The book of James and the LRC

ZNPaaneah · 02-16-2013, 03:53 AM

Why I love the book of James. The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New. Imagine how disruptive that is, to once feel that you were God’s special, elite, chosen race and now all of a sudden you have to reject much of what you gave your entire life to for so many years. You didn’t eat with Gentiles before, now you do. You used to teach that the proper ground to worship God was in Jerusalem, now you realize it is in your spirit.

Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition. You can imagine that if you came out of a group as abusive as the Old Testament where they literally crucify trouble makers, stone them and excommunicate them all the time, that there might be some with the burden to help those having trouble with this transition make it. I feel the burden of the book of James and the burden of this forum are the same. Posting on this forum is not evidence that you cannot make the transition from the LRC but it is evidence that you have a burden for those making this transition.

Then James says “count it all joy when you fall into diverse temptations”. This is my experience on this forum. How many different or diverse experiences do we get to hear. Experiences going all the way back to Mainland China in the 1930s to the present. Experiences within the LRC and experiences of those leaving or wanting to leave. It is a joyful experience if you know one thing: “that the trying of your faith worketh patience”. This is a virtue that is greatly undervalued in our society. Nobody extolls patience, and as a result we rarely ever see a “perfect work”. If you want to have a perfect work, a work that is entire and wanting nothing, then you need patience. This to me is the first lesson from James that I take away from my experience in the LRC. The LRC, like the Old Testament, wasn’t a perfect work, it was incomplete. But you couldn’t get to the New Testament without first having the Old Testament, and I am not going to get to the New Jerusalem without first having gone through the LRC, so these experiences are working patience. You can’t be an expression of God without it.

Ohio · 02-16-2013, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I feel the burden of the book of James and the burden of this forum are the same. Posting on this forum is not evidence that you cannot make the transition from the LRC but it is evidence that you have a burden for those making this transition.

Thankyou for this word of wisdom.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make on the "thread with no name" about Steve Isitt's articles.

ZNPaaneah · 02-16-2013, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thankyou for this word of wisdom.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make on the "thread with no name" about Steve Isitt's articles.

If you write a letter to the church in Ephesus, as the Apostle John did, you cannot assume that the writer has left their first love merely because the Lord says the church in Ephesus has. This is, in my opinion, the error Witness Lee makes.

James does not refer to himself as one of the 12 tribes, but as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". The fact that he is writing to the "12 tribes" should not lead to the assumption that he does not understand the change from the OT to the NT.

Second, you cannot write to the "church in Ephesus" unless there is such a place with such a name. The church in Thyatira is not going to assume that this letter were to them, that would be ridiculous. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there were believers in Jesus who considered themselves "the twelve tribes in the dispersion". Once again, this is Witness Lee's mistake (in my opinion). He assumes that this label was created by James, that assumption is not supported by this book. On the contrary the logical conclusion is that this label already existed and James was writing to this group.

Ohio · 02-16-2013, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James does not refer to himself as one of the 12 tribes, but as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". The fact that he is writing to the "12 tribes" should not lead to the assumption that he does not understand the change from the OT to the NT.

WL misunderstood James 2.17 (faith without works is dead) like so many others have, thinking that James was assaulting the the way of faith. Being placed in the Bible just a page or two after Hebrews chap 11, probably didn't help either.

WL continually made a case against "natural" relationships, interpreting them as "honey" which would contaminate the offerings. He solidified his case against James with the same reasoning, concluding that James rose to prominence in Jerusalem, not because of spiritual maturity, because of this. With so much "wisdom" in Lee's arsenal, it is just unbelievable to me that he would ever include his own sons in his ministry.

aron · 02-16-2013, 10:53 AM

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.

ZNPaaneah · 02-16-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.

Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".

Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.

This is not logical. According to the verse in ICorinthians 15 Paul is saying that the Lord appeared to James before he appeared to Paul. So if we accept that Paul's vision and ministry is part of the New Testament on what basis would the appearance of the Lord to James have? He appeared to James after the apostles, but he appeared to Paul after the apostles too.

Second, isn't this verse a testimony from the Apostle Paul that the Lord had appeared to James? Doesn't that contradict the idea that James didn't have the vision? Again, this verse seems to destroy this theory.

The verse in Galatians does, in my opinion shine a light on James and give him responsibility for the pressure on the Christians to be separate from the Gentiles. However, Paul was there when Stephen was stoned. Does that mean he didn't have the vision? Peter denied the Lord, does that mean he didn't have the vision. Peter and Paul make mistakes, but they have the vision. James might have made a mistake (the verses in Galatians only give responsibility to James, they don't actually say he did the deed) so therefore he doesn't have the vision?

As for the verses in John 7 it appears they are far more general than just an indictment on James lack of faith. Besides, James having a lack of faith prior to Peter's denial of the Lord, or Paul's participation in the persecution of Christians merely provides background prior to the Lord appearing to him.

The book of James should be judged based on the book. I don't judge Paul's books based on his persecution of Christians. I don't judge Peter's letters based on his denial of the Lord.

Witness Lee said:

"However, to call these believers in Christ the twelve tribes, as God’s chosen people in His Old Testament economy, may also indicate the lack of a clear view concerning the distinction between Christians and Jews, between God’s New Testament economy and the Old Testament dispensation, that God in the New Testament has delivered and separated the Jewish believers in Christ from the Jewish nation, which was then considered by God as a “perverse generation” (Acts 2:40)."

I disagree. You call someone by their name, we have no evidence that James "named" them the "twelve tribes in the dispersion". If Jewish believers were referring to themselves in this way it does indicate that they were not clear, the fact that James wrote to them only indicates he had a burden for them.

ZNPaaneah · 02-16-2013, 02:12 PM

James explains why we were deceived by Witness Lee. I think this is something that everyone who visits this forum wants to know. How was I deceived? How do I prevent it from happening again?

1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.

If you are not familiar with the word “upbraideth” it means to find fault with someone, to scold. God is not here finding fault, on the contrary our experience in the LRC showed we had some basic failings and if we pray God will provide the wisdom we need. Later in the book he spells out exactly what should have exposed Witness Lee to us as a fraud and why we didn’t see it.

1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Surely we questioned the things we saw in the LRC. Didn’t you see saints publicly shamed in the meetings? Did you question that without wavering, or when you were told that focusing on the negative things is “death” did you get driven by the wind and tossed? I am very thankful for my experience in the LRC because they taught me you cannot waver. When I was younger I spent a lot of time on the ocean. There is only one good way to take on heavy seas and that is head on. If you turn to the side you will be flipped, if you try to run with the waves they will drive you into the rocks. In the LRC it was the same. If you are going to rebuke BP then you have to do it head on, to his face, in a meeting with a hundred witnesses.

1:7-8 For let not that man think he shall receive anything of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

The LRC taught me I could not be double minded. Almost immediately I was called into a meeting in Houston with RG, JD, and a number of other elders and was told “I already had 2 strikes against me”. No one told me what the two strikes were but I understood this to mean that if I got another one of these mysterious strikes I would be excommunicated. So I had to decide “LRC or conscience”? I decided if I wasn’t true to my conscience I didn’t want to be in the LRC. So I decided to ignore the warning.

Ohio · 02-16-2013, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.

Did you mean E.H. 7.19.1, which is titled "The episcopal seat of James"?

aron · 02-16-2013, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you mean E.H. 7.19.1, which is titled "The episcopal seat of James"?

Right. That was what I was referring to.

ZNPaaneah · 02-16-2013, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?

If you receive James 1 you would never be deceived by WL.

1. In the church there is no “super spiritual” brother, there is no “Minister of the Age” or “super apostle” like Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. Likewise there are no small, insignificant brothers. Referring to saints as being “rich” in the word, or in life is a major red flag. V.9-10
2. There is a blessing in enduring the trials and temptations. Our experiences were not a waste, they were a blessing. V.12
3. The reason we got ensnared into the LRC is we were drawn away by our own lusts. Perhaps the idea that you were special or better than other Christians was the lure. Any discussion of special revelation, special blessing, or proper ground is a major red flag. V. 14-15
4. If you justify the LRC saying “how could this be false if the teachings are good” know that “every good gift is from above”. The “truths” didn’t come from Witness Lee, the truths came from God. Any talk of “having the riches” is a red flag, if the gift is a good gift it comes from God, not from WL or WN. We may not have known this at the time, but it should be clear to us now. V. 17
5. “Be ye doers of the word not hearers only” v. 22. Too many in the LRC were nothing but hearers. How many preached the gospel, or raised up churches, or took care of small group meetings? Listening to messages and then thinking you are something spiritual is just deceiving yourself. Talking about preaching the gospel without actually doing it should be a big red flag.
6. Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows v.27. If you are not doing that then your worship is not pure. Anytime numerous meetings are emphasized over visiting those in need then that should be a big red flag.
7. Pure religion is to keep yourself unspotted from the world v. 27. Daystar should have been a major red flag. PL running the LSM should have been a major red flag.

When someone tells you that you don’t need to listen to James, then that is a big red flag. Without the book of James the Bible is incomplete, you are incomplete, and the door is left open for you to be led away by your own lusts, by your lack of wisdom, and by deceiving yourself.

Cal · 02-17-2013, 07:11 AM

What's interesting to me is that the LC was continually talking about being "the expression of Christ" and being "the testimony of God." Well, James tells us what that looks like. So you would think that it would be a favorite book of the LC. Because, as ZNP said, it tells us exactly what pure religion means--it means you care practically for the needs of the those who truly need help.

Love, in essence, means seeking the good of others at your own expense.

I've found that there are a lot mental barriers to the gospel, but caring for people in genuine love, especially when it involves sacrifice and becoming humble, is the most irresistible testimony that Christ's love is real in us. There is very little defense against it. It just melts people's hearts.

But Lee didn't like the language of James. I don't think he was against kind works. I just think he expected "clear" teachers to constantly be referring to "God's economy" like he did. James got in the way of his doctrine of the supremacy of "God's economy" above all other concepts, so he had to level a salvo against it. But in doing so he minimized a major factor of the testimony of God.

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

Also, care for others would mean reaching out more to other Christians, which would have resulted in less barriers, and more of the oneness they claimed to seek.

Ironically, the book they minimized was just the one they needed, and we all need.

Ohio · 02-17-2013, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

Amen to that.

As time went on, WL used the matters of "dead" works and "natural" relationships to sever our relationships with those around us and reconnect us with his own programs. Instead of looking outward to love those surrounding us, his many warnings, lodged in our psyche as strongholds, stopped us, and caused us to retreat to the safe havens of building his own empire.

The Bible is filled with exhortations to good works. Titus 2.14 directly connects God love in sending His Son to die for our sins with His desire that all His children be desirous of good works to express His own heart of love. WL distorted this with the warnings about dead works. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish them. Dead works, like circumcision, do nothing for our salvation, but good works, as a result of our salvation, express the Father's love to those around us.

WL's teachings about natural relationships was even more egregious. Instead of loving those who surrounded us, we were continually warned of the dangers. The not so subtle message eventually became obvious to even me -- the only "safe" love here on earth was to love the ministry. Every other love, whether your spouse, or your kids, or your family, or your friends, or your brothers and sisters in the Lord, all come with risks. The only love (apart from loving the Lord) we should have on earth, without any deleterious side effects, was for him and his ministry.

Cal · 02-17-2013, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Amen to that.

As time went on, WL used the matters of "dead" works and "natural" relationships to sever our relationships with those around us and reconnect us with his own programs. Instead of looking outward to love those surrounding us, his many warnings, lodged in our psyche as strongholds, stopped us, and caused us to retreat to the safe havens of building his own empire.

In case anyone thinks we are making this up, I checked the Recovery Version notes around James 1:27 ("pure religion is visiting orphans and widows"). Lee writes a long note on verse 26 comparing James' "not strong in revelation on God's economy" to Paul, Peter and John's alleged superior revelations. He write three short notes on verse 27, and his only comment on the "orphans and widows" passage was to refer to it as "an element of Old Testament charges."

Now, does anyone really believe that God's main reason for James writing this book and having it in the NT was to give us an example of a brother who didn't know the OT from the NT? Even if James was not as clear as Paul, to say that becomes the most important message this book has to offer is a very strange perspective.

At the very least, Lee should have emphasized that these commands from the apostle are to be obeyed by us. We are to be compassionate and caring for the weak and helpless, not to consider caring for them a mistaken holdover from an outdated dispensation.

ZNPaaneah · 02-17-2013, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

For example, consider the things said by Sherman Robertson to Steve and relayed in his testimony on this forum.

1. “You don’t belong in the Lord’s Recovery.”
a. Who is qualified to make that determination. The very act of saying this indicates a major red flag. To put yourself in the position of the Lord is to say that you are the “super spiritual” brother and that Steve is an insignificant brother. This should raise up a major red flag.
b. There is a blessing in enduring this. The proper way to respond is head on, which is what Steve has done in posting this testimony, in writing directly to Sherman and in going on the internet when they ignore him. Steve is the one being perfected and growing as a result of this experience.
c. This comment as well as many other attacks were prompted by Steve’s attempt to evaluate the new way and its impact on the church. If people are walking in the light they would welcome and encourage this kind of assessment. I evaluate my progress as a teacher every year. I put down my goals at the beginning of the year and then evaluate how well I did in hitting these goals in the middle and end of the year. I do this in conference with my principal. However, if the errors were a result of the leaders in the recovery being enticed by their lusts then they will not welcome this kind of evaluation and instead will attack you for doing this. Therefore these attacks reveal the sins in their heart and are a major red flag.
d. In Steve’s testimony you can see many positive and wonderful experiences that he had, including his time in Taipei with the “New Way”. However, know that every good gift is from above. The Recovery has no monopoly on experiences of God. Threatening to kick someone out of the Recovery by saying “you don’t belong in the Lord’s Recovery” does not in any way separate you from the grace of God. Your experiences were not a result of being in the LRC, they were a result of being in Christ.
e. “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourself”. Seeking the truth is to be a doer of the word. Preaching the gospel, writing gospel tracts, raising up home meetings, these are all proper and healthy activities for a Christian. The fact that LSM and the elders want to completely control this, and even do everything in their power to prevent you from writing your own tract by ignoring you is a major red flag.
f. Pure religion is to visit the “fatherless” and “widows”. These are the people with no influence and power. In a society where men are the one with jobs, not having a father makes you powerless. Not having a husband makes you powerless. When you are in a church where it is all about power, influence, who you know, etc. then that is a major red flag.
g. The LRC has become a franchise church of LSM. This means that the elders and LSM leaders have “become spotted by the world”. This is a major red flag.

Ohio · 02-17-2013, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

In case anyone thinks we are making this up, I checked the Recovery Version notes around James 1:27 ("pure religion is visiting orphans and widows"). Lee writes a long note on verse 26 comparing James' "not strong in revelation on God's economy" to Paul, Peter and John's alleged superior revelations. He write three short notes on verse 27, and his only comment on the "orphans and widows" passage was to refer to it as "an element of Old Testament charges."

Years ago John Myer shared this verse from James 3.16 in the context of the Anaheim-Cleveland conflicts preceding the recent quarantine, "For where jealousy and rivalry exist, there is disorder and every kind of evil." The implications were literally shocking to me at the time.

The following verse is even more indicting, comparing James' instruction with the context at that time -- the Recovery had become almost void of any "wisdom from above, which is pure, peaceable, forbearing, compliant, full of mercy and good works, impartial, and unfeigned." None of these descriptions could be applied to the leadership in the Recovery during those days.

How does any sober mind compare the numerous lawsuits between brothers who once loved each other with these vivid descriptions of God's heavenly wisdom which James provides us with?

ZNPaaneah · 02-17-2013, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago John Myer shared this verse from James 3.16 in the context of the Anaheim-Cleveland conflicts preceding the recent quarantine, "For where jealousy and rivalry exist, there is disorder and every kind of evil." The implications were literally shocking to me at the time.

The following verse is even more indicting, comparing James' instruction with the context at that time -- the Recovery had become almost void of any "wisdom from above, which is pure, peaceable, forbearing, compliant, full of mercy and good works, impartial, and unfeigned." None of these descriptions could be applied to the leadership in the Recovery during those days.

How does any sober mind compare the numerous lawsuits between brothers who once loved each other with these vivid descriptions of God's heavenly wisdom which James provides us with?

Wow, great verses, very clear.

TLFisher · 02-17-2013, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

e. “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourself”. Seeking the truth is to be a doer of the word. Preaching the gospel, writing gospel tracts, raising up home meetings, these are all proper and healthy activities for a Christian. The fact that LSM and the elders want to completely control this, and even do everything in their power to prevent you from writing your own tract by ignoring you is a major red flag.
f. Pure religion is to visit the “fatherless” and “widows”. These are the people with no influence and power. In a society where men are the one with jobs, not having a father makes you powerless. Not having a husband makes you powerless.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? James 2:14-16

Many times while meeting in the local churches I have heard "giving charity" being viewed with contempt. As it is works without faith. What is it when you have faith, but no works?

Someone looking from the outside may say that's hypocrisy. You say you love your neighbor as yourself, but is it so when your neighbor is without food? In my part of the country it is common for power outages to occur due to windstorms. If you love your neghbor as yourself would you say "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled"?

As much as disdain the book of James receives in the Local Churches, I can see why. It is exposing. Particularly in chapter 2 where our receiving is based more on reputations than it is in loving your neighbor as yourself.

ZNPaaneah · 02-18-2013, 06:40 AM

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

In my experience the relationship of WL with WN was key. Whenever I or any other new one wondered who WL was they were told of WN and how WL was his closest coworker. In my opinion the respect of WN was one of the pillars that the entire LRC rested on.

One mistake I made was to feel that WN was clearly and undeniably a man of God, therefore if he judged that WL was also a genuine man of God (hence his closest coworker) then I could too.

According to James this is "having faith in our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons". Who better to say this than James.

Earlier we talked about the mistakes that Peter, Paul and James made.

Peter denied the Lord. As a result I think it was easier for him not to deny the Lord later when he was asked to open the kingdom to the Gentiles.

Paul persecuted the Body of Christ and as a result received the vision of the Body of Christ.

James made mistakes because the other saints in the Body had faith in the Lord Jesus with respect of persons, James. As a result James can get the vision to say this word.

I imagine the early church may have also had the same opinion towards James that I had towards WL. He is the "brother of Jesus, surely we can trust his judgment".

As a result we can learn from his mistake. In the same way, many of us may have made a mistake in trusting WL, but learning from that mistake helps us protect the Body from future similar mistakes.

Ohio · 02-18-2013, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

In my experience the relationship of WL with WN was key. Whenever I or any other new one wondered who WL was they were told of WN and how WL was his closest coworker. In my opinion the respect of WN was one of the pillars that the entire LRC rested on.

James here addresses serious errors in practice which violate the perfect law of freedom, (1.25) and which should have governed our sights regarding LC ministers. Our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, should never be governed by personal favoritism towards any man. The credentials and reputation of any minister should never elevate him above scrutiny by the church. The Lord's throne is founded on righteousness, and no minister should ever sideswipe the demands of righteousness and holiness in his quest to enjoy the glories reserved solely for our Lord Christ.

ZNPaaneah · 02-18-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

James here addresses serious errors in practice which violate the perfect law of freedom, (1.25) and which should have governed our sights regarding LC ministers. Our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, should never be governed by personal favoritism towards any man. The credentials and reputation of any minister should never elevate him above scrutiny by the church. The Lord's throne is founded on righteousness, and no minister should ever sideswipe the demands of righteousness and holiness in his quest to enjoy the glories reserved solely for our Lord Christ.

Easier said than done. Did WN add some kind of "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" to the LRC in your mind?

Consider Bernie Madoff. He was once the head of the Nasdaq! That adds credibility, people feel a guy like that is already established financially and is not going to threaten his reputation with shady deals. No doubt it was the "respect of persons" that helped him build his business and rob people.

It is a proven fact that crooks in uniforms have an easier time in deceiving people. People tend to trust the uniform and ignore common sense.

The basic principle is you are tempted by your lust. If your lusts are put to death then you will not be tempted. I was fortunate for a couple of reasons. First, I didn't want to be in the church, as a result I spent a year trying to find fault to justify refusing this call. As a result I could care less about the leaders, I felt if the church was real you would see it in the smallest members. Second, after one year I had come to respect the faith of the brother that persevered, yet he was lowly and despised in the church. Likewise one of the brothers that shepherded me was of no account in the church. This caused me to view the dynamic of the entire caste system in the LRC differently. Finally, the brother that brought me in and with whom I lived for a few months was an evangelist in every sense of the word. You could not spend an hour with him without preaching the gospel and visiting gospel contacts. This kept me out of the snare of "being a hearer only and not a doer deceiving yourself".

They tried to convince me that WL's ministry was "deeper and richer" than WN's (WN is high school, WL is college). But I have plenty of self confidence in that regards so I didn't care if WN was high school since I felt I was getting more out of it. So buying books in the bookroom was also part of the caste system that I didn't buy into, fortunately.

Also I had no interest in becoming an expert in WL's ministry like EM wanted. I had wanted to be able to read the Bible and saw WN's ministry as my opportunity to figure out how to read the Bible. So a lot of the lusts that ensnared others didn't trap me.

Still, during that year in which I was trying to find an excuse not to come into the LRC, if I knew what I know now about WN that would have been sufficient for me to reject them.

TLFisher · 02-18-2013, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Easier said than done. Did WN add some kind of "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" to the LRC in your mind?

No. Actually I sensed the opposite from reading WN's ministry. Whether you're meeting in a LRC assembly, or a non-LRC assembly this is a trap anyone can fall into if we as believers are not consccious of the trap of having an attitude of personal favoritism. As a result this favoritism can turn into the division Paul writes of in 1 Corinthians.

TLFisher · 02-18-2013, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

James here addresses serious errors in practice which violate the perfect law of freedom, (1.25) and which should have governed our sights regarding LC ministers. Our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, should never be governed by personal favoritism towards any man. The credentials and reputation of any minister should never elevate him above scrutiny by the church. The Lord's throne is founded on righteousness, and no minister should ever sideswipe the demands of righteousness and holiness in his quest to enjoy the glories reserved solely for our Lord Christ.

What ZNP refers to in post #14 of this thread happened. A brother was disfellowshipped. Among LSM churches blended brothers (whether they agree or disagree) are respected to the extent their reputations are above scrutiny. So when a brother is banned in Bellevue or when a couple is banned in Vista, it's not so much what they did, but more out of respect by the leading elders for the blended brother who had a word of "fellowship" to tell. In these instances as Ohio posted, "The credentials and reputation of any minister should never elevate him above scrutiny by the church."

Ohio · 02-18-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Easier said than done. Did WN add some kind of "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" to the LRC in your mind?

Consider Bernie Madoff. He was once the head of the Nasdaq! That adds credibility, people feel a guy like that is already established financially and is not going to threaten his reputation with shady deals. No doubt it was the "respect of persons" that helped him build his business and rob people.

James addresses "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" as the defining standard of God, His own "Good Housekeeping seal of approval." As soon as brothers begin elevating men over other men, playing favorites among members or leaders in the church, they have left the faith. James warns us that these same ones will one day hurt us. Did not WL, who was proclaimed to be the "richest" of them all, "oppress us and drag us into the courts?" (v 2.6)

James had witnessed failures of all sorts. He is warning us to keep the faith of the Lord Jesus, and not use other criteria whereby we honor or respect men. Even God Himself has no respect of persons. Compared to Him, we are all poor and needy, deserving nothing. We should never overly extol those in the church who appear richer, wiser, or more gifted than we because they are nothing compared to the Lord of glory.

Here the thought of James closely parallels Paul's in I Corinthians 1-3.

ZNPaaneah · 02-18-2013, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

What ZNP refers to in post #14 of this thread happened.

Here is another thing that happened:

James
2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

The discussion of being partial to the rich and having them sit in better seats is an analogy, he begins that discussion in verse 2 saying "for", he is explaining, and then verse 5 sums it up that he is talking about faith.

The phrase "the poor of the world" could refer to lacking anything, not merely money. You could walk into the LRC meeting hall lacking "spiritual credentials". In the LRC it makes a big difference if you are "2nd generation" or 3rd generation, etc. This was referred to all the time. They even taught that you are sanctified by your parents being in the LRC, so then if you are 2nd generation you are more sanctified than if you were saved into the LRC and if you are 3rd generation then you were even more sanctified.

Where did this teaching come from? Didn't WL promote this thinking because his close association with WN made him "more sanctified"? Yet in this chapter which describes him more, the one who is "poor of the world yet rich in faith" or the "rich man that oppresses you and draws you before judgment seats"?

In my opinion this was a major flaw in the LRC. They had respect of persons. RG was ga ga over WL, so much so that he was willfully blind to all that PL was even though he would have beat that person down if he wasn't WL's son.

When I was in Houston I knew two men in the church that were "the poor of the world who were rich in faith" that were also despised in the LRC. This is my testimony and the very thing that James warned us of.

Ohio · 02-18-2013, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James 2.4 "Have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil reasonings?"

The "New Way" promoted by WL and LSM was one of the bleakest periods in our history. All the leaders were "sized up" based on how zealous they were for the ministry. Distinctions were made among the brothers concerning who were absolute for the ministry and who were "lukewarm" towards all the new changes coming down the pike. I heard numerous stories about brothers who just loved the ministry being judged by those who were absolute for the ministry.

All these distinctions between the brothers, and the evil reasonings which precipitated numerous conflicts, came directly from LSM headquarters. LSM operatives used ministry zealots, longing for advancement within the program, to undermine many local elderships. Many of these ambitious ones became judges with evil reasonings, looking with suspicion at the brothers they one served with and considered them as enemies of the gospel and God's "move" on earth.

LSM did little to minimize these disturbances; rather they seized upon opportunities to fuel the conflicts and drive wedges between the saints, especially in those regions like the GLA where their influence was limited. Oftentimes, all manner of evil was justified for the greater good, defined narrowly as "WL's burden."

ZNPaaneah · 02-18-2013, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "New Way" promoted by WL and LSM was one of the bleakest periods in our history. All the leaders were "sized up" based on how zealous they were for the ministry. Distinctions were made among the brothers concerning who were absolute for the ministry and who were "lukewarm" towards all the new changes coming down the pike. I heard numerous stories about brothers who just loved the ministry being judged by those who were absolute for the ministry.

All these distinctions between the brothers, and the evil reasonings which precipitated numerous conflicts, came directly from LSM headquarters. LSM operatives used ministry zealots, longing for advancement within the program, to undermine many local elderships. Many of these ambitious ones became judges with evil reasonings, looking with suspicion at the brothers they one served with and considered them as enemies of the gospel and God's "move" on earth.

LSM did little to minimize these disturbances; rather they seized upon opportunities to fuel the conflicts and drive wedges between the saints, especially in those regions like the GLA where their influence was limited. Oftentimes, all manner of evil was justified for the greater good, defined narrowly as "WL's burden."

"Evil reasonings", "numerous conflicts", "Many of these ambitious ones became judges", etc.

I would like to quote Steve's testimony as an example:

I acknowledge that these references are on record now concerning me and that the charges and implications are most serious. You, brother Sherman Robertson, elder, have written these words May 3rd and 4th, 2004 in two letters. In addition, in a phone conversation with you on April 11, 2004, you claimed not only that I was “divisive” but also that “we brothers feel you are the embodiment of the Accuser of the brethren”.

TLFisher · 02-18-2013, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is another thing that happened:

James
2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

The discussion of being partial to the rich and having them sit in better seats is an analogy, he begins that discussion in verse 2 saying "for", he is explaining, and then verse 5 sums it up that he is talking about faith.

The phrase "the poor of the world" could refer to lacking anything, not merely money. You could walk into the LRC meeting hall lacking "spiritual credentials". In the LRC it makes a big difference if you are "2nd generation" or 3rd generation, etc. This was referred to all the time. They even taught that you are sanctified by your parents being in the LRC, so then if you are 2nd generation you are more sanctified than if you were saved into the LRC and if you are 3rd generation then you were even more sanctified.

Where did this teaching come from? Didn't WL promote this thinking because his close association with WN made him "more sanctified"? Yet in this chapter which describes him more, the one who is "poor of the world yet rich in faith" or the "rich man that oppresses you and draws you before judgment seats"?

In my opinion this was a major flaw in the LRC. They had respect of persons. RG was ga ga over WL, so much so that he was willfully blind to all that PL was even though he would have beat that person down if he wasn't WL's son.

When I was in Houston I knew two men in the church that were "the poor of the world who were rich in faith" that were also despised in the LRC. This is my testimony and the very thing that James warned us of.

Until you mentioned this concept of 2nd and 3rd LC generations being sanctified, I had never heard of it. Not in California and not in Washington. However touching on the respect of persons. I definitely saw it. While he was living it was WL and even before Lee died it was select FTTA trainers (later known as blended brothers). If you were a brother or sister one who was not "ga ga" with respect of persons, or immersing youself in ministry publications, you were generally referred to as "lukewarm", "cold", etc.

TLFisher · 02-18-2013, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "New Way" promoted by WL and LSM was one of the bleakest periods in our history. All the leaders were "sized up" based on how zealous they were for the ministry. Distinctions were made among the brothers concerning who were absolute for the ministry and who were "lukewarm" towards all the new changes coming down the pike. I heard numerous stories about brothers who just loved the ministry being judged by those who were absolute for the ministry.

All these distinctions between the brothers, and the evil reasonings which precipitated numerous conflicts, came directly from LSM headquarters. LSM operatives used ministry zealots, longing for advancement within the program, to undermine many local elderships. Many of these ambitious ones became judges with evil reasonings, looking with suspicion at the brothers they one served with and considered them as enemies of the gospel and God's "move" on earth.

LSM did little to minimize these disturbances; rather they seized upon opportunities to fuel the conflicts and drive wedges between the saints, especially in those regions like the GLA where their influence was limited. Oftentimes, all manner of evil was justified for the greater good, defined narrowly as "WL's burden."

Ohio, your post reminds me of a passage I read tonight in Proverbs chapter 6.

There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

These verses are equally appropriate to what happened in the New Way and what happened in the GLA within the last decade. In each turmoil there are those who spread the strife and there are those who react to the strife. In each instance LSM had brothers quarantined for reacting to strife.

aron · 02-19-2013, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New...

Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition...

There is a quote from Jesus to the 12 disciples, in Matthew 19, where he says, ""I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Now who is you who have followed me? Judas Iscariot got eliminated, right? So maybe there was an opening for one of the twelve thrones, for a judge of one of the tribes of Israel? And how do we know what Jesus said (or didn't say) to James when He met with him, per Paul's account in 1 Cor. 15:7? We don't know, and we probably never will; in this age, anyway. So why judge James so harshly for writing to the twelve tribes? Maybe because someone has a "God's New Testament Economy" template which allows them to bulldoze the sacred texts according to what "fits" and what doesn't?

How do we know how much (or little) of what Jesus said to James, and what James saw (he did live with Jesus for a couple decades, after all) came out, for our benefit, in James' epistle? Like the psalmist who professed love for God's law, maybe the text is shallow and natural only if we want it to be. Maybe it's really as deep as we want it to be. No more and no less.

Psalm 18:25 To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,
26 to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the devious you show yourself shrewd. (NIV)

Ohio · 02-19-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why I love the book of James. The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”.

If James is judged harshly for writing to the "12 tribes of the dispersion," then we ought to be fair and likewise judge Peter for writing to the "chosen pilgrims of the dispersion." Both have written to those scattered Jews beyond the borders of Israel in Gentile lands. Was it not common knowledge that Peter was "entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision?" (Gal 2.7) So it would be entirely appropriate for Peter to write to the scattered Jews (aka the diaspora) throughout the earth.

Perhaps WL should have cast aspersions over Peter also, as he did to James. Did not the preparations for the Peter Life-Study give him ulcers?

Cal · 02-19-2013, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New...

Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition...

This is a very good point, ZNP. James was talking in a language the "12 tribes" could understand. Maybe that's one reason James made it to the Bible, because God wanted another book besides Hebrews which could speak to Jews. Hebrews is on the high, theological level, but James speaks the way Jews think.

We are so used to Western, Greco-Roman-influenced thinking--which Paul spoke in, being the Apostle to the Gentiles--that unless you actually read something written by a real, practicing Jew you don't know how differently they think*. Their's is a life very much directed by simple wisdom and maxims. They don't think so much in terms of eternity as in how we should live on this earth today. Perhaps the reason James didn't speak in the language of "God's economy" was because he wanted to speak in a language Jews would relate to.

* A good example is the book Thou Shalt Prosper, a book written on money by a Jewish rabbi. Very interesting and wise, but it almost sounds like someone from another world.

Cal · 02-19-2013, 07:37 AM

It's also interesting that Martin Luther, a Western thinker and eventual Jew hater, did not think either Hebrews or James should be in the Bible.

OBW · 02-19-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If James is judged harshly for writing to the "12 tribes of the dispersion," then we ought to be fair and likewise judge Peter for writing to the "chosen pilgrims of the dispersion." Both have written to those scattered Jews beyond the borders of Israel in Gentile lands. Was it not common knowledge that Peter was "entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision?" (Gal 2.7) So it would be entirely appropriate for Peter to write to the scattered Jews (aka the diaspora) throughout the earth.

Perhaps WL should have cast aspersions over Peter also, as he did to James. Did not the preparations for the Peter Life-Study give him ulcers?

So writing to Jews is somehow evidence of error, mixture, or something like that. But writing to other specific people is not.

That Lee. He was such a divider of the truth. He divided his teachings far, far away from it.

ZNPaaneah · 02-19-2013, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Ohio, your post reminds me of a passage I read tonight in Proverbs chapter 6.

There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

These verses are equally appropriate to what happened in the New Way and what happened in the GLA within the last decade. In each turmoil there are those who spread the strife and there are those who react to the strife. In each instance LSM had brothers quarantined for reacting to strife.

James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

I think this last expression is very interesting "mercy rejoiceth against judgment"

The way to react to seeing the merciless judgments and abuse in the LRC or anywhere is with mercy. This mercy causes rejoicing and it conquers the merciless judgments that are spewn about.

ZNPaaneah · 02-22-2013, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? James 2:14-16

Many times while meeting in the local churches I have heard "giving charity" being viewed with contempt. As it is works without faith. What is it when you have faith, but no works?

Someone looking from the outside may say that's hypocrisy. You say you love your neighbor as yourself, but is it so when your neighbor is without food? In my part of the country it is common for power outages to occur due to windstorms. If you love your neghbor as yourself would you say "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled"?

As much as disdain the book of James receives in the Local Churches, I can see why. It is exposing. Particularly in chapter 2 where our receiving is based more on reputations than it is in loving your neighbor as yourself.

For many years I have wondered about a verse in the Psalms that says "with God there is forgiveness that He might be feared". I could never understand that. However, on this matter of receiving people based on reputation it makes sense.

Suppose someone slanders you at work to your boss out of jealousy, envy, etc. As a result of this slander your boss then attacks you unjustly. You might be tempted to become angry and not forgive your boss. But, that is the intended result, to drive a wedge between you and the boss. So the fact that "with you there is forgiveness" will put people in fear who would attempt this kind of slander. Ultimately, the act of slander can now blow up in the face of the slanderer, which puts the fear into them.

The flip side of this is that when we receive people based on reputation, or appearance, then the enemy has no fear of us at all.

TLFisher · 02-22-2013, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For many years I have wondered about a verse in the Psalms that says "with God there is forgiveness that He might be feared". I could never understand that. However, on this matter of receiving people based on reputation it makes sense.

Suppose someone slanders you at work to your boss out of jealousy, envy, etc. As a result of this slander your boss then attacks you unjustly. You might be tempted to become angry and not forgive your boss. But, that is the intended result, to drive a wedge between you and the boss. So the fact that "with you there is forgiveness" will put people in fear who would attempt this kind of slander. Ultimately, the act of slander can now blow up in the face of the slanderer, which puts the fear into them.

In addition to the example ZNP provided, it ca also happen among relatives or even in the church. You can either take the path of seeking self-vindication or you can take the path of "bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28).

aron · 02-23-2013, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The way to react to seeing the merciless judgments and abuse in the LRC or anywhere is with mercy.

If you ever go on a farmer's property, likely the "house dog" comes out in an antagonistic posture, attempting to warn his owner with loud barks, and signalling you to stay away via raised hackles, bared teeth, growling, and an "attack posture". I always found that the most successful strategy was to show no fear, but to continually say, "Nice doggie", etc.

The dog was saying, in effect, "You are alien; you are enemy, and I will not receive you", and I was signalling, "You are friend, you are nice doggie, and even if you growl I will receive you." In almost every case, mercy would triumph using this strategy. Peace would conquer antagonism.

The word "dominion" is much underappreciated, I think. When we see "Have dominion over the earth and subdue it", we think of bulldozers and strip mines and parking lots. But when you go back to the "Alpha male" posturing scenario with the farmer's dog, maybe dominion is when you show unrelenting tranquility and love. You are saying, "In spite of everything you may try to do to me, I still have enough power to love you". This is, I believe, the power of Christ, and the foundation of His kingdom. In spite of the grief, and the wounds we caused Him to suffer, He still loved us so much that eventually we were subdued. The power of His peace overcame our strife. I love that Jerusalem can mean "foundation of peace".

aron · 02-23-2013, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For many years I have wondered about a verse in the Psalms that says "with God there is forgiveness that He might be feared". I could never understand that...

I also struggled with that. It certainly seems opposite from logic. It may be helpful that the Psalm (#130) seems to reference Solomon's temple dedication prayer in 1 Kings 8.

38 "... and when a prayer or plea is made by anyone among your people Israel—being aware of the afflictions of their own hearts, and spreading out their hands toward this temple— 39 then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know every human heart), 40 so that they will fear you all the time they live in the land you gave our ancestors.

41 “As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name— 42 for they will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm—when they come and pray toward this temple, 43 then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name."

It's the opposite of our human logic. Instead of being big and bad and aloof, and causing fear, Solomon is asking God to be merciful and responsive, and he says that this will engender fear in the populace, both Israelite and foreigner alike.

It may be helpful to think of fear as related to "awe" and "reverence". It's like the fear that came over the disciples when they saw Jesus do works of power. He didn't do works of destruction, but rather works of healing and restoration. This was so amazing that they were seized with trembling, astonishment, and wonder.

In spite of how awful we are, and have been, God's power is so great that He can restore us to Himself.

aron · 02-23-2013, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

For many years I have wondered about a verse in the Psalms that says "with God there is forgiveness that He might be feared". I could never understand that...

Another thing to think about is where Jesus said not to fear those who can kill the body, but rather to fear Him who can cast both body and soul into Gehenna (Matt 10:28).

Again, our human logic is to fear the big, tough guy. In our human system the one with the gun or the bomb has the power. But Jesus had the power to forgive, and the authority to give life. Look at the story in Matthew 9:2-7

Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

Satan, temporarily, does have the power to cause trouble, and to kill the body (see e.g. Job 1:12). But God has the power to give eternal life. If God does not give you life, and you are cast away from Him and into Gehenna, then nothing can save you. In this, we do indeed fear God, and also Him whom He has sent, Jesus the Nazarene.

ZNPaaneah · 02-23-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Satan, temporarily, does have the power to cause trouble, and to kill the body (see e.g. Job 1:12). But God has the power to give eternal life. If God does not give you life, and you are cast away from Him and into Gehenna, then nothing can save you. In this, we do indeed fear God, and also Him whom He has sent, Jesus the Nazarene.

You can "fear" someone but also despise them, have contempt for them, be disgusted with them, hate them. A tyrant would be one example, police brutality another, an abusive spouse or parent a third. In chapter 3 James talks about "masters" (a boss, president, head of house, elder, etc.)

Fear and respect are connected. Fear can be a very good thing and we teach it to our children. We use the term "healthy respect" to indicate a "good" fear. However this kind of fear needs to be taught, you are not born with it (though it seems man is the only animal that is not born with it, human babies naturally cry, a behavior very strange in the wild, even among top predators). The Bible says that "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". However, if there was no forgiveness with God then we all would have struck out long before we had a chance to learn this fear and begin to get wisdom.

It is crucial for someone with authority to be given respect. Police, teachers, parents and elders cannot function if their is no respect. James understands this but warns 3:1 "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. 3:2 For in many things we offend all." Becoming a tyrant, or abusive is an example of the kind of offense and condemnation you can receive.

Psalm 130:4 "But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared."

What is very difficult to learn is that forgiveness is the secret to a good fear, a "healthy respect" that does not include contempt, or hatred. For example, a student in our school stole a laptop. We were able to use video footage to prove this. The school required this student to return or pay for the stolen laptop. They could have been expelled, but instead the student has returned to the school after making restitution. As a result with this student there is now "fear". They know that if you do something like this they will get caught and have to pay the price. They have a "healthy respect" for the school's security. Now this same student can pass this same lesson on to their peers. There is no hatred or contempt for the school because the incident was treated in a dignified way. This is how you can teach respect in a way that avoids the mistakes James warns of. "But the tongue no man can tame." (James 3:8). I think the expression is "To err is human, to forgive divine". Taming the tongue is a work that demonstrates faith in God.

ZNPaaneah · 02-23-2013, 06:15 PM

And this is why I love this book and why Witness Lee was wrong.

In 2:18 James said he would "show us his faith by his works".

In 3:8 James tells us "no man can tame the tongue".

Taming the tongue is a work of God, it is based on faith in God.

Psalm 130:4 "But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared."

Now then, how successful was WL at taming the tongue? He had many lawsuits, how did that work for him? This forum is a testimony that WL, the LSM, and the LSM franchise churches are powerless to tame the tongue.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

All of the drivel about the "high peaks" blah, blah, blah. They have paid millions to lawyers to tame the tongue because they are powerless, they are vain, and their faith is without works and is dead.

ZNPaaneah · 03-02-2013, 06:24 PM

James 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

It is easy to see that there is a lot of confusion and evil works within the LRC and that WL was associated with. So it is not too difficult to see the underlying envy and strife.

However, it seems we are less clear that wisdom from above is "first pure". The various business dealings that WL was involved in were obviously not "pure" and yet so many are willing to wink at that or ignore that. I appreciate how precise James is here.

But then, was WL peacable?

Was he gentle and easy to be entreated?

Was he full of mercy? Without impartiality? Without hypocrisy?

I do not understand the reticence at admitting he was a false teacher.

ZNPaaneah · 03-05-2013, 04:08 PM

1. Written to the 12 tribes that were scattered. It seems James burden is for the believers in Christ who are having difficulty in making the transition to the move of God.
2. This letter is very encouraging, he tells us that our experiences are “the trying of your faith” and that they work patience in us.
3. He reveals that our “work” in the LRC or previously was not a “perfect” work. To have a perfect work you need patience. For example, consider how much better the automobile is today. You could say that previous cars were not “perfect” but that with patience we will have a perfect work. So even though our experience was not perfect, it is one step towards that perfect work.
4. Many wonder how they were deceived in the LRC. The reality is that we “lacked wisdom”. James encourages us to ask for wisdom and that it will be given to us. I feel that our participation in this forum is our “asking for wisdom”.
5. It may be that our experience in the LRC was a matter of “enduring temptation” and that some stumbled at this. Do not blame God for this temptation, the reality is you were enticed by your own lust. Perhaps a desire to be in God’s elite army, etc.
6. The history of the LRC is that many were enticed by this lust, it has conceived sin, and this sin will finish with death. We see this with WL, PL, the Sister’s rebellion, JI, various excommunications, lawsuits, etc.
7. Some may wonder how WL could be a false teacher if some of his teachings were so good. That is an error. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes from God. God is faithful and true. If there was any good gift in the LRC it was from God, not from WL.
8. The lesson we learned in the LRC was to be “a doer of the word and not a hearer only”. Too many in the LRC were content to be hearers only as though this made them spiritual and deceived themselves.
9. Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows, those with the lowest social status and influence. Once you start playing politics in the LRC you should know you have left the narrow way. Pure religion is also to keep yourself unspotted from the world. The failed business dealings of WL were spots. Daystar was a spot. The lawsuits were spots. The LRC is full of spots and blemishes and it should be a warning to us to keep ourselves from the world.
10. The LRC keeps the faith of the Lord with respect of persons. The biggest examples of course were WL and WN. But other brothers were also held up in this way. I even remember when 2nd generation saints in the LRC were considered more sanctified than those who were first generation (based on the verse that the unbelieving family member is sanctified by the believer) and that 3rd generation were more sanctified than the second. This is the respect of persons.
11. This kind of behavior, according to James, is filled with evil thoughts because what you have really done is to despise the poor. He points out that it is the rich which oppress you and take you to the courts. This was truly exemplified in the LRC and WL.
12. James points out the hypocrisy in saying you have faith but not works. For example, he points out that “no man can tame the tongue”. Taming the tongue therefore would be a work of faith, not of man. In the LRC they spend a lot of effort to tame the tongue, “lost the vision”, “negative speaking”, “question mark is in the shape of a serpent”, etc. Likewise they spend a lot of money suing those that call the LRC a cult. They claim they have faith, but they have no works to back it up. Their faith is useless. According to James their faith without works is dead. James says he will show you his faith by his works. So then, if you could tame the tongue there would be no need to boast of your faith, the works would express the faith for you. The British once asked Ghandi “What do you think we are just going to pack up and sail away from here?!” To which Ghandi replied “That is exactly what you will do.” And he was right, that was what they did. That work manifested his faith without any need to boast.
13. The LRC claims to have “a rich ministry”. However the miseries are coming upon them. Their riches are corrupted. WN has recently been exposed to be less than the “Minister of the Age” and WL is also being exposed as being less than the “Minister of the Age”. More and more the evidence is clear that WL was a false teacher. The “pure linen robes” of righteousness it appears are moth eaten. The gold and silver is cankered. The rust is evidence that this was fools gold, not genuine. The cries of those defrauded by them are rising and entering into the ears of the Lord of the Sabbath. It looks like they have been nourished for the day of slaughter. They condemned the just and they didn’t resist.
14. So the lesson for us is to be patient and await the day of the Lord. We should take the prophets as an example of those who were happy that endured suffering. Job is an example of one who suffered but then received the reward.
15. So then, if you have suffered and you have walked in righteousness then you have been prepared to pray for those who are enduring suffering that they might be healed, like Elijah.

ZNPaaneah · 03-26-2013, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"So the concept that a few people receive and then convey the "feeling of the Body" is what is not scriptural. There is no NT basis to follow the speaking of a few people who are short circuiting the Lord's speaking"

ZNP,

Unless the speaking of one of those few people is the Lord's speaking at that place and time.

Sometimes the Lord speaks directly and sometimes through gifted members and they may be few for the circumstance.

There is no doubt that the Lord can speak through people. But the idea that you cannot question or object to or refuse to follow or disagree with someone's speaking because "it is the feeling of the Body" is not scriptural. People could and did disagree with Paul even though the Lord spoke through him. People disagreed and questioned Peter before deciding that the Lord had spoken through him. This practice is clearly an ugly blemish.

WL rejects the book of James, many of the Psalms, belittles Proverbs and Job. What hypocrisy to talk about "keeping the oneness of the Body" when you treat the word of God disrespectfully. Clearly the "feeling of the Body" is that these books are part of the Holy Word of God.

Cassidy · 03-26-2013, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no doubt that the Lord can speak through people. But the idea that you cannot question or object to or refuse to follow or disagree with someone's speaking because "it is the feeling of the Body" is not scriptural. People could and did disagree with Paul even though the Lord spoke through him. People disagreed and questioned Peter before deciding that the Lord had spoken through him. This practice is clearly an ugly blemish.

WL rejects the book of James, many of the Psalms, belittles Proverbs and Job. What hypocrisy to talk about "keeping the oneness of the Body" when you treat the word of God disrespectfully. Clearly the "feeling of the Body" is that these books are part of the Holy Word of God.

Yes, but you were implying that the Lord would not use a select "few" and we have biblical examples of where He does just that. My point is that you have to allow for that and not reject God's arrangement of speaking through a "few".

I am not sure what the problem you are having about the book of James. You seem to suggest that just because something is in the Bible that it is God's word. Was Peter's objection to the Lord Jesus going to the cross God's word? Was Satan's "Hath God said?" God's words? Was the counsel of Job's friends God's words?

No, of course they were not.

ZNPaaneah · 03-26-2013, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, but you were implying that the Lord would not use a select "few" and we have biblical examples of where He does just that. My point is that you have to allow for that and not reject God's arrangement of speaking through a "few".

I am not sure what the problem you are having about the book of James. You seem to suggest that just because something is in the Bible that it is God's word. Was Peter's objection to the Lord Jesus going to the cross God's word? Was Satan's "Hath God said?" God's words? Was the council of Job's friends God's words?

No, of course they were not.

There was no implication. There is a context here on this thread that when we say "the feeling of the Body" we are referring to how this is used in the LRC and by the Blendeds. I am one of the very few who has tried to draw a distinction between "the oneness of the Body" and other expressions like "the feeling of the Body" or "Keeping the oneness of the Body". But within the context of how this expression is used it bears no relation to how God actually speaks through people. On the contrary it is much closer akin to how the Catholics choose a Pope. The feeling of the Body is the consensus of the "cardinals", i.e. blendeds.

The problem I am having with the book of James is that this is one of the 66 books of the Bible. It is a divine revelation and a wonderful book at protecting saints from being deceived by the likes of WL, etal. The disrespect shown this book by WL is an expression of his pride and arrogance. The fact that so many in the LRC line up behind this farce even though they pretend to base their faith on the Bible is one of many hypocrisies in the LRC. They claim they are rich and know not that they are blind, and miserable and poor.

Cassidy · 03-26-2013, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The problem I am having with the book of James is that this is one of the 66 books of the Bible. It is a divine revelation and a wonderful book at protecting saints from being deceived by the likes of WL, etal. The disrespect shown this book by WL is an expression of his pride and arrogance. The fact that so many in the LRC line up behind this farce even though they pretend to base their faith on the Bible is one of many hypocrisies in the LRC. They claim they are rich and know not that they are blind, and miserable and poor.

Moses was inspired to write the book of Genesis. Was Satan's words to Eve God's words?

If not, then why are they there?

UntoHim · 03-26-2013, 07:10 PM

The part where he said "hath God not said" are God's word.

Next question.....

Cassidy · 03-26-2013, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The part where he said "hath God not said" are God's word.

Next question.....

Next two questions:

Job was inspired to write Job. Was the counsel Job's friends gave him God's words?

Matthew was inspired to write Matthew. Was Peter's words objecting to the Lord's going to the cross God's words?

Ohio · 03-26-2013, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Next two questions:

Job was inspired to write Job. Was the counsel Job's friends gave him God's words?

Matthew was inspired to write Matthew. Was Peter's words objecting to the Lord's going to the cross God's words?

I've been down this street before. It's a dead end.

Cassidy · 03-26-2013, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've been down this street before. It's a dead end.

You're dismissing again.

Ohio, I am sympathetic to folks who have concerns about dissing the book of James. However, those concerns are irrational and unfounded. Not all words in the Bible are God's, that is clear, so on what basis is the book of James held to a different standard as if everything in it were God's words?

Cal · 03-26-2013, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Next two questions:

Job was inspired to write Job. Was the counsel Job's friends gave him God's words?

Matthew was inspired to write Matthew. Was Peter's words objecting to the Lord's going to the cross God's words?

The answer to this should be obvious. It's one thing to say that the records of historical figures' speaking are in God's word but themselves do not necessarily reflect God's thought. That's entirely reasonable.

But it's another thing entirely to say that the very teaching the writer of a New Testament book is putting forth in the book is not God's thought.

How, pray tell, are we to know which teachings are actually God's thought and which are the ones God let the teacher teach to show us what people who are not really clear on God's thought would teach?

Ohio · 03-26-2013, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You're dismissing again.

Ohio, I am sympathetic to folks who have concerns about dissing the book of James.However, those concerns are irrational and unfounded. Not all words in the Bible are God's, that is clear, so on what basis is the book of James held to a different standard as if everything in it are God's words?

Concerns about dissing a book of the Bible are not "irrational and unfounded concerns." You have an errant thought about what is God's word. God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus. God's word exhausts every avenue of thought and speech. God's word even includes the words of Satan and Judas. Imagine that!

I am not holding the book of James to a different standard. Matthew is God's word, and so is James, from the first word to the last.

Cassidy, I do wish you would apply your critiques of the book of James to the many writings of Lee instead. It was Lee who was not clear about God's New Testament Economy.

Cassidy · 03-26-2013, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerns about dissing a book of the Bible are not irrational and unfounded concerns. You have an errant thought about what is God's word. God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus. God's word exhausts every avenue of thought and speech. God's word even includes the words of Satan and Judas. Imagine that!

I am not holding the book of James to a different standard. Matthew is God's word, and so is James, from the first word to the last.

Cassidy, I do wish you would apply your critiques of the book of James to the many writings of Lee instead. It was Lee who was not clear about God's New Testament Economy.

Igzy, I like your last question and will get to that. First, I want to address this point Ohio made as follows.

" God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus"

What is your point here? I never said, suggested, nor remotey implied that. Are you trying to distract from the train of thought?

"God's word even includes the words of Satan and Judas. Imagine that!"

Let's clarify. All 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God and that includes every word from the first verse in Gen 1 to the last verse in Revelation. We call this Holy Writ the inspired Scripture or God's Word or the Bible.

The Scripture even includes words right out of Satan's mouth, it includes the vain and dark human counsel from Job's friends, it includes the uninspired ideas of Peter to forbid Jesus from going to the cross or his suggestion to make three tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah. We can find thousands of such examples in the Bible where human thought, Satanic ideas, misguided opinions are expressed. Those few examples are sufficient to confirm that. The Bible even quotes books that were determined not inspired and not included in of the Canon of Scripture such as the book of Enoch quoted by Jude. These are not God's words though they are included in God's Word.

Now for some reason you want to treat the book of James as if it could not possibly contain something other than God's words. Recall, I did not say James is not inspired nor did I say that the book is not part of God's Word (capital as in the Holy Writ of Scripture). As I said all 66....

James was one of the most pious brothers in the early christian church. He was faithful in martyrdom too. He will have his faithful reward. However, many things in the book of James were not God's words. We also know from the scripture and from history that there were problems from Jewish christian teachers and leaders. Even Peter was intimidated and withdrew from eating with the Gentiles when some "came from James". Paul openly confronted Peter for this and this also indicates there was an issue.

The book is there for a good reason. I have not torn it out of my Bible and I read it too. Unlike Luther who thought it should never have been included at all, Witness Lee taught it has its proper place and of course it does. Like many passages that serve to instruct us by command, encouragement, exhortation, or contrast the book of James accomplishes that.

Yet, there is no logical nor biblical basis for holding the irrational belief that every word in the book of James, all of them without exception, are all also God's words.

Ohio · 03-27-2013, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy, I like your last question and will get to that. First, I want to address this point Ohio made as follows.

" God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus"

What is your point here? I never said, suggested, nor remotely implied that. Are you trying to distract from the train of thought?

No, brother Cassidy, it's you who have distracted us from the train of thought starting with your post #45.

We were discussing the ground of the church, and now we are picking up the pieces of this train wreck, needlessly defending the scriptures as the word of God.

Let me state again that the plain words of the book of James are surely God's word, but that Lee's speculations about the "ground of locality," so obviously missing from the plain text of the Bible, are merely the improvised teachings of man, promoted for selfish gain.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Moses was inspired to write the book of Genesis. Was Satan's words to Eve God's words?

If not, then why are they there?

Are you comparing the Book of James to Satan's words?

Are you saying that an explanation of why God's word includes quotes of what Satan has said is an explanation of how you and the LRC treat the book of James?

Answer my questions and I will answer your question.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Next two questions:

Job was inspired to write Job. Was the counsel Job's friends gave him God's words?

Matthew was inspired to write Matthew. Was Peter's words objecting to the Lord's going to the cross God's words?

Once again, are you comparing Peter's word to Jesus saying this shall not happen to you to the Book of James, or to Job, or to some Psalms or to the Book of Proverbs? If not, what is the relevance? If so, say so plainly.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You're dismissing again.

Ohio, I am sympathetic to folks who have concerns about dissing the book of James. However, those concerns are irrational and unfounded. Not all words in the Bible are God's, that is clear, so on what basis is the book of James held to a different standard as if everything in it were God's words?

We treat everything written by Peter as the words of an Apostle with a clear vision, the inspired word of God.

We treat everything written by Paul as the words of an Apostle with a clear vision, the inspired word of God.

We treat everything written by Mark and Luke as the words of men with a clear vision, the inspired word of God.

I treat everything written by James as the words of a man with a clear vision, the inspired word of God.

The arrogance of speaking that some writers in the NT did not have "a clear vision", they were "confused", etc. is repulsive. James said to be a doer of the word and not a hearer only. That is so true of the arrogant little pissants known as the LRC.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yet, there is no logical nor biblical basis for holding the irrational belief that every word in the book of James, all of them without exception, are all also God's words.

As Igzy said, unless the Bible provides us with a guide on how to distinguish what is and is not "God's speaking" within His word then it is very irrational to make this judgment.

After being trained by WL I was under the impression that James was placed in the Bible as a test to see if we understood God's economy. How arrogant and idiotic is that? It treats WL's interpretation of the Bible as gospel and Bible itself as a red headed step child. However, I was never able to find even the slightest hint that this was so. True, the passage in Galatians does state clearly that James is off, but this error could be the basis for a repentance and a vision expressed in the book of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.

Paul had a failure that was the basis for his vision of the Body. Are we to say that what James did was more heinous than Paul? (Paul persecuted saints unto the death which led to his vision that they were the Body of Christ, hence his sight couldn't be restored until one of these saints laid hands on him).

Peter had a failure that was the basis for his vision. (He denied the Lord to his shame, so that when the Lord spoke to him later in the dream he feared to deny Him again).

Referring to Galatians only supports that James had a critical vision, similar to Paul and Peter. An assertion that is supported by the clear word of the Bible which refers to the Lord appearing to James (1Cor 15:7). So when WL says that James doesn't have a clear vision he is directly contradicting the word of God. The Book of Galatians helps us to realize how critical this vision of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons is. An error that is clearly manifested in the LRC. Instead of despising the word of God why not receive it in meekness?

Who better to have this vision and share this vision of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons than the brother of Jesus?

Ohio · 03-27-2013, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

After being trained by WL I was under the impression that James was placed in the Bible as a test to see if we understood God's economy. How arrogant and idiotic is that? It treats WL's interpretation of the Bible as gospel and Bible itself as a red headed step child. However, I was never able to find even the slightest hint that this was so. True, the passage in Galatians does state clearly that James is off, but this error could be the basis for a repentance and a vision expressed in the book of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.

WL loved to point out the various failures of the men of God in the Bible -- from James to Barnabas to Apollos to Noah to Peter etc. -- yet never once did he ever own up to his own failures which have robbed and stumbled the saints and slandered the prophets whom God raised up to rebuke him. WL loved to keep the saints wondering which Psalm was the word of God, while no one spent the time to examine Lee's books to determine which was merely human sentiment. Most people call this hypocrisy. Some call it criminal.

Cassidy balked when I mentioned the red-letter words of Jesus being the only words of God, but where does his "inquiry" end? Is Biblical history, e.g. Kings and Chronicles, the word of God? Cassidy says all scripture is inspired by God, but all scripture is not God's word. Then can God only speak to us thru His own words in the Bible? How many times in history has the Spirit of God convicted His children using James' word, "faith without works is dead?"

Cal · 03-27-2013, 06:56 AM

Cassidy, your whole line of thinking is off-base and reflects very poor reasoning.

Just because certain things which do not reflect God's nature are recorded in the Bible as matters of record, it does not therefore follow that a whole book of direct teaching could in the same manner not reflect God's nature.

Things that are said or done in a biblical retelling of history are one thing. Direct teaching and decree are something else.

We have to surmise that when a writer of a book of the Bible, especially a NT book, in the first person makes a direct declaration of truth and decree then that declaration reflects God's thought, nature and command.

What you are doing is, again, a form of equivocation. You are mixing multiple meanings of "inspired." Yes, the entire telling of a story is inspired. No, Peter's actual claiming the Jesus should not go to the cross was not inspired. But the telling of the story and the overall lesson the story is trying to teach us is inspired. But when it comes to direct teaching, we have to conclude it is inspired, whether Solomon taught it or James taught it.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Cassidy, your whole line of thinking is off-base and reflects very poor reasoning.

But isn't this a case in point? UntoHim and others argued that those in the LRC are told what to think. Doesn't Cassidy reasoning here support that assertion?

Cassidy · 03-27-2013, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Cassidy, your whole line of thinking is off-base and reflects very poor reasoning.

Just because certain things which do not reflect God's nature are recorded in the Bible as matters of record, it does not therefore follow that a whole book of direct teaching could in the same manner not reflect God's nature.

Things that are said or done in a biblical retelling of history are one thing. Direct teaching and decree are something else.

We have to surmise that when a writer of a book of the Bible, especially a NT book, in the first person makes a direct declaration of truth and decree then that declaration reflects God's thought, nature and command.

What you are doing is, again, a form of equivocation. You are mixing multiple meanings of "inspired." Yes, the entire telling of a story is inspired. No, Peter's actual claiming the Jesus should not go to the cross was not inspired. But the telling of the story and the overall lesson the story is trying to teach us is inspired. But when it comes to direct teaching, we have to conclude it is inspired, whether Solomon taught it or James taught it.

Igzy,

Here is my 50,000' view.

Witness Lee had many glowing things to say about the book of James and those may be found in the footnotes on the RcV for anyone interested in looking into the matter.

The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.

The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from the same considerations as other books in the Bible, that is, having parts that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.

Cal · 03-27-2013, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

Here is my 50,000' view.

Witness Lee had many glowing things to say about the book of James and those may be found in the footnotes on the RcV for anyone interested in looking into the matter.

The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.

The things that are not considered God's speaking are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that the mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from other books in the Bible which have a portions that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.

Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.

An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)

But a direct teaching is something else. I believe we should take those as instructive and inspired as much as we can.

When you say that Christians need not keep the law, the question is what do you mean by "keep the law." Do you mean ceremonial law, civil law, or moral law? If the first two, I agree. If the last, I disagree. Jesus himself said that none of the law would pass away. But since Paul said ceremonial law had been done away with, we can conclude that's not the law Jesus was referring to. Since civil law governed a culture so foreign to ours that it cannot be followed specifically, we don't need to keep it. Though we can gain general wisdom from it.

But the moral law continues. Adultery was wrong 3000 years ago, and it is wrong now. We need to keep that law.

So James was not wrong to say we need to keep the law. What's wrong is interpreting what he said to include the ceremonial and civil law, and then using that to say he was off in some way. Unfortunately, that's what you and WL are doing.

The perfect law of liberty is the moral law. It is the truth that sets your free. Of course, the Spirit is the reality of truth of the law.

Ohio · 03-27-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Here is my 50,000' view. The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not.

The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law.

James said, "whoever keeps the whole law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all." (2.10)

That doesn't sound like an exhortation that Christians must keep the law. In fact, it sounds like the opposite.

Please come down to earth and provide some scripture to support your view.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

James said, "whoever keeps the whole law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all." (2.10)

That doesn't sound like an exhortation that Christians must keep the law. In fact, it sounds like the opposite.

Please come down to earth and provide some scripture to support your view.

Play fair, wouldn't it be easier for him to quote WL than to quote scripture?

Ohio · 03-27-2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.

An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)

I also like the maxim that here in Acts 1.26 the biblical record is descriptive, but not prescriptive.

Such was the case of Nee's "local ground" teachings. Yes, Revelations 2-3 are descriptive concerning "one church / one city," but the Bible is completely silent concerning this in a prescriptive way. One makes this teaching even more onerous is the obvious contradictions which exist in the plain text of the New Testament.

Ohio · 03-27-2013, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Play fair, wouldn't it be easier for him to quote WL than to quote scripture?

From the vast, free online ministry resources at LSM.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I also like the maxim that here in Acts 1.26 the biblical record is descriptive, but not prescriptive.

Such was the case of Nee's "local ground" teachings. Yes, Revelations 2-3 are descriptive concerning "one church / one city," but the Bible is completely silent concerning this in a prescriptive way. One makes this teaching even more onerous is the obvious contradictions which exist in the plain text of the New Testament.

Just so I'm clear, some parts of the Bible are descriptive, not prescriptive. So the fact that Judas went and hung himself is merely telling me what happened and not recommending that I do the same. This principle applies to the verses that WN and WL use to build their teaching about "the ground of oneness". None of the verses used were prescriptive, they were descriptive yet WN and WL, blissfully unaware of this maxim used these verses to prescribe a very critical teaching.

However, when it came to dissing parts of the Bible WL didn't like, say Proverbs, or Psalms, or James, or Job then all of a sudden he is misapplying this principle, talking about how some verses in the Bible are descriptive not prescriptive, and then applying it to verses that are prescriptive.

So then he ignores a basic principle when it is inconvenient, and in other places completely misapplies it to force his square peg doctrine into a round hole.

Now I can see saying that this is evidence that WN was a poor Bible teacher, fair enough, but for WL isn't this proof he was a false teacher?

Cassidy · 03-27-2013, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.

An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)

But a direct teaching is something else. I believe we should take those as instructive and inspired as much as we can.

When you say that Christians need not keep the law, the question is what do you mean by "keep the law." Do you mean ceremonial law, civil law, or moral law? If the first two, I agree. If the last, I disagree. Jesus himself said that none of the law would pass away. But since Paul said ceremonial law had been done away with, we can conclude that's not the law Jesus was referring to. Since civil law governed a culture so foreign to ours that it cannot be followed specifically, we don't need to keep it. Though we can gain general wisdom from it.

But the moral law continues. Adultery was wrong 3000 years ago, and it is wrong now. We need to keep that law.

So James was not wrong to say we need to keep the law. What's wrong is interpreting what he said to include the ceremonial and civil law, and then using that to say he was off in some way. Unfortunately, that's what you and WL are doing.

The perfect law of liberty is the moral law. It is the truth that sets your free. Of course, the Spirit is the reality of truth of the law.

Igzy,

I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.

However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.

Case in point:

Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "

James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.

However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.

Case in point:

Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "

James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.

No one denies this. Everyone agrees that the record in Acts condemns James on this point. The record in Acts also condems Saul of Tarsus, yet for some reason no one doubts that he "had the vision".

Peter made a mistake and denied the Lord. Paul was less than the least of the saints, persecuting some even to death. James was zealous for the law.

It turns out that it is very common for the vision to be given to the person who has made a very big error in this very same area. Kind of like a rebound from repenting for a sin they had committed.

So then, if you receive the ministry of Peter and Paul as being inspired, then it is hypocritical to use the account in Acts to justify rejecting the ministry of James.

Cal · 03-27-2013, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.

However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.

Case in point:

Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "

James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.

No doubt Paul was more clear on some things than James. But it's also possible that James was more clear on some things than Paul.

But the real question is this, are you saying there are some things commanded in the book of James that we specifically can ignore? If so, which are they?

I'm not baiting. I believe there are some things in the NT that we can de-emphasize now, that are less valid now that they were in the first century. For example, prohibiting women from teaching. I don't think that is a commandment regarding nature, but rather circumstance. I've just seen too many examples of anointed females teachers.

The problem I have with Lee's approach to James is although James was clearly a very Jewish Christian, I do not believe the main reason his book is in the NT is to demonstrate someone who was less than clear. If anything the point is to show that God needs different perspectives to state his whole case.

Ohio · 03-27-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so I'm clear, some parts of the Bible are descriptive, not prescriptive. So the fact that Judas went and hung himself is merely telling me what happened and not recommending that I do the same.

Sounds like I have just prevented a disaster.

Cassidy · 03-27-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

No doubt Paul was more clear on some things than James. But it's also possible that James was more clear on some things than Paul.

But the real question is this, are you saying there are some things commanded in the book of James that we specifically can ignore? If so, which are they?

I'm not baiting. I believe there are some things in the NT that we can de-emphasize now, that are less valid now that they were in the first century. For example, prohibiting women from teaching. I don't think that is a commandment regarding nature, but rather circumstance. I've just seen to many examples of anointed females teachers.

The problem I have with Lee's approach to James is although James was clearly a very Jewish Christian, I do not believe the main reason his book is in the NT is to demonstrate someone who was less than clear. If anything the point is to show that God needs different perspectives to state his whole case.

Igzy, I don't consider your response as baiting, just healthy debate.

Yes, I think James' propensity toward keeping the law is not something we believers need to practice. He has many other edifying points but keeping the OT law was a mixture. Then the question comes up why are such teachings allowed to be included. Some variation is there to show different perspectives as you said, however, I believe that God also includes things to show us what not to do. OT law keeping was a big problem to the early church as previously shown. We can all learn from that.

Cassidy · 03-27-2013, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like I have just prevented a disaster.

I too breathed a sigh of relief when I read that statement.

Cal · 03-27-2013, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy, I don't consider your response as baiting, just healthy debate.

Yes, I think James' propensity toward keeping the law is not something we believers need to practice. He has many other edifying points but keeping the OT law was a mixture. Then the question comes up why are such teachings allowed to be included. Some variation is there to show different perspectives as you said, however, I believe that God also includes things to show us what not to do. OT law keeping was a big problem to the early church as previously shown. We can all learn from that.

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it.

So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far!

Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

TLFisher · 03-27-2013, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

Amen!

"All scripture is breathed out of God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

The emphasis in quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 is when I have heard criticisms of whether a book such as James belongs of the Bible or not, I remember that verse.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like I have just prevented a disaster.

There are some that would take exception to that.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it.

So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far!

Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

Yes, James flies in the face of many beloved WL teachings. How about "true religion" or "don't be a hearer only". It seems to me that every group that goes seriously wrong it is because they have become hearers only and not doers, or they have forgotten what true religion is.

James said "no man can tame the tongue" yet WL ignored this, hired an expensive legal team and did his darnedest to do just that. If they had tamed the tongue that would be a work of faith, not a work of a legal team.

James talks about how you have respect for the rich and it these same people who sue you. James had the LRC pegged.

The conclusion of James is that the miseries are come upon the rich, their gold is cankered and their garments are moth eaten. Isn't this the case with WL and his ministry? In his arrogance he dismissed the book of James and now he is the one who is being dismissed.

Cassidy · 03-27-2013, 12:14 PM

Igzy,

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

I understand that concern but it is manageable. Early in my christian life I was very bothered about a direct teaching of Jesus. The one about if you committed certain sins you should pluck your eyes out or cut your hand off. A brother got me through that one but it did not cause me to lose sight of everything else in the gospels or that particular book. (ZNP, that is a direct teaching but don't go doing anything drastic!

)

For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it.

I do not know if James was tweaking Paul's teaching or the misapplication of it. Maybe he was. However, I do not see a conflict between the two teachings as I view one as the cause and the other as the proof. One is about life and the other is about living. I have no quarrel with those who think the two are utterly incompatible but I myself do not think there is an issue with both standing side by side.

So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far!

I don't agree with this as pertains to believers because it is impossible to keep the law and as James says if you break one point you've broken the whole. The law was a child conductor and at some point the child conductor is no longer needed. I am also fine with teaching children the 10 commandments and others parts but once they are regenerated Christ has come. I also think the law liberally should be applied to rowdy teenagers.

Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something.

It does say something but it is not definitive. 2000 years ago some might have considered that if all the Christians in Jerusalem are zealous for the law then that should be considered as relevant.

ZNPaaneah · 03-27-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff.

I understand that concern but it is manageable.

I don't understand how this is "manageable". You referred to a verse you didn't understand, fair enough, you don't understand it, you put it on the back burner, you ask for fellowship, etc. If you or WL did not understand the Book of James don't give a training on it.

To my understanding once you decide that some books are more in line with the "vision" than other books you have crossed a major line. Like Igzy said, the book is in the Bible for a reason. One of those reasons is that James clearly had a burden for Jewish saints who were having trouble making the transition to the New Testament. You might think that burden doesn't apply to you, yet way too much of what James speaks seems to be directed squarely at the errors of the LRC. It may very well be that the cure for the errors in the LRC were in James all this time, had they received this book and not to doubtful disputations, then perhaps things would have been different. To me it is like the human body. Which parts of your body could you cut off and do without? It seems incredibly foolish to treat the Bible that way.

ZNPaaneah · 03-28-2013, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, I think James' propensity toward keeping the law is not something we believers need to practice. He has many other edifying points but keeping the OT law was a mixture. Then the question comes up why are such teachings allowed to be included. Some variation is there to show different perspectives as you said, however, I believe that God also includes things to show us what not to do. OT law keeping was a big problem to the early church as previously shown. We can all learn from that.

This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts.

So they teach that the Book of James teaches both the NT and keeping the law as a mixture. Because this is what they read in Acts, not in the Book of James.

James
1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

The book of James makes it clear you cannot have a muddled, double minded view of the gospel. This may very well be a result of his repenting of having this view earlier in his life.

However, to support the assertion that James teaches us to keep the law they do not quote the Book of James, they quote the accounts in Acts and Galatians.

This would be like explaining Paul's teaching about "I am crucified with Christ" by teaching about how he dragged off Christians to be put to death. It may very well be that there is a strong contrast with his past, but it indicates his repentance for his sins.

Ohio · 03-28-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts. So they teach that the Book of James teaches both the NT and keeping the law as a mixture. Because this is what they read in Acts, not in the Book of James.

That right. My old friend Cassidy said the same thing the other day. He's still looking thru the epistle of James for that verse that says Christians should follow the law, "Duh, I know it's in there somewhere, Bro Lee said so ..."

Actually I'm laughing at myself too. I just recently read thru James to make sure that verse was not there. I'm hard on ole Cass at times but I still love him in Christ.

Hey did you see CountMeWorthy in that group hug? It's named after her. Where she been?

ZNPaaneah · 03-28-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That right. My old friend Cassidy said the same thing the other day. He's still looking thru the epistle of James for that verse that says Christians should follow the law, "Duh, I know it's in there somewhere, Bro Lee said so ..."

Actually I'm laughing at myself too. I just recently read thru James to make sure that verse was not there. I'm hard on ole Cass at times but I still love him in Christ.

Hey did you see CountMeWorthy in that group hug? It's named after her. Where she been?

Witness Lee took issue with "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad". However, this does not mean that James is confused. It most likely means that his audience was, hence "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways".

If a congregation of Christians referred to themselves as "the twelve tribes" (we have groups like this in NY, including "the lost tribe", etc) it doesn't mean that I am confused in my vision because I have a burden to share with them. Just another example of shoddy scholarship by WL (though to be fair many others have had the same impression). Still it is awfully short sighted to appreciate that Paul had the ministry to the uncircumcision and then think that a ministry to the circumcision is confused and mixed.

Cassidy · 03-28-2013, 11:44 AM

"This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts."

ZNP,

Guilty as charged.

But why is it a problem to include James' epistle, the acts of James in the book of Acts, and the account mentioned in Galatians to get a complete rounded view of James' teaching and practice?

TLFisher · 03-28-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of James makes it clear you cannot have a muddled, double minded view of the gospel. This may very well be a result of his repenting of having this view earlier in his life.

However, to support the assertion that James teaches us to keep the law they do not quote the Book of James, they quote the accounts in Acts and Galatians.

This would be like explaining Paul's teaching about "I am crucified with Christ" by teaching about how he dragged off Christians to be put to death. It may very well be that there is a strong contrast with his past, but it indicates his repentance for his sins.

Same can be said about Mark. Acts has a negative account of Mark and later on in Paul's epistles, there's an affirming word about Mark. Clearly something happened between the account in Acts and later as seen in Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon.

ZNPaaneah · 03-28-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts."

ZNP,

Guilty as charged.

But why is it a problem to include James' epistle, the acts of James in the book of Acts, and the account mentioned in Galatians to get a complete rounded view of James' teaching and practice?

You only used half of the quote. I continued with the next sentence "So". As a result you make the erroneous conclusion that since Acts records James being zealous for the Law that his epistle does the same. There is nothing wrong with using Acts as background, just as we also use the account of Paul persecuting christians or Peter denying the Lord.

For example, WL talks about James being zealous for the Law in Acts, then refers to the epistle being written to "the twelve tribes in the dispersion" and concludes that James was not clear on the NT economy. This conclusion is not confirmed. If I write to someone who is confused it doesn't mean that I am. If I am burdened for Jews having trouble making the transition from the OT economy to the NT economy it doesn't mean that I am also having that problem.

WL then uses the account in Galatians and Acts to support his thesis. Again, clear support would come from verses within the book of James. All you have really proved is that at one point in James life he was confused, and that at the time he wrote his epistle he was now burdened for others that were confused. You have not provided any evidence that the epistle itself is a mixture.

Should I disparage the epistles of Peter because he denied the Lord? Should I shun the epistles of Paul because he persecuted the church? People get burdens because they themselves were in the very same situation. Paul said that once we overcome we can comfort others with the very same comfort that we received.

Cassidy · 03-28-2013, 02:43 PM

"All you have really proved is that at one point in James life he was confused, and that at the time he wrote his epistle he was now burdened for others that were confused. You have not provided any evidence that the epistle itself is a mixture.

Should I disparage the epistles of Peter because he denied the Lord? Should I shun the epistles of Paul because he persecuted the church? People get burdens because they themselves were in the very same situation. Paul said that once we overcome we can comfort others with the very same comfort that we received."

Before, I say what I am about to say I feel a need to reiterate something. There are many attributes and qualities about James that are not only admirable but truly stellar. In the RCV footnotes in the book of James, Witness Lee writes a very glowing description of this precious brother and apostle.

ZNP,

You argument about considering Peter's mistakes in the gospels, and then not rejecting his epistle's because of those mistakes is a reasonable. No, we should not reject Peter's epistle's because he denied the Lord in the gospels.

Same for Saul who persecuted the church. We should not reject Paul's epistles written after his conversion just because he persecuted the church at one point before his conversion. I agree with you 100%.

As I indicated in my opening to this note, I also do not totally disregard the book of James and neither did Witness Lee.

However, in applying your reasonable argument to James we encounter an issue. And it is not insignificant. The epistle of James was written before Acts 21 which says that thousands among the Jews believed and they were "all are zealous for the law". So rather than, as in the case of Peter and Paul, a progression away from early errors we find James is not only the elder in a city where all are zealous for the law but James then proposes that Paul sponsors some new converts to observe a law ritual. The purpose of sponsoring the ritual is so that everyone will know that Paul was not teaching "apostasy from Moses", (such as not needing to circumcise their children). Since these events occurred after his epistle was written we cannot apply the same logic as we did for Peter and Paul.

The confusion James held about the Jewish believers needing to observe the OT law was being held and promoted by him even after his epistle was written.

ZNPaaneah · 03-28-2013, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"All you have really proved is that at one point in James life he was confused, and that at the time he wrote his epistle he was now burdened for others that were confused. You have not provided any evidence that the epistle itself is a mixture.

Should I disparage the epistles of Peter because he denied the Lord? Should I shun the epistles of Paul because he persecuted the church? People get burdens because they themselves were in the very same situation. Paul said that once we overcome we can comfort others with the very same comfort that we received."

Before, I say what I am about to say I feel a need to reiterate something. There are many attributes and qualities about James that are not only admirable but truly stellar. In the RCV footnotes in the book of James, Witness Lee writes a very glowing description of this precious brother and apostle.

ZNP,

You argument about considering Peter's mistakes in the gospels, and then not rejecting his epistle's because of those mistakes is a reasonable. No, we should not reject Peter's epistle's because he denied the Lord in the gospels.

Same for Saul who persecuted the church. We should not reject Paul's epistles written after his conversion just because he persecuted the church at one point before his conversion. I agree with you 100%.

As I indicated in my opening to this note, I also do not totally disregard the book of James and neither did Witness Lee.

However, in applying your reasonable argument to James we encounter an issue. And it is not insignificant. The epistle of James was written before Acts 21 which says that thousands among the Jews believed and they were "all are zealous for the law". So rather than, as in the case of Peter and Paul, a progression away from early errors we find James is not only the elder in a city where all are zealous for the law but James then proposes that Paul sponsors some new converts to observe a law ritual. The purpose of sponsoring the ritual is so that everyone will know that Paul was not teaching "apostasy from Moses", (such as not needing to circumcise their children). Since these events occurred after his epistle was written we cannot apply the same logic as we did for Peter and Paul.

The confusion James held about the Jewish believers needing to observe the OT law was being held and promoted by him even after his epistle was written.

Not only so but it is very likely that Galatians was written after the book of James, though perhaps within a couple of years of this book.

I have already said that Acts is a valid reason to question the book. But without something in the book itself you don't have evidence, only a suspicion.

It seems to me, (and this is merely my take on the NT, I am quite open to critique) that if Paul rebukes Peter to his face that is the kind of thing that is going to travel very quickly through the churches. (Imagine that BP rebukes Max R directly to his face when some from the LSM office come and visit. Do you honestly think that news would not go straight back to WL?)

If Paul's rebuke is directly related to James then I would expect James would hear it and consider it carefully. We know that Peter received the rebuke and I see no reason at all to think that James didn't also receive it. Also, the book of Galatians relates accounts and stories that happened prior to Paul writing the book. That seems quite obvious.

Now according to the book of Acts the period of time from Peter feeling that he could not eat with the gentiles to the time he realized that the Lord had shown him that is what he wanted to do, to the time he actually baptized them, to the time he met with James to defend these actions was a matter of days, perhaps a week or two. The fact that "all were zealous for the law" indicates that there is a real need to do something. Who better to repent than James? Who better to speak than James? There is no reason to think his repentance and then letter was years in the making. It could have been a month.

So, the account in Acts 21 shows that at the time that the book of James was written "all were zealous for the law". Seems like a compelling reason for why James was burdened to write. According to the account in Galatians and Acts we can surmise that much of this zealousness for the law was due to James himself. Again, seems like a compelling reason why he would repent and why he would be burdened to do something about it.

So once again, there are two very reasonable ways to look at this.

1. James had a mixed view, it caused everyone following him to also have a mixed view (those who came from James) and we can see this in his epistle. (However, to support this thesis you have to show direct quotes from his epistle which point to his error.)

2. James had a mixed view. It caused others to also be led astray. He was rebuked for this and repented, receiving a revelation (the Lord appeared to him) partly as a result of hearing of Paul's rebuke of Peter. After the Lord appeared to him he wrote the book of James to address the "double minded" situation described in Acts 21 and also in Galatians. (To support this thesis the book would have to be written to those who are confused "to the 12 tribes in the dispersion", it would have to very clearly state that Jesus is Lord and we are no longer in the OT "James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". It would have to explain this transition from the OT to the NT "the trying of faith worketh patience, but let patience have her perfect work" (the NT is a perfect work and is an example of how patient God is).

The point is you have to support your theory with what James actually wrote. Was his burden to teach Christians to be zealous for the Law or was his burden for those who were confused and trying to help them make the transition to the NT.

Now if I was Paul I would not be quick to write the account in Galatians. You need to give Peter and James an opportunity to digest it. However, once Peter and James have received the word and repented I would feel much better about sharing my side of the story. So the act of writing Galatians seems to me to indicate that yes, Paul rebuked them but they received the rebuke and repented. Otherwise, the fact that they rejected his rebuke should also be mentioned in Galatians to explain what caused the schism. We know that Paul was not shy about explaining why there was a schism with him and Mark.

Cassidy · 03-28-2013, 03:58 PM

"Now according to the book of Acts the period of time from Peter feeling that he could not eat with the gentiles to the time he realized that the Lord had shown him that is what he wanted to do, to the time he actually baptized them, to the time he met with James to defend these actions was a matter of days, perhaps a week or two. The fact that "all were zealous for the law" indicates that there is a real need to do something. Who better to repent than James? Who better to speak than James? There is no reason to think his repentance and then letter was years in the making. It could have been a month."

Brother ZNP,

The timeline for the events above were probably closer to 20 years.

Peter saw the vision from the roof of Simon the Tanner's house (which is still there by the way according to a certain tour guide

) and baptized the house of Cornelius up the coast shortly thereafter in the range of AD 39-41...

... and James wrote his epistle in about AD 48-51...

...and then the incident in Acts 21 where "all were zealous for the law" occurred around AD 58-60

ZNPaaneah · 03-28-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"Now according to the book of Acts the period of time from Peter feeling that he could not eat with the gentiles to the time he realized that the Lord had shown him that is what he wanted to do, to the time he actually baptized them, to the time he met with James to defend these actions was a matter of days, perhaps a week or two. The fact that "all were zealous for the law" indicates that there is a real need to do something. Who better to repent than James? Who better to speak than James? There is no reason to think his repentance and then letter was years in the making. It could have been a month."

Brother ZNP,

The timeline for the events above were probably closer to 20 years.

Peter saw the vision from the roof of Simon the Tanner's house (which is still there by the way according to a certain tour guide

) and baptized the house of Cornelius up the coast shortly thereafter in the range of AD 39-41...

... and James wrote his epistle in about AD 48-51...

...and then the incident in Acts 21 where "all were zealous for the law" occurred around AD 58-60

Again, if your thesis is that the Book of James promotes a mixed message of the NT with the Law then that would be supported by something from the book of James that does that.

No one, to my knowledge, knows precisely what the events were. I think we can both agree that James did have a mixed vision at one point, this was recorded in both Acts and Galatians.

The issue is whether or not this mixed message was carried over into his epistle or if the epistle was written after he received the vision of the Lord. I do not personally think that a third option is plausible (he wrote an epistle according to the NT vision even though he was not clear on the NT vision). If James wasn't clear then you should be able to easily demonstrate that from his epistle. Saying that he wasn't clear without demonstrating what the error was is not fruitful. Clearly you have expressed, repeatedly, your feeling that the message in his epistle was mixed. Please give us the verse and the mixed message and explain the error, otherwise your harangue is a big waste of time.

Cassidy · 03-28-2013, 06:16 PM

"Again, if your thesis is that the Book of James promotes a mixed message of the NT with the Law then that would be supported by something from the book of James that does that."

ZNP,

I agree.

If I have objections to parts of the book of James then I need to present those too.

Cal · 03-28-2013, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If James wasn't clear then you should be able to easily demonstrate that from his epistle. Saying that he wasn't clear without demonstrating what the error was is not fruitful. Clearly you have expressed, repeatedly, your feeling that the message in his epistle was mixed. Please give us the verse and the mixed message and explain the error, otherwise your harangue is a big waste of time.

I agree. State your case specifically. Chapter and verse. Where is the word of James in error?

ZNPaaneah · 03-29-2013, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree. State your case specifically. Chapter and verse. Where is the word of James in error?

James
5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Seems to me this is a good conclusion. James erred from the truth, he was converted and now he can help others in the same boat. For example, the burden of this forum.

ZNPaaneah · 04-01-2013, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That right. My old friend Cassidy said the same thing the other day. He's still looking thru the epistle of James for that verse that says Christians should follow the law, "Duh, I know it's in there somewhere, Bro Lee said so ..."

James
4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

I feel that LSM's sacrament, "the doctrine of dirt" is an egregious error. I find it impossible to believe that WN and WL did not know this. I can imagine WN might have come up with this idea as a way to solve the problem of division. But surely the more he taught it, the more he explained it, the more trainings and messages they gave the more issues they had at some point they must have realized this teaching doesn't hold water and is an error.

WL taught that Abraham's sacrifice signified that God the Father offered His only begotten Son for our sins that we could be saved. He also taught that this is why God chose this land. He also taught that King David purchased the land as a sin offering. How could he not have realized his error? I have to believe he knew what he was doing and ergo it was sin.

TLFisher · 04-01-2013, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

James
4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

The RcV footnote to James 4:17 says:
"A concluding word to all the charges in the preceding verses. It says that if the recipients of this Epistle are helped by James's writing and yet will not do as he wrote, to them it is sin."

Reading James 4, I do not read anywhere in scripture where James writing is based on a conditional "if the recipients of this Epistle are helped by James's writing".

ZNPaaneah · 04-02-2013, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.

The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from the same considerations as other books in the Bible, that is, having parts that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.

Witness Lee, Life Study of James, Chapter 10 Sect 3
To say, “If the Lord wills,” is rather objective and is quite much according to the tone of the Old Testament. But to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, and to do what our spirit constrains us to do are subjective and are much more according to the New Testament.

"I certainly have no intention of belittling James or his Epistle. However, I must truthfully point out that after many years studying this book, I have learned that this Epistle is very Jewish and has a strong color, tone, taste, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. If we did not have the fourteen Epistles of Paul, we might be influenced by the book of James to go back to Judaism. Although we appreciate and need James’ emphasis on practical Christian perfection, we still need to be very clear that much of his Epistle has the tone, color, and atmosphere of the Old Testament."

This is WL's take on the expression "If the Lord wills" in the book of James, chapter 4. It is a good example of how WL belittles the book. The burden of James is clearly for those having trouble making the transition from the OT to the NT (it is written "to the 12 tribes in the dispersion"). So the governing principle here might be Paul's word in
1Cor
9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

This is clearly a lesson that WL did not learn. He feels that it "belittles" the book that the book is "Jewish" and has the taste of the Old Testament.

So then the next question is "who understood Paul better, Witness Lee or James?"

Perhaps one reason the book of James is in the Bible is because people may think they understand Paul when they really don't.

Perhaps, instead of "not intending to belittle James" it might have been better if he had "intended to learn from James". The arrogance of this "Bible teacher" is repulsive.

Ohio · 04-02-2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee, Life Study of James, Chapter 10 Sect 3. To say, “If the Lord wills,” is rather objective and is quite much according to the tone of the Old Testament. But to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, and to do what our spirit constrains us to do are subjective and are much more according to the New Testament.

"I certainly have no intention of belittling James or his Epistle. However, I must truthfully point out that after many years studying this book, I have learned that this Epistle is very Jewish and has a strong color, tone, taste, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. If we did not have the fourteen Epistles of Paul, we might be influenced by the book of James to go back to Judaism. Although we appreciate and need James’ emphasis on practical Christian perfection, we still need to be very clear that much of his Epistle has the tone, color, and atmosphere of the Old Testament."

Some may say that we are just here to "bad-mouth" Lee, but why should he get a free pass with his critique of James, and then no one has license to apply the same vigor to critique Lee's ministry. If this is not arrogant, then what is? The Bible says that Lee and his work should have been "above reproach" as James was.

If a Christian writes a book on Lee's teachings, then LSM & DCP will sue him all the way to the Supreme Court. Then, based on the same standard, should not James, the brother of our Lord, come back and sue Lee for how he has disparaged his own epistle? Were it not for our own liberties on the Internet, this forum might have been shut down long ago by LSM lawsuits.

Don't you just love the way Lee was "led of the Spirit, walked in the Spirit, and did what his spirit constrained him to do," as he allowed his sons Philip and Timothy to molest the female staff, robbed the saints via Daystar, slandered John Ingalls and many others for standing up to LSM abuses, sued every Christian writer that got in his way, etc. and etc. and so forth. Don't you just love the way Lee's teachings "are more subjective and much more according to the New Testament" than James' "mixed" views on "practical Christian perfection."

For anyone who watched the History channel mini-series "The Bible" on the other night, the hypocrisy of the chief priests was vividly displayed as they maneuvered to crucify the Lord and yet provide every appearance that they were remaining faithful to God's word in the Law. The hypocrisy at LSM is so reminiscent of that which was witnessed 2,000 years ago in the temple in Jerusalem by Israel's leaders.

ZNPaaneah · 04-02-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some may say that we are just here to "bad-mouth" Lee, but why should he get a free pass with his critique of James, and then no one has license to apply the same vigor to critique Lee's ministry.

Perhaps if we are going to bad mouth Lee we should begin with

"I certainly have no intention of belittling WL or his ministry. However, I must truthfully point out..."

I love the use of "truthfully". I guess he realized much of what he pointed out wasn't truthful.

Ohio · 04-02-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps if we are going to bad mouth Lee we should begin with

"I certainly have no intention of belittling WL or his ministry. However, I must truthfully point out..."

I love the use of "truthfully". I guess he realized much of what he pointed out wasn't truthful.

I'll do just that. Thank you!

ZNPaaneah · 04-02-2013, 04:16 PM

"There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning Deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns." (John Ingals as quoted by WL in the elder's training, book 10, chapter 6, section 9).

His point is not that there is no basis for this teaching but that it is distorted so that saints are fearful to speak their genuine concerns. On the one hand it is critical for a church to have "deputy authority". Someone has to pay the electric bill. Someone has to open the mail. Someone may need to speak to someone who is unruly or disruptive. However, Matt. makes it very clear that if you are going to discipline a brother you need to "tell it to the church and if the church refuses to hear him then...". This telling it to the church is not the elders saying that they have decided to discipline this person but it is an opportunity for this saint to share their case. This never happened in my experience in the LRC and I saw several saints excommunicated.

James
2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

To me the distortion of the teaching on "deputy authority" is when you have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons. The best example of this is the MOTA. The combination of the teaching of "deputy authority" and "MOTA" is a poisonous mixture.

TLFisher · 04-02-2013, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning Deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns." (John Ingals as quoted by WL in the elder's training, book 10, chapter 6, section 9).

Have not read this before. Had names not been mentioned, the quote could easily pass as the present condition. Just shows times has not changed how the deputy authority teaching keeps brothers and sisters silenced out of fear.

Ohio · 04-03-2013, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

His point is not that there is no basis for this teaching but that it is distorted so that saints are fearful to speak their genuine concerns. To me the distortion of the teaching on "deputy authority" is when you have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons. The best example of this is the MOTA. The combination of the teaching of "deputy authority" and "MOTA" is a poisonous mixture.

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority." This deputy authority had no peers and answered to no one. He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders. He used distorted teachings, such as Noah's curse on Ham, to hold the adherents in fear. That distortion provided the cover of darkness for every failure of Lee, including those of his profligate sons. His teachings provided the sole interpretation by which scripture could be read. In case of conflict, Lee's interpretations always superseded the plain words of scripture.

Coupled with this was the notion that the MOTA could "see" things no one else could. He was a "seer" of the unseen. Whereas mere mortals could see abuse, manipulations, unrighteousness, distortions, man-pleasing, hypocrisy, etc. at LSM, the MOTA would "see" rebellious lepers attacking God's Economy to bring the kingdom of the heavens to this earth, and the leader He raised up to bring His people into the New Jerusalem.

Or so, as I was taught to believe.

ZNPaaneah · 04-03-2013, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority." This deputy authority had no peers and answered to no one. He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders. He used distorted teachings, such as Noah's curse on Ham, to hold the adherents in fear. That distortion provided the cover of darkness for every failure of Lee, including those of his profligate sons. His teachings provided the sole interpretation by which scripture could be read. In case of conflict, Lee's interpretations always superseded the plain words of scripture.

Coupled with this was the notion that the MOTA could "see" things no one else could. He was a "seer" of the unseen. Whereas mere mortals could see abuse, manipulations, unrighteousness, distortions, man-pleasing, hypocrisy, etc. at LSM, the MOTA would "see" rebellious lepers attacking God's Economy to bring the kingdom of the heavens to this earth, and the leader He raised up to bring His people into the New Jerusalem.

Or so, as I was taught to believe.

This is the connection between "the ground of the church" and the sins we were looking for.

The implication of "the ground of the church" is that WL has no peers. Everyone else is disqualified due to their stand on divisive ground.

Second, it implies WL sees things others don't hence he doesn't answer to anyone since he has the vision and they don't.

Once you have WL all alone you have rejected "plurality". This eliminates accountability -- who should he be accountable to, they don't have the vision, their stand was/is wrong, and he has no peers.

Therefore, if you take this away by exposing the fallacy of "one church one city" everything else falls as well.

ABrotherinFaith · 04-27-2013, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why I love the book of James.

Because it is the Word of God.

This is a great thread. Some of the responses should be required reading for anyone considering what James wrote.

TLFisher · 04-27-2013, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Healthy church leadership always has the safeguards of both plurality, accountability, and the scripture. The Recovery lost all of these, mainly due to distortions of the teachings on "deputy authority."
He was never balanced by other elders or church leaders.

I emphasized the last sentence because it wasn't from a lack of brothers trying.
Truly the doctrine of deputy authority has muted I not discarded accountability. I do believe brothers would and will say in the recovery we do have safeguards of plurality and scripture. Can you say there is a safeguard to impartiality?

02-16-2013, 10:53 AM	#5
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	Re: The book of James and the LRC There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother. Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge? Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James". Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV) Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake. All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

02-16-2013, 02:12 PM	#7
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: The book of James and the LRC James explains why we were deceived by Witness Lee. I think this is something that everyone who visits this forum wants to know. How was I deceived? How do I prevent it from happening again? 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. If you are not familiar with the word “upbraideth” it means to find fault with someone, to scold. God is not here finding fault, on the contrary our experience in the LRC showed we had some basic failings and if we pray God will provide the wisdom we need. Later in the book he spells out exactly what should have exposed Witness Lee to us as a fraud and why we didn’t see it. 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. Surely we questioned the things we saw in the LRC. Didn’t you see saints publicly shamed in the meetings? Did you question that without wavering, or when you were told that focusing on the negative things is “death” did you get driven by the wind and tossed? I am very thankful for my experience in the LRC because they taught me you cannot waver. When I was younger I spent a lot of time on the ocean. There is only one good way to take on heavy seas and that is head on. If you turn to the side you will be flipped, if you try to run with the waves they will drive you into the rocks. In the LRC it was the same. If you are going to rebuke BP then you have to do it head on, to his face, in a meeting with a hundred witnesses. 1:7-8 For let not that man think he shall receive anything of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. The LRC taught me I could not be double minded. Almost immediately I was called into a meeting in Houston with RG, JD, and a number of other elders and was told “I already had 2 strikes against me”. No one told me what the two strikes were but I understood this to mean that if I got another one of these mysterious strikes I would be excommunicated. So I had to decide “LRC or conscience”? I decided if I wasn’t true to my conscience I didn’t want to be in the LRC. So I decided to ignore the warning.

02-17-2013, 07:11 AM	#11
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: The book of James and the LRC What's interesting to me is that the LC was continually talking about being "the expression of Christ" and being "the testimony of God." Well, James tells us what that looks like. So you would think that it would be a favorite book of the LC. Because, as ZNP said, it tells us exactly what pure religion means--it means you care practically for the needs of the those who truly need help. Love, in essence, means seeking the good of others at your own expense. I've found that there are a lot mental barriers to the gospel, but caring for people in genuine love, especially when it involves sacrifice and becoming humble, is the most irresistible testimony that Christ's love is real in us. There is very little defense against it. It just melts people's hearts. But Lee didn't like the language of James. I don't think he was against kind works. I just think he expected "clear" teachers to constantly be referring to "God's economy" like he did. James got in the way of his doctrine of the supremacy of "God's economy" above all other concepts, so he had to level a salvo against it. But in doing so he minimized a major factor of the testimony of God. Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own. Also, care for others would mean reaching out more to other Christians, which would have resulted in less barriers, and more of the oneness they claimed to seek. Ironically, the book they minimized was just the one they needed, and we all need.

02-18-2013, 06:40 AM	#18
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: The book of James and the LRC James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. In my experience the relationship of WL with WN was key. Whenever I or any other new one wondered who WL was they were told of WN and how WL was his closest coworker. In my opinion the respect of WN was one of the pillars that the entire LRC rested on. One mistake I made was to feel that WN was clearly and undeniably a man of God, therefore if he judged that WL was also a genuine man of God (hence his closest coworker) then I could too. According to James this is "having faith in our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons". Who better to say this than James. Earlier we talked about the mistakes that Peter, Paul and James made. Peter denied the Lord. As a result I think it was easier for him not to deny the Lord later when he was asked to open the kingdom to the Gentiles. Paul persecuted the Body of Christ and as a result received the vision of the Body of Christ. James made mistakes because the other saints in the Body had faith in the Lord Jesus with respect of persons, James. As a result James can get the vision to say this word. I imagine the early church may have also had the same opinion towards James that I had towards WL. He is the "brother of Jesus, surely we can trust his judgment". As a result we can learn from his mistake. In the same way, many of us may have made a mistake in trusting WL, but learning from that mistake helps us protect the Body from future similar mistakes.

02-19-2013, 07:37 AM	#32
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: The book of James and the LRC It's also interesting that Martin Luther, a Western thinker and eventual Jew hater, did not think either Hebrews or James should be in the Bible.

02-16-2013, 03:53 AM	#1
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	The book of James and the LRC Why I love the book of James. The book of James is written “to the 12 tribes that are scattered abroad”. This book is written right at the beginning of the New Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New. Imagine how disruptive that is, to once feel that you were God’s special, elite, chosen race and now all of a sudden you have to reject much of what you gave your entire life to for so many years. You didn’t eat with Gentiles before, now you do. You used to teach that the proper ground to worship God was in Jerusalem, now you realize it is in your spirit. Witness Lee taught that writing to these believers indicates James was not clear on the New Testament. I would completely disagree with this. Instead I would say that this verse indicates James burden is with those having trouble making that transition. You can imagine that if you came out of a group as abusive as the Old Testament where they literally crucify trouble makers, stone them and excommunicate them all the time, that there might be some with the burden to help those having trouble with this transition make it. I feel the burden of the book of James and the burden of this forum are the same. Posting on this forum is not evidence that you cannot make the transition from the LRC but it is evidence that you have a burden for those making this transition. Then James says “count it all joy when you fall into diverse temptations”. This is my experience on this forum. How many different or diverse experiences do we get to hear. Experiences going all the way back to Mainland China in the 1930s to the present. Experiences within the LRC and experiences of those leaving or wanting to leave. It is a joyful experience if you know one thing: “that the trying of your faith worketh patience”. This is a virtue that is greatly undervalued in our society. Nobody extolls patience, and as a result we rarely ever see a “perfect work”. If you want to have a perfect work, a work that is entire and wanting nothing, then you need patience. This to me is the first lesson from James that I take away from my experience in the LRC. The LRC, like the Old Testament, wasn’t a perfect work, it was incomplete. But you couldn’t get to the New Testament without first having the Old Testament, and I am not going to get to the New Jerusalem without first having gone through the LRC, so these experiences are working patience. You can’t be an expression of God without it.

02-23-2013, 06:15 PM	#41
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: The book of James and the LRC And this is why I love this book and why Witness Lee was wrong. In 2:18 James said he would "show us his faith by his works". In 3:8 James tells us "no man can tame the tongue". Taming the tongue is a work of God, it is based on faith in God. Psalm 130:4 "But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared." Now then, how successful was WL at taming the tongue? He had many lawsuits, how did that work for him? This forum is a testimony that WL, the LSM, and the LSM franchise churches are powerless to tame the tongue. James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? All of the drivel about the "high peaks" blah, blah, blah. They have paid millions to lawyers to tame the tongue because they are powerless, they are vain, and their faith is without works and is dead.

03-02-2013, 06:24 PM	#42
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: The book of James and the LRC James 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. It is easy to see that there is a lot of confusion and evil works within the LRC and that WL was associated with. So it is not too difficult to see the underlying envy and strife. However, it seems we are less clear that wisdom from above is "first pure". The various business dealings that WL was involved in were obviously not "pure" and yet so many are willing to wink at that or ignore that. I appreciate how precise James is here. But then, was WL peacable? Was he gentle and easy to be entreated? Was he full of mercy? Without impartiality? Without hypocrisy? I do not understand the reticence at admitting he was a false teacher.

03-05-2013, 04:08 PM	#43
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: The book of James and the LRC 1. Written to the 12 tribes that were scattered. It seems James burden is for the believers in Christ who are having difficulty in making the transition to the move of God. 2. This letter is very encouraging, he tells us that our experiences are “the trying of your faith” and that they work patience in us. 3. He reveals that our “work” in the LRC or previously was not a “perfect” work. To have a perfect work you need patience. For example, consider how much better the automobile is today. You could say that previous cars were not “perfect” but that with patience we will have a perfect work. So even though our experience was not perfect, it is one step towards that perfect work. 4. Many wonder how they were deceived in the LRC. The reality is that we “lacked wisdom”. James encourages us to ask for wisdom and that it will be given to us. I feel that our participation in this forum is our “asking for wisdom”. 5. It may be that our experience in the LRC was a matter of “enduring temptation” and that some stumbled at this. Do not blame God for this temptation, the reality is you were enticed by your own lust. Perhaps a desire to be in God’s elite army, etc. 6. The history of the LRC is that many were enticed by this lust, it has conceived sin, and this sin will finish with death. We see this with WL, PL, the Sister’s rebellion, JI, various excommunications, lawsuits, etc. 7. Some may wonder how WL could be a false teacher if some of his teachings were so good. That is an error. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes from God. God is faithful and true. If there was any good gift in the LRC it was from God, not from WL. 8. The lesson we learned in the LRC was to be “a doer of the word and not a hearer only”. Too many in the LRC were content to be hearers only as though this made them spiritual and deceived themselves. 9. Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows, those with the lowest social status and influence. Once you start playing politics in the LRC you should know you have left the narrow way. Pure religion is also to keep yourself unspotted from the world. The failed business dealings of WL were spots. Daystar was a spot. The lawsuits were spots. The LRC is full of spots and blemishes and it should be a warning to us to keep ourselves from the world. 10. The LRC keeps the faith of the Lord with respect of persons. The biggest examples of course were WL and WN. But other brothers were also held up in this way. I even remember when 2nd generation saints in the LRC were considered more sanctified than those who were first generation (based on the verse that the unbelieving family member is sanctified by the believer) and that 3rd generation were more sanctified than the second. This is the respect of persons. 11. This kind of behavior, according to James, is filled with evil thoughts because what you have really done is to despise the poor. He points out that it is the rich which oppress you and take you to the courts. This was truly exemplified in the LRC and WL. 12. James points out the hypocrisy in saying you have faith but not works. For example, he points out that “no man can tame the tongue”. Taming the tongue therefore would be a work of faith, not of man. In the LRC they spend a lot of effort to tame the tongue, “lost the vision”, “negative speaking”, “question mark is in the shape of a serpent”, etc. Likewise they spend a lot of money suing those that call the LRC a cult. They claim they have faith, but they have no works to back it up. Their faith is useless. According to James their faith without works is dead. James says he will show you his faith by his works. So then, if you could tame the tongue there would be no need to boast of your faith, the works would express the faith for you. The British once asked Ghandi “What do you think we are just going to pack up and sail away from here?!” To which Ghandi replied “That is exactly what you will do.” And he was right, that was what they did. That work manifested his faith without any need to boast. 13. The LRC claims to have “a rich ministry”. However the miseries are coming upon them. Their riches are corrupted. WN has recently been exposed to be less than the “Minister of the Age” and WL is also being exposed as being less than the “Minister of the Age”. More and more the evidence is clear that WL was a false teacher. The “pure linen robes” of righteousness it appears are moth eaten. The gold and silver is cankered. The rust is evidence that this was fools gold, not genuine. The cries of those defrauded by them are rising and entering into the ears of the Lord of the Sabbath. It looks like they have been nourished for the day of slaughter. They condemned the just and they didn’t resist. 14. So the lesson for us is to be patient and await the day of the Lord. We should take the prophets as an example of those who were happy that endured suffering. Job is an example of one who suffered but then received the reward. 15. So then, if you have suffered and you have walked in righteousness then you have been prepared to pray for those who are enduring suffering that they might be healed, like Elijah.

03-26-2013, 07:10 PM	#48
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: The ground on which the church should be built The part where he said "hath God not said" are God's word. Next question..... __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

03-27-2013, 06:56 AM	#61
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: The ground on which the church should be built Cassidy, your whole line of thinking is off-base and reflects very poor reasoning. Just because certain things which do not reflect God's nature are recorded in the Bible as matters of record, it does not therefore follow that a whole book of direct teaching could in the same manner not reflect God's nature. Things that are said or done in a biblical retelling of history are one thing. Direct teaching and decree are something else. We have to surmise that when a writer of a book of the Bible, especially a NT book, in the first person makes a direct declaration of truth and decree then that declaration reflects God's thought, nature and command. What you are doing is, again, a form of equivocation. You are mixing multiple meanings of "inspired." Yes, the entire telling of a story is inspired. No, Peter's actual claiming the Jesus should not go to the cross was not inspired. But the telling of the story and the overall lesson the story is trying to teach us is inspired. But when it comes to direct teaching, we have to conclude it is inspired, whether Solomon taught it or James taught it.

03-27-2013, 12:14 PM	#80
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 262	Re: The ground on which the church should be built Igzy, Okay, but here's a problem. Once you generally undermine the book of James, you may undermine some things he taught that God doesn't want us to lose sight of, that are top shelf stuff. I understand that concern but it is manageable. Early in my christian life I was very bothered about a direct teaching of Jesus. The one about if you committed certain sins you should pluck your eyes out or cut your hand off. A brother got me through that one but it did not cause me to lose sight of everything else in the gospels or that particular book. (ZNP, that is a direct teaching but don't go doing anything drastic! ) For example, James knew what he was doing when he seemed to challenge the teaching of justification by faith. He knew Paul taught it. He wasn't committing an ignorant error that somehow God and creative theologians have saved. He was saying if you don't have works you don't have faith, perhaps not even saving faith. He was tweaking Paul's teaching, or at least the misapplication of it. I do not know if James was tweaking Paul's teaching or the misapplication of it. Maybe he was. However, I do not see a conflict between the two teachings as I view one as the cause and the other as the proof. One is about life and the other is about living. I have no quarrel with those who think the two are utterly incompatible but I myself do not think there is an issue with both standing side by side. So in other words, James may not exist primarily to tell us not to take law-keeping too far. It may exist primarily to tell us not to take disregarding the law too far! I don't agree with this as pertains to believers because it is impossible to keep the law and as James says if you break one point you've broken the whole. The law was a child conductor and at some point the child conductor is no longer needed. I am also fine with teaching children the 10 commandments and others parts but once they are regenerated Christ has come. I also think the law liberally should be applied to rowdy teenagers. Here's another piece of evidence. Every serious Christian I've ever seen since I left the LRC--I mean those who walk the walk and don't just talk the talk--highly regard the book of James. That says something. It does say something but it is not definitive. 2000 years ago some might have considered that if all the Christians in Jerusalem are zealous for the law then that should be considered as relevant. __________________ *Cassidy*

03-28-2013, 11:44 AM	#85
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 262	Re: The ground on which the church should be built "This is the issue with the WL version of the Book of James. They cannot read this book without mixing into it the account of him in Acts." ZNP, Guilty as charged. But why is it a problem to include James' epistle, the acts of James in the book of Acts, and the account mentioned in Galatians to get a complete rounded view of James' teaching and practice? __________________ *Cassidy*

03-28-2013, 02:43 PM	#88
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 262	Re: The ground on which the church should be built "All you have really proved is that at one point in James life he was confused, and that at the time he wrote his epistle he was now burdened for others that were confused. You have not provided any evidence that the epistle itself is a mixture. Should I disparage the epistles of Peter because he denied the Lord? Should I shun the epistles of Paul because he persecuted the church? People get burdens because they themselves were in the very same situation. Paul said that once we overcome we can comfort others with the very same comfort that we received." Before, I say what I am about to say I feel a need to reiterate something. There are many attributes and qualities about James that are not only admirable but truly stellar. In the RCV footnotes in the book of James, Witness Lee writes a very glowing description of this precious brother and apostle. ZNP, You argument about considering Peter's mistakes in the gospels, and then not rejecting his epistle's because of those mistakes is a reasonable. No, we should not reject Peter's epistle's because he denied the Lord in the gospels. Same for Saul who persecuted the church. We should not reject Paul's epistles written after his conversion just because he persecuted the church at one point before his conversion. I agree with you 100%. As I indicated in my opening to this note, I also do not totally disregard the book of James and neither did Witness Lee. However, in applying your reasonable argument to James we encounter an issue. And it is not insignificant. The epistle of James was written before Acts 21 which says that thousands among the Jews believed and they were "all are zealous for the law". So rather than, as in the case of Peter and Paul, a progression away from early errors we find James is not only the elder in a city where all are zealous for the law but James then proposes that Paul sponsors some new converts to observe a law ritual. The purpose of sponsoring the ritual is so that everyone will know that Paul was not teaching "apostasy from Moses", (such as not needing to circumcise their children). Since these events occurred after his epistle was written we cannot apply the same logic as we did for Peter and Paul. The confusion James held about the Jewish believers needing to observe the OT law was being held and promoted by him even after his epistle was written. __________________ *Cassidy*

03-28-2013, 03:58 PM	#90
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 262	Re: The ground on which the church should be built "Now according to the book of Acts the period of time from Peter feeling that he could not eat with the gentiles to the time he realized that the Lord had shown him that is what he wanted to do, to the time he actually baptized them, to the time he met with James to defend these actions was a matter of days, perhaps a week or two. The fact that "all were zealous for the law" indicates that there is a real need to do something. Who better to repent than James? Who better to speak than James? There is no reason to think his repentance and then letter was years in the making. It could have been a month." Brother ZNP, The timeline for the events above were probably closer to 20 years. Peter saw the vision from the roof of Simon the Tanner's house (which is still there by the way according to a certain tour guide ) and baptized the house of Cornelius up the coast shortly thereafter in the range of AD 39-41... ... and James wrote his epistle in about AD 48-51... ...and then the incident in Acts 21 where "all were zealous for the law" occurred around AD 58-60 __________________ *Cassidy*

03-28-2013, 06:16 PM	#92
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 262	Re: The ground on which the church should be built "Again, if your thesis is that the Book of James promotes a mixed message of the NT with the Law then that would be supported by something from the book of James that does that." ZNP, I agree. If I have objections to parts of the book of James then I need to present those too. __________________ *Cassidy*

04-02-2013, 04:16 PM	#101
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: WL did not intend to belittle the book of James "There has been to some extent an atmosphere of fear brought in among the saints and among the churches, bringing the conscience of the saints into bondage. I believe this has been done by an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning Deputy authority. This has brought the saints into a condition where they are fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns." (John Ingals as quoted by WL in the elder's training, book 10, chapter 6, section 9). His point is not that there is no basis for this teaching but that it is distorted so that saints are fearful to speak their genuine concerns. On the one hand it is critical for a church to have "deputy authority". Someone has to pay the electric bill. Someone has to open the mail. Someone may need to speak to someone who is unruly or disruptive. However, Matt. makes it very clear that if you are going to discipline a brother you need to "tell it to the church and if the church refuses to hear him then...". This telling it to the church is not the elders saying that they have decided to discipline this person but it is an opportunity for this saint to share their case. This never happened in my experience in the LRC and I saw several saints excommunicated. James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. To me the distortion of the teaching on "deputy authority" is when you have the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons. The best example of this is the MOTA. The combination of the teaching of "deputy authority" and "MOTA" is a poisonous mixture.