What Should be Shouted from Rooftops?

Cassidy · 10-09-2012, 05:31 PM

What is the difference between taking a brother to law court to settle a dispute and taking a brother to the court of public opinion to settle a dispute?

Cal · 10-09-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

What is the difference between taking a brother to law court to settle a dispute and taking a brother to the court of public opinion to settle a dispute?

The difference is the court of public opinion isn't the type of court we are prohibited from taking brothers to. (It isn't even really a court.) The court of public opinion is unavoidable for anyone with a public message, such as the one the Church is supposed to have.

ZNPaaneah · 10-09-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

What is the difference between taking a brother to law court to settle a dispute and taking a brother to the court of public opinion to settle a dispute?

6:4 If then you have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

When you come to this forum to settle a dispute you are setting them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. So when you are going to court you are acting contrary to the Apostle's teaching, when you come to this forum you are one with the Apostle's teaching and this allows for a solid trumpet sound, not the uncertain trumpeting you get when you are condemned by both your conscience and the word of God.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 10-09-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

What is the difference between taking a brother to law court to settle a dispute and taking a brother to the court of public opinion to settle a dispute?

Good evening,

Not to put words in your mouth, but from what I read of your question, I'm thinking maybe the question you have asked should better be phrased, "How does what is posted here line up with the commands given to the Church in 1 Corinthians 6:1-3?" (which reads)...

"Suppose one of you wants to bring a charge against another believer. Should you take it to the ungodly to be judged? Why not take it to God’s people?

Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? And if you are going to judge the world, aren’t you able to judge small cases? Don’t you know that we will judge angels? Then we should be able to judge the things of this life even more."

In light of that command, I would say what is posted here is Scripturally responsible - we aren't taking brothers and sisters to task in a court of public opinion, per se, we are rather bringing the matter before God's people. If we were making accusations within the secular community, and thereby causing them to disparage the name of Christ, then I think that would be another matter altogether.... but I believe that what is done here is responsible; but for proof of that I can only offer my own heart on the matter (although I believe the Mission Statement of the board reflects the same).

I would also urge you to listen to Dr. Walter Martin's words on the matter - as he quite plainly lays out what cause he has to bring to light what was being done in Anaheim and the LRC during his time... and he does so with respect and with a sincere heart. You can listen to his messages here:

http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee11.ram

http://www.waltermartin.com/listening_library/Witness_Lee12.ram

Did I misunderstand your question though?

Ray

Ohio · 10-10-2012, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

What is the difference between taking a brother to law court to settle a dispute and taking a brother to the court of public opinion to settle a dispute?

"Under these circumstances, after so many thousands of people had gathered together that they were stepping on one another, He began saying to His disciples first of all, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops." -- Luke 12.1-3

Cassidy, doesn't this scripture sound to you like the "court of public opinion?"

.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 07:10 AM

NeitherFirstnorLast,

You said "we aren't taking brothers and sisters to task in a court of public opinion, per se, we are rather bringing the matter before God's people"

This forum is not unlike the Roman courts which were held outside, in a town forum, or in the marketplace. Was that or is this type of forum what Paul meant when he said "Suppose one of you wants to bring a charge against another believer. Should you take it to the ungodly to be judged? Why not take it to God’s people?"

Or should charges against brothers be shouted from the rooftops, as Ohio states, so that not only the neighborhood involved gets to hear it but with the technology that allows the whole world, believer and unbeliever alike to tune-in?

In principle, there appears to be no difference between the modern public internet forum and the Roman courts held outside in the marketplace.

Ohio · 10-10-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Or should charges against brothers be shouted from the rooftops, as Ohio states, so that not only the neighborhood involved gets to hear it but with the technology that allows the whole world, believer and unbeliever alike to tune-in?

It depends on whether these "brothers" continue to behave like the hypocritical Pharisees, otherwise why would the Lord Himself have spoken this?

Prayer and then private fellowship should always be the first course of action as the Lord has instructed us. Hundreds of brothers over the years have attempted this with the rulers at LSM, but never has an LSM brother been willing to be reconciled with his brother.

Don't blame this forum for exposing LSM's hypocrisy. It is their own doing. They reap what they have sown. They have rejected the Lord's simple instructions to "first go to your brother," and instead, publicly shame their brothers or sisters, as in the case of Jane Anderson, who wrote the book Thread of Gold.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 07:56 AM

Ohio, I am one of those that believe the Bible does not contradict itself. If there appears to be a disconnect the problem lies in our understanding of the passages.

How do you reconcile the Lord's statement with Paul's?

Cal · 10-10-2012, 08:31 AM

When we say the "court of public opinion" we are talking about the Church at large. Really, it's much like the LRC's "feel of the Body," applied correctly, that is. You get the facts out that people need to know and you get a response from God's people. In other words, this forum is one way God's people can "take it to the church."

The LRC doesn't believe in letting the Church at large form an honest opinion about them. They believe in manipulating information and spreading threats in order to produces a false picture of their history and practices. That is not only dishonest, it is against God's nature.

I remember WL teaching that the transformed Christian was so "transparent." The LRC is anything but transparent. Thus the need for forums like this to make up their lack of forthrightness. Otherwise, people are just going to be deceived. Should we just stand by and let that happen?

Ohio · 10-10-2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio, I am one of those that believe the Bible does not contradict itself. If there appears to be a disconnect the problem lies in our understanding of the passages.

How do you reconcile the Lord's statement with Paul's?

I think you have the "disconnect."

Christians have a problem with LSM's excessive use of the courts.

Christians also realize that God is watching us, and that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees done in secret will be proclaimed from the rooftops.

There is no contradiction here.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think you have the "disconnect."

Christians have a problem with LSM's excessive use of the courts.

Christians also realize that God is watching us, and that the hypocrisy of the Pharisees done in secret will be proclaimed from the rooftops.

There is no contradiction here.

And how does Paul's call to sort disputes with brothers amongst themselves align with your interpretation that the Lord tells us to shout it out from the roof?

UntoHim · 10-10-2012, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I remember WL teaching that the transformed Christian was so "transparent." The LRC is anything but transparent. Thus the need for forums like this to make up their lack of forthrightness. Otherwise, people are just going to be deceived. Should we just stand by and let that happen?

Yeah, what he say.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

And how does Paul's call to sort disputes with brothers amongst themselves align with your interpretation that the Lord tells us to shout it out from the roof?

Paul's word says not to take a matter with a brother to a law court. His issue is he doesn't want the unjust to be set as a judge over the matters of the church.

6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Jesus' word says that we should walk in this life with the expectation that our sins will be shouted from the rooftop. For example: "I did not have sex with that woman". Is there anyone on this planet that can't give the attribution to that quote? The Lord's word is clearly being fulfilled.

According to Paul it would be a sin for the LSM to sue other saints.
According to Jesus this sin would be shouted from the rooftop.
These verses do not contradict and this forum is fulfilling the Lord's prophecy.

Cal · 10-10-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

And how does Paul's call to sort disputes with brothers amongst themselves align with your interpretation that the Lord tells us to shout it out from the roof?

The LRC party is not interested in settling disputes. They are only interested in having everything their way. So the next step according to Matthew 18 is to "take it to the Church." That's what we are doing here. We are taking the matter to the Church. If the Church doesn't know all the facts about the LRC, how can it wisely judge on the dispute?

By saying that the facts about the LRC should remain private, you are saying the Church should not have the information necessary to make an informed and correct judgment. That doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that ultimately it is the Church that decides.

Ohio · 10-10-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

And how does Paul's call to sort disputes with brothers amongst themselves align with your interpretation that the Lord tells us to shout it out from the roof?

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Have you read what I posted?

Perhaps it would be far better to study the scriptures yourself about these matters.

Ohio · 10-10-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I remember WL teaching that the transformed Christian was so "transparent." The LRC is anything but transparent. Thus the need for forums like this to make up their lack of forthrightness. Otherwise, people are just going to be deceived. Should we just stand by and let that happen?

The LSM has about as much "transparency" as our current administration, and I seem to remember how he once made it a hallmark of his campaign.

Yeah, that's right, hope and change and transparency. Did the Blendeds say that too?

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 10:05 AM

Z, you said:

"According to Paul it would be a sin for the LSM to sue other saints.
According to Jesus this sin would be shouted from the rooftop.
These verses do not contradict and this forum is fulfilling the Lord's prophecy."

Ohio claims:

"the hypocrisy of the Pharisees done in secret will be proclaimed from the rooftops."

You and Ohio base your opinions on a limited interpretation and understanding of Luke 12:1-3 for you ignore the companion verse which says plainly the things in secret are those which the Lord speaks to us:

"What I say to you in the darkness; speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops" Matt 10:27

That is why I asked for a reconciliation of what Paul said when Ohio and now you alleged the secret things were the Pharisee-type hypocrisies or sins. The Bible never contradicts itself.

The context of both Matthew 10 and Luke 12 shows clearly this is not referring to hypocrisies and sins spoken by believers that is to be proclaimed from the housetops. Rather the things the Lord speaks under a situation of persecution and our prayerful fellowship with Him are the things we are to proclaim on the rooftops.

Cal · 10-10-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The context of both Matthew 10 and Luke 12 shows clearly this is not referring to hypocrisies and sins spoken by believers that is to be proclaimed from the housetops. Rather the things the Lord speaks under a situation of persecution and our prayerful fellowship with Him are the things we are to proclaim on the rooftops.

You are splitting hairs. The Lord privately taught that the Pharisees were hypocrites, therefore his condemnation of hypocrisy was one of the things he taught in private that was eligible to be proclaimed "from the rooftops."

And he himself publicly proclaimed it. His dressing down of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 was as public and intense a condemnation as you will ever see here. The Lord himself is our example. Paul carried on the practice of condemning hypocrites in his letters.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are splitting hairs. The Lord privately taught that the Pharisees were hypocrites, therefore his condemnation of hypocrisy was one of the things he taught in private that was eligible to be proclaimed "from the rooftops."

And he himself publicly proclaimed it. His dressing down of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 was as public and intense a condemnation as you will ever see here. The Lord himself is our example. Paul carried on the practice of condemning hypocrites in his letters.

Nope but a nice try.

I don't accept your interpretation either because you ignore the context of both Luke 10 and Matt 12 in favor of a private interpretation and it contradicts Paul's teaching on handling a dispute between brothers.

Anytime the scripture is forced into a private interpretation it will conflict with other scriptures which will then need to be ignored if the appearance of compatibility is of interest.

The whole shout-on-the-rooftops-when-settling-disputes-with-brothers-theory fails when Luke 12+Matt 10 and Paul's teaching are brought together. In fact, Luke 12 and Matt 10 have nothing to do with settling disputes with brothers. For that we must look elsewhere. That is why the theory fails.

Cal · 10-10-2012, 11:23 AM

I didn't expect for a minute for you to agree with me.

You are entitled to your opinion and you've made your point. However, you have produced anything but a proof text.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I didn't expect for a minute for you to agree with me.

You are entitled to your opinion and you've made your point. However, you have produced anything but a proof text. So please drop this line of argumentation and let's continue with the larger theme of this thread. The people you have challenged may respond once, but that's it on this sub-theme. Thanks.

Sure Igzy, you are right on the deviation from main topic..... the post about the lawsuits got me thinking and it has developed into a separate theme. Okay by me if there is a better home for these posts. There is more to say on this on my side but I also have no objection if we move on.

Thanks

OBW · 10-10-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Ohio, I am one of those that believe the Bible does not contradict itself. If there appears to be a disconnect the problem lies in our understanding of the passages.

How do you reconcile the Lord's statement with Paul's?

There are probably good ways to reconcile the two. But before I even attempt that, we should consider one thing:

Paul was speaking within the bounds supplied by scripture and the words of Christ, not the other way around. If we think there is a problem in aligning two passages that we believe should align, and one of them consists of the words of Christ, then the other passage must be understood within the context of Christ's words.

Of course, the problem really is context.

Jesus was speaking concerning the sins of the Jewish leaders within the context of a nation that was still, at some level, a theocracy. Yes, they were governed by a distant Roman rule and local puppets of that rule. But there still existed the Jewish courts. You could still be hauled before the Sanhedrin. Despite the presence of many non-Jews, it was still the Jewish nation.

Paul is speaking to churches outside of the Jewish nation and admonishing them to avoid taking one another to the civil courts. The dispute is not a matter of civil law, but of brother-to-brother.

And, like in Jerusalem and Israel, there may be others present, but a dispute within the body, even if seen from the outside, is not taking the matter to the civil court. The ruling, whatever it will be, will come from within the church, not from the state.

To declare that there is a "court of opinion" and that must be avoided is only partly true. The true part is that the correct spiritual resolution is not simply a matter of opinion — even among Christians only. But it is not true because the opinion — official or otherwise — by the outside observers (including any worldly court) is not welcome or accepted. (That does not mean that the world cannot arrive at the same conclusion — only that the church will arrive at its own conclusion regardless of the opinion of the world at large.)

One question for you.

You have raised the issue here with the apparent intent of convincing us that we should not be having these discussions. Would you care to state your position on the lawsuits by the LSM and the Local Churches (and Lee in earlier years) against so many Christian organizations and people? Were these proper according to scripture?

Ohio · 10-10-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Nope but a nice try.

I don't accept your interpretation either because you ignore the context of both Luke 10 and Matt 12 in favor of a private interpretation and it contradicts Paul's teaching on handling a dispute between brothers.

Anytime the scripture is forced into a private interpretation it will conflict with other scriptures which will then need to be ignored if the appearance of compatibility is of interest.

The whole shout-on-the-rooftops-when-settling-disputes-with-brothers-theory fails when Luke 12+Matt 10 and Paul's teaching are brought together. In fact, Luke 12 and Matt 10 have nothing to do with settling disputes with brothers. For that we must look elsewhere. That is why the theory fails.

Cassidy, no one has said that Luke 12.1-3 is a prescription for settling disputes between brothers. You have distorted others' words, saying that was their "theory" for settling conflicts, and now you conclude that this "theory has failed." Imagine that!

Repeatedly posters on this forum have referred to Matthew 18 as the Lord's instructions for disputes. Many posters have definitely attempted this course of action with rulers at LSM. Never has a ruler at LSM attempted reconciliation. The Lord instructs them to "tell it to the church," and this forum provides many with this opportunity.

You may call this forum a "court of public opinion," but in actuality it is just a collection of current and former members who could be called part of the church. Occasional forum onlookers are no different than visitors at a public meeting where these items were addressed.

The comments I made about Luke 1.1-3 refer specifically to the Lord's warning to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." It has always appeared to me that our Lord seems to be extra bothered by hypocrisy, especially when applied to the leaders of His people. On a regular basis this forum has addressed the many hypocrisies of the LSM rulers.

Obviously, Cassidy, you seem to be unconcerned about the many stories of hypocrisy at LSM, you don't see the connection with these verses, and you don't feel that former members should even discuss this topic. That is your prerogative.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 04:38 PM

"you don't feel that former members should even discuss this topic"

Ohio, we live in a day and age that is different in some ways to 2000 years ago but the same in others. I brought this up because I was considering the convergence of internet technology with a living based on biblical principles and how the two either work together or not. For instance, I can see how using the internet to preach the good news is very compatible.

Having no internet forum to gather in, then this forum closely resembles the many public places, forums, and marketplaces available to the believers 2000 years ago. When a dispute occurred back then settlement occurred in one of these public places so when Paul instructs brothers to settle things amongst themselves that is the historical context, that is, avoid doing it "out there".

You used Luke 12:1-3 as a justification to air your disagreement with brothers from the local churches. I disagree with your applying that scripture that way. However, I agree with you that Matthew 18 is the Lord's teaching on settling disputes with brothers and like Paul's teaching all things are handled between brothers and in the church and not to be paraded before the unbelievers.

"it is just a collection of current and former members who could be called part of the church. Occasional forum onlookers are no different than visitors at a public meeting where these items were addressed. "

True. Disputing with brothers here would be like gathering in the agora and having it out. Also, I cannot find any evidence in scripture that the Lord equates his true believers to Pharisees.

I believe Matthew 18 is very instructive with a solemn warning in the closing verses:

"Then his master called him to him and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, because you begged me. Should you also have had mercy on your fellow slave even as I had mercy on you? And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed. So also will My heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts".

Every one of us without exception will stand before the Lord and settle this question of forgiveness from our heart of every brother. In this same chapter the Lord told Peter he must forgive his brother "70 X 7".

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Z, you said:

"According to Paul it would be a sin for the LSM to sue other saints.
According to Jesus this sin would be shouted from the rooftop.
These verses do not contradict and this forum is fulfilling the Lord's prophecy."

Ohio claims:

"the hypocrisy of the Pharisees done in secret will be proclaimed from the rooftops."

You and Ohio base your opinions on a limited interpretation and understanding of Luke 12:1-3 for you ignore the companion verse which says plainly the things in secret are those which the Lord speaks to us:

"What I say to you in the darkness; speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops" Matt 10:27

That is why I asked for a reconciliation of what Paul said when Ohio and now you alleged the secret things were the Pharisee-type hypocrisies or sins. The Bible never contradicts itself.

The context of both Matthew 10 and Luke 12 shows clearly this is not referring to hypocrisies and sins spoken by believers that is to be proclaimed from the housetops. Rather the things the Lord speaks under a situation of persecution and our prayerful fellowship with Him are the things we are to proclaim on the rooftops.

Matt
10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The context of Matt 10 is that if we are disciples of Jesus we should expect to be treated the way He was. They called Jesus Beelzebub, so how much more should we expect to be vilified. Fear them not therefore -- this is Jesus' point
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you..." what the Lord tells us in darkness is clearly in the context of the evils done by the religious hypocrites done in secret.

When I read these verses I feel much better about the mission of this forum and about those courageous enough to shout these things, like Awareness.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Nope but a nice try.

I don't accept your interpretation either because you ignore the context of both Luke 10 and Matt 12 in favor of a private interpretation and it contradicts Paul's teaching on handling a dispute between brothers.

Anytime the scripture is forced into a private interpretation it will conflict with other scriptures which will then need to be ignored if the appearance of compatibility is of interest.

The whole shout-on-the-rooftops-when-settling-disputes-with-brothers-theory fails when Luke 12+Matt 10 and Paul's teaching are brought together. In fact, Luke 12 and Matt 10 have nothing to do with settling disputes with brothers. For that we must look elsewhere. That is why the theory fails.

I am not and I have not seen anyone else on this forum suggest that disputes between brothers should be handled by shouting them from the rooftop. However, once a "brother" refuses to hear you then you are no longer required to sit around and settle the issue privately. If you never gave a person a legitimate opportunity to settle it privately then you are wrong. That is clearly the Lord's prescription. But you are not held in slavery to the whim of an abuser because "they refuse to hear you". The expression "tell it to the church" is clearly referring to this no longer being a private matter but an open matter. The Lord has clearly prescribed that taking the matter public is both possible and in some cases appropriate.

ZNPaaneah · 10-10-2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I believe Matthew 18 is very instructive with a solemn warning in the closing verses:

"Then his master called him to him and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, because you begged me. Should you also have had mercy on your fellow slave even as I had mercy on you? And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed. So also will My heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts".

Every one of us without exception will stand before the Lord and settle this question of forgiveness from our heart of every brother. In this same chapter the Lord told Peter he must forgive his brother "70 X 7".

This is a solemn warning, but it is a solemn warning for both parties. If I being the lowest esteemed in the church confronted a super apostle for a sin that he committed. And if as a result he not only did not hear me but smeared my name and had me booted from the fellowship, then surely such a one would be referred to as a "evil slave".

On the other hand, if I being a slave of the Lord were ridiculed and accused of not being for the Body, actually one with Satan, Beelzebub, and cast out of the fellowship, just as the Lord was crucified outside of the city, and then the Lord whispered to me in secret many of the evil things these hypocrites had done and instructed me to "shout it from the rooftop" why wouldn't I listen to the Lord? Is following the Lord in this case evidence that I am unwilling to forgive someone who asked for forgiveness? The story you refer to has the brother on his knees asking for forgiveness.

"I forgave you because you begged me" did you miss that part?

Or did I miss the part where the BB's and PL and LSM begged for forgiveness?

NeitherFirstnorLast · 10-10-2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"
I believe Matthew 18 is very instructive with a solemn warning in the closing verses:

"Then his master called him to him and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, because you begged me. Should you also have had mercy on your fellow slave even as I had mercy on you? And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed. So also will My heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts".

Every one of us without exception will stand before the Lord and settle this question of forgiveness from our heart of every brother. In this same chapter the Lord told Peter he must forgive his brother "70 X 7".

Cassidy, you seem to have a way of almost dancing around what you want to say - and I don't know you well enough to know whether or not that is intentional.

Are you saying that what we are displaying here is unforgiveness of brothers in Christ in LSM - and that we will be held accountable for it?

*IF* that is what you are saying, then let me ask you this....

Let me take me an example to an extreme - not to inflame an accusation but to make a clearer point. Suppose that we were discussing not matters of psychological and spiritual abuse by elders and leaders in a certain church group, but violent sexual abuse against members children of that church group.

Now, imagine that we who met on this forum were all former members who had been sexually victimized by the leaders of this group, and were broken psychologically and spiritually because of it.

On the one hand, you are right: Regardless of what was done to us - we would be required to forgive... BUT: Wouldn't we be derelict in our duty if we allowed profligate sexual abuse to continue under that same leadership - making ever more victims? Wouldn't we be shouting that from the rooftops, making known to all so that justice might be done and such abuses, committed in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, would be ended?

Do you really believe the Lord intended His own to fail to protect the little ones?

I think you are confusing forgiving with simply shutting your mouth and looking the other way. The two are not one and the same. On the one hand, by forgiving the abusive elders and leaders, we do not demand the revenge to which the justice of a Righteous and Holy God entitles us. Rather, we leave it to the Lord:

Romans 12:19 "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord

On the other hand, when abuses *continue* to occur, lives *continue* to be destroyed, psyches and souls *continue* to be tormented, and only we who have been through the torments have the power to warn others about what the situation REALLY is - we are REQUIRED to speak. In fact, I can tell you that the Lord Himself has lead me to do so here, from the time I first came... as He has sometimes asked me to be silent.

One last matter: Do *genuine* brothers in Christ truly continue to abuse people under their authority, and lie and cheat (fleece) their flock to pay for a legal defense? Do *genuine* brothers in Christ hold themselves unrepentant before the Lord and before brothers and sisters whom they've injured? Do *genuine* brothers in Christ consider themselves "above God's Law" and claim a "divine authority"? Those don't sound like the traits of genuine Christian brethren to me....

1 John 3:6 " No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him."

Isaiah 29:13 "The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men."

Sounds like a lot of hypocritical Pharisees, doesn't it? All that glitters is not gold, dear Cassidy.

Yours in Christ,

Ray

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not and I have not seen anyone else on this forum suggest that disputes between brothers should be handled by shouting them from the rooftop. However, once a "brother" refuses to hear you then you are no longer required to sit around and settle the issue privately. If you never gave a person a legitimate opportunity to settle it privately then you are wrong. That is clearly the Lord's prescription. But you are not held in slavery to the whim of an abuser because "they refuse to hear you". The expression "tell it to the church" is clearly referring to this no longer being a private matter but an open matter. The Lord has clearly prescribed that taking the matter public is both possible and in some cases appropriate.

You have taken the Matthew 18 teaching too far in that the "open matter" described here is the church and does not extend to the unbelievers in a public place.

However, if you persist that "taking the matter public is both possible and in some cases appropriate" then you have no ground to condemn the actions taken against Ankerberg by the local churches even if you disagree with the reasons. I have been pondering OBW's question "Would you care to state your position on the lawsuits by the LSM and the Local Churches (and Lee in earlier years) against so many Christian organizations and people? Were these proper according to scripture? and I do not think that justification will found in Matthew 18 for going public in a lawsuit when it is brother against brother.

Cassidy · 10-10-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Cassidy, you seem to have a way of almost dancing around what you want to say - and I don't know you well enough to know whether or not that is intentional...

Ray, you make a compelling argument and I do not disagree for the most part.

I do not and cannot know whether you or anyone else has forgiven every brother who offended you. The hatred and vitriol spewed out sometimes has me convinced that there are unforgiving hearts and that they will face the judgement of Matthew 18. On the other hand, under the same circumstances I do not know if I would be any different. So I ask God to have mercy on them and me. Still, my observation is that not all who post here and on other internet sites do so with the purity of heart you describe. Though, I think many have good intentions.

I disagree with your point about what is a *genuine brother* as I think that is mostly just a conscience buy off deployed to alleviate any obligation to the standard of "70 X 7". And I put that in the same category as twisting scriptures out of context to justify speech that the speaker knows to be inappropriate. If a conscience is clear the scriptures will not need to be redefined. The brothers in the local churches are genuine brothers and I think you and most acknowledge that. Therefore, the way to deal with offenses is prescribed in the Scriptures and therefore any attempt to reclassify them as Pharisees exposes a motive that should be rejected.

Thanks for the short version of your name by the way. By the time I typed the extended version I forgot what I was going to say!

UntoHim · 10-10-2012, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

..The hatred and vitriol spewed out sometimes has me convinced that there are unforgiving hearts and that they will face the judgement of Matthew 18.

I had to look up vitriol...again...I'll let you slip by with that one for now. "Hatred"? Sorry but that's not allowed around these parts. Show us the post that has hatred and I'll get together with the current Admin and try to convince him to delete it immediately. Until then I'll thank you not to use such inflammatory language. Now that I think about it, I'll use that newfangled word you just taught me....V-I-T-R-I-O-L. Threatening somebody over the Internet with "the judgement of Mattew 18"...emmmmm, sounds like vitriol to me.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 10-10-2012, 09:25 PM

I disagree with your point about what is a *genuine brother* as I think that is mostly just a conscience buy off deployed to alleviate any obligation to the standard of "70 X 7". And I put that in the same category as twisting scriptures out of context to justify speech that the speaker knows to be inappropriate. If a conscience is clear the scriptures will not need to be redefined. The brothers in the local churches are genuine brothers and I think you and most acknowledge that.[/QUOTE]

I am not saying at all that there are not genuine brothers and sisters, many whom I still pray for today and whom my family and I love, within the "Local Church". What I do not believe, however, is that membership in ANY group of believers in even the most healthy Bible believing and preaching church will automatically qualify that member as a *genuine* Christian.

The enemy planted tares with the wheat, he sent many false apostles and dressed many wolves in sheeps clothing. The Lord warned us of this repeatedly for a reason... just as he told us we would know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, Cassidy.

Yours in Christ,

Ray

Cal · 10-11-2012, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You have taken the Matthew 18 teaching too far in that the "open matter" described here is the church and does not extend to the unbelievers in a public place.

However, if you persist that "taking the matter public is both possible and in some cases appropriate" then you have no ground to condemn the actions taken against Ankerberg by the local churches even if you disagree with the reasons. I have been pondering OBW's question "Would you care to state your position on the lawsuits by the LSM and the Local Churches (and Lee in earlier years) against so many Christian organizations and people? Were these proper according to scripture? and I do not think that justification will found in Matthew 18 for going public in a lawsuit when it is brother against brother.

Cassidy,

What in the world are you getting at? Are you saying this forum is inappropriate because non-Christians can see it? How many non-Christians do you think hang out here?

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in public--in plain sight of the Jews, Romans, Greeks and anyone else who could hear him. The fact that those people could witness that rebuke is different than their being asked to execute judgment on the situation. The latter is what happens when you take someone to court. That is prohibited, because the unbelievers are not qualified to judge on matters of the church.

But to say that it's inappropriate for dispersed Christians to discuss and air grievances about an abusive religious organization on a public internet forum which some non-believers might stumble in on is taking things too far. No one is looking for non-Christians to be the judges here. And how are we supposed to vett non-Christians anyway?

Even if the verses about "shouting from rooftops" are only talking about positive matters (and that's still debatable), that does not override the fact that Jesus and Paul both rebuked God's people publicly.

Please make your point plainly and move on. Don't dwell interminably in vague innuendo.

ZNPaaneah · 10-11-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You have taken the Matthew 18 teaching too far in that the "open matter" described here is the church and does not extend to the unbelievers in a public place.

However, if you persist that "taking the matter public is both possible and in some cases appropriate" then you have no ground to condemn the actions taken against Ankerberg by the local churches even if you disagree with the reasons. I have been pondering OBW's question "Would you care to state your position on the lawsuits by the LSM and the Local Churches (and Lee in earlier years) against so many Christian organizations and people? Were these proper according to scripture? and I do not think that justification will found in Matthew 18 for going public in a lawsuit when it is brother against brother.

We are discussing Matt 18, and 1Cor, the words of Jesus and Paul. It is these words that are judging, not the unbelievers.

LSM has used the courts as a way to bully christians into submission. It is the cost of the lawsuit that is winning, not the words of Jesus or Paul. Jesus is not Lord in that situation, instead money is king. This is what Paul is prohibiting.

There is no prohibition against unrighteousness being exposed, on the contrary the Lord has given us the promise that it will all be ultimately exposed whether in this lifetime or at the judgment seat. The Lord has also made it plain that He may tell saints to shout these sins and hypocrisies from the rooftop.

Think about how twisted up you have become. You condemn the just for exposing lies and abuses, and you justify the unrighteous for subverting the Lord's headship and making money king.

Ohio · 10-11-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Think about how twisted up you have become. You condemn the just for exposing lies and abuses, and you justify the unrighteous for subverting the Lord's headship and making money king.

And this, ZNPaaneah, is just about as concise and accurate as it gets when summarizing what so upsets former members about LSM and their lackeys.

Thank you, Cassidy, for the valuable service you have contributed to this community.

OBW · 10-11-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

I disagree with your point about what is a *genuine brother* as I think that is mostly just a conscience buy off deployed to alleviate any obligation to the standard of "70 X 7". And I put that in the same category as twisting scriptures out of context to justify speech that the speaker knows to be inappropriate. If a conscience is clear the scriptures will not need to be redefined. The brothers in the local churches are genuine brothers and I think you and most acknowledge that.

Quote:

The enemy planted tares with the wheat, he sent many false apostles and dressed many wolves in sheep's clothing. The Lord warned us of this repeatedly for a reason... just as he told us we would know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, Cassidy.

Two different quotes from two different places.

They each have something to say. And it is evident that neither is the last and only word on anything.

If everything were simply about the "70x7" then there would never have been a process identified in Matt 18.

If it was simply to allow everything to remain in place, then there would be no command to judge. And I know that someone will quickly point to the place(s) where it says to not judge. But there are others in which it says to judge.

As long as we are trying to find the prescriptions, we might as well understand that you don't put a splint on your finger when you have a headache. Or put get a flu shot because you have appendicitis.

I'm getting a little extreme in these. But there is a parallel. So many things are not simply one-size-fits-all. We should forgive. And to the extent that we receive grace for it, forget. But neither means that we should put ourselves into the line of fire of a serial bully. Forgiveness is for me. It allows me to release the anger and suffering. It does not relieve the miscreant's obligations in any way, be they a simple matter of civility or of civil or criminal penalties.

Now we have been warned concerning taking our arguments to the world for justice. But that does not mean that there is not a consequence remaining for the ones who refuse to repent. It will happen in this life or in the next. We give the likes of BP, RG, RK, etc., the opportunity to do it now. Lee missed his chance. It would appear that he began to have a conscience in his last year of life, but it never pricked him enough to actually do anything about it.

But "70x7" does not mean that we simply roll over and take it. And the parable concerning the tares and the wheat does not mean that we simply allow everything to remain a muddled mess. There are other commands to act. The key is not in just being somewhere in the middle. It is in understanding the context of each statement. None of them are absolute and for all situations. For example, it would seem that we have some responsibility to judge among ourselves, but little responsibility or command to judge the unbeliever. And yet in some matters we will always judge and in others we simply will not.

And if we just keep looking for THE answer, the only outcome will be frustration.

Cassidy · 10-12-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I had to look up vitriol...again...I'll let you slip by with that one for now. "Hatred"? Sorry but that's not allowed around these parts. Show us the post that has hatred and I'll get together with the current Admin and try to convince him to delete it immediately. Until then I'll thank you not to use such inflammatory language. Now that I think about it, I'll use that newfangled word you just taught me....V-I-T-R-I-O-L. Threatening somebody over the Internet with "the judgement of Mattew 18"...emmmmm, sounds like vitriol to me.

UntoHim,

I have gone back to review the most recent threads and topics to provide you incidents of hatred and vitriol in this forum. Though a few posts are rude, and exhibit some amount of malice yet they are still within typical bounds of public disagreement. Therefore, I now believe it goes too far to characterize posts in this forum with the broad brush of hatred and vitriol. My characterization would apply to some posts in other similar forums on the net but not here.

Therefore, I retract the characterization of "hatred" and "vitriol" that I applied to the posts in this forum.

My apologies to the posters and management of this forum and I look forward to continued meaningful dialogue.

UntoHim · 10-12-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I look forward to continued meaningful dialogue.

Excellent! Let's do it!

Cassidy · 10-13-2012, 11:03 AM

"I am not saying at all that there are not genuine brothers and sisters, many whom I still pray for today and whom my family and I love, within the "Local Church". What I do not believe, however, is that membership in ANY group of believers in even the most healthy Bible believing and preaching church will automatically qualify that member as a *genuine* Christian. "

Of course, Ray. A *genuine christian* is one who is born-again, a believer in the person and work of the Lord Jesus and not because they are affiliated with or a member of a group of genuine Christians.

"The enemy planted tares with the wheat, he sent many false apostles and dressed many wolves in sheeps clothing. The Lord warned us of this repeatedly for a reason... just as he told us we would know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, Cassidy. "

However, the tares are not born again Christians. You are making a colossal interpretative leap and misapplication of scripture when you say that the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are not born again believers. It is the same error that some have made here when referring to genuine believers in the local churches "Pharisees".

Cassidy · 10-13-2012, 11:44 AM

"... then the Lord whispered to me in secret many of the evil things these hypocrites had done and instructed me to "shout it from the rooftop" why wouldn't I listen to the Lord?"

"The Lord has also made it plain that He may tell saints to shout these sins and hypocrisies from the rooftop."

Z,

No. the context of these verses give no indication that the Lord is whispering the sins and hypocrisies of brothers into your or anyone's ear and therefore provide no justification for shouting those sins and hypocrisies from the rooftops.

On the contrary, Matthew 18 gives clear unambiguous instruction on how to deal with brothers and in this chapter the standard of forgiveness is "70 X 7" offenses against you personally and the command to forgive your brother from heart with attending consequences if you refuse to.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that we bury our head in the sand to things going on and neither do the words of the Lord Jesus nor Paul's. I am saying that you and others are misapplying the words of our Lord Jesus in the treatment of genuine brothers and apparently ignoring the prescriptive process articulated by Him in Matthew 18 and Paul in Corinthians.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 10-13-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Of course, Ray. A *genuine christian* is one who is born-again, a believer in the person and work of the Lord Jesus and not because they are affiliated with or a member of a group of genuine Christians.

However, the tares are not born again Christians. You are making a colossal interpretative leap and misapplication of scripture when you say that the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are not born again believers. It is the same error that some have made here when referring to genuine believers in the local churches "Pharisees".

You are right, tares are not born-again Christians. Goats are not Sheep, Wheat is not a Tare, vessels made unto dishonor do not become vessels made unto honor, and wolves in sheeps clothing are still only wolves despite appearances. Again, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matthew 7:18. I never suggested otherwise.

I had written that I know genuine Christians who are in the LSM church - and I meant by that (of course), that I personally know those ones. You have gone much farther, Cassidy - for your implication is that "the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are ... born again believers"

"I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples." John 15:5-8

By suggesting that leaders and lay members of the LSM Local Church are genuine Christians, you now assume the burden of proof. So now let me respectfully ask you then, Cassidy, on what basis you judge the leadership and the lay member of the LSM Local Churches to be born-again Christians? What proof can you offer of their personal salvation, of an abiding faith in Christ and the resultant fruit of that abiding life?

In Christ,

Ray

Ohio · 10-13-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"The enemy planted tares with the wheat, he sent many false apostles and dressed many wolves in sheep's clothing. The Lord warned us of this repeatedly for a reason... just as he told us we would know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, Cassidy. "

However, the tares are not born again Christians. You are making a colossal interpretative leap and misapplication of scripture when you say that the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are not born again believers. It is the same error that some have made here when referring to genuine believers in the local churches "Pharisees".

First of all, when LC leaders behave like the Pharisees, being caught up in the same hypocrisy as the Pharisees, and damaging the Lord's children in much the same way as the Pharisees, is it not a fair conclusion to call them Pharisees?!?

Cassidy, there is no "error" here in this post. The apostle Paul called these same ones as "dogs" and "false brothers," and I think that calling them Pharisees, because of their hypocrisy in damaging others, is completely appropriate. Whether they are "genuine believers" or not is coincidental, since I am not addressing their past salvation, but their present behaviors.

Secondly, Ray's mention of wolves is indeed fitting here, even though you prefer to split hairs over the identity of tares. This is what the Apostle told the elders in Ephesus --

Quote:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. -- Acts 20.29-30

These are perhaps the most suitable verses of all the Bible to describe what WL did to the LC's. Paul wept with tears knowing that men, like Witness Lee, would one day rise up speaking perverted things, and drawing away all the disciples after themselves. Here the Apostle called them fierce wolves who would come in. The GLA LC's have just witnessed some of these wolves sent by LSM's DCP branch coming in and not sparing the flock. In numerous places like Toronto, Columbus, and Mansfield, LSM operatives cared nothing for the well-being of the sheep, rather cared only for the sheep's undying allegiance to a now dead minister and his publisher.

Cassidy · 10-13-2012, 01:14 PM

"You are right, tares are not born-again Christians. Goats are not Sheep, Wheat is not a Tare, vessels made unto dishonor do not become vessels made unto honor, and wolves in sheeps clothing are still only wolves despite appearances. Again, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matthew 7:18. I never suggested otherwise.

I had written that I know genuine Christians who are in the LSM church - and I meant by that (of course), that I personally know those ones. You have gone much farther, Cassidy - for your implication is that "the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are ... born again believers"

Ray,

This is a good question about the fruit. Let's take the verses you quoted one at a time to derive their meaning. In Matthew 7 vs 1-12 the Lord clearly sets a high standard for entering the kingdom of the heavens. The first verse says "Do not judge, that you be not judged" and then goes to say in v2 "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you" and then in v3-5 calls those as hypocrites who look and try to remove the splinter in their brother's eye while sporting a beam in their own. Another instructive teaching from the Lord Jesus on how we are to deal with brothers.

But let's go on to your use of v18. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." What is the context of this verse?

The verses from v13-29 set a very high standard for entrance into the kingdom of the heavens, that is, through the narrow gate and constricted way. Though often applied to eternal salvation these verses are actually related to the reward of the kingdom. This is confirmed by v21-23 where the ones being judged at the judgment seat of Christ are brothers as is confirmed by their calling and affirming Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:13). Nevertheless, their fruit is not accounted as worthy. What is their fruit? It is prophesying, casting out demons, and doing works of power in His name. These arguably would be considered to most observers as "good fruit". However, the Lord dismisses these outward things, however good they might appear to us, but rather connects the judgment (Bema) to those who do "the will of My Father who is in the heavens". Not that those things are automatically bad fruit in and of themselves but whether they are done according to the will of the Father.

In other words Ray, these verses show that genuine brothers may do many things in the Lord's name but at his judgment seat will be rejected. Not rejected for their profession of faith for eternal salvation, but rather the entrance into the kingdom of the heavens.

Now you may say that lawsuits between brothers indicates bad fruit. Perhaps. At His judgment seat it will be confirmed according to His righteous assessment. But Paul speaks of brothers taking brothers to court and while so doing he does NOT equate the brothers engaged in the lawsuit as non-believers, tares, or Pharisees. Therefore, we also dare not overreach and characterize genuine brothers as unbelievers and should follow the Lord's pattern here in Matthew 7.

OBW · 10-14-2012, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Of course, Ray. A "genuine Christian" is one who is born-again, a believer in the person and work of the Lord Jesus and not because they are affiliated with or a member of a group of genuine Christians. . . . .
However, the tares are not born again Christians. You are making a colossal interpretative leap and misapplication of scripture when you say that the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are not born again believers. It is the same error that some have made here when referring to genuine believers in the local churches "Pharisees".

I must agree with Cassidy here. To use "genuine Christian" to mean anything but born again is something we learned in the LRC. To use it for a subset of Christians is the kind of sectarian speech that we heard from Lee and the LRC all too much.

But I disagree concerning "Pharisees." A Pharisee was not a non-Jew. Pharisees were Jews who were zealous for the law. So much so that they kept adding rules and interpretations to cause the average Jew to go into conniptions trying to meet the standard.

This very easily describes the LRC leadership. They constantly point out what other Christians are doing wrong and why they can't meet with them.

"Your disciples don't wash their hands"
"You have an electric guitar in your band"
"You don't all get to jump up and speak in every meeting"
"You don't use a single unleavened wafer broken by hand and then pass a single cup around for the Lord's Table"
"You don't meet on the 'ground of oneness' "
"You say 'Sunday' rather than 'Lord's Day' "
"You don't revere the one minister of the age"
"You don't follow the lead from the throne through the LSM"

None of these obnoxious statements makes them non-Christian. But they are very much in the way of the Pharisees when they say them and direct the LRC assemblies in this manner.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 10-14-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

" ...these verses show that genuine brothers may do many things in the Lord's name but at his judgment seat will be rejected. Not rejected for their profession of faith for eternal salvation, but rather the entrance into the kingdom of the heavens."

Good morning Cassidy,

I had to read and re-read your post a few times, to try to understand where you were coming from. You seem to keep going back to the matter of exposing the sins of LSM as unforgiveness and judgement of brothers, and now that I see where your theology comes from (your quote above, emphasis mine), I think I understand better why you arrived at this conclusion.

What I believe you are saying is, you don't personally make a distinction between professing Christians, and the genuine article. So long as someone has said with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, it doesn't matter what they do in their hearts (see Romans 10:9). This theology was what Lee preached, and what is being preached through his writings today in LSM. In fact, this very idea was put into print in "The Stream" magazine in Feb 1970 (page 6)

"We have seen that to reach the unbelievers, no preaching is necessary. If we help them to say “O Lord” three times, they will be saved. If they open the window, the air will get in. All they have to do is open their mouths and say, “O Lord, O Lord.” Even if they have no intention of believing, still they will be caught! Regardless of whether they have the intention or not, as long as they open the window, the air will get in. It is not a matter of teaching; it is a matter of touching the seven Spirits of God."

I know that LSM has refuted the article above as not being representative of what they believe "in context" - but the quote above stands alone. It says what it says, there is no context to rip it out of. Further, I heard Benson Phillips speak in person on one occassion only a few years ago, wherein he related a story about being sent to a defensive driving course, and while the instructor left the classroom, Benson tried to get the people in the class to "call on the name of the Lord". Apparently he started and after a while and with pained and uncomfortable expressions, some joined in his mantra... He spoke of this quite joyfully, and said "who knows how many got saved?". There was also a video message that was sent out from Anaheim less than two years ago, wherein a 'breaking story' was related of one young man in college who meets with an LSM Local Church attending a speech given by your President, Barack Obama. This young man, after the speech was ended, was bold enough to come before the President and say to him: "Jesus Christ is Lord." The President, we were told, then looked somewhat abashed and after a pause said, "I know". This was held up joyfully again, and we were told "I don't know if Barack Obama was Saved that day.." but the beaming faces all around sure told you they believed it.... and so did the people in the locality I watched the video with (Saskatoon). Finally, when I went to short-term training in Anaheim, I had the opportunity to go door-knocking around the area. We went out not to preach the gospel, but to get people to "call on the name of the Lord", without explaining anything about who He is, or our need of Him, or of repentance (Didn't Christ always preach "The Kingdom of the Heavens is at hand, REPENT and Believe the Gospel?")

Cassidy, I hold no grudge or animosity for the people in LSM, be they leaders or lay people. I do not know if they are all sincere in what they believe or not, but that doesn't really matter. The quote above from "The Stream" is a lie straight from the pit of hell, and I don't mean that metaphorically.

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Faith is more than a profession with the mouth, Cassidy.

James 2:15-20 "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? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?"

This very set of verses by James might well be the reason that Lee rejected the authority of this divinely inspired book of the Bible. Do you likewise reject it? Before you do, consider this: Judas Iscariot also professed to believe in Jesus Christ, and was sent out by Jesus to minister and cast out demons before he betrayed Him - but do you believe that his profession of faith was enough to earn Him a place in "the kingdom of the heavens"? If so, why did our Lord say of him:

"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Mark 14:21

Cassidy, if I've misread what you've said then please correct me - but I believe I cannot expect an answer from you to my question "What proof can you offer of their personal salvation, of an abiding faith in Christ and the resultant fruit of that abiding life?" because you don't believe that an abiding life is a neccessary sign of Salvation, despite what is written in Scripture:

John 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father"

John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments"

John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him"

As for the suggestion that I am holding or displaying unforgiveness, I would ask you to please tell me what you think forgiveness on my part ought to look like? I tell you I hold no resentment. I came back to this site not to stir trouble or to ridicule, but because I have heard again the lies being fed to innocents who are seeking.. and I know where those lies lead.

My honest hope is that, by sharing what I have seen, others who come here might have their eyes opened too.... or feel the confirmation that they need in order to open the door and escape what is really just another religious system founded upon the rules of men, or rather one man: Witness Lee.

In Christ,

Ray

Cassidy · 10-14-2012, 09:49 AM

Hi Ray,

I believe a person is saved and regenerated, becomes a born-again Christian, when they confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

NeitherFirstnorLast · 10-14-2012, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Hi Ray,

I believe a person is saved and regenerated, becomes a born-again Christian, when they confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead.

I am glad Cassidy, because there we are in agreement! However, we don't have the Omniscience of God. We can hear what people say with their lips, but only He can judge the hidden things of the heart (Romans 2:16, 1st Corinthians 4:5, Ecclesiastes 12:14).

That being said, I must state again that you applied a blanket statement to all in LSM Local Churches, leaders and all members, when you implied: "that the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are ... born again believers."

I must now ask, how can you say that you believe that men must believe in their hearts on the one hand, and then categorically affirm the genuine faith of people's whose hearts you cannot know... especially if you cannot point to any fruit in their individual lives that might give evidence of a Saving Faith? There is a contradiction there, isn't there?

But let me go beyond that.... if we cannot agree on whether a person may or may not be Saved based on the fruit which they ought to bare if they abide in Him. For arguments sake, if I were to agree with you that ALL people affiliated with LSM were genuine Saved Christians, then do you suppose that absolves me from the responsibility to use Scripture "...for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"? (2 Timothy 3:16.) Or do you think that the rebuke and correction applies only to unbelievers, and is not to be used on fellow believers who are misled or backslidden or living in sin?

Ray

Cassidy · 10-14-2012, 05:09 PM

"I must now ask, how can you say that you believe that men must believe in their hearts on the one hand, and then categorically affirm the genuine faith of people's whose hearts you cannot know... especially if you cannot point to any fruit in their individual lives that might give evidence of a Saving Faith? There is a contradiction there, isn't there?"

As you said Ray, we are not omniscient. However, though I just met you, yet, I have every reason to believe that you and the leading brothers in the local churches are born-again believers. If I can affirm it about you whom I barely know then I can also affirm it about those that I know a little better. I am not qualified to assess the fruit you may have produced but I have a witness in my spirit that you are a brother. Still, I do not apply a blanket salvation based on affiliation in any place as I previously stated.

"For arguments sake, if I were to agree with you that ALL people affiliated with LSM were genuine Saved Christians, then do you suppose that absolves me from the responsibility to use Scripture "...for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"? (2 Timothy 3:16.) Or do you think that the rebuke and correction applies only to unbelievers, and is not to be used on fellow believers who are misled or backslidden or living in sin?

I think that verse applies to all believers whether they are doing well, not doing well, backslid, living in sin, or whatever their condition positively or negatively because the next verse says:

"That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work" v17

Peter Debelak · 10-14-2012, 05:17 PM

Cassidy:

I have been following this dialogue with some interest and much internal dialogue. Thank you for bringing it to the fore and pressing it.

Regarding whether and/or how Mathew 18 applies to calling the LSM history out for its abuses (or not calling it out), I don't have much to say. It may well be the case, as you argue, that that is not the way to deal with these brothers.

But there is another, secondary reason for discussing past and persistant abuses of leaders within a given group. That is not for the sake of the leaders' repentance, but for the edification and "freeing" of the members of the group.

I for one was so intertwined mentally and emotionally to the group and its teachings, "mere" scriptural arguments could not hold sway with me. I simply was not open to them. There was an inherent "purity" to the Recovery that exempted it from reasoned criticism in my mind and heart.

However, upon hearing this history of abuse, something was lifted. The stronghold of "purity" was taken away and my ears were suddenly open. I have been able, since then, to exercise healthy discernment, both abandoning and retaining aspects of my experience and teaching in the LC.

Paul publically rebuked Peter to his face. Not just to hold Peter accountible - but for the sake of the believers in the church who were being led astray. Same with the "zealous" ones in Galations who were stealing believers away from the Spirit. It does not make clear that these ones were unbelievers. More than likely, they were beleivers, otherwise they may not have been so persuasive to the Galatians.

At any rate, just sharing some of my experience - this isn't a doctrinal argument.

In Love,

Peter

ZNPaaneah · 10-14-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"... then the Lord whispered to me in secret many of the evil things these hypocrites had done and instructed me to "shout it from the rooftop" why wouldn't I listen to the Lord?"

"The Lord has also made it plain that He may tell saints to shout these sins and hypocrisies from the rooftop."

Z,

No. the context of these verses give no indication that the Lord is whispering the sins and hypocrisies of brothers into your or anyone's ear and therefore provide no justification for shouting those sins and hypocrisies from the rooftops.

On the contrary, Matthew 18 gives clear unambiguous instruction on how to deal with brothers and in this chapter the standard of forgiveness is "70 X 7" offenses against you personally and the command to forgive your brother from heart with attending consequences if you refuse to.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that we bury our head in the sand to things going on and neither do the words of the Lord Jesus nor Paul's. I am saying that you and others are misapplying the words of our Lord Jesus in the treatment of genuine brothers and apparently ignoring the prescriptive process articulated by Him in Matthew 18 and Paul in Corinthians.

I think that Matt 10 should be the focus of this thread and if I am correct we all agree that "preaching from the rooftop" is akin to posting on this forum.

I think we also agree on several other points: Matt 18 explains how to deal with a saint when you have been offended by them. Now there is quite a bit of discussion recently as to the proof that BB's, WL, etc. are "genuine brothers". But, to my understanding of Matt 18 that is not relevant. According to the Lord, and the verses we have agreed on, if the offending party refuses to hear you, or the brothers, or the church they should be unto you as an "heathen man and a publican." So then, if I follow the Lord's prescription, as some on this forum have documented in great detail, and they refuse to listen to you over some offense what should you do? According to Matt 18, which we both agree is the definitive word on this matter, we should treat them as "a heathen man and a publican". Therefore it is no longer an issue about whether or not they are "genuine Christians".

Now the reference you have repeated many times about forgiving "7X70" times is irrelevant. The Lord never instructs us to forgive someone unless they first repent. The only verse relevant would be in 1Cor where he says "why wouldn't you rather suffer loss". Paul's point is that when you go to court you bring shame to yourself and the church, this shame is greater than any offense, so why wouldn't you rather take the loss than to put the church to an open shame.

So then, what else from Matt 10 do we agree on?

10:26 "there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known." Now I read "there is nothing" to mean nothing. You, on the other hand are providing limitations as to what things can and cannot be revealed. If there are some things that cannot and will not be revealed then the Lord was wrong when He said "there is nothing...that shall not be revealed"

So then what is the point of contention?

If we agree that posting on this forum is akin to "preaching from the housetop" and we agree that this is a valid, scriptural endeavor. Where is the issue? Please give me a specific post that you are objecting to? Thanks.

Trapped · 09-06-2020, 12:25 PM

I read this thread with interest recently. Although it covers a few areas, one I am wondering about is how to square up Matthew 18:15-17 with 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.

Matthew 18:15-17
15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.
16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Corinthian 6:1-11
1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?
5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?
6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers etc...

One passage says not to be wronged but to do something about it, all the way through a form of ostracizing. The other passage simply says to be wronged.

In the LC, I have experienced the "why not just be wronged" dart thrown at me from unfeeling saints who seem to forget the "tell it to the church" and "treat them as a pagan" part.

Now that I'm actually typing this out, maybe the answer is simply to follow Matthew 18 all the way through exclusion of the sinning party, but stop short of going to court. "Be wronged" rather than stir up a lawsuit, but still go through the prescribed steps given by Jesus in Matthew.

Another question as I'm thinking of it: how do you square up this portion in 1 Corinthians with the verse "against an elder do not receive an accusation except by 2-3 witnesses"? This is what I mean: I know the LC leadership points to that portion in 1 Timothy to say that since Paul is instructing Timothy, then the handling of an accusation against an elder must be by apostles only. However, in 1 Corinthians 6, it makes no distinction regarding the "type" of saint involved, and simply asks for someone in the church who is wise, with no mention of an outside apostle being brought in if its an elder. Are these separable scenarios? What if the dispute between believers is between an elder and a non-elder, the type of dispute that could be taken to court? Does an apostle handle it, or simply a wise member of that church? Does it matter the type of dispute? For example, if we are talking about, say, monetary betrayal......this could require both a wise church member to settle the dispute, but also an apostle to come in and discipline the elder. I'm half thinking according to LC principles here, and I might be mixing thoughts up as a result.

Trapped · 09-06-2020, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

One passage says not to be wronged but to do something about it, all the way through a form of ostracizing. The other passage simply says to be wronged.

In the LC, I have experienced the "why not just be wronged" dart thrown at me from unfeeling saints who seem to forget the "tell it to the church" and "treat them as a pagan" part.

Now that I'm actually typing this out, maybe the answer is simply to follow Matthew 18 all the way through exclusion of the sinning party, but stop short of going to court. "Be wronged" rather than stir up a lawsuit, but still go through the prescribed steps given by Jesus in Matthew.

Although, if you follow Matthew 18 all the way through, and they refuse to hear and make themselves as a tax collector, a pagan to you....in other words, an unbeliever.....are you then able to take them to court because it is no longer a dispute between two believers? One of them has shown themselves to be, in practice, an unbeliever? Not sure.

Ohio · 09-07-2020, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Although, if you follow Matthew 18 all the way through, and they refuse to hear and make themselves as a tax collector, a pagan to you....in other words, an unbeliever.....are you then able to take them to court because it is no longer a dispute between two believers? One of them has shown themselves to be, in practice, an unbeliever? Not sure.

Yes, LSM has worked out all of the "go arounds." Before the Midwest quarantines, LSM sent 3 official letters to TC demanding his submission just so that they could satisfy Titus 3.10. Yet all of their "demands" were based on Lee's writings. (Like no electric guitars for young people's meetings.)

10-09-2012, 05:31 PM	#1
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? What is the difference between taking a brother to law court to settle a dispute and taking a brother to the court of public opinion to settle a dispute? __________________ *Cassidy*

10-10-2012, 07:10 AM	#6
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider NeitherFirstnorLast, You said "we aren't taking brothers and sisters to task in a court of public opinion, per se, we are rather bringing the matter before God's people" This forum is not unlike the Roman courts which were held outside, in a town forum, or in the marketplace. Was that or is this type of forum what Paul meant when he said "Suppose one of you wants to bring a charge against another believer. Should you take it to the ungodly to be judged? Why not take it to God’s people?" Or should charges against brothers be shouted from the rooftops, as Ohio states, so that not only the neighborhood involved gets to hear it but with the technology that allows the whole world, believer and unbeliever alike to tune-in? In principle, there appears to be no difference between the modern public internet forum and the Roman courts held outside in the marketplace. __________________ *Cassidy*

10-10-2012, 07:56 AM	#8
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider Ohio, I am one of those that believe the Bible does not contradict itself. If there appears to be a disconnect the problem lies in our understanding of the passages. How do you reconcile the Lord's statement with Paul's? __________________ *Cassidy*

10-10-2012, 08:31 AM	#9
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,391	Re: Cult Watchers Reconsider When we say the "court of public opinion" we are talking about the Church at large. Really, it's much like the LRC's "feel of the Body," applied correctly, that is. You get the facts out that people need to know and you get a response from God's people. In other words, this forum is one way God's people can "take it to the church." The LRC doesn't believe in letting the Church at large form an honest opinion about them. They believe in manipulating information and spreading threats in order to produces a false picture of their history and practices. That is not only dishonest, it is against God's nature. I remember WL teaching that the transformed Christian was so "transparent." The LRC is anything but transparent. Thus the need for forums like this to make up their lack of forthrightness. Otherwise, people are just going to be deceived. Should we just stand by and let that happen?

10-10-2012, 10:05 AM	#17
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? Z, you said: "According to Paul it would be a sin for the LSM to sue other saints. According to Jesus this sin would be shouted from the rooftop. These verses do not contradict and this forum is fulfilling the Lord's prophecy." Ohio claims: "the hypocrisy of the Pharisees done in secret will be proclaimed from the rooftops." You and Ohio base your opinions on a limited interpretation and understanding of Luke 12:1-3 for you ignore the companion verse which says plainly the things in secret are those which the Lord speaks to us: "What I say to you in the darkness; speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops" Matt 10:27 That is why I asked for a reconciliation of what Paul said when Ohio and now you alleged the secret things were the Pharisee-type hypocrisies or sins. The Bible never contradicts itself. The context of both Matthew 10 and Luke 12 shows clearly this is not referring to hypocrisies and sins spoken by believers that is to be proclaimed from the housetops. Rather the things the Lord speaks under a situation of persecution and our prayerful fellowship with Him are the things we are to proclaim on the rooftops. __________________ *Cassidy* Last edited by Cal; 10-10-2012 at 12:37 PM.

10-10-2012, 11:23 AM	#20
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,391	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? I didn't expect for a minute for you to agree with me. You are entitled to your opinion and you've made your point. However, you have produced anything but a proof text. Last edited by Cal; 10-10-2012 at 12:50 PM.

10-10-2012, 04:38 PM	#24
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? "you don't feel that former members should even discuss this topic" Ohio, we live in a day and age that is different in some ways to 2000 years ago but the same in others. I brought this up because I was considering the convergence of internet technology with a living based on biblical principles and how the two either work together or not. For instance, I can see how using the internet to preach the good news is very compatible. Having no internet forum to gather in, then this forum closely resembles the many public places, forums, and marketplaces available to the believers 2000 years ago. When a dispute occurred back then settlement occurred in one of these public places so when Paul instructs brothers to settle things amongst themselves that is the historical context, that is, avoid doing it "out there". You used Luke 12:1-3 as a justification to air your disagreement with brothers from the local churches. I disagree with your applying that scripture that way. However, I agree with you that Matthew 18 is the Lord's teaching on settling disputes with brothers and like Paul's teaching all things are handled between brothers and in the church and not to be paraded before the unbelievers. "it is just a collection of current and former members who could be called part of the church. Occasional forum onlookers are no different than visitors at a public meeting where these items were addressed. " True. Disputing with brothers here would be like gathering in the agora and having it out. Also, I cannot find any evidence in scripture that the Lord equates his true believers to Pharisees. I believe Matthew 18 is very instructive with a solemn warning in the closing verses: "Then his master called him to him and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, because you begged me. Should you also have had mercy on your fellow slave even as I had mercy on you? And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed. So also will My heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts". Every one of us without exception will stand before the Lord and settle this question of forgiveness from our heart of every brother. In this same chapter the Lord told Peter he must forgive his brother "70 X 7". __________________ *Cassidy*

10-10-2012, 09:25 PM	#32
NeitherFirstnorLast Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 351	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? I disagree with your point about what is a genuine brother as I think that is mostly just a conscience buy off deployed to alleviate any obligation to the standard of "70 X 7". And I put that in the same category as twisting scriptures out of context to justify speech that the speaker knows to be inappropriate. If a conscience is clear the scriptures will not need to be redefined. The brothers in the local churches are genuine brothers and I think you and most acknowledge that.[/QUOTE] I am not saying at all that there are not genuine brothers and sisters, many whom I still pray for today and whom my family and I love, within the "Local Church". What I do not believe, however, is that membership in ANY group of believers in even the most healthy Bible believing and preaching church will automatically qualify that member as a genuine Christian. The enemy planted tares with the wheat, he sent many false apostles and dressed many wolves in sheeps clothing. The Lord warned us of this repeatedly for a reason... just as he told us we would know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, Cassidy. Yours in Christ, Ray

10-13-2012, 11:03 AM	#39
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? "I am not saying at all that there are not genuine brothers and sisters, many whom I still pray for today and whom my family and I love, within the "Local Church". What I do not believe, however, is that membership in ANY group of believers in even the most healthy Bible believing and preaching church will automatically qualify that member as a genuine Christian. " Of course, Ray. A genuine christian is one who is born-again, a believer in the person and work of the Lord Jesus and not because they are affiliated with or a member of a group of genuine Christians. "The enemy planted tares with the wheat, he sent many false apostles and dressed many wolves in sheeps clothing. The Lord warned us of this repeatedly for a reason... just as he told us we would know them by their fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, Cassidy. " However, the tares are not born again Christians. You are making a colossal interpretative leap and misapplication of scripture when you say that the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are not born again believers. It is the same error that some have made here when referring to genuine believers in the local churches "Pharisees". __________________ *Cassidy*

10-13-2012, 11:44 AM	#40
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? "... then the Lord whispered to me in secret many of the evil things these hypocrites had done and instructed me to "shout it from the rooftop" why wouldn't I listen to the Lord?" "The Lord has also made it plain that He may tell saints to shout these sins and hypocrisies from the rooftop." Z, No. the context of these verses give no indication that the Lord is whispering the sins and hypocrisies of brothers into your or anyone's ear and therefore provide no justification for shouting those sins and hypocrisies from the rooftops. On the contrary, Matthew 18 gives clear unambiguous instruction on how to deal with brothers and in this chapter the standard of forgiveness is "70 X 7" offenses against you personally and the command to forgive your brother from heart with attending consequences if you refuse to. Let me be clear: I am not saying that we bury our head in the sand to things going on and neither do the words of the Lord Jesus nor Paul's. I am saying that you and others are misapplying the words of our Lord Jesus in the treatment of genuine brothers and apparently ignoring the prescriptive process articulated by Him in Matthew 18 and Paul in Corinthians. __________________ *Cassidy*

10-13-2012, 01:14 PM	#43
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? "You are right, tares are not born-again Christians. Goats are not Sheep, Wheat is not a Tare, vessels made unto dishonor do not become vessels made unto honor, and wolves in sheeps clothing are still only wolves despite appearances. Again, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matthew 7:18. I never suggested otherwise. I had written that I know genuine Christians who are in the LSM church - and I meant by that (of course), that I personally know those ones. You have gone much farther, Cassidy - for your implication is that "the brothers in the local churches, including those in leadership, are ... born again believers" Ray, This is a good question about the fruit. Let's take the verses you quoted one at a time to derive their meaning. In Matthew 7 vs 1-12 the Lord clearly sets a high standard for entering the kingdom of the heavens. The first verse says "Do not judge, that you be not judged" and then goes to say in v2 "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you" and then in v3-5 calls those as hypocrites who look and try to remove the splinter in their brother's eye while sporting a beam in their own. Another instructive teaching from the Lord Jesus on how we are to deal with brothers. But let's go on to your use of v18. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." What is the context of this verse? The verses from v13-29 set a very high standard for entrance into the kingdom of the heavens, that is, through the narrow gate and constricted way. Though often applied to eternal salvation these verses are actually related to the reward of the kingdom. This is confirmed by v21-23 where the ones being judged at the judgment seat of Christ are brothers as is confirmed by their calling and affirming Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:13). Nevertheless, their fruit is not accounted as worthy. What is their fruit? It is prophesying, casting out demons, and doing works of power in His name. These arguably would be considered to most observers as "good fruit". However, the Lord dismisses these outward things, however good they might appear to us, but rather connects the judgment (Bema) to those who do "the will of My Father who is in the heavens". Not that those things are automatically bad fruit in and of themselves but whether they are done according to the will of the Father. In other words Ray, these verses show that genuine brothers may do many things in the Lord's name but at his judgment seat will be rejected. Not rejected for their profession of faith for eternal salvation, but rather the entrance into the kingdom of the heavens. Now you may say that lawsuits between brothers indicates bad fruit. Perhaps. At His judgment seat it will be confirmed according to His righteous assessment. But Paul speaks of brothers taking brothers to court and while so doing he does NOT equate the brothers engaged in the lawsuit as non-believers, tares, or Pharisees. Therefore, we also dare not overreach and characterize genuine brothers as unbelievers and should follow the Lord's pattern here in Matthew 7. __________________ *Cassidy*

10-14-2012, 09:49 AM	#46
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? Hi Ray, I believe a person is saved and regenerated, becomes a born-again Christian, when they confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead. __________________ *Cassidy*

10-14-2012, 05:09 PM	#48
Cassidy Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 280	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? "I must now ask, how can you say that you believe that men must believe in their hearts on the one hand, and then categorically affirm the genuine faith of people's whose hearts you cannot know... especially if you cannot point to any fruit in their individual lives that might give evidence of a Saving Faith? There is a contradiction there, isn't there?" As you said Ray, we are not omniscient. However, though I just met you, yet, I have every reason to believe that you and the leading brothers in the local churches are born-again believers. If I can affirm it about you whom I barely know then I can also affirm it about those that I know a little better. I am not qualified to assess the fruit you may have produced but I have a witness in my spirit that you are a brother. Still, I do not apply a blanket salvation based on affiliation in any place as I previously stated. "For arguments sake, if I were to agree with you that ALL people affiliated with LSM were genuine Saved Christians, then do you suppose that absolves me from the responsibility to use Scripture "...for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"? (2 Timothy 3:16.) Or do you think that the rebuke and correction applies only to unbelievers, and is not to be used on fellow believers who are misled or backslidden or living in sin? I think that verse applies to all believers whether they are doing well, not doing well, backslid, living in sin, or whatever their condition positively or negatively because the next verse says: "That the man of God* may be complete, fully equipped for every good work" v17* __________________ *Cassidy*

10-14-2012, 05:17 PM	#49
Peter Debelak Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Avon, OH Posts: 306	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? Cassidy: I have been following this dialogue with some interest and much internal dialogue. Thank you for bringing it to the fore and pressing it. Regarding whether and/or how Mathew 18 applies to calling the LSM history out for its abuses (or not calling it out), I don't have much to say. It may well be the case, as you argue, that that is not the way to deal with these brothers. But there is another, secondary reason for discussing past and persistant abuses of leaders within a given group. That is not for the sake of the leaders' repentance, but for the edification and "freeing" of the members of the group. I for one was so intertwined mentally and emotionally to the group and its teachings, "mere" scriptural arguments could not hold sway with me. I simply was not open to them. There was an inherent "purity" to the Recovery that exempted it from reasoned criticism in my mind and heart. However, upon hearing this history of abuse, something was lifted. The stronghold of "purity" was taken away and my ears were suddenly open. I have been able, since then, to exercise healthy discernment, both abandoning and retaining aspects of my experience and teaching in the LC. Paul publically rebuked Peter to his face. Not just to hold Peter accountible - but for the sake of the believers in the church who were being led astray. Same with the "zealous" ones in Galations who were stealing believers away from the Spirit. It does not make clear that these ones were unbelievers. More than likely, they were beleivers, otherwise they may not have been so persuasive to the Galatians. At any rate, just sharing some of my experience - this isn't a doctrinal argument. In Love, Peter __________________ "This [book] will perhaps only be understood by one who has himself already [] thought the thoughts that are expressed herein..." Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus

09-06-2020, 12:25 PM	#51
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 833	Re: What Should be Shouted from Rooftops? I read this thread with interest recently. Although it covers a few areas, one I am wondering about is how to square up Matthew 18:15-17 with 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. Matthew 18:15-17 15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 1 Corinthian 6:1-11 1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers etc... One passage says not to be wronged but to do something about it, all the way through a form of ostracizing. The other passage simply says to be wronged. In the LC, I have experienced the "why not just be wronged" dart thrown at me from unfeeling saints who seem to forget the "tell it to the church" and "treat them as a pagan" part. Now that I'm actually typing this out, maybe the answer is simply to follow Matthew 18 all the way through exclusion of the sinning party, but stop short of going to court. "Be wronged" rather than stir up a lawsuit, but still go through the prescribed steps given by Jesus in Matthew. Another question as I'm thinking of it: how do you square up this portion in 1 Corinthians with the verse "against an elder do not receive an accusation except by 2-3 witnesses"? This is what I mean: I know the LC leadership points to that portion in 1 Timothy to say that since Paul is instructing Timothy, then the handling of an accusation against an elder must be by apostles only. However, in 1 Corinthians 6, it makes no distinction regarding the "type" of saint involved, and simply asks for someone in the church who is wise, with no mention of an outside apostle being brought in if its an elder. Are these separable scenarios? What if the dispute between believers is between an elder and a non-elder, the type of dispute that could be taken to court? Does an apostle handle it, or simply a wise member of that church? Does it matter the type of dispute? For example, if we are talking about, say, monetary betrayal......this could require both a wise church member to settle the dispute, but also an apostle to come in and discipline the elder. I'm half thinking according to LC principles here, and I might be mixing thoughts up as a result.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode