersions are cast on the person who prefers them, as if they are a rebellious lot. One gets the distinct impression that the promotion and survival of the WL thought- world is much more important than the text, or mutual fellowship & learning based on said text.

And the person may be brave & honest enough to admit that significant issues exist, which is commendable. But the concept remains that superior teachings are somehow marred by poor practices. But many here have gradually realized that bad teachings produced bad fruit. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace. But we found little. Instead we were whipped into excitement and then fed bad teachings.

[aron]

That such cut-rate theology can survive and even flourish brings an obvious question: How can such poor thinking get disseminated, accepted, promoted, and vociferously defended? It's really striking at first glance.

Case in point - intensification as the 3rd stage of God's economy. Where is the basis for consideration of intensification of the HS as something Paul either taught or asked Timothy to safeguard, as LSM teaches? Because it's said to be revealed to John in the Apocalypse account due to degradation, yet it was an integral part of God's NT economy, per Paul? It was clearly added on by WL. There's no trace of Paul (or Jesus) teaching intensification, much less as part of God's economy. It was manufactured by WL, clearly. There's no justification for saying otherwise. (And there were 7 lamps burning in Exodus 25, so degradation & intensification is also theologically wobbly).

Or, the role of women in the ekklesia. Foundational to Nee, but forbidden by Lee. They both can't be logical positions. One or the other is illegitimate, by their own terms. It's theology of convenience, just like the idea of intensification as integral to the God's economy being taught by Paul.

Originally Posted by Zezima

I always...always blamed myself for not agreeing with the message given or the interpretation presented… I never blamed the subject presenting the message. Not only that, but I never thought LSM could be wrong. While those are personal rationalizations, they were developed through a lifetime of being told LSM could not be wrong and a suppression of critical thinking.

First supporting pillar is that the group member is conditioned to think that any error must be on their part. If you see a problem, you are negative or poison or ambitious or divisive. So critical thought is suppressed and illogic is accepted.

For confirmation see Jo Casteel open letter. Witness Lee was Seer of the Divine Revelation, God's Oracle, the Humble Bondslave of Jesus Christ, and if he didn't make sense, then you were somehow deficient and defeated. He HAD to make sense, even when he didn't seem to. He was Spiritual Man, able to discern others while his thought was cloaked in mystical impregnability. You just needed the vision, we were told.

The second pillar is that everything - everything - that you see in print from WL was introduced publicly in an atmosphere of heel rocking, groaning, sighing, neck rolling, arm waving, repetitive chanting, modulated intonations with fist pumps to put the audience into a state of heightened suggestibility. At that point, they'll overlook the most obvious illogic.

How can there be multiple centers of the universe? It's by definition a singularity. Yet look how often WL publicly reintroduced the concept, continuing to offer new and incompatible centers. Just google "Witness Lee center of the universe" and you'll see what I mean. And there are many such examples. A ministry of thousands of messages that is riddled with inconsistencies. The only constants that are seen are convenience and self- interest. The (ahem) revealed truth is whatever expediencies will tickle the audience today, and keep the game rolling.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

That such cut-rate theology can survive and even flourish brings an obvious question: How can such poor thinking get disseminated, accepted, promoted, and vociferously defended? It's really striking at first glance.

Case in point - intensification as the 3rd stage of God's economy. Where is the basis for consideration of intensification of the HS as something Paul either taught or asked Timothy to safeguard, as LSM teaches? Because it's said to be revealed to John in the Apocalypse account due to degradation, yet it was an integral part of God's NT economy, per Paul? It was clearly added on by WL. There's no trace of Paul (or Jesus) teaching intensification, much less as part of God's economy. It was manufactured by WL, clearly. There's no justification for saying otherwise. (And there were 7 lamps burning in Exodus 25, so degradation & intensification is also theologically wobbly).

Or, the role of women in the ekklesia. Foundational to Nee, but forbidden by Lee. They both can't be logical positions. One or the other is illegitimate, by their own terms. It's theology of convenience, just like the idea of intensification as integral to the God's economy being taught by Paul.



First supporting pillar is that the group member is conditioned to think that any error must be on their part. If you see a problem, you are negative or poison or ambitious or divisive. So critical thought is suppressed and illogic is accepted.

For confirmation see Jo Casteel open letter. Witness Lee was Seer of the Divine Revelation, God's Oracle, the Humble Bondslave of Jesus Christ, and if he didn't make sense, then you were somehow deficient and defeated. He HAD to make sense, even when he didn't seem to. He was Spiritual Man, able to discern others while his thought was cloaked in mystical impregnability. You just needed the vision, we were told.

The second pillar is that everything - everything - that you see in print from WL was introduced publicly in an atmosphere of heel rocking, groaning, sighing, neck rolling, arm waving, repetitive chanting, modulated intonations with fist pumps to put the audience into a state of heightened suggestibility. At that point, they'll overlook the most obvious illogic.

How can there be multiple centers of the universe? It's by definition a singularity. Yet look how often WL publicly reintroduced the concept, continuing to offer new and incompatible centers. Just google "Witness Lee center of the universe" and you'll see what I mean. And there are many such examples. A ministry of thousands of messages that is riddled with inconsistencies. The only constants that are seen are convenience and self- interest. The (ahem) revealed truth is whatever expediencies will tickle the audience today, and keep the game rolling.

Well one thing I'll say is that how many times can you repeat the same thing over and over. I enjoy a reiteration and I enjoy the major points of God's economy. But it's pretty obvious that LSM repackages the same points over and over again from every possible angle and then puts out these publications as if they're "new" or fresh revelation from God. They call it "the current speaking." Which is why I struggle with the morning revival. I agree with the concept of reviving my spirit in the morning and the concept of eating Bible verses with prayer. But then you read a large portion of Nee and Lee ministry which again, is just the same stuff repeated over and over. It took me a lot of years to get through all of their concepts. But once you do you realize it's all the same stuff. I guess some would say that Paul says to only pay attention to God's economy (1 Timothy 1:4), which I guess is well and good, but many times I find myself just utterly bored reading the same theology from a remixed perspective. And you can just read Lee forever and it's mostly all the same stuff. Idk maybe it just is what it is. I suppose the thought there is to have the same diet and to help attune the body into the same mind and thinking

But then also it gives ground to call it a cult and that's where the concept of "mindbenders" comes in. It's very homogenous. Almost like an Amish community. I remember in college I went on a field trip to an Amish community and it was eerily similar to the local church where I was meeting. They all dressed the same and they all had the same kind of fear of outsiders and fear of "the world" there, just like in the local church at that time. Maybe now it's gotten more normal but it's just kind of funny how similar that type of thing was. And I've heard many "tape recorders" of brother Lee who just say and repeat the same lines and stuff he said. Like they don't even have their own mind. You can tell there's no "writers voice" with these people. I was like that for awhile myself. Not really having any personal uniqueness or personal flavor in what I was saying. Just rehashed and repeated doctrine and theology that was copying something Lee said. Many in the recovery are just kind of clones of one another or clones of Lee, and Lee for sure encouraged that type of thing and behavior. I've read him many times say "I hope all of you brothers will be little tape recorders of me." What he meant was that he loved God's economy and he just wanted the brothers to speak only God's economy. Which I suppose is theoretically correct in a sense according to the Bible. But they took him so literal that they literally just repeat things he's said over and over again. Like how many different ways can you cook chicken? But anyway

[Jay]

Originally Posted by aron

When I was young, recruited off the college campus, during the New Way era push for good building materials, I was just what they wanted: vulnerable, impressionable, and uncertain. Witness Lee was anything but uncertain. So I borrowed his certainty. He would show us a verse or two or three, and say, "This shows us that..." or "This indicates that..."

It was not until years later, after immersion in this world of reflexive non-thought, that there are other Bible verses, indicating other possible narratives, should one reflect, and consider. And when I showed these "other" verses to the LSM-affiliated brethren, a curious thing would happen.

If it was a public meeting, there would be silence. I had brought out the "wrong" verse, that couldn't be used in the Lee narrative. Or, I'd be told that I was confused. Or, in a private conversation I might be told that I was being stubborn, argumentative. But in all cases there was a refusal to consider the scripture that I had offered. If it couldn't be made to fit the Lee narrative, it couldn't exist. What kind of a Bible is that?

I would remind our readers that to assemble in Meeting Hall 3 of the Church in Taichung and read Week 8 of HWFMR is also a work, based on faith. You believe the WL narrative and it alters your behaviours. Pray-reading is an action, with a hoped-for result.

But the NT is about Jesus, in fact both Testaments look to him. He said, "These things were written of me"

Well as far as the subject of Lee's ministry, I believe absolutely that it's focused on Jesus. It introduces you to your human spirit, which is the practical way to contact Jesus in real time. I am very grateful for Lee for that. I never would have known that or heard that from anywhere else. Who else talks about the human spirit? And in such a concise and to the point way? I know there have been books on it for sure. But who else links it to calling on the name of the Lord? I know Andrew Murray wrote some good books on the spirit of Jesus. Some very spiritual works from him, but I never heard anyone explain how to "turn the light on" to our spirit by calling on the name of the Lord. Only Lee did that

But you bring up some other good points insofar that BECAUSE his ministry was so unique it caused a very homogenous type of behavior amongst the body, which you talk about in saying that your attempts to shine light on different verses were shot down. Which is a valid point. That lends to the LC acting cultish for sure. And it also goes against Lee's own words when he talks about accepting all believers who may think or practice different than we do. But I believe he draws a hard line when it comes to the ground of the church and certain fundamental doctrines similar to that. Which one could argue is necessary. But the point is that maybe because he was so right and they were so used to being lied to by the world or mislead by flimsy denominational doctrine that once they got on some solid ground of Lee's teachings they voraciously fought against anything else. But then on the other hand I am pretty sure Lee had conferences teaching them to reject and repudiate anything but God's economy. So you're right there's a lot of inconsistencies. Maybe we could call them paradoxes that need the grace of God and the love of Jesus humanity? Idk, maybe some of those members should have said "amen" to your prophesying, but because it had a different tone they felt afraid of it. Which, seems culty

I've definitely seen and experienced a lot of homogenous behavior like that when it comes to sharing. I've even seen elders ask certain ones to sit down if their prophesying is too long or doesn't have the flavor of the spirit in it. There's probably a lot to critique there. I believe they love to hear the God's economy phrases and words and something that doesn't seem along that flavor elicits crickets. But I personally used to LOOOVE the prophesying in a certain locality. And I loved when it seemed very natural in tone and voice. In fact I usually could tell when it was a performance. And maybe over the years it became more perfunctory because of the super emphasis on training. And I think ones who go to the training become very homogenous in their thinking, talking, and behavior and they lose their uniqueness. I think that's personally very boring. And probably defeats the purpose to a great deal. Like they just kind of get indoctrinated into set patterns and behaviors that are supposed to build up their character and pursuit of the Lord but actually just kind of conform them to the image of whatever mannequin ideal is the norm for what a "brother" and "sister" in the church should look and act like. Which I think kills the uniqueness of each member. If when we come together and "each one has" (1 Corinthians 14:36) but it's kind of just all the same stuff rehashed and reheated in different "pots and containers" then how can it be enjoyable? I've found myself just really going through the motions so much in this way, and I'm sure a lot of the reason young people particularly get disenfranchised is related to this

However with all of that said, I think what makes the recovery unique is the enjoyment of the spirit. So while although all of these things I just said may be true and diminishing to the uniqueness with regards to functioning, we can't also throw out or overlook the spirit, which I do think is there, and I don't think it's really anywhere else. At least for certain not in the same degree. And this comes out of meeting on the correct ground. Which is why the meetings, although maybe boring and droll in function, are unique in regards to the enjoyment of the spirit. Which is one of the main reasons why I probably could never meet anywhere else

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jay, I agree. Serious lack of balance and focus.

A while ago I read that half of the professing Christians spoke in tongues and half did not. Basically split down the middle. While I never spoke in tongues, I have met with a mildly Pentecostal community church. I found it sad that there was no balance, no crossover, no learning, from one side to the other. A huge wall existed. Unfortunately.

The same wall exists around the Recovery. I definitely felt that many riches in the Recovery could have benefitted the greater body of Christ. That definitely was more true in the early days of the 60’s and 70’s. Now, however, many Recovery practices have become so robotic, so structured, so mandated by headquarters. Eg, the last LSM meeting I watched was the Quarantine meeting of Titus Chu some 15 years ago. Things went quite long, and someone said “let’s rise and call on the Lord 5x.” That was vain, taking the Lord’s name in vain, and made me sick.

That’s why in his later ministry Paul exhorted us to call on His name out of a pure heart. No practice should become mechanical, void of faith, void of reality. Like Jesus said, “this people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far away.” The Recovery boasts in their unique practices and teachings, yet they are puffed up. Their ministry now conveys a feel-good pride that makes them feel so special, better than everyone else.

During that quarantine excommunication meeting they should have been crying. So intolerant of meany differences. They totally lost sight of our common faith, the real oneness of the Spirit. We in the Midwest were like 98.6% identical to them, but that was not adequate. They demand 100% submission to their authority. That is more totalitarian than Christian. But that was one thing that opened my eyes to see how far off things had become.

Lots of solid points you make here. Especially the part about they should have been crying. I fully 100% agree on that. These are not only just our brothers and sisters in the Lord, these are whole entire families with children etc. attached to them. Very very solemn thing

And maybe you're right in a lot of that assessment. Maybe they had become totalitarian. Maybe that's human nature when leadership privilege gets mixed with ambition. On the other hand from their perspective Titus Chu was leading a rebellion against the entire church itself. I don't know enough about him and what he was actually saying and doing to have any perspective on HIS side of things. I don't know what type of poison OR truth he was saying in order to say one way or another how they should have reacted to him. But they felt strongly enough over his behavior that they considered him a type of cancer in the body to be quarantined and cut out

But yeah they should have been weeping over that situation, not puffed up and aggressive. This is a shortness of the humanity in the leadership, which I've found consistently a problem in the LC

My mom used to always say that "Laodicea comes out of Philadelphia." I see a lot of Laodicea type behavior in the LC

[PriestlyScribe]

Originally Posted by Jay

Well as far as the subject of Lee's ministry, I believe absolutely that it's focused on Jesus. It introduces you to your human spirit, which is the practical way to contact Jesus in real time. I am very grateful for Lee for that. I never would have known that or heard that from anywhere else. Who else talks about the human spirit? And in such a concise and to the point way?

Well Jay, maybe I was just really lucky for this to happen to little old me - but a couple of years after I walked away from the LC here in my hometown (the same one I migrated from San Diego to help establish in 1985) I found myself in the midst of a well attended multi-church Prayer Conference less than 5 miles from the LC Meeting Hall and then this shocking image flashed up on the screen...



What do you think ran through my mind in that moment?

No Jay, I was NOT thinking "What the hell are these degraded lifeless Babylonians doing stealing such rich insights from the Ministry Of The Age and failing to give credit where credit is due?"

Actually Jay, I was rejoicing that someone had gone beyond simply knowing that human beings have a spirit! These people were actually doing something practical with a truth that we in the LCs had simply been content to know & beat our chests about. They were pressing on to maturity in Christ - and helping others along the same path!

Please STOP painting believers outside the LC with such a broad negative brush. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

P.S.

[aron]

My sense of the chief deficiency in WL’s ministry – and others may see differently – is that he made the Bible about himself, when it’s really about Jesus. WL held WN as de facto Minister of the Age – he called him Seer of the Divine Revelation – and then as WN’s purported close acolyte, WL then became the new Seer, the new MOTA. The believers’ relationship with God was defined by their relationship with him – if they were on the “proper” ground or not, and then if they were “independent” or even worse, “ambitious” or “rebellious”, versus being “one” with “God’s oracle”, and to what degree of “practical oneness” they exhibited. All these factors determined one’s proximity or involvement to the supposed flow from the throne of God.

It was a Chinese [cultural] guanxi network, with a patina of Christianity on top for recruiting purposes. A Caucasian on this forum (DR) wrote “when the Chinese brothers realized I was tight with WL, they completely changed their attitudes towards me and became very deferential.” In a large conference, I personally saw WL publicly calling out TC, who replied “I am ashamed…” and confessed the shorcomings of his local churches. Relationships were strongly mediated by unexamined cultural biases, which determined who’d kow tow to another.

That personal orientation carried into his Bible interpretation, including his version of God’s economy. Its focus was on his own personal experience and enjoyment, his maturity, transformation and glorification. Jesus was reduced to a bit player, an object to be manipulated for personal gain. Yes, there was lip service – “Christ, only Christ” and “Christ is everything” - but the “I” in his text was the putative “New Testament believer” whose experience was the focus of the narrative. That “I” was WN the Spiritual Man, followed by WL and his own disciples.

This resulted in grievous misreadings of text. The OT promise of fealty and obedience often waved away as natural and fallen human attempts to please God, ignoring that the fulfilment was Christ – the NT use of OT makes this second approach plain. See Peter in his gospel message on Psalm 16, for example. The one who delights in God’s law in Psalm 1 – vain, per WL. But Psalm 1 goes to Psalm 2, the reigning King, obviously Jesus Christ per NT usage. And Deuteronomy 17:18-20 tightly pairs the two images, showing the king that loves God’s word and holds it close, and reigns thereby. But, said WL, that person in Deut 17 was the local church elder pray-reading God’s word in the church life! What a tragic opportunity missed.

The phrase “Thy Words were found and I did eat them” – the “I” is Christ, as shown in John’s gospel (4:34). But no, Jeremiah 15:16 to WL was the “NT believer” pray-reading, and John 4:34 showing Jesus the fulfillment was ignored.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

..if the process of learning the lost teachings then opens us up to more and more new revelation, is that evidence of something of God, or of something else? When the result is that we come to believe things that are not soundly found in the scripture, and in some cases stand in opposition to it, do we need an overlay (like "God's economy") to allow us to assert that actual scripture does not mean what it clearly says, but something else?

Bringing this from another thread. WL's reading of God's economy had supposedly been lost by Christianity, and the meaning behind Paul's words was now unveiled, or recovered, to the church via God's Oracle. Our recovered understanding of the divine economy was that it was God's household administration to dispense Himself as life, and life supply, and everything, to His believers to make them small-g "god", or godlike - pure, holy, glorified, reigning in life.

God had been reduced to an object, processed for personal use - mastication, enjoyment, assimilation. We had become the center and focus of the narrative. We fixated on our overcoming, or not... our "making it" versus being "in a dark room" for 1000 years. Witness Lee, at the center of the religious enterprise (really, a personal 'guanxi network' per cultural affiliation), manipulated us by making us introspective. He gave us a puzzle - ourselves - and the only way out is to regard the MOTA and his message. His version of "God's economy" was central to that exercise. It was all about you, exercising your spirit, enjoying, reigning in life. It is really a subjective maze, a hall of mirrors, manipulated by the MOTA... are you "enjoying" today? Or, headed for the "dark room"?

This deviation in focus can be seen in his treatment of scripture: where forced by NT usage, WL toed the party line - "I come to do thy will, O God, behold in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me" is understood to be Christ, per the epistle to the Hebrews. But where he thinks he can deviate, it is about WL and his putative NT believer. "Thy words were found and I did eat them" was now held as LC members pray-reading Bible verses. And yet where Jesus had show an alternative focus - "My food is to do the will of the Father", that was ignored. The "I" of Jeremiah 15:16 isn't Christ here, who'd been reduced to a cipher for our own manipulation. The focus had shifted from Jesus Christ to self. The "I" of Jeremiah 15:16 had now become the LC Christian: subjective, introspective, uncertain, manipulable.

Jesus had said, referring to OT scripture, "These things were written concerning me" - therefore, he was either deluded megalomaniac or really God's Messiah. There is no way to equivocate his claims. He had said, effectively, "It's all about me" - either myopic delusion or revelation of divine truth. Clearly the NT comes down on the side of the latter, as do subsequent Christian teachers. But it looks as if WN and WL made it about themselves, and their own personal events. Now, with this personal bias, WL looked at the OT text, and either saw the fallen human writer trying vainly to be good, or he saw the NT believer "enjoying Christ". But it missed the person of Christ Himself. There's a big hole in the middle.

God's economy is His household administration, His arrangement of dispensing, yes. But if the focus of the dispensing is you, where will that lead? I've shown the alternative reading of "dispensing" which follows Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: "Give, and it will be given to you" and so forth. Paul enumerated this in 2 Cor 8 & 9, and asked the gentile churches to participate, e. g., 1 Cor 16:1,2; Rom 15:25-28, &c. The Great Commandment was to love your neighbour, and Paul was showing them how.