How many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery

[Evangelical]

On another thread, it was stated and agreed upon by 2 or 3 witnesses that about 99% of a bunch of other believers have never heard of TLR or WL:

After getting out, I’ve met a bunch of other believers and about 99% of them have never heard of TLR or WL for that matter.

I agree that 99% of believers haven't heard of WL or his church.

Like you said, "99% of them have never heard of TLR or WL for that matter."

It was stated that this is not meant to be a literal number:

Many times people use "99%", not literally, but rather to indicate a small portion. I don't think anyone was attempting to provide statistically meaningful numbers. That was clearly not the intent.

That being the case, I decided to look into it and arrived at a number of 32 million people (10% of 320 million people) have heard about Lee, based on my own modelling to which I received this response:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you are completely delusional if you think that 32 million people in the USA know who Witness Lee is.

I then explained further how I arrived at that number:


It seems like a lot but that's because you have not considered exponentiation every year for 10 years. I used a model based on the number of bibles distributed each year and a re-distribution factor to account for the bibles distributed in previous years. That's the power of exponentiation and many people underestimate it.

Here's the formula I used:

Np(t) = Np(t-1) + 2 x 140000 + 2 x 290000 + r x Np(t-1).

Np is number of people who know who Witness Lee is, t is time in years.

2 x 140,000 is the number of people reached by the distribution of bibles each year, assuming 140,000 bibles distributed each year (BFA figures) and each one being seen by two people (e.g. a husband and wife). 2x290000 is the number of books.

r is a re-distribution factor - I assumed 5% of all bibles distributed in previous years are re-circulated (e.g. through continued use every year, people leaving them on coffee tables or passing them onto other people). I assume the other 95% are thrown away.

There is no way to know this number but I think 5% is reasonable - the growth rate of Christianity worldwide is under 5% and it is difficult to be saved. It is easy to read the name "witness lee" on a book or a bible compared to adding a member to the church, so I think 5% is being conservative.

I repeat the calculation for proselytizing- assuming 10,000 local church people each tell 1 person every week about Christ, or 52 people per year, for 10 years, it all adds up. I assume that each person will encounter the ministry of Lee either through a gospel tract, new testament bible or book.

I do the math in Excel and over 10 years it comes to 10.8 million people who know about Lee from the bibles and books, and 13 million from evangelism. That's 23.8 million at least. Internet exposure is on top of that - it would have to be as much as the person to person evangelism, maybe more. Add another 8 or 9 million and that comes to 32 million.

If there's a problem with my figures feel free to point it out or propose another model.

[Bradley]

You have way too much spare time dude

[Drake]

-2

Evangelical,

The Radio broadcast “Life study of the Bible with Witness Lee” was and is huge. Having been broadcast on Christian radio stations in multiple geos I’d expect the np(t) to be significantly higher than 32m. Through the radio broadcast I met many christians who came to know Witness Lee that way and some entire congregations would listen to those broadcasts. I fellowshipped with a few of those groups in their meetings. I am sure I only saw the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

That doesn’t include those who have heard of Witness Lee through others like The Bible Answer Man.

My take: Much bigger than 32.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That being the case, I decided to look into it and arrived at a number of 32 million people (10% of 320 million people) have heard about Lee, based on my own modelling to which I received this response:

So your hypothesis or theory is that a large number (maybe around 32 million) of people have heard of Witness Lee? Or, as Koin said, "know who Witness Lee is"? Or is it how many people have received Witness Lee literature? Maybe it is something else?

[A little brother]

I think your estimation is far from being accurate.

(1) Your assume each book reaches a different person. In fact, most of the 290000 books (if the number is correct) published each year are circulated among the same group of people in the LC.

(2) You assume each RecV distributed reaches a person. In real life, probably some are gathering dust in book stores.

(3) You assume each person who received an RecV will know about WL. In real life, some people who received it never read it. Even they have read it, they might not have noticed WL's name.

(4) Do the LC people preach Christ or preach WL? If "10,000 local church people each tell 1 person every week about Christ", how would the person they talk to know about WL? Shouldn't they know about Christ instead?

(5) As Drake testified in another post, he had been meeting with LC for almost a year and never heard of WL. So even people gathering in LC may not have heard of WL.

If I were you, I would rather believe the estimation is inaccurate. If 32 million people have heard of WL and still the LC had such limited growth in the past decades, that means millions of people know but don't care about WL at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2Tim 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

[Koinonia]

There are approximately 15,000-20,000 members of the LC in the United States. All of those people have an average of 5 relatives. That makes a core group of 120,000 people that know Witness Lee. If every year, each of those people have talked about Witness Lee to 1 other person, after only 12 years, nearly half a billion people knew Witness Lee--more than the entire US population.

This is realistic because of BfA, livingstream.com, and the Life-Study radio program broadcast in the US on 12 different stations.

[HBJ]

I have been a Christian since 1964 and in the LC from 1970-1980. Since leaving the LC and rejoining other Christians, I have met one who knows about the LC, from doing street ministry in S. Cal. and that was about a year ago. His comments (my paraphrase from memory), they are rigid and exclusive.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by A little brother

(4) Do the LC people preach Christ or preach WL? If "10,000 local church people each tell 1 person every week about Christ", how would the person they talk to know about WL? Shouldn't they know about Christ instead?

Very astute observation. Wonder what Evangelical was thinking on that one....

Drake says he didn’t hear of WL until almost a year. But he also said he’s been with them for 4 decades. From my experience In today’s LC, that would be impossible (that is 0% from a statisticcally valid sample size )

It is the church of Witness Lee - Witness Lee will be preached.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

As Drake testified in another post, he had been meeting with LC for almost a year and never heard of WL. So even people gathering in LC may not have heard of WL.

alb,

Yet, 4 decades ago there was no BFA, Radio Broadcast, etc.

Adding the believers in China for the better part of a century last century.....is another whopping category.. granted not in the USA if that is all that is at stake here.

And most importantly, Evangelical's model is based on the last 10 years...... not 4 decades..... I think he has underestimated the 32m in the USA alone.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Well we still don't know what we are actually counting - If we include those who have seen the words Witness and Lee together in the same sentence, then told no less than one friend or relative about the context of that writing, compound that over 40 years, we're talking big numbers, huge.

On a separate note:
Drake, do you believe the local church to have grown over the past 30 years?

[LifeGoesOn]

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, 4 decades ago there was no BFA, Radio Broadcast, etc. Adding the believers in China for the better part of a century last century.....is another whopping category.. granted not in the USA if that is all that is at stake here. And most importantly, Evangelical's model is based on the last 10 years...... not 4 decades..... I think he has underestimated the 32m in the USA alone.

It is all just speculation. However I think everyone can agree that whatever the real number is more people have heard of Roy Moore than WL and that is just the last 4 months, not the last 4 decades.

We can also agree that "hearing of WL" is irrelevant to the gospel and the Lord's move. What is relevant is knowing and receiving Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

I looked thru my files but didn't find it. I must not have saved it, or it's in a book. But I remember Lee, I think in a talk in Taipei, where he projected calculations of how the local churches would take over the whole world in something like 10 years. (Prolly others out here can find it ... it's somewhere on LCD).

I'm with Watchman Nee. When much to Lee's surprise he told him, "Christians lie."

As I see it, it's likely that those in the LC are going to exaggerate the numbers up, while exLCers are going to be inclined to exaggerate the numbers down.

I don't see why it matters. If a lot of people know of Witness Lee does it mean God was working thru him? He's certainly not as popular as Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and a host of others. So I guess, if numbers matter, these ones were, or are, mighty messengers of God.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

while exLCers are going to be inclined to exaggerate the numbers down.

As an exLCer are you inclined to negatively exaggerate Lee or his "LC"?

I know that I am not so inclined.

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Just shine the light

[Drake]

ZNP>”...more people have heard of Roy Moore than WL and that is just the last 4 months, not the last 4 decades.”

I’ll have to concede that is true, ZNP.

In similar type comparison , more people have visited the grassy knoll than have visited this forum.

[Drake]

Awareness>”I don't see why it matters. If a lot of people know of Witness Lee does it mean God was working thru him?”

Awareness,

Hoping this holiday season brings you peace and joy.

I agree that there is little if any correlation between numbers and commission. The Little Flock, though little, was a move of God.

I do not have any expectation that the Lords Recovery will ever become really big in numbers. I believe God, for His move, more often uses a remnant.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”...more people have heard of Roy Moore than WL and that is just the last 4 months, not the last 4 decades.”

I’ll have to concede that is true, ZNP.

In similar type comparison , more people have visited the grassy knoll than have visited this forum.

Good point, the assassination of JFK did affect more people than the crimes of WL and his family.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good point, the assassination of JFK did affect more people than the crimes of WL and his family.

Yes, but, they both involved equally great coverups of the crimes, and more people were hurt by those coverups than the original crimes.

[Intothewind]

I think the original formula overestimates two things.

1. The percentage of lcers that active in the ministry.

2. The stickiness of the Bibles and other materials. A good percentage I'm sure end in storage or the wastebin...and such folks won't recall the author.

I also am willing to bet knowledge of WL to be extremely patchy and centered around metro areas with strong lcs.

Compared to the infamy of scientology, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and the like the lc is nearly unknown

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Evangelical,

The Radio broadcast “Life study of the Bible with Witness Lee” was and is huge. Having been broadcast on Christian radio stations in multiple geos I’d expect the np(t) to be significantly higher than 32m. Through the radio broadcast I met many christians who came to know Witness Lee that way and some entire congregations would listen to those broadcasts. I fellowshipped with a few of those groups in their meetings. I am sure I only saw the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

That doesn’t include those who have heard of Witness Lee through others like The Bible Answer Man.

My take: Much bigger than 32.

Drake

The model only accounts for published figures in the USA for book distribution. Consider the model to be an estimate of the least number of people who have heard of Lee. Many people on here seem astonished by a figure of 32 million.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So your hypothesis or theory is that a large number (maybe around 32 million) of people have heard of Witness Lee? Or, as Koin said, "know who Witness Lee is"? Or is it how many people have received Witness Lee literature? Maybe it is something else?

People that have heard of Witness Lee, either by reading or hearing his name. Even people who have read the name once and forgotten it should be counted in the figure.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I think your estimation is far from being accurate.

(1) Your assume each book reaches a different person. In fact, most of the 290000 books (if the number is correct) published each year are circulated among the same group of people in the LC.

That's reasonable. If that is the case, I expect some of these people to share them with people they know who are not in the Recovery. When I first met with the LC we did a life study for a few weeks. I was given copies of the pages. This was before I ever knew there was a Recovery version.

Originally Posted by A little brother

(2) You assume each RecV distributed reaches a person. In real life, probably some are gathering dust in book stores.

Are you saying the distribution was to book stores not people? I assumed distribution is to people, given directly or ordered online.

Originally Posted by A little brother

(3) You assume each person who received an RecV will know about WL. In real life, some people who received it never read it. Even they have read it, they might not have noticed WL's name.

I expect this number to be small. Who receives a bible and doesn't check what version it is?

Originally Posted by A little brother

(4) Do the LC people preach Christ or preach WL? If "10,000 local church people each tell 1 person every week about Christ", how would the person they talk to know about WL? Shouldn't they know about Christ instead?

Preaching about Christ might normally be accompanied by a bible, tract, or book from which they will read the name Witness Lee. Also if the person asks "which church do you belong to" they might hear the name Witness Lee.

Originally Posted by A little brother

(5) As Drake testified in another post, he had been meeting with LC for almost a year and never heard of WL. So even people gathering in LC may not have heard of WL.

Not in my experience. First I was introduced to Watchman Nee, then Witness Lee later. The words were "have you heard of Watchman Nee" or something similar to that. In the Lord's Day meetings Brother Lee is referred to often especially during prophesy time, "brother Lee said...".

Originally Posted by A little brother

If I were you, I would rather believe the estimation is inaccurate. If 32 million people have heard of WL and still the LC had such limited growth in the past decades, that means millions of people know but don't care about WL at all.

Doesn't really matter if the growth does not match the number of people who have heard. I believe it would be proportional to the number of people who hear or know about Christ but don't care. The conversion rate to Christianity is fairly small.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Very astute observation. Wonder what Evangelical was thinking on that one....

Drake says he didn’t hear of WL until almost a year. But he also said he’s been with them for 4 decades. From my experience In today’s LC, that would be impossible (that is 0% from a statisticcally valid sample size )

It is the church of Witness Lee - Witness Lee will be preached.

A person might hear about Lee through any accompanying books, tracts, invites to homes or the meetings. In response to any questions from the person about "which church are you from". Since evangelism is mostly to work colleagues, family and friends, I would expect continued discussions about the gospel, and the name Witness Lee might be heard at least once during that time.

I would not say Witness Lee is preached, only Christ is preached. I am sure the early church was mentioning the names of Peter, James, John and Paul frequently every Lord's Day as people were following their instructions, reading their writings (our scriptures today) etc. Reading the scripture written by Paul does not mean "preaching Paul".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

As an exLCer are you inclined to negatively exaggerate Lee or his "LC"?

Maybe you haven't seen enough of my posts, but no I'm not disinclined to be negative about Witless Lee.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

People that have heard of Witness Lee, either by reading or hearing his name. Even people who have read the name once and forgotten it should be counted in the figure.

In your first post in this thread you made a special point to quote "Originally Posted by Koinonia Evangelical, you are completely delusional if you think that 32 million people in the USA know who Witness Lee is."

So according to your most recent thought, both you and Koinonia could be correct? And you're not counting someone that heard his name once and forgot it?

Long story short, your numbers are meaningless... you've wasted your time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

In your first post in this thread you made a special point to quote "Originally Posted by Koinonia Evangelical, you are completely delusional if you think that 32 million people in the USA know who Witness Lee is."

So according to your most recent thought, both you and Koinonia could be correct? And you're not counting someone that heard his name once and forgot it?

Long story short, your numbers are meaningless... you've wasted your time.

I think you know how it is in the LC leastofthese. When I was there, there's was this thing called The Vision. What the vision actually was was catching Witness Lee's megalomaniacal delusion about himself.

Witness Lee was so delusional that he thought his movement would take over the whole world in 10 years.

Obviously that didn't happen. It was a delusion. And unbeknownst to our dear brother Evangelical he's infected with it. So he can't help but inflate the numbers.

Let's pray for our dear brother. Only the Lord can reveal it to him.

[Drake]

-1

Nay, nay awareness.

The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves. I have said before that had I gone through the same experiences as some here that I do not know how I would have responded. Yet, in all the difficulties I have faced the Lord always supplied me with the grace to overcome and so I must believe in faith that He would have supplied me to meet those challenges too. And if faith waned, it was the heavenly vision that reinvigorated me, refreshed me, and kept me going for over 40 years. I petition the Lord that if He would impart this vision into the brothers and sisters in this forum that all would be well with them, but if not, then at least He would give them the grace and peace that passes understanding to move on with their lives. By that, I mean to move on emotionally, and mentally, as well as spiritually. I know, most of you will say you have moved on and I would hope it is so, but the content and tone of the many posts here speaks differently. Many here never made it out to another side, whatever that will be for them.

Grace to you,
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Nay, nay awareness.

The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

"The Vision" is the key criteria for determining who "The MOTA" is. That is why it is about WL and his megalomania.

Originally Posted by Drake

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

If this were true then you would admit that millions have "seen the vision", not merely the few members of this one particular group.

Except the "ground of the church" is a crucial part of this vision, the one part that all of these others have not seen. For the vast majority of Christians that have seen this vision the ground we stand on is Christ's blood and His redemptive work on the cross. However, for those caught up in WL's twisted megalomania vision that is not sufficient, they must also see the "significance of the boundary of the city". Nothing "eternal" about that vision. The boundary of NYC has changed many, many times. But no matter, it is still a crucial part of the "eternal vision" seen by WL and his cohort.

Originally Posted by Drake

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves. I have said before that had I gone through the same experiences as some here that I do not know how I would have responded. Yet, in all the difficulties I have faced the Lord always supplied me with the grace to overcome and so I must believe in faith that He would have supplied me to meet those challenges too. And if faith waned, it was the heavenly vision that reinvigorated me, refreshed me, and kept me going for over 40 years. I petition the Lord that if He would impart this vision into the brothers and sisters in this forum that all would be well with them, but if not, then at least He would give them the grace and peace that passes understanding to move on with their lives. By that, I mean to move on emotionally, and mentally, as well as spiritually. I know, most of you will say you have moved on and I would hope it is so, but the content and tone of the many posts here speaks differently. Many here never made it out to another side, whatever that will be for them.

Grace to you,
Drake

And I am always amazed at the arrogance of these few followers of WL to insult all Christians, claiming we disparage the NT vision.

Is the "ground of the church" truly a NT vision? Can you actually teach this "vision" based solely on the NT? No doubt you can teach the importance of oneness, we all agree that oneness is important. But without inference, inuendo, shadow and mirrors how is it that you teach this "NT Vision" that you live by? Have at it, show us from the NT this doctrine of "the Ground of the Church".

Yes, we all know that Paul addressed his letters to "the church in _____". We all recognize the importance of being one and Paul's standing against any division. But where in the NT does it teach the importance of city boundaries at keeping that oneness? Where in the NT is the basis to disparage all other tables in a city except the one that a few hundred saints keep?

[Drake]

-1

ZNP> “For the vast majority of Christians that have seen this vision the ground we stand on is Christ's blood and His redemptive work on the cross.”

ZNP,

That wonderful truth is the portion of every born again believer as a child of God. If that is the vision of the ground you stand on, and it is what the Lord has shown you, then be faithful to it.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

In your first post in this thread you made a special point to quote "Originally Posted by Koinonia Evangelical, you are completely delusional if you think that 32 million people in the USA know who Witness Lee is."

So according to your most recent thought, both you and Koinonia could be correct? And you're not counting someone that heard his name once and forgot it?

Long story short, your numbers are meaningless... you've wasted your time.

I would say the same about the 99 percent figure that 3 or 4 people agreed upon without any meaningful facts or figures to back it up. Meaningless numbers and a waste of time because its just speculation and opinions.

So if one person invents a number and others agree then it must be true.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think you know how it is in the LC leastofthese. When I was there, there's was this thing called The Vision. What the vision actually was was catching Witness Lee's megalomaniacal delusion about himself.

Witness Lee was so delusional that he thought his movement would take over the whole world in 10 years.

Obviously that didn't happen. It was a delusion. And unbeknownst to our dear brother Evangelical he's infected with it. So he can't help but inflate the numbers.

Let's pray for our dear brother. Only the Lord can reveal it to him.

I pray for Drake regularly. I need to include Evangelical too.

The delusions are quite appearant, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they believe what they’re writing, but sometimes... I just don’t know. They try to spin stories like we haven’t been a part of the LSM wackiness. Like you’ve said, to paraphrase, I can’t unsee what I saw. I know the dealio. It’s all a farce. The only question is how far from the mark does their arrow hit? Not for me to judge.

[Drake]

-1

LofT>”Not for me to judge”

And yet, you do, continuously in the court of public opinion.

Drake

[Boxjobox]

The issue is not how many people have heard of WL/ LSM, but how many take him serious. If in the city of San Diego, with a population of over 1.4 million, if one wants to say that 10% have had some contact with the LSM, but only 275 meet and follow the LSM, seems that the LC has a PR problem.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1
I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves.

I too am amazed why two groups of people who claim they love God can see things so differently.

I believe one temptation reading the Bible is that people start to think they are like Paul, John or other prophets and dream for their own unique vision from God.

I don't know you brother, but what happened to WL was obvious.

He so enjoyed his own spiritual "high" and moved on to create one of the most arrogant ministries, a ministry that could not stop disparaging other members of the body of Christ.

He was so blinded by his own "vision" that he missed even the most obvious things when interpreting the Bible. The Bible became just a tool to prove he was right. A couple of examples I recently noticed...

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

RecV footnote: (But) The prophets are great in their speaking concerning Christ but not in their speaking concerning other things. Micah's word here concerning what Jehovah requires of His people is not a matter of God's revelation but a matter of the prophet's concept...

Micah clearly stated "He has declared to you". Unless Micah was a liar, that message was from God.

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were a curse, separated from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

RecV footnote: (curse) For Paul to wish that Israel would be saved was necessary, but to wish that he himself would be a curse and would be separated from Christ would have been extreme...

What Paul wrote certainly looks extreme in the eyes of someone who wouldn't hesitate to cut off other members of the body for the "oneness" of his own ministry. Lee has forgotten the most obvious example - Jesus Christ loves us so much that He became curse for us and forsaken by God on the cross. Paul had the heart of Christ. Did WL? I don't think so.

Yeh, I am one of the "32m" people who have heard of WL. I heard of and also see what he is and what he isn't.

To me, PRIDE explains why people can see things so differently.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

LofT>”Not for me to judge”

And yet, you do, continuously in the court of public opinion.

Drake

That is a hoot coming from you Drake. But... maybe some of Witness Lee did rub off on me.

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.
And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

[Drake]

-1

Real time example provided.

Drake

[Drake]

Alb,

You are proposing that EVERY word spoken by the major and minor prophets and psalmists was a message from God that reflected His exact thought and attitude.

Is that what you believe?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

I have said before that had I gone through the same experiences as some here that I do not know how I would have responded. Yet, in all the difficulties I have faced the Lord always supplied me with the grace to overcome and so I must believe in faith that He would have supplied me to meet those challenges too. And if faith waned, it was the heavenly vision that reinvigorated me, refreshed me, and kept me going for over 40 years.

When your Blended leadership at LSM decided to quarantine GLA LC's for printing books instead of buying theirs, and having contemporary Christian Christian music instead of singing Lee's hymns with a piano, then I knew for sure that Lee's so-called "vision" was a farce. When I read about past storms / quarantines and watched operatives from LSM/DCP divide GLA LC's and file lawsuits over meeting halls then I knew for sure that LSM was corrupt.

Dear Drake, God is faithful to all His children. He will always supply you with His grace to overcome, not because of Lee's pseudo-vision, but because of His many promises to us.

[Drake]

-1

Brother Ohio,

I am not following a man’s vision.

What about the vision I described do you disagree with?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

A couple of examples I recently noticed...

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

RecV footnote: (But) The prophets are great in their speaking concerning Christ but not in their speaking concerning other things. Micah's word here concerning what Jehovah requires of His people is not a matter of God's revelation but a matter of the prophet's concept...

Micah clearly stated "He has declared to you". Unless Micah was a liar, that message was from God.

Thanks alb. Quite telling.

Yesterday I was reading about when the Lord rebuked the Jews for making void the word of God for their traditions. (Matt. 15.3)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Brother Ohio,

I am not following a man’s vision.

What about the vision I described do you disagree with?

Drake

For starters, just from this thread,

• That Lee was a unique MOTA
• That Lee's vision was the N.T. vision
• That the MOTA was above the law
• That his teachings could "correct" the scripture
• That only LSM approved churches are legit
• That city lines are the ground of the church
• That only LSM books are approved in the LC's
• That all other churches are worthy of condemnation

[Drake]

-1

So you don’t disagree with the vision I described.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

So you don’t disagree with the vision I described.

Drake

Visions are like the Creeds. They have some good points and numerous shortcomings. Paul's heavenly vision was primarily that he would bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. He repeatedly told us that. That was his life mission. Read the book of Acts.

W. Lee transferred and distorted Paul's "heavenly vision" to himself and his ministry. I believed it for 30 years until I finally learned how much Lee twisted his "vision" for personal gain. I no longer agree with anything that is exclusive to LSM. Now I only espouse the common faith unique to the scriptures.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

You are proposing that EVERY word spoken by the major and minor prophets and psalmists was a message from God that reflected His exact thought and attitude.

Is that what you believe?

Drake

No, I am not proposing what you said.

My point was WL blinded by his own "vision".

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Visions are like the Creeds. They have some good points and numerous shortcomings. Paul's heavenly vision was primarily that he would bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. He repeatedly told us that. That was his life mission. Read the book of Acts.

W. Lee transferred and distorted Paul's "heavenly vision" to himself and his ministry. I believed it for 30 years until I finally learned how much Lee twisted his "vision" for personal gain. I no longer agree with anything that is exclusive to LSM. Now I only espouse the common faith unique to the scriptures.

Ohio, well-said. In the past two years, I began to revisit my understanding on Paul's mission. What you said about Paul's vision is exactly how I understand it now, including how the vision was distorted by Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately.

Thank you for sharing on "the vision we speak of". Like Ohio, I also dislike this kind of approach as it is always lacking and deficient. It is impossible, short of quoting the entire NT, to be comprehensive.

For example you refer to the Body of Christ and a warrior Bride that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil.

Yet there is no mention of those that "would stumble the believers" which Jesus refers to in Matt 18 and which the apostles refer to frequently in many epistles. These forces of evil play heavily in the "building of the Body" which you refer to in the most general way. For example, Paul, when he was Saul, was involved in the persecution of the saints. He did not see the Body of Christ, that was his big failure, the thing that made him "less than the least of all saints". This may explain his focus on presenting this vision in his epistles. Peter's big failing was at the Lord's crucifixion and in his letter he makes it very clear that he is focused on his second chance. He has many insights on suffering in his epistle, perhaps the reason he can present such a clear vision is because of the hours he has spent in prayer and meditation so that he doesn't make the same mistake again. James big failure was in becoming the head of a cult (though perhaps unwittingly). In his letter he provides the only clear definition of what a pure religion is and the wisdom to identify the false prophets.

What is clear to me is that the vision each of the apostles shares in their epistles, each of which is part of the NT vision, is the product of their profound failure. As a result these failures are also part of the NT vision. These are the temptations common to man that we must overcome in order to be "built up". You give the simplest overview -- cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis. Yes, in each case the apostle's vision gave the Lord a ruling position in their lives. But to give the vision in such a generic and vague way to me is meaningless.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Nay, nay awareness.

The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves. I have said before that had I gone through the same experiences as some here that I do not know how I would have responded. Yet, in all the difficulties I have faced the Lord always supplied me with the grace to overcome and so I must believe in faith that He would have supplied me to meet those challenges too. And if faith waned, it was the heavenly vision that reinvigorated me, refreshed me, and kept me going for over 40 years. I petition the Lord that if He would impart this vision into the brothers and sisters in this forum that all would be well with them, but if not, then at least He would give them the grace and peace that passes understanding to move on with their lives. By that, I mean to move on emotionally, and mentally, as well as spiritually. I know, most of you will say you have moved on and I would hope it is so, but the content and tone of the many posts here speaks differently. Many here never made it out to another side, whatever that will be for them.

Grace to you,
Drake

Back in the late 70's, I thought WL had such a vision, I thought the elders in the church in my city had such a vision, then slowly at first, then quite rapidly during the early to mid 80's a shift in vision came through. It was no longer the building up of the assembly it was all about LSM. At first it was a clearing of the book room of non-LSM material, it was LSM material in every meeting. It was talk of oneness with " the ministry", only "the ministery" and get on the train so your not left behind at the station. The local needs of the saints, the local ministry, and really, the love of the saints was gone- sold out for LSM. Then it was a form letter in the mail that basically said we are 100% for WL/LSM. The meeting hall, the labor, time and money put into having a place to meet was turned over to LSM: the practical local church meeting in the Lord's name was gone. Some of the elders who could not accept it were gone, many saints including myself left- but really, it was not us leaving it was the " LC" leaving us. I knew I did not want to raise my kids in such a place.

Drake, I suspect many of us have a vision of the church- it would be really good if those who claim to meet as the "LC" would repent, drop LSM and start meeting in that vision again. They stole the meeting hall from the church, they stole the simplicity of meeting as the church, and turned it over to LSM. I don't want to meet with delusional thiefs. If repentance ever comes, I would be one of the first to return to breaking bread, fellowship, preaching the gospel, love feasts, meeting in the home, and enjoying the saints as the simple church in the city.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

No, I am not proposing what you said.

My point was WL blinded by his own "vision".

Alb,

Okay. Therefore, if you also recognize that not everything stated by the prophets reflected Gods thought and attitude then the basis of your argument is contradicted by the example you used.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

Okay. Therefore, if you also recognize that not everything stated by the prophets reflected Gods thought and attitude then the basis of your argument is contradictory by the example you used.

Drake

So Paul was also delusional when he said, "all scripture is God-breathed"?

I never saw a group of Christians so obsessed with discovering "human sentiments" in the Bible. Why don't you spend your time wisely and identify all of Lee's own "human sentiments," a.k.a. "leaven."

[Drake]

-1

Ohio>”So Paul was also delusional when he said, "all scripture is God-breathed"?

No.

All scripture is a God breathed and profitable for correction, rebuking, teaching, and training in righteousness.

That does not mean that every word in scripture is God’s thought and attitude!

The devils words are not God’s thought and attitude. They are there. Fallen human thought is there. Those are not God’s thought and attitude. Religious thought is there but that too is not God’s thought or attitude. Mistakes are recorded, sin is recorded, erroneous doctrine is recorded, philosophy, culture, ... they are not God’s thought or attitude.

You are mistaken to equate God’s breathing with God’s thought and attitude. Yet, all is there, God’s thought and attitude and all the rest. All is profitable for correction, teaching, instruction, and reproof.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Back in the late 70's, I thought WL had such a vision, I thought the elders in the church in my city had such a vision, then slowly at first, then quite rapidly during the early to mid 80's a shift in vision came through. It was no longer the building up of the assembly it was all about LSM. At first it was a clearing of the book room of non-LSM material, it was LSM material in every meeting. It was talk of oneness with " the ministry", only "the ministery" and get on the train so your not left behind at the station. The local needs of the saints, the local ministry, and really, the love of the saints was gone- sold out for LSM. Then it was a form letter in the mail that basically said we are 100% for WL/LSM. The meeting hall, the labor, time and money put into having a place to meet was turned over to LSM: the practical local church meeting in the Lord's name was gone. Some of the elders who could not accept it were gone, many saints including myself left- but really, it was not us leaving it was the " LC" leaving us. I knew I did not want to raise my kids in such a place.

Drake, I suspect many of us have a vision of the church- it would be really good if those who claim to meet as the "LC" would repent, drop LSM and start meeting in that vision again. They stole the meeting hall from the church, they stole the simplicity of meeting as the church, and turned it over to LSM. I don't want to meet with delusional thiefs. If repentance ever comes, I would be one of the first to return to breaking bread, fellowship, preaching the gospel, love feasts, meeting in the home, and enjoying the saints as the simple church in the city.

Boxjobox,

First, I want to thank you for this post. It touched me. I read it several times to put myself in your shoes and try to understand if my experience was materially different from yours and why we hold different points of view.

So, here are my thoughts based on what you stated. Do not take anything I say personally for I do not judge you or your situation for I know neither other than what you have stated above. I don’t need to know any details for what I say applies to my every situation.

The vision that governs me is not Brother Lee’s vision or any elder’s vision. It is the vision imparted to me by the Holy Spirit. By that, I do not mean it is not the same vision for the most part. I mean that though I heard about the vision from ministers like Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, various elders, many gifts to the Body, and functioning members in the Body, at some definite point in time I received a direct visitation from the Holy Spirit imparting a vision into me. At that definite point in time that revelation of the vision, that experience of the vision, became mine and should those through whom I heard about this vision change their view, mine would not for I cannot deny what I have received directly from God. This vision carried me through turbulence in the church life not unlike that found in the Corinthian church. Outwardly, it a mess, nevertheless, the vision speaks it is still the church of God in Corinth. All in Asia forsook Paul yet Paul was faithful to the heavenly vision. That is the quality of a vision imparted by God. It endures, it guides, it keeps. Offending brothers may never repent but the vision is still the vision. Once you possess it, or rather it captures you, you have a treasure that is worthy above everything and everyone else for the vision is God Himself. The vision enables me to forgive 70x7. Without it I would hold an offense forever, or at least till the Bema of Christ. So, whether those who offended me repent or never repent I am not guided by their repentance but rather by the vision I have received. Man’s failures, sinful actions, or shortcomings do not dictate the path I chose and choose.

As to LSM specifically, in my view is it has always been an extension to the work of ministry. It is a reasonable expectation that the role of LSM be defined, yet it will not surprise you that I view their contribution as beneficial to the local churches and not the heavy handed control organization of the local churches you described. And just to calm any angst about what I mean, I condemn and have condemned the actions of Philip Lee and have stated that someone should have called the cops but he does not define what LSM is or their total contribution to the work of ministry. Still, even if a LSM were to publish Harry Potter books it does not affect the vision that guides me because I did not receive it from LSM.

Thanks again for your post. It’s sincerity and lack of malice allowed me to give thoughtful consideration before the Lord. Please accept my response in the considerate spirit in which it is intended.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

Okay. Therefore, if you also recognize that not everything stated by the prophets reflected Gods thought and attitude then the basis of your argument is contradicted by the example you used.

Drake

I am afraid your vision or desire to win an agrument has degraded your logical mind.

"Not everything stated by the prophets reflect Gods thought and attitude" does not imply the example I stated does not reflect Gods thought.

If you read that verse again, you will find that Micah stated clearly the message was declared by God. But WL said it is the prophet's own thought. Who do you think is more trustworthy, Micah or WL?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ohio>”So Paul was also delusional when he said, "all scripture is God-breathed"?

No.

All scripture is a God breathed and profitable for correction, rebuking, teaching, and training in righteousness.

That does not mean that every word in scripture is God’s thought and attitude!

The devils words are not God’s thought and attitude. They are there. Fallen human thought is there. Those are not God’s thought and attitude. Religious thought is there but that too is not God’s thought or attitude. Mistakes are recorded, sin is recorded, erroneous doctrine is recorded, philosophy, culture, ... they are not God’s thought or attitude.

You are mistaken to equate God’s breathing with God’s thought and attitude. Yet, all is there, God’s thought and attitude and all the rest. All is profitable for correction, teaching, instruction, and reproof.

Drake

Brother Drake,

And where's that verse that says, "not all scripture is God's thought"?

Actually you are mistaken here, because even the devil's own words, recorded in the scripture, are inspired by God for our instruction, teaching, admonition.

Amen?

And happy new year!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am afraid your vision or desire to win an agrument has degraded your logical mind.

Yes!

And couple that with his obsession to defend the indefensible, Witness Lee and Sons.

[Drake]

Alb>”If you read that verse again, you will find that Micah stated clearly the message was declared by God. But WL said it is the prophet's own thought. Who do you think is more trustworthy, Micah or WL?”

Alb,

Your argument is based on presenting half a footnote so for that reason either of their thoughts are more trustworthy than yours.

The point of the footnote which you neglected to show is that the divine concept is that Christ has replaced the law and God’s people should live Christ rather than keep the law.

Do you agree with that?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>”If you read that verse again, you will find that Micah stated clearly the message was declared by God. But WL said it is the prophet's own thought. Who do you think is more trustworthy, Micah or WL?”

Alb,

Your argument is based on presenting half a footnote so for that reason either of their thoughts are more trustworthy than yours.

The point of the footnote which you neglected to show is that the divine concept is that Christ has replaced the law and God’s people should live Christ rather than keep the law.

Do you agree with that?

Drake

This is an irrelevant question. The answer would be more than a simple yes or no and needs much more lengtly discussion. Let's not divert from the current focus.

You are correct, I did not quote the entire footnote. That's why I put the "..." in my quote to indicate I was extracting part of the footnote relevant to my point.

Whether the remaining part of the footnote is valid or not does not change the fact that Lee misinterpreted Micah. And I believe the reason is because Lee was so sure about his vision on God's economy that it became the veil between him and God's word.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by A little brother

This is an irrelevant question. The answer would be more than a simple yes or no and needs much more lengtly discussion. Let's not divert from the current focus.

You are correct, I did not quote the entire footnote. That's why I put the "..." in my quote to indicate I was extracting part of the footnote relevant to my point.

Whether the remaining part of the footnote is valid or not does not change the fact that Lee misinterpreted Micah. And I believe the reason is because Lee was so sure about his vision on God's economy that it became the veil between him and God's word.

There are many examples of Witness Lee presuming to have a higher vision or revelation than the Bible.

There are threads that have gone into this extensively concerning his writings on Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and the book of James.

So on the one hand Witness Lee teaches that a prophet is a spokesman, someone speaking on behalf of God. The word can be interpreted as to speak for God, or to speak beforehand. Either way, as a spokesman a prophet is similar to the press secretary job at the Whitehouse. Just as a press secretary would be fired immediately if anything they stated officially did not reflect the thought of the President and Whitehouse. Yet WL can claim that this is what the Prophets of God did, mixed their own opinions and ideas in with the words given them from God.

As a result LSM apologists have to twist and squirm to fit WL's teachings in with the fundamental view that all scripture is God breathed.

Bible teachers are a dime a dozen, you can get numerous studies, and Bible's with footnotes. Why someone would continue to look to WL's ministry for Bible study is beyond me. His arrogant attitude towards a number of books and authors was the point at which I stopped attending the Trainings and stopped buying into this ministry. I guess the training that included the book of James was the beginning of the end for me.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

First, I want to thank you for this post. It touched me. I read it several times to put myself in your shoes and try to understand if my experience was materially different from yours and why we hold different points of view.

So, here are my thoughts based on what you stated. Do not take anything I say personally for I do not judge you or your situation for I know neither other than what you have stated above. I don’t need to know any details for what I say applies to my every situation.

The vision that governs me is not Brother Lee’s vision or any elder’s vision. It is the vision imparted to me by the Holy Spirit. By that, I do not mean it is not the same vision for the most part. I mean that though I heard about the vision from ministers like Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, various elders, many gifts to the Body, and functioning members in the Body, at some definite point in time I received a direct visitation from the Holy Spirit imparting a vision into me. At that definite point in time that revelation of the vision, that experience of the vision, became mine and should those through whom I heard about this vision change their view, mine would not for I cannot deny what I have received directly from God. This vision carried me through turbulence in the church life not unlike that found in the Corinthian church. Outwardly, it a mess, nevertheless, the vision speaks it is still the church of God in Corinth. All in Asia forsook Paul yet Paul was faithful to the heavenly vision. That is the quality of a vision imparted by God. It endures, it guides, it keeps. Offending brothers may never repent but the vision is still the vision. Once you possess it, or rather it captures you, you have a treasure that is worthy above everything and everyone else for the vision is God Himself. The vision enables me to forgive 70x7. Without it I would hold an offense forever, or at least till the Bema of Christ. So, whether those who offended me repent or never repent I am not guided by their repentance but rather by the vision I have received. Man’s failures, sinful actions, or shortcomings do not dictate the path I chose and choose.

As to LSM specifically, in my view is it has always been an extension to the work of ministry. It is a reasonable expectation that the role of LSM be defined, yet it will not surprise you that I view their contribution as beneficial to the local churches and not the heavy handed control organization of the local churches you described. And just to calm any angst about what I mean, I condemn and have condemned the actions of Philip Lee and have stated that someone should have called the cops but he does not define what LSM is or their total contribution to the work of ministry. Still, even if a LSM were to publish Harry Potter books it does not affect the vision that guides me because I did not receive it from LSM.

Thanks again for your post. It’s sincerity and lack of malice allowed me to give thoughtful consideration before the Lord. Please accept my response in the considerate spirit in which it is intended.

Drake

Sounds very familiar to Mormon experiences I’ve heard about...

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

This is an irrelevant question. The answer would be more than a simple yes or no and needs much more lengtly discussion. Let's not divert from the current focus.

You are correct, I did not quote the entire footnote. That's why I put the "..." in my quote to indicate I was extracting part of the footnote relevant to my point.

Whether the remaining part of the footnote is valid or not does not change the fact that Lee misinterpreted Micah. And I believe the reason is because Lee was so sure about his vision on God's economy that it became the veil between him and God's word.

Alb,

The point of the footnote is clear and your parsing it misrepresents it.

Christ replaced the law and God’s people should live Christ rather than keep the law. That is the point. What is Micah 6:8 referring to? Keeping the law.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

The point of the footnote is clear and your parsing it misrepresents it.

Christ replaced the law and God’s people should live Christ rather than keep the law. That is the point. What is Micah 6:8 referring to? Keeping the law.

Drake

Where do you see the words "keep the law" in Micah 6:8? Because the footnote said so?

[Drake]

ZNP>”...presuming to have a higher vision or revelation than the Bible.”

There is no revelation or vision higher than that we find in the Bible.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Where do you see the words "keeping the law" in Micah 6:8?

Micah 6:8 describes weightier matters of the law. Nevertheless, Christ replaced the law and God’s people should live Christ, not keep the law.

The whole footnote makes it clear.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Micah 6:8 describes weightier matters of the law. Nevertheless, Christ replaced the law and God’s people should live Christ, not keep the law.

The whole footnote makes it clear.

Drake

I was updating my post and then found you had already replied. So my guess was right - because the footnote said so.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I was updating my post and then found you have already replied. So my guess was right - because the footnote said so.

Alb,

You introduced the footnote, not me. You chopped it up and are misrepresenting it, not me. I’m simply accommodating your preference to focus on the footnote. This footnote was chosen by you as the centerpiece of your argument. Now you want to run from it?

Since you wanted to focus on this footnote I now agree to engage you on it. We have plenty to discuss about this footnote.. in many ways. For instance, it seems as if you do not agree with its main point.... that Christ replaced the law and that God’s people should live Christ and not keep the law.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

You introduced the footnote, not me. You chopped it up and are misrepresenting it, not me. I’m simply accommodating your preference to focus on the footnote. This footnote was chosen by you as the centerpiece of your argument. Now you want to run from it?

Since you wanted to focus on this footnote I now agree to engage you on it. We have plenty to discuss about this footnote.. in many ways. For instance, it seems as if you do not agree with its main point.... that Christ replaced the law and that God’s people should live Christ and not keep the law.

Drake

Was my point really so difficult to understand? Micah 6:8 said God declared something but Lee said it was Micah's own concept. There was not a single word mentioning Law in the verse (even the whole chapter) and Lee said it was about keeping the law.

Who was more trustworthy? Simple as that.

I repeat, it has nothing to do with the rest of the footnote.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Was my point really so difficult to understand? Micah 6:8 said God declared something but Lee said it was Micah's own concept. There was not a single word mentioning Law in the verse (even the whole chapter) and Lee said it was about keeping the law.

Who was more trustworthy? Simple as that.

I repeat, it has nothing to do with the rest of the footnote.

Verse 8 is about keeping the moral law for moral righteousness (the right-standing with God which comes by morality, the apostle Paul even suggests that people who have not heard of Christ may be saved by this if they follow their good conscience). Verse 7 refers to the written law (sacrifices etc) which the Jews were in the habit of putting more importance on written law than morals. Jesus sought to correct their thinking about this as stated in the 4 gospels. Based upon Hosea 6:6 and Matt 9:13, moral law is more important than written law - mercy is better than sacrifice.

But it doesn't stop there. Any born again Christian knows that keeping the moral law as specified in verse 8 is not enough to be saved - one must accept Christ. Moral righteousness is not enough to be saved, one must receive (imparted, imputed, infused, let's not debate that here) the righteousness of Christ, and this righteousness ends the moral and written law for righteousness:

Romans 10:4 - Christ is the end of the Law, in order to bring righteousness to everyone who believes.


Both moral and written law depends on ourselves. It is our righteousness.

But the righteousness from God, is God's righteousness (or Christ's, to be more specific):

Phil 3:9:
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

Therein lies the difference. Micah only mentions the moral and written law which is "our righteousness" and does not say anything about the righteousness from God and God's plan to save mankind by the righteousness of Christ.

To show you the difference I have found examples of old testament passages which DO contain divine revelation (about the future righteousness of God):

Isaiah 54:17, Isaiah 46:13, Isaiah 51:5, Isaiah 56:1, Isaiah 45:24-25, Isaiah 61:10, Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 89:16, , Daniel 9:24, Jeremiah 23:6.

Isaiah, Daniel and Jeremiah contains divine revelation about God's future righteousness whereas Micah does not. Contrast these verses with Micah 6:8 and you will find that 6:8 is void of any such language about God's future righteousness. It is possible to relate any of the previous verses directly to the epistles of Paul, the book of Acts etc. However Micah 6:8 takes us only as far as the gospels (e.g. Matt 9:13).

For example, these two verses are not a good match, since 6:8 is about being a good boy by our righteousness to please God, and Eph 2:8 is about pleasing God by accepting His righteousness, despite being a naughty boy.

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves


In contrast, these two are a good match, because one says righteousness is only in the Lord, and the other says righteousness is not of ourselves (implying righteousness is only in the Lord).

Isaiah 45:24-25
They will say of Me, 'Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves

The divine revelation about Christ will relate to the epistles of Paul, as I have shown.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

.
.
The divine revelation about Christ will relate to the epistles of Paul, as I have shown.

Your effort trying to refer to the bible to find the truth is appreciated. But I am afraid until the present day the same veil remains at your reading of the old covenant.

Please answer one simple question first:

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

From the plain text, who declared this message?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Your effort trying to refer to the bible to find the truth is appreciated. But I am afraid until the present day the same veil remains at your reading of the old covenant.

Please answer one simple question first:

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

From the plain text, who declared this message?

Well I hope you can appreciate now the verse's relevance to the law and its insufficiency in relation to the gospel which Paul preached about GOD's righteousness.

Let's go back to your earlier interpretation of "He has declared to you":

Micah clearly stated "He has declared to you". Unless Micah was a liar, that message was from God.

The meaning of "He has declared to you" is "God has told you enough already, in the Law of Moses ". It is not a direct word from God, but the prophet pointing them to the Law. Just as Jesus pointed the Pharisees to the law. God did not give him revelation at this point about the coming Messiah and the future righteousness in Christ. He was pointing them to what he already knew - the law of Moses, no new revelation required really.

Alternatively at this point he might have communicated God's revelation about the future Messiah and coming righteousness from God (as the verses I gave previously state). But it seems that God did not give him this revelation for this part.

We can see that Micah does not use the words "The Lord saith" or "thus saith the Lord" which Prophets normally do if they are prophesying God's direct speaking. See how Jeremiah does it:

Jer 9:13 "And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein;"

Clearly vs 13 is God speaking directly through the prophet.

Jeremiah 9:12 on the other hand is not in quotation marks, indicating it is the prophets own narrative:

Who is wise enough to understand this? Who has been instructed by the LORD and can explain it? Why has the land been ruined and laid waste like a desert that no one can cross?

Prophecies are typically a combination of the prophet's own narrative (inspired as they are, but possibly containing human concepts - prophets are fallible humans too) and God's direct speaking.

So I take your possible misinterpretation of Micah 6:8 as a possible failure to rightly divide the Word and discern the difference between the prophet's own words and God's direct speaking in the prophecy. Perhaps even a failure to recognize that there is a difference? You suggested that the footnote makes Micah a liar. But if God was communicating divine revelation in this verse does that not make "God a liar"(it would contradict all the other verses I quoted previously) ?

PS. A clearer example of the difference between a prophet's human speaking and God's speaking is in the scientific matters. Take this verse for example:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in

Isaiah's cosmology matches that of a semi-spherical dome (the words circle and tent in Hebrew describe as such). This matches the cosmology of the Egyptians which they would known at the time. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology
for biblical cosmology, it explains it all). Moses was educated by the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization at the time, so he had an ancient Egyptian scientific worldview, the best he could get. Isaiah was probably schooled in the Egyptian sciences as well, I assume. Given that the verse does not say "thus saith the Lord", I can tell that this is Isaiah explaining God in terms of his ancient scientific worldview. The spiritual truth he is conveying is divinely inspired and true but his human view about what the earth looks like is incorrect.

The book of Job is more of a puzzle given that it contains God speaking to Job using ancient cosmology terms (e.g. that snow or hail comes from vaults above a hard sky-dome firmament - Job 38:22 (God said) - "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail,"). This could be because God is explaining things in a way that Job and friends can understand (to explain where snow comes from would be too hard for them to grasp), or Job is not a prophecy as such but a play where the part of God is scripted in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I don't know you brother, but what happened to WL was obvious. He so enjoyed his own spiritual "high" and moved on to create one of the most arrogant ministries, a ministry that could not stop disparaging other members of the body of Christ. He was so blinded by his own "vision" that he missed even the most obvious things when interpreting the Bible. The Bible became just a tool to prove he was right. A couple of examples I recently noticed...

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

RecV footnote: (But) The prophets are great in their speaking concerning Christ but not in their speaking concerning other things. Micah's word here concerning what Jehovah requires of His people is not a matter of God's revelation but a matter of the prophet's concept...

Micah clearly stated "He has declared to you". Unless Micah was a liar, that message was from God.

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb, You introduced the footnote, not me. You chopped it up and are misrepresenting it, not me. I’m simply accommodating your preference to focus on the footnote. This footnote was chosen by you as the centerpiece of your argument. Now you want to run from it?

Drake, you have no idea how badly you look by defending this pitiful footnote in Micah 6.8. Instead of readily admitting that Lee overstepped his literary "rights," or blame it on some poor misguided editor like Ed Marks, you reinforce your concrete hardened battery to return fire on the "little brother" who pointed it out. Now if he was a "big brother," LSM would send a registered letter, quarantine him or file a lawsuit.

There has been no "chopping up" the footnote as you allege. Neither your standard line of "taking it out of context." It was just Lee being Lee. He regularly elevated his own ministry above scripture, and his acolytes swallowed it. Remember we are not ignorant outsiders. I was there a few decades, and alb has his own story. Witness Lee disparaged many a Psalm and a Proverb, and the whole book of James -- and how his ministry needed that book big time!

Here he takes on Micah. Why? Cause he could! It fit right into his "vision." Not the spiritual vision you talked about, but the "vision" the Blendeds still live by -- full of arrogant pride, condemning all Christianity, and disparaging inconvenient scriptures.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...
For example, these two verses are not a good match, since 6:8 is about being a good boy by our righteousness to please God, and Eph 2:8 is about pleasing God by accepting His righteousness, despite being a naughty boy.

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves
...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...
You suggested that the footnote makes Micah a liar. But if God was communicating divine revelation in this verse does that not make "God a liar"(it would contradict all the other verses I quoted previously) ?
...

Slow down, slow down brother please. It's difficult to discuss throwing out so many points at a time. Let me take on this more important one first:

If I understand it correctly, you said Micah 6:8 and Eph 2:8 are not good match. Then you used this "contradiction" and the fact that "God is not a liar" to prove one of the verse is not from God's revelation.

Actually what is the contradiction that you see? Did Micah say it is the condition for salvation? May be you have confused yourself between pleasing God and salvation.

If you want to pick out contradictions from the Bible, there are many more that seem to be "contradictions". Instead of jumping to conclusion one is from God and the other isn't, we should humble ourselves before God so He can let us see how to find the harmony among the "contradictions". After all, God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our thoughts.

[Drake]

-1

Alb,

Evangelical has provided you a very detailed and scholarly explanation including the grammatical construction of v8. Consider his response thoughtfully and you will be helped. I would add this much...

You can create any narrative you want by taking a snippet as you have done with the slicing and dicing of the footnote in Micah 6:8, but when you consider the entire footnote Brother Lee’s meaning becomes clear. Furthermore, if you read the four short chapters of the Lifestudy of Micah, particularly Message 3, the entire context of this footnote becomes even more clear. Even the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy, must give way to Christ. Brother Lee speaks very highly of the prophets in their speaking concerning Christ but sometimes they fell into talking about small things like weights and measures as Micah does in 6:10-11. This is all part of the context of Micah 6 and the point of the footnote. You have already conceded that not every word spoken by the prophets reflect the divine thought and attitude which is Brother Lee’s point too. If your error is simply misinterpretation of the construct of v8 then it is understandable and the explanation provided by Evangelical should clear that up. However, since you have yet to acknowledge the point of the footnote that Christ has replaced the law and God’s people should follow Christ and not the law then your understanding of this truth of the Christian faith remains dubious. I don’t really know what you think about that. That is why I asked you to establish that so we could find agreement or not because frankly, if you don’t understand that great truth of the Christian faith then contention over your snippets don’t matter at all.

Regards,
Drake

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,


As to LSM specifically, in my view is it has always been an extension to the work of ministry. It is a reasonable expectation that the role of LSM be defined, yet it will not surprise you that I view their contribution as beneficial to the local churches and not the heavy handed control organization of the local churches you described. And just to calm any angst about what I mean, I condemn and have condemned the actions of Philip Lee and have stated that someone should have called the cops but he does not define what LSM is or their total contribution to the work of ministry. Still, even if a LSM were to publish Harry Potter books it does not affect the vision that guides me because I did not receive it from LSM.

Thanks again for your post. It’s sincerity and lack of malice allowed me to give thoughtful consideration before the Lord. Please accept my response in the considerate spirit in which it is intended.

Drake

Drake, when I consider Paul, and then look at WL/LSM, I see no connection to or extension of the ministry. Paul, for instance went out of his way to preach the gospel without charge. Can you imagine what kind of empire Paul could have created if he had copyrighted his material? WL took what Paul freely gave and made a business out of it. He took the concept of the local church and made subsidiaries out of them to further his business. The saints became salesmen for his product. If that is the vision you have ( which I don't think it's what you are talking about) it's off the mark of the ministry. WL, to me, is basically saying "the scriptures are not clear, Paul came up short in his message and was very misunderstood, I'm correcting this shortcoming, I'm supplying the missing information, I've created this new product, and my business is going to mass- market this, under the LSM brand name". Thank God this is not what Paul did! My "vision of God, Christ, and the church" does not include the LSM model. I don't think I would compare the Corinthian church to the LC issues in that the problems in Cor. was with individual members, not with " the ministry".

I write this as well in a spirit of explanation, not attacking your vision, but explaining mine for comparison. If those meeting as the LC in my city were to drop the LSM affiliation, I would love to return and see the normal Christian church continue. What I saw happen leading up to the late 80's was not the normal Christian church.

[Drake]

-1

Boxjobox,

My experience was different but appreciate the explanation and the sincerity in your delivery.

Drake

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Boxjobox,

My experience was different but appreciate the explanation and the sincerity in your delivery.

Drake

So in your view, what should govern the direction of a local church? If some of the saints do not want LSM, should that be thrust on them? If you have a particular vision, and I have a different vision, yet we are both believers in Christ, and we are called to meet as the church, what is the guideline?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Alb,

Evangelical has provided you a very detailed and scholarly explanation including the grammatical construction of v8. Consider his response thoughtfully and you will be helped. I would add this much...

You can create any narrative you want by taking a snippet as you have done with the slicing and dicing of the footnote in Micah 6:8, but when you consider the entire footnote Brother Lee’s meaning becomes clear. Furthermore, if you read the four short chapters of the Lifestudy of Micah, particularly Message 3, the entire context of this footnote becomes even more clear. Even the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy, must give way to Christ. Brother Lee speaks very highly of the prophets in their speaking concerning Christ but sometimes they fell into talking about small things like weights and measures as Micah does in 6:10-11. This is all part of the context of Micah 6 and the point of the footnote. You have already conceded that not every word spoken by the prophets reflect the divine thought and attitude which is Brother Lee’s point too. If your error is simply misinterpretation of the construct of v8 then it is understandable and the explanation provided by Evangelical should clear that up. However, since you have yet to acknowledge the point of the footnote that Christ has replaced the law and God’s people should follow Christ and not the law then your understanding of this truth of the Christian faith remains dubious. I don’t really know what you think about that. That is why I asked you to establish that so we could find agreement or not because frankly, if you don’t understand that great truth of the Christian faith then contention over your snippets don’t matter at all.

Regards,
Drake

Be patient, Drake, be patient. My discussion with Evangelical is still in progress. I am still waiting for his reply. May be it will eventually lead to the topic you want to know too, who knows.

Meanwhile, I am also waiting for your reply in the "The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age" thread. I want to know what you think too.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So in your view, what should govern the direction of a local church? If some of the saints do not want LSM, should that be thrust on them? If you have a particular vision, and I have a different vision, yet we are both believers in Christ, and we are called to meet as the church, what is the guideline?

I witnessed what were those "guidelines" were ten years ago in many GLA LC's. Those who wanted LSM could call their favorite book "supplier" who would send operatives from their legal team named DCP to assist local saints in filing lawsuits to takeover the meeting hall and the checking account. The unsuspecting victims faced huge financial debts and Biblical instructions against such lawsuits, and the unbelievable strain of suing those they once broke bread with weekly. In both Columbus and Mansfield, the "defendents" decided to cave in and walk away, rather than listen to the "plaintiffs" calling "O Looooord Geeeezus" in the hallways of The County Courthouse. (Read John Myer's opening account in "A Future and A Hope.")

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

If I understand it correctly, you said Micah 6:8 and Eph 2:8 are not good match. Then you used this "contradiction" and the fact that "God is not a liar" to prove one of the verse is not from God's revelation.

Actually what is the contradiction that you see? Did Micah say it is the condition for salvation? May be you have confused yourself between pleasing God and salvation.

The contradiction is between the shadow (the law) and the reality (Christ). Micah 6:8 belongs to the period when the law was to point towards Christ. The written & moral law for Jews and the moral law for Gentiles. Both types of law are meant to show us our inability to keep it, and move us towards Christ.

Pleasing God is salvation. Being only a moral person does not please Him:

Heb 11: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God

You see Micah 6:8 mentions nothing about faith in order to please God.

Micah 6:8 says God requires us to be humble and act rightly.

But Jesus told us what God requires of us here in John 6:29

Jesus told them, "This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.

Originally Posted by A little brother

If you want to pick out contradictions from the Bible, there are many more that seem to be "contradictions". Instead of jumping to conclusion one is from God and the other isn't, we should humble ourselves before God so He can let us see how to find the harmony among the "contradictions". After all, God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts than our thoughts.

I have found the harmony by discerning the difference between law-keeping and grace. Sometimes dividing something confusing or contradictory into parts is a way to find resolution. The hypostatic union and the Trinity are examples of this.

Without dividing this rightly, a Christian may be confused about how they can please God. They may try to please God by keeping the commandments instead of by faith. Some Christians think they must please God by keeping the 10 commandments (9 commandments, they usually ignore the Sabbath) in addition to believing in Christ. Some go further and keep the Jewish commandments as well (about eating pork, circumcision etc).

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The contradiction is between the shadow (the law) and the reality (Christ). Micah 6:8 belongs to the period when the law was to point towards Christ. The written & moral law for Jews and the moral law for Gentiles. Both types of law are meant to show us our inability to keep it, and move us towards Christ.

Pleasing God is salvation. Being only a moral person does not please Him:

Heb 11: 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God

You see Micah 6:8 mentions nothing about faith in order to please God.

Micah 6:8 says God requires us to be humble and act rightly.

But Jesus told us what God requires of us here in John 6:29

Jesus told them, "This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.

Are you saying Micah only wrote about the shadow so it is not God's revelation? But you said the law was to point towards Christ. How about the ten commandments? They are shadows and not God's revelation?

You said being only a moral person cannot please God as if it is achievable by humans alone. Yet you said we are unable to keep moral laws.

Don't you see the contradiction inside your thoughts?

Micah actually did point us to Christ as the Way to fulfill these "moral laws" so to speak. Perhaps only the veiled Isralites missed the point.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Are you saying Micah only wrote about the shadow so it is not God's revelation? But you said the law was to point towards Christ. How about the ten commandments? They are shadows and not God's revelation?

I understand Lee's use of the term "divine revelation" to refer to that concerning Christ, our salvation, and the church, and the future. Of course, the Law given to Moses was a divine revelation to him at the time. But compared to the New Testament it pales in comparison. The shadows were not God's will or plan for eternity - they served a temporary purpose.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You said being only a moral person cannot please God as if it is something that can be achieved by humans alone. Yet you said we are unable to keep moral laws.

Don't you see the contradiction inside your thoughts?

I meant "being a moral person without faith does not please God". It doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

However, I'm open to God being lenient towards people who have not had the opportunity to hear about Christ who follow their conscience - they might be given an opportunity to believe in Christ at the resurrection.

Unable to keep moral laws refers to our inability to do it perfectly (we always need a Savior). Because humans are created as good-natured (despite the fall), it is possible for people to have a level of morality which is very good, yet insufficient for eternal salvation.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Micah actually did point us to Christ as the Way to fulfill these "moral laws". Perhaps only the veiled Isralites missed the point.

Micah reveals Christ yes, even Lee wrote that. But I thought we are talking about this particular footnote. Let us not forget that everyone under the old testament period was veiled, even Moses and the greatest prophets. Jesus said whoever is least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (and the old testament prophets).

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I understand Lee's use of the term "divine revelation" to refer to that concerning Christ, our salvation, and the church, and the future. Of course, the Law given to Moses was a divine revelation to him at the time. But compared to the New Testament it pales in comparison. The shadows were not God's will or plan for eternity - they served a temporary purpose.

Be very careful on what you say. You are starting to rank God's revelations.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I meant "being a moral person without faith does not please God". It doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

Can someone be a moral person without faith? Are you referring to man's moral law or God's moral law? I begin to doubt whether you believe what you believe. You seems to be saying please God enough and He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

However, I'm open to God being lenient towards people who have not had the opportunity to hear about Christ who follow their conscience - they might be given an opportunity to believe in Christ at the resurrection.

Unable to keep moral laws refers to our inability to do it perfectly (we always need a Savior). Because humans are created as good-natured (despite the fall), it is possible for people to have a level of morality which is very good, yet insufficient for eternal salvation.

You are still using human standards. God is perfect, so we have to be perfect. When we cannot do it perfectly, we are not a moral person. That's why Paul quoted the scripture saying there is not a single righteous person.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Micah reveals Christ yes, even Lee wrote that. But I thought we are talking about this particular footnote. Let us not forget that everyone under the old testament period was veiled, even Moses and the greatest prophets. Jesus said whoever is least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (and the old testament prophets).

We are talking about Lee said Micah only spoke his own concept. I am glad you agreed Micah reveals Christ. I suppose you would also agree prophets who reveals Christ are led by the Holy Spririt.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Be very careful on what you say. You are starting to rank God's revelations.

You think the shadows are more important than Christ then?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Can someone be a moral person without faith? Are you referring to man's moral law or God's moral law? I begin to doubt whether you believe what you believe. You seems to be saying please God enough and He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

Of course a person can be moral without faith. There are many good atheists, some who put even Christians to shame in their morals.

When did I ever say that pleasing God enough will do that.
Did I not say that without faith it's impossible to please God?

Originally Posted by A little brother

You are still using human standards. God is perfect, so we have to be perfect. When we cannot do it perfectly, we are not a moral person. That's why Paul quoted the scripture saying there is not a single righteous person.

Disagree. The bible speaks of good men and evil men (Matt 12:35). A good man would be a moral person.
God's creation is inherently good, even though it was corrupted through the fall.
When Paul writes that there is not a single righteous person, this is in context of pointing us towards our need for a Savior. This does not deny the fact that there are good people and bad people in the world. Sometimes good people are called righteous people, meaning people who do or say what is right. This would be righteousness in character, not righteousness for salvation.

Originally Posted by A little brother

We are talking about Lee said Micah only spoke his own concept. I am glad you agreed Micah reveals Christ. I suppose you would also agree no one can reveal Christ unless it is led by the Holy Spririt.

The question is, does Micah always reveal Christ in everything he says in absolutely every way? I think only Christ himself can perfectly reveal Christ.
Don't forget that fallen Creation reveals Christ too (Romans 1:20). I'm open to the idea that a person does not have to be led by the Spirit to reveal Christ. I have heard of unbelievers preaching the gospel and this resulting in salvations.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You think the shadows are more important than Christ then?

I would be more cautious putting things into the "shadows" category and lower their importance.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Of course a person can be moral without faith. There are many good atheists, some who put even Christians to shame in their morals.

I take it as you were only referring to human moral law and not God's moral law in the Old Testament. Aren't we supposed to be God-centered people trying to understand things from His perspective instead?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When did I ever say that pleasing God enough will do that. Did I not say that without faith it's impossible to please God?

You said "it doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit." Sounds like something else would please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation. May be that's not what you meant. I'll take this back.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree. The bible speaks of good men and evil men (Matt 12:35). A good man would be a moral person.
God's creation is inherently good, even though it was corrupted through the fall.
When Paul writes that there is not a single righteous person, this is in context of pointing us towards our need for a Savior. This does not deny the fact that there are good people and bad people in the world. Sometimes good people are called righteous people, meaning people who do or say what is right. This would be righteousness in character, not righteousness for salvation.

Seems you are referring to human moral standards again here.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The question is, does Micah always reveal Christ in everything he says in absolutely every way? I think only Christ himself can perfectly reveal Christ.
Don't forget that fallen Creation reveals Christ too (Romans 1:20). I'm open to the idea that a person does not have to be led by the Spirit to reveal Christ. I have heard of unbelievers preaching the gospel and this resulting in salvations.

You have wandered off again. We were specifically talking about Micah 6:8 all the time. What does it have to do with always revealing Christ in everything Micah says in absolutely every way?

You are right about who/what can reveal Christ. Even demons revealed the identity of Son of God. But I am quite confident that Micah is not in that category.

Prophets like Micah simply do not (dare not?) use Jehovah's name lightly to support their own human concept.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I would be more cautious putting things into the "shadows" category and lower their importance.

The Bible does that for us:

Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming

Originally Posted by A little brother

I take it as you were only referring to human moral law and not God's moral law in the Old Testament. Aren't we supposed to be God-centered people trying to understand things from His perspective instead?

This is nonsense. The natural law God placed in men's hearts is the same law expressed in the 10 commandments.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You said "it doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit." Sounds like something else would please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation. May be that's not what you meant. I'll take this back.

The it is ambiguous. It is not a good idea to start a sentence with it. I meant being a moral person doesn't please God enough that He would grant eternal salvation and the gift of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Seems you are referring to human moral standards again here.

Whatever that means I don't know. To me there is only one human moral standard as expressed in the 10 commandments.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You have wandered off again. We were specifically talking about Micah 6:8 all the time. What does it have to do with always revealing Christ in everything Micah says in absolutely every way?

Just clarifying that although Micah reveals Christ it does not mean Micah must always reveal Christ.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You are right about who/what can reveal Christ. Even demons revealed the identity of Son of God. But I am quite confident that Micah is not in that category.

I don't think I ever said Micah was in that category, neither does the footnote.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Prophets like Micah simply do not (dare not?) use Jehovah's name lightly to support their own human concept.

In what way was Micah using God's name in Micah 6:8? As I showed previously, it does not say "The Lord saith".

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So in your view, what should govern the direction of a local church? If some of the saints do not want LSM, should that be thrust on them? If you have a particular vision, and I have a different vision, yet we are both believers in Christ, and we are called to meet as the church, what is the guideline?

Ok, so we live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

Given that, if you have a vision of Christ and the church and I have a vision of howling at the moon, we are still members of the same local church and would not have a basis for meeting separately. Though you would rightfully require of me to justify my belief from the scripture and respect order in the meetings we are still members of the church in our locality.

In like manner, if you never want to read anything published by LSM, go to a conference or a training sponsored by LSM, read or quote from anything published by LSM, take part in the work of ministry by LSM such as Bible distribution, or evangelical outreach in word, deed, or financial contribution then you are nevertheless a fellow believer in the local church where we both live and are under no obligation to do any of those things. Likewise, you should not prevent me from using LSM materials in my daily study or church life, go to conferences, trainings, contribute to the work of ministry etc.

That would be the guideline in my view.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Be patient, Drake, be patient. My discussion with Evangelical is still in progress. I am still waiting for his reply. May be it will eventually lead to the topic you want to know too, who knows.

Meanwhile, I am also waiting for your reply in the "The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age" thread. I want to know what you think too.

Alb,

I think I need to clarify something. You are under no obligation to answer my inquiries. I am not really insisting that you do. It’s up to you. I believe my questions to be relevant to our discussion. However, if you choose to avoid them that is entirely up to you. I will draw inferences and conclusions based on what you tell me and what you don’t. Patience is not relevant on my side. I can let our conversation stand as is and am willing to let the reader decide. I’m not going anywhere just yet so , please take your time. No rush.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible does that for us:
Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming

This is nonsense. The natural law God placed in men's hearts is the same law expressed in the 10 commandments.

If the "natural law" is already in men's heart, can men fulfill them?

Why did God have to issue the 10 commandments again?

Why did Jesus and Paul still talk about mercy, humility, ...?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In what way was Micah using God's name in Micah 6:8? As I showed previously, it does not say "The Lord saith".

Isn't declared a stronger word than said? Why must a prophet use said when representing God's word? Is this a standard format every prophet needs to follow? Where was this stated in the scripture?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

I think I need to clarify something. You are under no obligation to answer my inquiries. I am not really insisting that you do. It’s up to you. I believe my questions to be relevant to our discussion. However, if you choose to avoid them that is entirely up to you. I will draw inferences and conclusions based on what you tell me and what you don’t. Patience is not relevant on my side. I can let our conversation stand as is and am willing to let the reader decide. I’m not going anywhere just yet so , please take your time. No rush.

Drake

Thank you for your patience. As I said, may be we will eventually come to this topic along my discussion with Evangelical. I can't handle too many different things at a time.

Meanwhile, I will wait for your reply too on the other thread I mentioned earlier. I have been waiting the answer of one of the questions for more than 6 months and don't mind waiting a bit longer. The answer may be more important to you than to me. However, if you choose to avoid it that is entirely up to you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

If the "natural law" is already in men's heart, can men fulfill them?

Why did God have to issue the 10 commandments again?

Why did Jesus and Paul still talk about mercy, humility, ...?

No, men cannot fulfill the law, either moral or written.

It's a good question. Why did God need to give written commandments to the Israelites?

Because God issued a new covenant - the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was not sufficient for the kind of relationship God wanted to have with the Israelites following Egypt. The Israelites were his special people called from among all the nations. So they received the law of Moses as part of this special covenant between God and the Israelites, which had to cover all of the various matters that a specially chosen people of God would have to abide by. It was a total of 636 laws of which the 10 commandments are only an incomplete summary (the 10 do not include the 2 greatest commandments, for example).

The gentiles on the other hand had the moral law in their hearts but did not need to follow circumcision, eating pork, feast days etc. Adam, Abel, Noah and others lived this way.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Isn't declared a stronger word than said? Why must a prophet use said when representing God's word? Is this a standard format every prophet needs to follow? Where was this stated in the scripture?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

When God sent a message to His people, He wanted them to be clear about who the message was from. God did not want the people to think that the message came from the prophet's own hearts. It was God's will for His prophets to say "this is what the Lord says". God specifically instructed them to say "this is what the Lord says:"

Exo 8:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD says:

Similarly in 1 Kings 21:19 -
"Say to him, 'This is what the LORD says:

Ezek 20:3 "Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

So these words came from God, not the prophets themselves.

This is the reoccurring pattern. Usually a prophet would state when they are speaking God's word and when they are not:

Zech 1:16 "Therefore this is what the LORD says:
Jer 34:2 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
Ezek 12:28 ""Therefore say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
Isaiah 66:1 "This is what the LORD says:
2 Kings 7:1 "This is what the LORD says:
Zech 8:3 "This is what the LORD says:"..

Even the false prophets were using this pattern:

Jer 23:31 "Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’"

Using this knowledge we can know which parts of the bible are God speaking direct message to the prophet, and when the prophets are paraphrasing or narrating. The paraphrasing or narrating is likely to contain their own human wisdom and opinions, educational learning, language and style etc.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No, men cannot fulfill the law, either moral or written.

I am still confused about what you believe. You now say men cannot fulfill the moral law but you also said men can be moral person. I don't see how these two goes together by the standard of God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a good question. Why did God need to give written commandments to the Israelites?

Because God issued a new covenant - the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was not sufficient for the kind of relationship God wanted to have with the Israelites following Egypt. The Israelites were his special people called from among all the nations. So they received the law of Moses as part of this special covenant between God and the Israelites, which had to cover all of the various matters that a specially chosen people of God would have to abide by. It was a total of 636 laws of which the 10 commandments are only an incomplete summary (the 10 do not include the 2 greatest commandments, for example).

The gentiles on the other hand had the moral law in their hearts but did not need to follow circumcision, eating pork, feast days etc. Adam, Abel, Noah and others lived this way.

Some minor typos - I think the total number of laws should be 613. I believe it was after the flood that men began to eat meat. So Adam and Abel didn't eat pork. For the rest, I can live with it at the moment though it doesn't quite explain why God has to include the moral laws again if they are already in men's heart.

But you haven't answered why Jesus and Paul still need to talk about mercy and humility.

For your reference:

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth of the mint and the anise and the cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law -- justice and mercy and faithfulness. But these you should have done and not neglected the others.

Does it sound familiar? Does this contradict with Micah?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When God sent a message to His people, He wanted them to be clear about who the message was from. God did not want the people to think that the message came from the prophet's own hearts. It was God's will for His prophets to say "this is what the Lord says". God specifically instructed them to say "this is what the Lord says:"
......

So we can ignore 99% (don't challenge me on the accuracy. Just a figure of speech) of Lee's messages? I seldom read "that is what the Lord says" from his messages.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”...presuming to have a higher vision or revelation than the Bible.”

There is no revelation or vision higher than that we find in the Bible.

Drake

Do you agree with Witness Lee's interpretation of the Psalms that the different psalms were at three different levels of revelation, one of which was merely man's concept.

My issue with Witness Lee was not with the vision of the NT he embraced, it was with the parts of the Bible he disparaged.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To show you the difference I have found examples of old testament passages which DO contain divine revelation (about the future righteousness of God):

Isaiah 54:17, Isaiah 46:13, Isaiah 51:5, Isaiah 56:1, Isaiah 45:24-25, Isaiah 61:10, Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 89:16, , Daniel 9:24, Jeremiah 23:6.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When God sent a message to His people, He wanted them to be clear about who the message was from. God did not want the people to think that the message came from the prophet's own hearts. It was God's will for His prophets to say "this is what the Lord says". God specifically instructed them to say "this is what the Lord says:"

Well, I actually spent time to look up the verses that DO contain divine revelation as you mentioned. So what did I find? Sorry, not all of them have "this is what the Lord says". And some actually use "declares". So what do you say?

Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against you will prosper, And every tongue that rises up to judge you, you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness which is of Me, declares Jehovah.

Psa 89:16 In Your name they exult all day long, And in Your righteousness they are exalted.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are apportioned for your people and for your holy city, to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make propitiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

Jer 23:5-6 Indeed, days are coming, Declares Jehovah, When I will raise up to David a righteous Shoot; And He will reign as King and act prudently And will execute justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, Jehovah our righteousness.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Well, I actually spent time to look up the verses that DO contain divine revelation as you mentioned. So what did I find? Sorry, not all of them have "this is what the Lord says". And some actually use "declares". So what do you say?

Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against you will prosper, And every tongue that rises up to judge you, you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness which is of Me, declares Jehovah.

Psa 89:16 In Your name they exult all day long, And in Your righteousness they are exalted.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are apportioned for your people and for your holy city, to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make propitiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.

Jer 23:5-6 Indeed, days are coming, Declares Jehovah, When I will raise up to David a righteous Shoot; And He will reign as King and act prudently And will execute justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, Jehovah our righteousness.

I don't think I was ruling out all the other ways we can know it is God speaking. Take Jeremiah 23 for example. The words "declares the Lord" are found in numerous places. Where does it say that in micah 6.8?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am still confused about what you believe. You now say men cannot fulfill the moral law but you also said men can be moral person. I don't see how these two goes together by the standard of God.

Men cannot fulfil the moral law perfectly but they can be moral in the sense that they mostly are good people and do what is right.

Also the bible says there is no one who is good yet it speaks of good and evil people. Some people think God only sees believers as only good and unbelievers as only evil and this is simply not true. God weighs the good and evil of each person.

Ecc 7.20 resolves the apparent contradiction.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Some minor typos - I think the total number of laws should be 613. I believe it was after the flood that men began to eat meat. So Adam and Abel didn't eat pork. For the rest, I can live with it at the moment though it doesn't quite explain why God has to include the moral laws again if they are already in men's heart.

But you haven't answered why Jesus and Paul still need to talk about mercy and humility.

For your reference:

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth of the mint and the anise and the cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law -- justice and mercy and faithfulness. But these you should have done and not neglected the others.

Does it sound familiar? Does this contradict with Micah?

It fits well with Micah. What verse of Paul do you have in mind. Is Paul saying God requires justice and mercy for salvation?

Originally Posted by A little brother

So we can ignore 99% (don't challenge me on the accuracy. Just a figure of speech) of Lee's messages? I seldom read "that is what the Lord says" from his messages.

Messages are not old testament prophecies are they.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am still confused about what you believe. You now say men cannot fulfill the moral law but you also said men can be moral person. I don't see how these two goes together by the standard of God.

Men cannot fulfil the moral law perfectly but they can be moral in the sense that they mostly are good people and do what is right.

Also the bible says there is no one who is good yet it speaks of good and evil people. Some people think God only sees believers as only good and unbelievers as only evil and this is simply not true. God weighs the good and evil of each person.

Ecc 7.20 resolves the apparent contradiction.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Some minor typos - I think the total number of laws should be 613. I believe it was after the flood that men began to eat meat. So Adam and Abel didn't eat pork. For the rest, I can live with it at the moment though it doesn't quite explain why God has to include the moral laws again if they are already in men's heart.

But you haven't answered why Jesus and Paul still need to talk about mercy and humility.

For your reference:

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth of the mint and the anise and the cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law -- justice and mercy and faithfulness. But these you should have done and not neglected the others.

Does it sound familiar? Does this contradict with Micah?

It fits well with Micah. What verse of Paul do you have in mind. Is Paul saying God requires justice and mercy for salvation?

Originally Posted by A little brother

So we can ignore 99% (don't challenge me on the accuracy. Just a figure of speech) of Lee's messages? I seldom read "that is what the Lord says" from his messages.

Messages are not old testament prophecies are they. Also God forbade people from saying the lord saith because of its misuse. Its in Jeremiah.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think I was ruling out all the other ways we can know it is God speaking. Take Jeremiah 23 for example. The words "declares the Lord" are found in numerous places. Where does it say that in micah 6.8?

In the RecV. What else? Unless you are saying "He has declared" is not "declares the Lord". Or may be the RecV is a bad translation?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Men cannot fulfil the moral law perfectly but they can be moral in the sense that they mostly are good people and do what is right.

Also the bible says there is no one who is good yet it speaks of good and evil people. Some people think God only sees believers as only good and unbelievers as only evil and this is simply not true. God weighs the good and evil of each person.

Ecc 7.20 resolves the apparent contradiction.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what is God's standard:

Matthew 5:48 You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It fits well with Micah. What verse of Paul do you have in mind. Is Paul saying God requires justice and mercy for salvation?

Since when Paul became a greater prophet than Jesus? Because he was the MOTA?

I have to remind you again. We are discussing whether Micah 6:8 was God's word or human concept. You have agreed what Jesus said in Mat 23:23 fits well with Micah 6:8. So probably you should also agree Micah was speaking God's words instead of his own concept.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Messages are not old testament prophecies are they. Also God forbade people from saying the lord saith because of its misuse. Its in Jeremiah.

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

Did you notice who were God addressing to when He forbade them from saying the lord saith in Jeremiah? You are equating WL to that group of people? Good point.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

In the RecV. What else? Unless you are saying "He has declared" is not "declares the Lord". Or may be the RecV is a bad translation?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

It's truly amazing what they will go thru to defend Lee.

It's no different than when I grew up in the Catholic Church. They have a teaching that the Pope is infallible regarding faith and doctrine. Wikipedia says this: Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

LSMers can hem and haw till hell freezes over, but that's exactly what they believe too. Just change Peter, the first Pope, to Paul, the first MOTA. Remember the popular saying about Lee during the New Way, "Even when he's wrong ... he's right"? By Definition!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

In the RecV. What else? Unless you are saying "He has declared" is not "declares the Lord". Or may be the RecV is a bad translation?

Micah 6:8 He has declared to you, O man, what is good; And what does Jehovah require of you, But that you would execute justice and love mercy And walk humbly with your God?

Let's compare the difference.

Jer 23.1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord.

As you can see, this is a direct quote of the Lord. Micah 6.8 isnt, is it.

Consult the bible commentaries about this. The grammar of the verse is Micah's words, not Gods. Maybe you could provide some scholarly backing to your view that Micah 6.8 is Gods words and not the prophet's.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what is God's standard:

Matthew 5:48 You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I agree that Micah 6.8 does not reveal Gods standard which is Christ. Thats essentially what the footnote says. Since it does not reveal Gods standard of perfection how can you say it is divine revelation?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Since when Paul became a greater prophet than Jesus? Because he was the MOTA?

I have to remind you again. We are discussing whether Micah 6:8 was God's word or human concept. You have agreed what Jesus said in Mat 23:23 fits well with Micah 6:8. So probably you should also agree Micah was speaking God's words instead of his own concept.

Why are you asking me about Paul. You asked why Paul talked about mercy yet I wondered what verse you had in mind, you have not said.

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

Did you notice who were God addressing to when He forbade them from saying the lord saith in Jeremiah? You are equating WL to that group of people? Good point.

Man, you are embarrassing yourself showing everyone you dont know the difference between old testament and new testament prophecy. You can redeem yourself however by acknowledging that prophesying in the meetings is not the same as old testament prophecy. It would be very awkward with everyone being naked.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's compare the difference.

Jer 23.1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord.

As you can see, this is a direct quote of the Lord. Micah 6.8 isnt, is it.

Consult the bible commentaries about this. The grammar of the verse is Micah's words, not Gods. Maybe you could provide some scholarly backing to your view that Micah 6.8 is Gods words and not the prophet's.

Why isn't Micah 6:8 a direct quote? It is just the difference between present and present perfect tense.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree that Micah 6.8 does not reveal Gods standard which is Christ. Thats essentially what the footnote says. Since it does not reveal Gods standard of perfection how can you say it is divine revelation?

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why are you asking me about Paul. You asked why Paul talked about mercy yet I wondered what verse you had in mind, you have not said.

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

Let's see what Paul said about mercy:

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

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Man, you are embarrassing yourself showing everyone you dont know the difference between old testament and new testament prophecy. You can redeem yourself however by acknowledging that prophesying in the meetings is not the same as old testament prophecy. It would be very awkward with everyone being naked.

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

Let's see what Paul said about mercy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drake]

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

Alb,

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

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you agree with Witness Lee's interpretation of the Psalms that the different psalms were at three different levels of revelation, one of which was merely man's concept.

My issue with Witness Lee was not with the vision of the NT he embraced, it was with the parts of the Bible he disparaged.

Hi ZNP,

If you provide the complete reference in context and explain why you disagree with it I’ll be happy to provide my point of view.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Alb,

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

Thanks
Drake

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

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

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

[Drake]

-1

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

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Haha, what else can I say?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi ZNP,

If you provide the complete reference in context and explain why you disagree with it I’ll be happy to provide my point of view.

Drake

There are two threads that deal with this directly (see Post #1 on each thread) and they are both open for discussion. Therefore I would direct you to those threads since they provide references, context and explain why different ones, myself included disagree with Witness Lee's interpretation.

The Psalms are the word of Christ

The book of James and the LRC

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

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

Drake

Praying for you Drake.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are two threads that deal with this directly (see Post #1 on each thread) and they are both open for discussion. Therefore I would direct you to those threads since they provide references, context and explain why different ones, myself included disagree with Witness Lee's interpretation.

The Psalms are the word of Christ

The book of James and the LRC

Ok. Hyperlink me to the post in the thread that references the three different levels of revelation. I searched for that thread but could not find it.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

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

Drake

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Hyperlink me to the post in the thread that references the three different levels of revelation. I searched for that thread but could not find it.

Drake

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...?t=3246&page=2

Post #1 does a nice job of presenting the basic WL teaching. There are many other posts that go into detail. Anyone who was present in the Psalms training was well aware that according to WL some Psalms have the highest revelation, some are merely the natural concept of the writer, and some fall in between.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok, so we live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

Given that, if you have a vision of Christ and the church and I have a vision of howling at the moon, we are still members of the same local church and would not have a basis for meeting separately. Though you would rightfully require of me to justify my belief from the scripture and respect order in the meetings we are still members of the church in our locality.

In like manner, if you never want to read anything published by LSM, go to a conference or a training sponsored by LSM, read or quote from anything published by LSM, take part in the work of ministry by LSM such as Bible distribution, or evangelical outreach in word, deed, or financial contribution then you are nevertheless a fellow believer in the local church where we both live and are under no obligation to do any of those things. Likewise, you should not prevent me from using LSM materials in my daily study or church life, go to conferences, trainings, contribute to the work of ministry etc.

That would be the guideline in my view.

Drake

Let's put it this way- so in the local church, the elders send you a letter and say we are one with the ministry of J Vernon McGee. All the books in the book room are gone except JVM books, in the meetings all material is from Through the Bible ministry, if you don't participate and openly show a desire not to participate, you are divisive etc. etc.

Seems to me that those meeting in such a way should give up using the title The Church in XYZ and call themselves the church that follows J Vernon Mc Gee.

For conscience sake, and for the sake of the truth, those who call themselves The Church in XYZ should not have any affiliation with LSM. I'm fine with saints in their own space following LSM, but in the church, it is an offense, it is a denomination factor which we should call sinful, in that it divides the saints according to preference.
Those meeting as the LC in my city should either disassociate with LSM, or change their title to the church of LSM. Each creature after its own kind! If those of the LC wish to produce others who will follow LSM then call the creature and the offspring LSM and not the LC!
As I say, for conscience sake and for truth's sake, this LSM thing needs to be cast out of the LC in my city so that I, as a Christian can come together with the other believers and meet without this divisive element.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Anyone who was present in the Psalms training was well aware that according to WL some Psalms have the highest revelation, some are merely the natural concept of the writer, and some fall in between.

And not just the Psalms. Here is a quote from the Life-study of the Minor Prophets by Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

In contrast, Amos and Micah used many more chapters than Joel to speak of things other than Christ. When these prophets spoke concerning Christ, they spoke great things, but when they expressed their own natural concept and opinion, they were like some of the psalmists. For instance, Micah 6:8 says, “He has declared to you, O man, what is good; / And what does Jehovah require of you, / But that you would execute justice and love lovingkindness / And walk humbly with your God?” Is this word according to the tree of life or according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Surely it is according to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Is this word according to the divine revelation or according to the human concept of the prophet? This word is not a matter of God’s revelation but of the prophet’s concept..

Here is "what is good" - that Jesus Christ did what the Father required of Him; that Jesus Christ executed (and will execute) justice; simultaneously expressed God's lovingkindness; and that Jesus walked humbly with His Father God. We can see it. We know it. Yet Witness Lee spurned it, in his teaching.

Witness Lee turned us away from Jesus. In a recent training I heard Ed Marks talk about how God the Father delighted in Jesus the Son. Ed supplied numerous NT quotes. But he didn't quote Psalm 18's "he [the Father] delighted in Me [Jesus the Son]" because Witness Lee had panned it as fallen human concept.

Witness Lee shut the door on Christ, and would not allow others to enter. What kind of a teaching, what kind of a ministry is this?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Haha, what else can I say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

As I say, for conscience sake and for truth's sake, this LSM thing needs to be cast out of the LC in my city so that I, as a Christian can come together with the other believers and meet without this divisive element.

Back in 2002-2003 Titua Chu had all the regional LC leaders read thru W. Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life. Supposedly that was our pattern, a high peak revelation in the Recovery, our LC "mission statement." I'm sure TC wanted to show us just how far off the Blendeds in Anaheim had gone. Actually, it was a risky endeavor, since at the same time many of us saw the endless deviations of Lee himself. So you say, why not compare with scripture, and I agree. But diehard LCers as we were knew the overlay better than the scriptures.

The impact on me was kind of devastating. Being a LC tied to only one ministry is one of the heretical deviations Nee warned us of. One time brothers approached W. Lee about Nee's book, and Lee brushed them off, "don't tell me about that book, I was there!" Yet, when Lee first came to the USA, he traveled extensively gathering all the brothers who were enthralled by Nee's vision. It took years for many to realize that Lee simply pulled a "bait and switch."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

And not just the Psalms. Here is a quote from the Life-study of the Minor Prophets by Witness Lee


Here is "what is good" - that Jesus Christ did what the Father required of Him; that Jesus Christ executed (and will execute) justice; simultaneously expressed God's lovingkindness; and that Jesus walked humbly with His Father God. We can see it. We know it. Yet Witness Lee spurned it, in his teaching.

Witness Lee turned us away from Jesus. In a recent training I heard Ed Marks talk about how God the Father delighted in Jesus the Son. Ed supplied numerous NT quotes. But he didn't quote Psalm 18's "he [the Father] delighted in Me [Jesus the Son]" because Witness Lee had panned it as fallen human concept.

Witness Lee shut the door on Christ, and would not allow others to enter. What kind of a teaching, what kind of a ministry is this?

I have been studying the word seriously for approximately 40 years. It has been a humbling experience. You think you know something, and oops, your wisdom is foolishness and God's wisdom was sitting there all the time.

I consider WL's teaching to be jaw dropingly arrogant. He used to talk so much about how many years he had been in the word, he was 80+ at this time. I just could not understand how he had not had the same experiences of being humbled enough to not assume he knew better than the word of God. But time and time again you would hear from WL how only he had the truth, no other Christian on the Earth had anything worth reading or listening to. Very different from Peter who said we all had "like precious faith". But that was not enough, he also knew better than many, many writers of the Bible. Many Psalms didn't come up to his vision, James didn't, minor prophets didn't, Proverbs didn't, etc.

This is why I rarely come to this side of the forum. It is a settled matter for me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

Great word Ohio.

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Originally Posted by leastofthese

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

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is "what is good" - that Jesus Christ did what the Father required of Him; that Jesus Christ executed (and will execute) justice; simultaneously expressed God's lovingkindness; and that Jesus walked humbly with His Father God. We can see it. We know it. Yet Witness Lee spurned it, in his teaching.
...
Witness Lee shut the door on Christ, and would not allow others to enter. What kind of a teaching, what kind of a ministry is this?

As I found out during the discussion with Evangelical, they do not pay attention to Matthew 23. They have taken it lightly what Jesus referred to as weightier matters.

I am yet to find one example in the bible where God/prophets/apostles blame someone who is just, merciful and humble - the "human morals" so to speak.

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

Yes. That's right!

It took the quarantines to make that crystal clear to me, and to many others. The Blendeds constantly went back to Lee's teachings, and not the scripture. We in the GLA all knew that TC was much more scriptural than either Lee or the Blendeds.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Haha, what else can I say?



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

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

As I found out during the discussion with Evangelical, they do not pay attention to Matthew 23. They have taken it lightly what Jesus referred to as weightier matters.

I am yet to find one example in the bible where God/prophets/apostles blame someone who is just, merciful and humble - the "human morals" so to speak.

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

Did Paul keep the law? Why or why not?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by A little brother

As I found out during the discussion with Evangelical, they do not pay attention to Matthew 23. They have taken it lightly what Jesus referred to as weightier matters.

I am yet to find one example in the bible where God/prophets/apostles blame someone who is just, merciful and humble - the "human morals" so to speak.

The footnotes and messages have become their bible.

I agree with this. I have tried to get explanations to many of these issues. I realize I might be biased, maybe trying to justify my decision to leave, so I greatly appreciate the input of Evangelical and Drake. However, the explanations they have given me have only convinced me that I am not biased. There is no explanation or justification for many of the issues with WL, LSM, or the pillars of their sect.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Hope I didn't sound to legalistic. )

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

Did Paul keep the law? Why or why not?

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

[Drake]

-1

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

Alb,

A weightier matter of what?

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

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

Alb,

A weightier matter of what?

Drake

of whatever God wants us to listen to and obey.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

When did Acts 25 happen?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

When did Acts 25 happen?

I forgot to add.. Paul pretended to be a Jew to win Jews over:

1 Cor 9:19

o the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I forgot to add.. Paul pretended to be a Jew to win Jews over:

1 Cor 9:19

o the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

You haven't answered my question about the time line. Are you saying Paul is a liar?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Let's put it this way- so in the local church, the elders send you a letter and say we are one with the ministry of J Vernon McGee. All the books in the book room are gone except JVM books, in the meetings all material is from Through the Bible ministry, if you don't participate and openly show a desire not to participate, you are divisive etc. etc.

Seems to me that those meeting in such a way should give up using the title The Church in XYZ and call themselves the church that follows J Vernon Mc Gee.

For conscience sake, and for the sake of the truth, those who call themselves The Church in XYZ should not have any affiliation with LSM. I'm fine with saints in their own space following LSM, but in the church, it is an offense, it is a denomination factor which we should call sinful, in that it divides the saints according to preference.
Those meeting as the LC in my city should either disassociate with LSM, or change their title to the church of LSM. Each creature after its own kind! If those of the LC wish to produce others who will follow LSM then call the creature and the offspring LSM and not the LC!
As I say, for conscience sake and for truth's sake, this LSM thing needs to be cast out of the LC in my city so that I, as a Christian can come together with the other believers and meet without this divisive element.

Boxjobox,

JVM... good teacher. A good example for your good question. I brought your whole note forward to discuss so the points don't get lost,

Our working assumptions are the same as before? We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

Then, your new hypothetical, while enjoying the church life together in peace and harmony the elders suddenly clear the shelves in the book room of everything except JVM. This hypothetical scenario is a mirror image of what actually happened in your locality only it was LSM not JVM. Because you objected you were labeled divisive. If I have misunderstood feel free to clarify.

First, if you refused to go along by just not participating I would not have considered that as divisive. I wasn't there but divisiveness would need to include some action to divide others or create a faction, set up separate non-WL meetings, etc. Yet I'm not asking you to explain that.... just wanted to offer my point of view about the serious charge of divisiveness. I've seen and dealt with divisiveness firsthand and it is an ugly thing but sitting it out for conscience sake does not rise to the level of divisiveness.

Now to your scenario. Let's say you were one of those elders. A sizeable number of the members came to you and said that since we have JVM, they would also like Joel Olsteen, Rick Warren, and CS Lewis books. As the elder (for the sake of this discussion you have fellowshipped with all the elders and your decision represents theirs) what would you decide and what would you base your decision on?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

of whatever God wants us to listen to and obey.

That is not how the Lord Jesus used the term "weightier matters" in Matthew 23:23.

What do the weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 refer to?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is not how the Lord Jesus used the term "weightier matters" in Matthew 23:23.

What do the weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 refer to?

Drake

What should I say when you disagreed with my answer and then ask the same question again? So what is actually your idea on the weightier matters?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

What should I say when you disagreed with my answer and then ask the same question again? So what is actually your idea on the weightier matters?

The weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 are referring to weightier matters of the law.

Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Agree?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

The weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 are referring to weightier matters of the law.

Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Agree?

Drake

Why did Jesus said "But these you should have done and not neglected the others."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why did Jesus said "But these you should have done and not neglected the others."

Because the Pharisees, as Jews under the law, should have.

But now, Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Do you agree?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Because the Pharisees, as Jews under the law, should have.

But now, Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Do you agree?

Drake

If Christ replaced the law, do the Pharisees still need to keep the law? Why didn't Jesus tell them to have Christ? Why did Jesus said they should not neglect the weightier matters "of the law"? Was Jesus misleading them?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

If Christ replaced the law, do the Pharisees still need to keep the law? Why didn't Jesus tell them to have Christ? Why did Jesus said they should not neglect the weightier matters "of the law"? Was Jesus misleading them?

Since Christ has replaced the law the Pharisees need to come to Christ. The law was a child conductor and no longer required as they could have Christ.

Jesus did tell them to have Christ when He said "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. John 5:39-40

As pertains to the law, the Pharisees should have kept both the small and weightier matters of the law. It was their child conductor and they were teachers of it. However, once Christ came they should have come to Him. Only He fulfilled the law, and kept it perfectly and it is by His perfect life living in us that we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law.

How about now alb? You agree?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Since Christ has replaced the law the Pharisees need to come to Christ. The law was a child conductor and no longer required as they could have Christ.

Jesus did tell them to have Christ when He said "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. John 5:39-40

As pertains to the law, the Pharisees should have kept both the small and weightier matters of the law. It was their child conductor and they were teachers of it. However, once Christ came they should have come to Him. Only He fulfilled the law, and kept it perfectly and it is by His perfect life living in us that we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law.

How about now alb? You agree?

Drake

Was Jesus misleading the Pharisees or withholding the truth in Mat 23:23?

As you said, by His perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law. Doesn't it mean the law is kept already?

Don't get me wrong, keeping the law is not the condition of salvation. But it reflects whether you are truly living a life with Christ in you. Otherwise, you are just boasting empty words that you are in the Spirit.

Keeping the weightier matters of the law becomes the relatively lighter matter now that we know Chirst is our savior. But as Jesus mentioned, these (the lighter matters) you should have done and not neglected the others (the weightier matters).

We can actually combine Mat 23 and John 5 instead of treating them as contradiction or totally different things. You should have done the lighter matters of the law, do not neglect the weightier matters of the law, and most important of all, you should come to Jesus so that you may have life.

The role of law as the child conductor is gone. But does a grown up man throw away everything he learned in his childhood?

Ecc 7:18 It is better for you to take hold of the one without letting go of the other, for he who fears God will come out of it with them all.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

JVM... good teacher. A good example for your good question. I brought your whole note forward to discuss so the points don't get lost,

Our working assumptions are the same as before? We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

Then, your new hypothetical, while enjoying the church life together in peace and harmony the elders suddenly clear the shelves in the book room of everything except JVM. This hypothetical scenario is a mirror image of what actually happened in your locality only it was LSM not JVM. Because you objected you were labeled divisive. If I have misunderstood feel free to clarify.

First, if you refused to go along by just not participating I would not have considered that as divisive. I wasn't there but divisiveness would need to include some action to divide others or create a faction, set up separate non-WL meetings, etc. Yet I'm not asking you to explain that.... just wanted to offer my point of view about the serious charge of divisiveness. I've seen and dealt with divisiveness firsthand and it is an ugly thing but sitting it out for conscience sake does not rise to the level of divisiveness.

Now to your scenario. Let's say you were one of those elders. A sizeable number of the members came to you and said that since we have JVM, they would also like Joel Olsteen, Rick Warren, and CS Lewis books. As the elder (for the sake of this discussion you have fellowshipped with all the elders and your decision represents theirs) what would you decide and what would you base your decision on?

Drake

Drake, when LSM was declared the content of all things local, you would basically have to say that LSM became the clergy and all the saints the laity. Fellowship ended and indoctrination by the clergy (LSM) replaced it. Not to go along with this was to put oneself outside the LC.

This action, in effect, ended the meeting of the church and created a LSM meeting. For conscience and truth's sake, those who wanted to make all things LSM should have departed and gone off and formed their own denominatio.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You haven't answered my question about the time line. Are you saying Paul is a liar?

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Was Jesus misleading the Pharisees or withholding the truth in Mat 23:23?

As you said, by His perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law. Doesn't it mean the law is kept already?

Don't get me wrong,keeping the law is not the condition of salvation. But it reflects whether you are truly living a life with Christ in you.Otherwise, you are just boasting empty words that you are in the Spirit.

Keeping the weightier matters of the law becomes the relatively lighter matter now that we know Chirst is our savior. But as Jesus mentioned, these (the lighter matters) you should have done and not neglected the others (the weightier matters).

We can actually combine Mat 23 and John 5 instead of treating them as contradiction or totally different things. You should have done the lighter matters of the law, do not neglect the weightier matters of the law, and most important of all, you should come to Jesus so that you may have life.

The role of law as the child conductor is gone. But does a grown up man throw away everything he learned in his childhood?

Ecc 7:18 It is better for you to take hold of the one without letting go of the other, for he who fears God will come out of it with them all.

There are some who see the law as a measure or test about a person's spirituality. This is not correct. After believing in Christ the law does not then become a test or standard by which we are judged. The only standard of judgement is faith in Christ:

John 3:10 "He who believes in Him is not judged;

The believer is no longer under the law (either for salvation or for testing their spirituality) -

Romans 6:14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God's grace.

How much of the law is a valid test? Suppose one person does not keep the sabbath but another does. Is the person who keeps the sabbath living more of a life in Christ than one who doesn't? According to you they would be.

The problem is if you think keeping the law is a sign of our life in Christ then you are obliged to keep the WHOLE law (you can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow) -

James 2:10 For whosoever shall have kept the whole law, and then offends in one point is made guilty of all.

To answer your rhetorical question "does a grown up man throw away everything he learned in his childhood?". The answer is yes according to Paul:

Phil 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

To turn from the law to Christ is to reject the old law:

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

Because you said Paul was in transition from a Jew to half Jew and so on. But Act 25 should be after most of his trips, and after the book of Galatians. He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are some who see the law as a measure or test about a person's spirituality. This is not correct. After believing in Christ the law does not then become a test or standard by which we are judged. The only standard of judgement is faith in Christ:

John 3:10 "He who believes in Him is not judged;

The believer is no longer under the law (either for salvation or for testing their spirituality) -

Romans 6:14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God's grace.

How much of the law is a valid test? Suppose one person does not keep the sabbath but another does. Is the person who keeps the sabbath living more of a life in Christ than one who doesn't? According to you they would be.

The problem is if you think keeping the law is a sign of our life in Christ then you are obliged to keep the WHOLE law (you can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow) -

James 2:10 For whosoever shall have kept the whole law, and then offends in one point is made guilty of all.

To answer your rhetorical question "does a grown up man throw away everything he learned in his childhood?". The answer is yes according to Paul:

Phil 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

To turn from the law to Christ is to reject the old law:

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

I will hold my reply because I was discussing with Drake.

Anyway, you seem to have rejected Drake's idea that by Jesus perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, when LSM was declared the content of all things local, you would basically have to say that LSM became the clergy and all the saints the laity. Fellowship ended and indoctrination by the clergy (LSM) replaced it. Not to go along with this was to put oneself outside the LC.

This action, in effect, ended the meeting of the church and created a LSM meeting. For conscience and truth's sake, those who wanted to make all things LSM should have departed and gone off and formed their own denominatio.

Great points.

LSM has created a far worse Nicolaitan Clergy-Laity System than the one they tried to abolish.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I forgot to add.. Paul pretended to be a Jew to win Jews over:

1 Cor 9:19

o the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

A deceitful person would read this as Paul being deceitful (i.e. pretended).

A considerate, empathetic person would read this as Paul being empathetic (i.e. understanding).

Since no verse is of its own interpretation please show us other NT verses that say an apostle or evangelist needs to be deceitful.

Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

The weightier matters in Matthew 23:23 are referring to weightier matters of the law.

Christ replaced the law. We have Christ now and He lives in us as the Spirit. We believers should not follow the law but Christ, for even the weightier matters of the law must give way to the Person of Christ.

Agree?

Drake

The reason we don't follow the law but Christ is because the law is ineffective. The standard of the law is still a fair representation of God and we still need to come up to that standard. However, Jesus is the only way to meet that standard. Christ did not replace one jot or tittle of the law as far as the standard is concerned, he merely made a bridge between fallen, sinful man and a High and Holy God.

So no, I do not agree that Christ has replaced the standard referred to in Matthew.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how the time line is relevant? Paul says he was chosen before he was born.

Just so I am following this discussion accurately.

You were asked -- "Was Paul following the Law?"

You said no.

You were asked about Acts where Paul says he has not broken the law.

And your response is to evade the question -- followed by saying that the time line of Paul being a Christian when he made this statement is not relevant to the question of whether or not Paul was following the law.

Did I get that correctly?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, when LSM was declared the content of all things local, you would basically have to say that LSM became the clergy and all the saints the laity. Fellowship ended and indoctrination by the clergy (LSM) replaced it. Not to go along with this was to put oneself outside the LC.

This action, in effect, ended the meeting of the church and created a LSM meeting. For conscience and truth's sake, those who wanted to make all things LSM should have departed and gone off and formed their own denominatio.

Boxjobox,

Using your JVM and my follow up examples, the consideration would have to be whether the content of those books support the working assumptions we already agreed with. They may be good bible teachers, or not, yet their ministries are not for the building up of the local churches as we both agreed to. Where will you find a ministry that is for that? If LSM is not for that then they are just another christian publisher and should not be regarded any differently than any other christian publisher.

LSM is not a pastor so could never hold a local position and we know that local churches are managed by elders. If LSM were a pastor the first thing LSM would teach those in the local assembly is that clergy laity is unscriptural and then they would no longer be the pastor. The second thing LSM would insist on is that elders be appointed to manage local affairs further undercutting its own staus as a pastor. And so on.

Rather, LSM is the service entity for the work of ministry which is extra local. The ministry is for the churches not the other way around. If the service that LSM provides is not the ministry for the building up of the local churches, something we both hold dearly, then where is that work of ministry to be found?

Drake

[Drake]

Alb>"As you said, by His perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law. Doesn't it mean the law is kept already?"

Christ kept the law. He was the only One who could and did fulfill it. We don't keep the law, rather we possess the life of the One who did. If we follow the Spirit within there will be an issue, a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit without.

Alb, do you agree with that?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

Using your JVM and my follow up examples, the consideration would have to be whether the content of those books support the working assumptions we already agreed with. They may be good bible teachers, or not, yet their ministries are not for the building up of the local churches as we both agreed to. Where will you find a ministry that is for that? If LSM is not for that then they are just another christian publisher and should not be regarded any differently than any other christian publisher.

LSM is not a pastor so could never hold a local position and we know that local churches are managed by elders. If LSM were a pastor the first thing LSM would teach them is that clergy laity is unscriptural and then they would no longer be the pastor. The second thing LSM would insist on is that elders be appointed to manage local affairs further undercutting their own staus as a pastor. And so on.

Rather, LSM is the service entity for the work of ministry which is extra local. The ministry is for the churches not the other way around. If the service that LSM provides is not the ministry for the building up of the local churches, something we both hold dearly, then where is that work of ministry to be found?

Drake

Dear Drake,

Either you are being simply deceptive or you have no clue how LSM really works. LSm and their operatives came into the Midwest LC's 10-12 years ago and divided everyone of them. THEY ARE NOT FOR THE BUILDING UP OF LOCAL CHURCHES. That is purely a farce based on decades of actual behavior stemming from the very top of LSM. They care only for those loyal to them, and will readily backstab any brother who refuses to demonstrate visible and tangible loyalties to them.

Every local elder is under their domination, or they will be marked out and expelled. Do we need to remind you of the endless stories of these victims, or did you just refuse to hear their witness? The Blendeds at LSM are far worse "pastors" than the ones out there in Christianity.

The LSM is NOT for the LC's, that is just a bogus saying. In reality, the LC's only exist for LSM, and that's why they are so easily discarded when they no longer exist for your good.

The Midwest LC elders decided long ago that LSM was NOT FOR THE BUILDING UP of the churches. So they decided that you at LSM will be treated as any other publisher. One reason for this was how the Blendeds constantly undermined the Midwest leadership both publicly and privately. This went on for years. The Midwest leaders prayed and fellowshipped much together and decided not to promote any of your trainings, yet not prevent any from going. It was no different than if a bunch of saints went to a Billy Graham crusade, or a Joyce Meyer conference. That was never good enough for you. You had to take action. Divisive, disruptive, legal action.

This is why Apostle Paul said to "Beware of Dogs, beware of evil workers."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The reason we don't follow the law but Christ is because the law is ineffective. The standard of the law is still a fair representation of God and we still need to come up to that standard. However, Jesus is the only way to meet that standard. Christ did not replace one jot or tittle of the law as far as the standard is concerned, he merely made a bridge between fallen, sinful man and a High and Holy God.

So no, I do not agree that Christ has replaced the standard referred to in Matthew.

I agree with this as written.

Drake

[Drake]

-2

Therefore Brother Ohio.

Where is the work of ministry for the building up of the local churches?

Rather, I should ask you whether you believe that is relevant anymore.

Is it? If do, where is it?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Drake,

Either you are being simply deceptive or you have no clue how LSM really works. LSm and their operatives came into the Midwest LC's 10-12 years ago and divided everyone of them. THEY ARE NOT FOR THE BUILDING UP OF LOCAL CHURCHES. That is purely a farce based on decades of actual behavior stemming from the very top of LSM. They care only for those loyal to them, and will readily backstab any brother who refuses to demonstrate visible and tangible loyalties to them.

Every local elder is under their domination, or they will be marked out and expelled. Do we need to remind you of the endless stories of these victims, or did you just refuse to hear their witness? The Blendeds at LSM are far worse "pastors" than the ones out there in Christianity.

The LSM is NOT for the LC's, that is just a bogus saying. In reality, the LC's only exist for LSM, and that's why they are so easily discarded when they no longer exist for your good.

The Midwest LC elders decided long ago that LSM was NOT FOR THE BUILDING UP of the churches. So they decided that you at LSM will be treated as any other publisher. One reason for this was how the Blendeds constantly undermined the Midwest leadership both publicly and privately. This went on for years. The Midwest leaders prayed and fellowshipped much together and decided not to promote any of your trainings, yet not prevent any from going. It was no different than if a bunch of saints went to a Billy Graham crusade, or a Joyce Meyer conference. That was never good enough for you. You had to take action. Divisive, disruptive, legal action.

This is why Apostle Paul said to "Beware of Dogs, beware of evil workers."

I think it is a little more subtle than this. I think the LSM leaders would love it if the churches were built up, that WL's growth projections were even remotely on target, as long as all of these new ones were buying LSM materials and LSM was getting full credit for what is going on.

On the other hand they don't care if force feeding LSM down their throats drives saints out of the churches and causes division and chaos. It seems to me that selling product is the higher priority and built churches that don't buy LSM are worse than 0 because they will be a negative example to others.

So when they teach about "building" the use of LSM documents is a built in assumption even though the evidence is that using LSM documents is not beneficial to the building of the saints or the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Therefore Brother Ohio.

Where is the work of ministry for the building up of the local churches?

Rather, I should ask you whether you believe that is relevant anymore.

Is it? If do, where is it?

Drake

IT'S EVERYWHERE, DRAKE.

What do you think is happening when God's children gather together in His name, open up His word with prayer, speak the word with anointing, act on the hearing of faith?

The churches in His body are being built up!

Don't characterize the entire body of Christ by a bad minister in the news or the corrupt papal system. I never characterized the Recovery by some of the rotten things I saw happen among the saints in the LC's. That's not fair. But I can characterize LSM by the rotten actions of its employees, and especially its top leaders. These leaders are held to a higher standard.

Does it not trouble you when scores of ex-members and trails of victims leave the Recovery? They are not being built up! Their faith, hope, and love is not growing, rather fading away. So many have been deceived by unscrupulous workers at LSM.

[Drake]

-1

Sorry Brother Ohio.

It's everywhere it too general. When you say " churches in His Body" are built up everywhere what specifically are you referring to?

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>"As you said, by His perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law. Doesn't it mean the law is kept already?"

Christ kept the law. He was the only One who could and did fulfill it. We don't keep the law, rather we possess the life of the One who did. If we follow the Spirit within there will be an issue, a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit without.

Alb, do you agree with that?

Drake

Actually you don't have to ask this question again, I already agreed the sentence I last quoted from you. And I also saw you agreed with ZNPaaneah that Christ did not replace one jot or tittle of the law (Hope I did not misunderstand what you meant).

What I want to further explore is about the "keeping the law" idea which you seem to reject. I agree that we do not keep the law in order to be righteous and it is not the condition of salvation. But if we can follow the Spirit and manifest the fruit of the Spirit as you said, do you agreed that we actually have kept the law?

So it is about the "purpose" of keeping the law. I don't know how much you know about the Jews' view of the law. While many Christians see the 613 laws as rules to follow, they see them as 613 opportunities to love God. So it's all about the heart. We as Christians have the privilege to know Christ, how much better we can be if we also have that similar heart to seek for every opportunity to love God instead of simply ignore the "old" law as a whole in the name of freedom.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Sorry Brother Ohio.

It's everywhere it too general. When you say " churches in His Body" are built up everywhere what specifically are you referring to?

Drake

Am I the Head of the body? He is working all over the earth. Am I supposed to know all the specifics? Any churches I name, you will find fault, but no church in without fault, just read the New Testament. The building work in the churches in the greater body of Christ is not inferior to the building work in the LC's.

I was in the LC's for years, and I saw flaws and problems in all of them. So what? They exist everywhere. I am not here to critique any church, just the rotten teachings and practices of workers. Those who damage the children of God.

You love to play your little games. Just like Lee did. He made a ministry out of condemning everyone else, and then supposedly he alone was the consummate Minister of the Age, and his ministry alone was for the "building up." Yet your building is collapsing. You are no longer building with spiritual material. You need lawsuits and marketing gimmicks to build with. You condemn pastors, yet The Blendeds are far worse shepherds in your clergy-laity system. You condemn seminaries, yet your FTT's are the same, or worse. You are guilty of everything you condemn others for.

[Drake]

-1

Ohio,

This is a serious discussion. Stop dismissing my conversation as game playing. Stop flying off the handle. You are being disruptive. This is what I meant before by not engaging with you. I really want to discuss matters with you and I value your perspective but not this vitriol.

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

That is the working assumption we are using for this part of the conversation. "Everywhere" does not fit the working assumption. If you don't agree that is fine. I don't mind. Just say that you don't then so I know where you are coming from in the conversation.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

alb>"What I want to further explore is about the "keeping the law" idea which you seem to reject. I agree that we do not keep the law in order to be righteous and it is not the condition of salvation. But if we can follow the Spirit and manifest the fruit of the Spirit as you said, do you agreed that we actually have kept the law? "

Alb,

Almost. I agree that by cooperating with the Lord in us, that His life lived out of us will issue in an expression of the Spirit that fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. An important "and" follows here... And when we fail to follow the Lord, when we sin, when we have shortcomings, it is His ever efficacious blood that cleanses us, clears our conscience, and restores our fellowship with Him that we may continue on our journey in His life.

I use the phrase "keeping the law" in refering to effort.... in the same way Paul chastised the Galatians who having begun with the Spirit were bewitched into an effort to keep the law... a work of the flesh.

Are we there on this one?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

This is a serious discussion. Stop dismissing my conversation as game playing. Stop flying off the handle. You are being disruptive. This is what I meant before by not engaging with you. I really want to discuss matters with you and I value your perspective but not this vitriol.

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

That is the working assumption we are using for this part of the conversation. "Everywhere" does not fit the working assumption. If you don't agree that is fine. I don't mind. Just say that you don't then so I know where you are coming from in the conversation.

Drake, no one is flying off the handle or being disruptive or vitriolic. I am only being candid with you, and apparently you can't handle this. Neither am I interfering with your conversation with Boxjobox. Whether you decide to engage my posts is your decision, but I do have the right to challenge your "working assumption" above.

You are proposing that your LC's alone "are born again believers, agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system."

First of all Christians do not agree to any of this. They are false premises. No one claims that a city boundary is a church boundary. No one says all denominations are sinful.

Secondly, none of your LC's under LSM adhere to these false standards. You really don't teach the Bible, but rather Lee's teachings. None really places a city boundary around their church, and they allow LSM to be their clergy hierarchy over them instead of local elders. The forum has literally hundreds of examples to prove so.

But yes, you regularly condemn all genuine born-again believers and churches, whether they meet independently, or as denominations, or free group home churches, or any other gathering venue.

[Drake]

-1

Ohio,

Your posts are vitriolic and you do fly off the handle. You consistently level charges against me of playing games, being deceptive, and being insincere. Let's me be clear. I am not playing games, being deceptive, nor being insincere. I have full control of my thinking faculties and I believe what I write. I do not expect that we will agree, nor is it my intent to convince you otherwise. I have no problem with your passion, your being candid, or your strong opinion but I do have a problem when you step over the line in basically calling me a liar, a deceiver, or a dope. I am not thin skinned for pushing back on those things. We are brothers in the Lord and this is a public forum... how you say something is as important as what you say. Its on display.

I prefer not to put you on mute as I value your perspective. Nevertheless, unless you can show decent christian behavior in conversing with me then so be it. I had hoped we had a new beginning since a few weeks back but it appears not. I am truly saddened by that.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.
Thanks
Drake

I don't agree with the part in bold. I do agree that any meeting of people constrained by time and space must be local and would generally be located in a city, town, village, etc.

However, I think this concept has been taken too far to be meaningful.

If we take a medium sized city of 500,000 it is safe to assume on any given day there would be multiple meetings of believers and it is not safe to assume that a meeting of every believer in the city would be common, or would even take place. There is no reason based on that alone to say that anyone of them would not be part of the Body of Christ. Hence, there can be multiple meetings of the Body of Christ, the church, in any city at any time.

I do agree that these multiple meetings should all recognize the same authority, Jesus, as Lord. I see nothing that limits how many elders a city could have, only that they are all under the authority of Jesus.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

I believe the testimony of the Bible is very clear on this. Before the Lord, I could not compromise on this. This is test to the genuineness of a local church. Does it match the pattern in scripture? If not, it must be rejected. If an assembly compromises this then they do not stand on the ground of oneness of the believers and do not represent locally the oneness of the universal Body of Christ. Therefore, they are not a local church. A genuine local church has a stand. Laodicea may be large and spreadout and so there may be meetings from house to house, nevertheless, the Lord addresses the church (singular) in Laodicea. Laodicea is lukewarm but there is still one church in Laodicea. Division is sin, therefore denominations are also sin. I could never agree with that either. The scripture is straightforward on this.

I agree with this view. It's my view now too.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ohio,

Your posts are vitriolic and you do fly off the handle. You consistently level charges against me of playing games, being deceptive, and being insincere. Let's me be clear. I am not playing games, being deceptive, nor being insincere. I have full control of my thinking faculties and I believe what I write. I do not expect that we will agree, nor is it my intent to convince you otherwise. I have no problem with your passion, your being candid, or your strong opinion but I do have a problem when you step over the line in basically calling me a liar, a deceiver, or a dope. I am not thin skinned for pushing back on those things. We are brothers in the Lord and this is a public forum... how you say something is as important as what you say. Its on display.

I prefer not to put you on mute as I value your perspective. Nevertheless, unless you can show decent christian behavior in conversing with me then so be it. I had hoped we had a new beginning since a few weeks back but it appears not. I am truly saddened by that.

Drake

Dear Drake,

It goes both ways. I personally would rather converse with a brother who is blunt and direct, than one who appears a little dishonest or deceptive. Perhaps my posting style has been shaped by my experiences in the LC's. You apparently take it personally when challenged on the forum. Sorry about that. People have been hurt, and that always weighs on me.

After my years there, I would rather put the Lord and people first, rather than your ministry and its many "truths." The Lord Jesus was also brutally honest when confronted by the religious hypocrisy of the Jews, so you cannot define "decent christian behavior" by your own standards, picked up from years with LSM. Sorry again, but I have dealt with LSM's lawyering and wordsmithing way too long, and yet I have not resorted to name-calling.

In fact, many times over the years, other forum members have insulted me for being too kind to those who support LSM. Imagine that!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

Why would we exclude Christ?

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP,

I believe the testimony of the Bible is very clear on this. Before the Lord, I could not compromise on this. This is test to the genuineness of a local church. Does it match the pattern in scripture? If not, it must be rejected. If an assembly compromises this then they do not stand on the ground of oneness of the believers and do not represent locally the oneness of the universal Body of Christ. Therefore, they are not a local church. A genuine local church has a stand. Laodicea may be large and spreadout and so there may be meetings from house to house, nevertheless, the Lord addresses the church (singular) in Laodicea. Laodicea is lukewarm but there is still one church in Laodicea. Division is sin, therefore denominations are also sin. I could never agree with that either. The scripture is straightforward on this.

I agree with this view. It's my view now too.

Drake

Yeah I know. But when I ask you and Evangelical what requirements do you need to meet before you will accept a person as a brother or sister you are very general. My view is simple, If I meet with another saint that is a meeting. If we are meeting according to the criteria in Matt 18 then the Lord is in our midst, hence we are the Body. So when pushed on this Evangelical and maybe you say that the Lord's table distinguishes a church from "just a meeting".

So if there are 1,000 meetings of the Body of Christ in NYC, all of which are meeting in the name of Jesus and He is in their midst, which meeting is qualified to have the Lord's table and which meeting is not qualified? I have asked for that, no one has given me any answer.

Secondly, I was in Taipei, they had 23 halls. I met with two or three different halls. But there were a number that I never met with. Every hall had its own elders. True they had elders meetings run by Witness Lee in Hall 1, but I don't recognize his authority. I recognize the Lord Jesus. If the elders meet with the Lord Jesus and submit to his authority then I am good with that. I see no reason to deny the Lord who bought us and replace him with this wanna be super apostle.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

alb>"What I want to further explore is about the "keeping the law" idea which you seem to reject. I agree that we do not keep the law in order to be righteous and it is not the condition of salvation. But if we can follow the Spirit and manifest the fruit of the Spirit as you said, do you agreed that we actually have kept the law? "

Alb,

Almost. I agree that by cooperating with the Lord in us, that His life lived out of us will issue in an expression of the Spirit that fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. An important "and" follows here... And when we fail to follow the Lord, when we sin, when we have shortcomings, it is His ever efficacious blood that cleanses us, clears our conscience, and restores our fellowship with Him that we may continue on our journey in His life.

Agree. I think it is important that we have the desire to follow God's command. We try, we may fail but we know God's sacred blood will cover us. And we then press on. It is totally different from saying the law is replaced and we don't try living out even the lightest matters.

Originally Posted by Drake

I use the phrase "keeping the law" in refering to effort.... in the same way Paul chastised the Galatians who having begun with the Spirit were bewitched into an effort to keep the law... a work of the flesh.

Are we there on this one?

Drake

Almost. It is more about the reason/heart in keeping the law than the effort. I think Paul chastised the Galatians because some people wanted to "make a good show in the flesh" (Gal 6:12) and they followed.

Paul himself labored hard for the gospel. Effort does not always equal work of flesh.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yeah I know. But when I ask you and Evangelical what requirements do you need to meet before you will accept a person as a brother or sister you are very general. My view is simple, If I meet with another saint that is a meeting. If we are meeting according to the criteria in Matt 18 then the Lord is in our midst, hence we are the Body. So when pushed on this Evangelical and maybe you say that the Lord's table distinguishes a church from "just a meeting".

So if there are 1,000 meetings of the Body of Christ in NYC, all of which are meeting in the name of Jesus and He is in their midst, which meeting is qualified to have the Lord's table and which meeting is not qualified? I have asked for that, no one has given me any answer.

Hi ZNP,

I don't mean to ignore your question on this or any other topic, I just may missed it as a question and saw it more as a commentary. Which is okay as I am not inclined to challenge every commentary. I'll try to answer your question.

My view is simple on this also. It does not matter if the brothers and sisters met physically in different places in a city. Some places are very large and spread out so it is necessary. In Laodicea or Smyrna it would have been very difficult for 1st century christians to physically gather in one place. (Unless they clustered close to each other on purpose). But is there any justification for christians in Laodicea tohave met separately other than the physical distance within the city? There is no biblical justification for it. Corinth too was a little spread out from the center of town to the dock area and could easily have had several meeting places from house to house. However, had any one of those house to house meetings met on any other basis than as members of the local church in Corinth then they would have been a division. But fi meeting on the proper ground I believe they broke bread from house to house. They did not really have a meeting hall at least in the churches of the Gentiles and maybe met outdoors, in or public places and buildings.

Drake

[Drake]

Ohio> "In fact, many times over the years, other forum members have insulted me for being too kind to those who support LSM. Imagine that!"

It is hard to imagine that Brother Ohio.

But let's keep going. We're good.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Because you said Paul was in transition from a Jew to half Jew and so on. But Act 25 should be after most of his trips, and after the book of Galatians. He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law.

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic. It is a form of pretense however. It would be equivalent to a Christian living as a Muslim to try to win muslims.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I will hold my reply because I was discussing with Drake.

Anyway, you seem to have rejected Drake's idea that by Jesus perfect life living in us, we can live a life that is satisfying to God, a life that fulfills all the righteous requirements of the law.

I don't believe Drake meant that.

Only Christ can satisfy God, the law has nothing to do with it. " Only Christ can satisfy God." ~ "The Crucified Christ", W. Lee.

Read this verse carefully again:

Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?


It is only by belief that we satisfy God. God shows His satisfaction with us by granting us His Spirit, while we are still "law-breakers" -

The law is not for the righteous (i.e. believers) but for unbelievers:
1 Tim 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous...

Believers are not under law but grace:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but under grace.

Drake seems to be referring to practical Christian perfection but so far in this discussion we have not been discussing about practical perfection but saving righteousness so I don't see that as relevant. Lee's footnote in Micah is clearly about salvation, that it is man's concept (Micah's) that keeping the law satisfies God (for saving righteousness).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A deceitful person would read this as Paul being deceitful (i.e. pretended).

A considerate, empathetic person would read this as Paul being empathetic (i.e. understanding).

Since no verse is of its own interpretation please show us other NT verses that say an apostle or evangelist needs to be deceitful.

Thanks.

What is it called if a person eg Paul goes through a religious ritual that he considers nothing? It's pretense.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi ZNP,

I don't mean to ignore your question on this or any other topic, I just may missed it as a question and saw it more as a commentary. Which is okay as I am not inclined to challenge every commentary. I'll try to answer your question.

My view is simple on this also. It does not matter if the brothers and sisters met physically in different places in a city. Some places are very large and spread out so it is necessary. In Laodicea or Smyrna it would have been very difficult for 1st century christians to physically gather in one place. (Unless they clustered close to each other on purpose). But is there any justification for christians in Laodicea tohave met separately other than the physical distance within the city? There is no biblical justification for it. Corinth too was a little spread out from the center of town to the dock area and could easily have had several meeting places from house to house. However, had any one of those house to house meetings met on any other basis than as members of the local church in Corinth then they would have been a division. But fi meeting on the proper ground I believe they broke bread from house to house. They did not really have a meeting hall at least in the churches of the Gentiles and maybe met outdoors, in or public places and buildings.

Drake

There are lots of reasons. If I were going to evangelize a park I might meet with 3 or 4 others who have the same goal. If I were going to have a Bible study I might wish to meet with 8 or 12 others to do the same. Morning watch might be better to meet with those in my home. Prayer meeting at work with those I work with. To have a meeting hall that can handle more than a thousand is rare, yet a city of 500,000 is not that big a city. Some people work at night, others during the day, some on the weekend, others during the week. The Lord said "20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." this is the conclusion of the Lord's word on the church which began in Matt 16.

So then, what distinguishes this meeting of two or three with the church?

If it is the Lord's table then tell me why this meeting cannot have the Lord's table?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic.

So since when do you think Paul rejected all, if he actually did? You kept on referring to Galatians. The time line shows it is much earlier than Act 25.

Have you thought about how Paul can be both Jew and Gentile without lying? Simple logic - He lived according to the more restrictive law for Jews.

Paul did not see keeping the law as dung. To him, the law is holy (Rom 7:12). He counted as loss all the false righteousness he thought he gained through keeping the law.

And where did Paul say he preferred to live as a Gentile in Galatians 2?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As I said before he kept it for a time, then eventually rejected all of it preferring to live as a Gentile (Galatians 2). Whether he lived as a Jew or a Gentile depended on whom he was trying to win for Christ. ZNP says that is deception but I see it as pragmatic. It is a form of pretense however. It would be equivalent to a Christian living as a Muslim to try to win muslims.

I see this verse as empathetic. If a certain culture is very strict in the way men and women interact, then you would respect that so that you don't offend them needlessly. There is no pretense. If a group does not eat pork and thinks doing so is unclean, then don't eat pork. Why would you offend them over this? Why would you let trivial matters like this keep you from presenting the gospel? Hudson Taylor dressed as the Chinese dressed, kept his hair as they kept their hair, ate what they ate, etc. Why not? There is no pretense, no deceit.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

So since when do you think Paul rejected all, if he actually did? You kept on referring to Galatians. The time line shows it is much earlier than Act 25.

Have you thought about how Paul can be both Jew and Gentile without lying? Simple logic - He lived according to the more restrictive law for Jews.

Paul did not see keeping the law as dung. To him, the law is holy (Rom 7:12). He counted as loss all the false righteousness he thought he gained through keeping the law.

And where did Paul say he preferred to live as a Gentile in Galatians 2?

Paul was keeping the law for the sake of the Jewish converts. Not that he saw any value it in personally for his own righteousness. Compared to "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" the law was dung. The bible also calls the law dung in Malachi 2:1-9. "You boast of your holiness, sacrifices, and feasts, but they will turn to your shame and be as vile as dung.".

In Galatians , Paul called out Peter for living as a Gentile and then forcing converts to live as Jews. Strong indication that Paul himself lived as a gentile else it would make Paul a hypocrite.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe Drake meant that.

Only Christ can satisfy God, the law has nothing to do with it. " Only Christ can satisfy God." ~ "The Crucified Christ", W. Lee.

Read this verse carefully again:

Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?


It is only by belief that we satisfy God. God shows His satisfaction with us by granting us His Spirit, while we are still "law-breakers" -

The law is not for the righteous (i.e. believers) but for unbelievers:
1 Tim 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous...

Believers are not under law but grace:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but under grace.

Drake seems to be referring to practical Christian perfection but so far in this discussion we have not been discussing about practical perfection but saving righteousness so I don't see that as relevant.

I'll leave it to Drake to respond.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's footnote in Micah is clearly about salvation, that it is man's concept (Micah's) that keeping the law satisfies God (for saving righteousness).

I have asked several times and I now ask again. Where did Micah say it is about salvation? Where but the footnotes?

I think you still cannot distinguish between pleasing God and receiving salvation. You keep linking the two together. Is it too difficult for you to comprehend people would want to please God simply because they love God?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul was keeping the law for the sake of the Jewish converts. Not that he saw any value it in personally for his own righteousness. Compared to "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" the law was dung. The bible also calls the law dung in Malachi 2:1-9. "You boast of your holiness, sacrifices, and feasts, but they will turn to your shame and be as vile as dung.".

In Galatians , Paul called out Peter for living as a Gentile and then forcing converts to live as Jews. Strong indication that Paul himself lived as a gentile else it would make Paul a hypocrite.

Let me make it clear before proceeding further. Do you now agree Paul kept the law, as oppose to what you said before?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I see this verse as empathetic. If a certain culture is very strict in the way men and women interact, then you would respect that so that you don't offend them needlessly. There is no pretense. If a group does not eat pork and thinks doing so is unclean, then don't eat pork. Why would you offend them over this? Why would you let trivial matters like this keep you from presenting the gospel? Hudson Taylor dressed as the Chinese dressed, kept his hair as they kept their hair, ate what they ate, etc. Why not? There is no pretense, no deceit.

This explains better what I was trying to explain to "a little brother" - Paul was keeping the law for other's sake, not his own.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Let me make it clear before proceeding further. Do you now agree Paul kept the law, as oppose to what you said before?

A Jew would not listen to Paul if he thought Paul was not religious. So for this reason Paul appeared to keep the law for the sake of the gospel.

Consider the part in bold below:

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.


"I became as a Jew" - "I pretended to be a Jew even though I wasn't (I used to be a Jew)"

"as under the Law" - "I pretended to be under the Law (for the sake of the gospel)."

"though not being myself under the Law" - "but I am not really under the law. I consider myself not obliged to keep the law now that I believe in Christ. I can eat with gentiles, I can eat pork"

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Jew would not listen to Paul if he thought Paul was not religious. So for this reason Paul appeared to keep the law for the sake of the gospel.

Consider the part in bold below:

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.


"I became as a Jew" - "I pretended to be a Jew even though I wasn't (I used to be a Jew)"

"as under the Law" - "I pretended to be under the Law (for the sake of the gospel)."

"though not being myself under the Law" - "but I am not really under the law. I consider myself not obliged to keep the law now that I believe in Christ. I can eat with gentiles, I can eat pork"

Please don't rush to the "why" part at this moment. Can you first confirm you agree Paul kept the law?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I have asked several times and I now ask again. Where did Micah say it is about salvation? Where but the footnotes?

I think you still cannot distinguish between pleasing God and receiving salvation. You keep linking the two together. Is it too difficult for you to comprehend people would want to please God simply because they love God?

But why aren't you linking "pleasing God" and salvation?

Do you think there's a way to please God without being saved?

Do you think after pleasing God by accepting Christ, we must continue good works to maintain or keep His pleasure in us? (a gospel of works, e.g. Catholic gospel)

Galatians 3:3 is about believers who turned back to the law after receiving Christ, Paul calls this foolishness:

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

Ellicott's commentary:
You have given up Christ and gone back to the Law. Yet, let me ask you—and surely no other proof is needed—all this outpouring of spiritual gifts that you have enjoyed since you became Christian, to what do you owe it? Is that due to the Law and works, or is it due to Christ and faith in Him?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But why aren't you linking "pleasing God" and salvation?

Do you think there's a way to please God without being saved?

Do you think after pleasing God by accepting Christ, we must continue good works to maintain or keep His pleasure in us? (a gospel of works, e.g. Catholic gospel)
...

Think about this. Who did Paul mostly address to in his epistles? Believers or unbelievers? I hope you agree it's to believers. Then why was Paul pointing out problems in the churches? Have they not already pleased God enough by entering into faith?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Think about this. Who did Paul mostly address to in his epistles? Believers or unbelievers? I hope you agree it's to believers. Then why was Paul pointing out problems in the churches? Have they not already pleased God enough by entering into faith?

The churches were becoming degraded. Some like the Corinthians were becoming mixed with pagan/worldly things. Others like Galatia were becoming mixed with Judaism - they were turning away from Christ and going back to the Law. Paganism, gnosticism, and Judaism were the main threats to early Christianity and these are the topics mostly addressed in Paul's writings.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The churches were becoming degraded. Some like the Corinthians were becoming mixed with pagan/worldly things. Others like Galatia were becoming mixed with Judaism - they were turning away from Christ and going back to the Law. Paganism, gnosticism, and Judaism were the main threats to early Christianity and these are the topics mostly addressed in Paul's writings.

Aren't they supposed to be once saved always saved? Why could they turn away from Christ and go back to all the things you mentioned? By what standard are these things wrong?

I hope I am not carrying this discussion too far away. I am still waiting for your reply on whether you agree Paul kept the law.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are lots of reasons. If I were going to evangelize a park I might meet with 3 or 4 others who have the same goal. If I were going to have a Bible study I might wish to meet with 8 or 12 others to do the same. Morning watch might be better to meet with those in my home. Prayer meeting at work with those I work with. To have a meeting hall that can handle more than a thousand is rare, yet a city of 500,000 is not that big a city. Some people work at night, others during the day, some on the weekend, others during the week. The Lord said "20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." this is the conclusion of the Lord's word on the church which began in Matt 16.

So then, what distinguishes this meeting of two or three with the church?

If it is the Lord's table then tell me why this meeting cannot have the Lord's table?

I believe those are all valid reasons as well.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe Drake meant that.

Only Christ can satisfy God, the law has nothing to do with it. " Only Christ can satisfy God." ~ "The Crucified Christ", W. Lee.

Read this verse carefully again:

Gal 3:2 The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?


It is only by belief that we satisfy God. God shows His satisfaction with us by granting us His Spirit, while we are still "law-breakers" -

The law is not for the righteous (i.e. believers) but for unbelievers:
1 Tim 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous...

Believers are not under law but grace:
M
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but under grace.

Drake seems to be referring to practical Christian perfection but so far in this discussion we have not been discussing about practical perfection but saving righteousness so I don't see that as relevant. Lee's footnote in Micah is clearly about salvation, that it is man's concept (Micah's) that keeping the law satisfies God (for saving righteousness).

I see the confusion. I'll need to clarify my statement.

Christ is God, He declares God, and when you see Christ you see God. As pertains to the law, it was righteous in its demands but as someone said, ZNP I think, it was ineffective in being able to save man because it placed demands, righteous ones, without enabling man to meet the demands. If a man could have kept the righteousness found in the law he would have been justified. But no one, save Jesus could or did. In Matthew, Christ upped the ante in the Constitution of the kingdom so if Mosaic law said you shall not commit adultery the Lord said to look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery.

All that to say that Christ lived a life that satisfied God and far exceeded the law.

It is only by this life that we as believers can live a life that satisfies God. God does not want us to keep the law but to live Christ.

Hope that helps.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

I see the confusion. I'll need to clarify my statement.
...
It is only by this life that we as believers can live a life that satisfies God. God does not want us to keep the law but to live Christ.

Sorry for barging in but this is also related to what we are discussing....

As far as I currently understand, your "keep the law" is related to "effort by the work of flesh". Removing that part from the statement could be dangerous to untrained ears. (I am afraid the kind of freedom Evangelical referred to is a result of certain misunderstanding of the character of God.)

Put it this way, I think there are two types of keeping the law:

(1) we keep the law by the flesh through efforts in order to gain righteousness ("a good show")
(2) we keep the law by the heart through efforts because God is right, we love Him and want to please Him.

God does not want (1). But I believe He wants (2), and (2) is achievable when we live Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Aren't they supposed to be once saved always saved? Why could they turn away from Christ and go back to all the things you mentioned? By what standard are these things wrong?

I hope I am not carrying this discussion too far away. I am still waiting for your reply on whether you agree Paul kept the law.

The reason is:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Whether Paul kept the law or not. I do not think he kept the whole law all the time after he became a Christian. I think he ate pork with Gentiles and other such things, so technically he was breaking the law.

Actually, Paul did not keep the law before he became a Christian either. He was a murderer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Sorry for barging in but this is also related to what we are discussing....

As far as I currently understand, your "keep the law" is related to "effort by the work of flesh". Removing that part from the statement could be dangerous to untrained ears. (I am afraid the kind of freedom Evangelical referred to is a result of certain misunderstanding of the character of God.)

Put it this way, I think there are two types of keeping the law:

(1) we keep the law by the flesh through efforts in order to gain righteousness ("a good show")
(2) we keep the law by the heart through efforts because God is right, we love Him and want to please Him.

God does not want (1). But I believe He wants (2), and (2) is achievable when we live Christ.

I disagree that God wants (2).

Consider carefully who the law is intended for for:
1 Tim 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious

Christians are not under the law for salvation or for living (Romans 5:20, Romans 6:1-2). The bible says clearly that we are not under law but under grace:

Romans 6:14
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

God wants us to walk in Christ, to live under His grace. This is the way to please Him.

There is a misconception in Christianity that the law is required for believers to "keep them accountable" or keep them from sinning. This is a wrong concept based on Romans 6:14 - the law is never said to be the answer for sin. Only grace is the answer for sin. Also, the more law there is, the more sin there is. It's counter intuitive to the fleshly mind, but the solution to the problem of sin is less law and more grace.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason is:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Whether Paul kept the law or not. I do not think he kept the whole law all the time after he became a Christian. I think he ate pork with Gentiles and other such things, so technically he was breaking the law.

Actually, Paul did not keep the law before he became a Christian either. He was a murderer.

What does Eph 4:13 prove?

Please provide scripture reference that Paul has done the things you mentioned: eating pork, murder

[Ohio]

There is no way to discuss the "LAW" unless we define what "LAW" we are discussing.

Few words in scripture create so much confusion. Another related confuser is "works."

One may say "LAW" and think circumcision, and another may say "LAW" and think about loving his neighbor to please God.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no way to discuss the "LAW" unless we define what "LAW" we are discussing.

Few words in scripture create so much confusion. Another related confuser is "works."

One may say "LAW" and think circumcision, and another may say "LAW" and think about loving his neighbor to please God.

Agree. Different people have different views on what the law is about. And I think how they see it reflects their hearts to a certain degree.

I don't expect to achieve a common base of discussion with Evangelical on this huge topic. That why I started with something simpler - did Paul keep the law, or at least what did he say about himself in keeping the law. But still struggling...

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a misconception in Christianity that the law is required for believers to "keep them accountable" or keep them from sinning. This is a wrong concept based on Romans 6:14 - the law is never said to be the answer for sin. Only grace is the answer for sin. Also, the more law there is, the more sin there is. It's counter intuitive to the fleshly mind, but the solution to the problem of sin is less law and more grace.

Is this a quote from Witness Lee?

This paragraph makes it sound like this is the prevailing thought in modern evangelical Christianity. Is that what you are trying to communicate here? This would go against my experience.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Ohio,

This is a serious discussion. Stop dismissing my conversation as game playing. Stop flying off the handle. You are being disruptive. This is what I meant before by not engaging with you. I really want to discuss matters with you and I value your perspective but not this vitriol.

Do you agree with the working assumption that Boxjobox and I agreed to in this conversation?

Here it is. I posted it twice.

We live in the same city, town ,village Etc. We are born again believers. We all agree that the church in our place is local meaning the boundary and unit is neither greater nor smaller than the city in which we live. We recognize and affirm that denominations are sinful. We teach the Bible and it’s truths. We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.

That is the working assumption we are using for this part of the conversation. "Everywhere" does not fit the working assumption. If you don't agree that is fine. I don't mind. Just say that you don't then so I know where you are coming from in the conversation.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, a couple of things to consider/discuss: I would say that a clergy/laity system would be practiced where you have a leader or a few leaders who set the agenda of a Christian gathering and their viewpoint and agenda rules over those meeting. The speaking of those meeting is not important or practiced other than the clergy's because the clergy are the ones assuming the position being trained in or possessing the truth which the assembly needs to receive. The position and authority of the clergy would trump anything the non clergy would or could offer. How would you define clergy/laity system as it seems to be important to your definition of a proper church meeting?

Second, concerning the church: seems to me that the ground of THE Church is the earth ( at least until and if Christians settle elsewhere- the church in the moon!?). So that groups of members meeting in any location are THE church. Also seems to me that the term we use as church is used by Paul in a couple of ways: one as the universal body of Christ, and the other to refer to the called out ones gathering together. Seems to me that christians (members of the body of Christ) that meet together are those of both uses of the word church. Seems to me that Paul is writing his epistles to the body of Christ (the church), which gather in a certain city at various places, yet to maintain the universal view “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”**Eph‬ *4:1-6‬ * seems to me that one group in the city calling themselves THE church in that city, is rather divisive in light of Paul's word of endeavor it to keep the unity. ( I would point out a few other things about this unity Paul speaks of here to the Ephesians, but don't want to get, aaahemm, kicked to the alt site). Paul seemed to have no problem greeting Priscilla and Aquila and the church that was in their house, which it would seem a little foolish to think that all the church in Rome was meeting at their house or Paul would not have to single it out.
I would say that those gathering together in the unity Paul speaks about would be the proper church. I think you define church in a very narrow way. What say you?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Is this a quote from Witness Lee?

This paragraph makes it sound like this is the prevailing thought in modern evangelical Christianity. Is that what you are trying to communicate here? This would go against my experience.

In Arminian Christianity I believe it is.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason is:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Whether Paul kept the law or not. I do not think he kept the whole law all the time after he became a Christian. I think he ate pork with Gentiles and other such things, so technically he was breaking the law.

Actually, Paul did not keep the law before he became a Christian either. He was a murderer.

Have you found the evidence yet? Did Paul eat pork or murder someone?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Have you found the evidence yet? Did Paul eat pork or murder someone?

Nothing was unclean for Paul, indicating that if Paul was offered pork by a gentile (highly likely considering Paul ate and drank with gentiles) he would have eaten it.

Romans 14:14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

Acts 8:1 - murder

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nothing was unclean for Paul, indicating that if Paul was offered pork by a gentile (highly likely considering Paul ate and drank with gentiles) he would have eaten it.

Romans 14:14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

Acts 8:1 - murder

Check Romans 14:20-21. Would Paul cause his brothers to stumble?

So eating pork is only your guess. Act 8:1 didn't say he murdered anyone either.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, a couple of things to consider/discuss: I would say that a clergy/laity system would be practiced where you have a leader or a few leaders who set the agenda of a Christian gathering and their viewpoint and agenda rules over those meeting. The speaking of those meeting is not important or practiced other than the clergy's because the clergy are the ones assuming the position being trained in or possessing the truth which the assembly needs to receive. The position and authority of the clergy would trump anything the non clergy would or could offer. How would you define clergy/laity system as it seems to be important to your definition of a proper church meeting?

Hi Boxjobox,

Two very big and two very important topics. I will offer my point of view for both in two posts.

Both a clergy laity system and a proper local church according to the scripture have authority, practice/function, and a result. Though they both possess these characteristics one is according to the scripture and one is not. One builds up the church and one inhibits the building up of the church.

I think you recognize and agree with me that a clergy laity system does not build up a local church as it anuls the functioning of the members of the Body. Hence, the members become laity, members that for the most part are not in service to the Body, therefore it cannot be built up.

In a proper local church, one according to the scripture, there is also authority, practice/function, and a result. I believe you also agree with me on the practice/function in a local church of “each one has” according to 1 Corinthians 14:26 and the result is the service to the Body according to each members function and exercise of gifts as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 12 and it’s building up according to Ephesians 4:12. Perhaps you still strive to practice this based on the second question you asked. Your issue is with the matter of authority... who has it, how is it to be exercised and most importantly on what basis does any extra local person(s), local person(s), or organization have rights to engage in a local church in a position of authority. I believe your argument also is that extra local interference, unsolicited or solicited, is an indication of clergy laity. And that a strong local leadership is also clergy laity. Yet, the scripture shows that workers, those involved in the work of ministry, engage in a local church to appoint elders and to train them, to teach them how to teach, and how to manage various affairs. Scriptural examples include.... Paul exhorted Timothy to remain in Ephesus to charge certain ones not to teach different things:

“Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things.” 1Timothy 1:3

Paul left Titus in Crete to set things in order:

“For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you:” Titus 1:5

Neither Timothy or Titus were elders in those places Paul left them. Paul as the lead apostle in establishing these churches through his work of ministry delegated his apostolic authority to Timothy and Titus, neither of them being elders, yet they were instructed to charge some in those local churches what to teach and what not to teach, speaking, exhorting, appointing, training, reminding, admonishing, receiving, refusing, convicting ..,.

“These things speak, and exhort and convict with all authority. Let no one despise you.” Titus 2:15

That is not clergy laity. Rather, we see from this that there is another kind of authority, a spiritual authority.

Therefore, a ministry that establishes churches also has the responsibility for supporting those churches directly in appointing elders and charging what should and should not be taught, etc. as evidenced by Paul’s authority and the delegation of that authority to two co-workers, Timothy and Titus, and their involvement in the local churches where he left them. Perhaps some in those local churches objected to Paul and his coworkers having a strong hand in local affairs but their purpose would have been to bring members into the service of the Body and avoid a clergy laity system from emerging.

Thanks
Drake

[micah6v8]

Eph 4 v 11 to 13:-
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

One thing I learnt from non-LSM Christian literature is to set aside the “sacred-secular” divide. Some have had this divide where the “spiritual/sacred” parts of their lives (eg serving in church) belongs to a “higher”/important sphere while the ordinary day-to-day life (e.g. having a job in a bank) belongs to a lower, spiritually less significant sphere.
Where one has such a “sacred-secular” divide, one might end up with a compartmentalised view of life, viewing his “secular” Monday-Friday job as nothing more than a place to make a living. He would think that his job is only really valuable when the sacred invades it from time to time (e.g. where he has an opportunity to preach to a colleague during a lunch break).
Before the fall of man in Genesis, man was actually called to work in the garden; just as God had Himself taken on the “secular” work of creation (in His six days). Our “secular” work is actually God’s work for us.

Why do I talk about this in this thread?

I think the problem in the Lord’s Recovery is that many in the local churches have not set aside the “sacred-secular” divide:- As a result, they see that the only way to “function” is by participating in the “sacred” sphere. Eg if he is not speaking in a meeting or doing some church-related work (e.g. Serving in Bread and Cups/ Serving the Youths in church), he thinks he is not doing God’s work and “not functioning”. Not prophesying in the Lord's table meeting is seen as "not functioning"! And who wouldn't want to do God's work/function? Everyone has heard the parable of the Master admonishing the slave who did not use his one talent.

Actually, the role of the vocational ministers (those in verse 11….whom are sometimes attributed as the “clergy” or “full-timers”) is to equip the rest of the believers mentioned in verse 12 (whom are sometimes attributed “the laity”) so these believers can do their various God-given works (usually their “secular” jobs) effectively. The goal really is to grow in Christlikeness (Verse 13.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Check Romans 14:20-21. Would Paul cause his brothers to stumble? So eating pork is only your guess. Act 8:1 didn't say he murdered anyone either.

I don't feel I am discussing with someone who knows the bible. Rather someone who needs to go back to Sunday school. Most Christians from John Piper to Benny Hinn think that Paul was a murderer or at least an accomplice to murder which makes him a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus):

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

If you can't get these basics right how can you properly interpret the prophets?

[aron]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I think the problem in the Lord’s Recovery is that many in the local churches have not set aside the “sacred-secular” divide:- As a result, they see that the only way to “function” is by participating in the “sacred” sphere. Eg if he is not speaking in a meeting or doing some church-related work (e.g. Serving in Bread and Cups/ Serving the Youths in church), he thinks he is not doing God’s work and “not functioning”. Not prophesying in the Lord's table meeting is seen as "not functioning"! And who wouldn't want to do God's work/function? Everyone has heard the parable of the Master admonishing the slave who did not use his one talent.

And the whole thing of "clergy nullifying the functioning" that Lee always pushed: first, he's reacting to a 90-year old model, where most everyone sat in the pews. Today people are functioning in the community church model. Second, the only "function" that is promoted in the LSM is to repeat the HWMR, or cheer-lead some book from Lee that changed your life. Sure, some people can free-lance, but that is the exception, not the rule, and at the margins. If they're even slightly successful you can bet HQ will notice, and squelch it.

Originally Posted by Drake

That is not clergy laity. Rather, we see from this that there is another kind of authority, a spiritual authority.

The usual self-obsessed double-speak. When others do it, it's clergy-laity. When we do it, it's spiritual authority.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't feel I am discussing with someone who knows the bible. Rather someone who needs to go back to Sunday school. Most Christians from John Piper to Benny Hinn think that Paul was a murderer or at least an accomplice to murder which makes him a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus):

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

If you can't get these basics right how can you properly interpret the prophets?

Do you have to resolve to twisting the meaning of a verse to prove your point? Is this how you intrepret the scripture?

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

Do you see your double standard here? When you say we don't need to keep the law, you take law as the old covenant law already replaced by Jesus. Now you have to resolve to new testament standard from Jesus to prove Paul was not keeping the law.

You know what the bible says about your attitude? Lawlessness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do you have to resolve to twisting the meaning of a verse to prove your point? Is this how you intrepret the scripture?

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

Do you see your double standard here? When you say we don't need to keep the law, you take law as the old covenant law already replaced by Jesus. Now you have to resolve to new testament standard from Jesus to prove Paul was not keeping the law.

You know what the bible says about your attitude? Lawlessness.

A L B thanks for pointing this out. It displays ... Once again ... How little most LSMers really study the actual details of scripture.

It also reveals the vast differences in heart attitudes between Paul and Lee. Paul demeaned himself in humility when speaking of the Lord Jesus. Lee and his minions, however, regularly elevated him and his ministry high above all.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A L B thanks for pointing this out. It displays ... Once again ... How little most LSMers really study the actual details of scripture.

It also reveals the vast differences in heart attitudes between Paul and Lee. Paul demeaned himself in humility when speaking of the Lord Jesus. Lee and his minions, however, regularly elevated him and his ministry high above all.

Would Lee have verbalized a similar sentiment to Evangelical - "I don't feel I am discussing with someone who knows the bible. Rather someone who needs to go back to Sunday school."?

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge... but do not have love, I am nothing.

It seems like the deeper you go into the works of Lee the further away you get from the love and power of Christ. Very sad situation. Pray for our brothers.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do you have to resolve to twisting the meaning of a verse to prove your point? Is this how you intrepret the scripture?

Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

Do you see your double standard here? When you say we don't need to keep the law, you take law as the old covenant law already replaced by Jesus. Now you have to resolve to new testament standard from Jesus to prove Paul was not keeping the law.

You know what the bible says about your attitude? Lawlessness.

Dont you know that an accomplice to murder can be charged as felony murder in many countries? Why are you ignoring the standard of Jesus and not defining murder as he did?

I could quote almost any bible teacher now who would agree that Paul was a murderer. Who you got to support your view? Which bible teachers? Show me yours I show you mine.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dont you know that an accomplice to murder can be charged as felony murder in many countries? Why are you ignoring the standard of Jesus and not defining murder as he did?

I could quote almost any bible teacher now who would agree that Paul was a murderer. Who you got to support your view? Which bible teachers? Show me yours I show you mine.

Act 9:1* And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Act 9:1* And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,

It says Paul was breathing murder, as if that is all he lived for. He didnt just crack one day under pressure, he had murder in his heart. Stephens death was not enough to quench his murderous zeal. He had a name for himself as one who helped murder Christians. He probably had people under him who did his dirty work like a crime boss. He would conspire and arrange to put people to death.

I dont know what planet leastofthese and Ohio live on but this would be enough to send someone to jail for felony murder. They talk about Gods law but seems they dont understand the basic laws.

[UntoHim]

What does any of this have to do with "How many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery?
-

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont know what planet leastofthese and Ohio live on but this would be enough to send someone to jail for felony murder. They talk about Gods law but seems they dont understand the basic laws.

Please explain, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Boxjobox,

Two very big and two very important topics. I will offer my point of view for both in two posts.

Both a clergy laity system and a proper local church according to the scripture have authority, practice/function, and a result. Though they both possess these characteristics one is according to the scripture and one is not. One builds up the church and one inhibits the building up of the church.

I think you recognize and agree with me that a clergy laity system does not build up a local church as it anuls the functioning of the members of the Body. Hence, the members become laity, members that for the most part are not in service to the Body, therefore it cannot be built up.

In a proper local church, one according to the scripture, there is also authority, practice/function, and a result. I believe you also agree with me on the practice/function in a local church of “each one has” according to 1 Corinthians 14:26 and the result is the service to the Body according to each members function and exercise of gifts as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 12 and it’s building up according to Ephesians 4:12. Perhaps you still strive to practice this based on the second question you asked. Your issue is with the matter of authority... who has it, how is it to be exercised and most importantly on what basis does any extra local person(s), local person(s), or organization have rights to engage in a local church in a position of authority. I believe your argument also is that extra local interference, unsolicited or solicited, is an indication of clergy laity. And that a strong local leadership is also clergy laity. Yet, the scripture shows that workers, those involved in the work of ministry, engage in a local church to appoint elders and to train them, to teach them how to teach, and how to manage various affairs. Scriptural examples include.... Paul exhorted Timothy to remain in Ephesus to charge certain ones not to teach different things:

“Even as I exhorted you, when I was going into Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus in order that you might charge certain ones not to teach different things.” 1Timothy 1:3

Paul left Titus in Crete to set things in order:

“For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you:” Titus 1:5

Neither Timothy or Titus were elders in those places Paul left them. Paul as the lead apostle in establishing these churches through his work of ministry delegated his apostolic authority to Timothy and Titus, neither of them being elders, yet they were instructed to charge some in those local churches what to teach and what not to teach, speaking, exhorting, appointing, training, reminding, admonishing, receiving, refusing, convicting ..,.

“These things speak, and exhort and convict with all authority. Let no one despise you.” Titus 2:15

That is not clergy laity. Rather, we see from this that there is another kind of authority, a spiritual authority.

Therefore, a ministry that establishes churches also has the responsibility for supporting those churches directly in appointing elders and charging what should and should not be taught, etc. as evidenced by Paul’s authority and the delegation of that authority to two co-workers, Timothy and Titus, and their involvement in the local churches where he left them. Perhaps some in those local churches objected to Paul and his coworkers having a strong hand in local affairs but their purpose would have been to bring members into the service of the Body and avoid a clergy laity system from emerging.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, I think you made a quantum leap somewhere in your consideration of the church and authority. My original position was one where I pointed out that to me, a proper church assembly would not one day have the elders publish that we are one with WL/LSM and are going to follow them. That is a divisive move that did not build up the local assembly, but created a civil war of factions, backbiting, mistrust, etc, and really, resulted in one group taking over the meeting place for their own practice.
WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle. Also, and not an insignificant matter, WL set up a business to publish his ministry called LSM. A business is an entity to produce, market and sell a product. I would hardly think you would agree that a business should have authority over a local church. If some wished to purchase material, or attend its functions, then those individual saints would be free to do so, and free to put themselves under the authority, or direction of LSM, but not in the capacity as members of the church, but as their own private choice. If some wished to speak or reference his material in a church meeting, if they felt it would edifying the saints, that would be the same as if someone referenced Andrew Murray or another bible teacher. If it was not used in a divisive, or authoritarian way, if others could add or subtract from such, I would not have a problem with that. But to turn over the whole church assembly to be subject to LSM, is not caring for the conscience or conviction of all the members. Those churches, or maybe I should just say those meeting as the church in my city, ceased to be the local church when they carried out their plan to impose LSM as the overriding content of all things "church". This became not a local assembly of The Church, but a church- gathering of LSM.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What does any of this have to do with "How many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery?
-

Sorry if we have carried this too off-topic.

I think Evangelical started this thread trying to show how influential WL is. I pointed out some fallacies in WL's teachings to indicate having heard of him doesn't mean anything. People can have heard of him but they understand his was wrong and ignore him.

May be it touched the nerve of Evangelical and so we started all these. I tried to stop at one point but may be he is a bit too relentless to defend WL (or what he thinks he know).

Anyway, if I have to relate this with the original topic, it has developed into a discussion revealing what happens to people who have heard of WL and followed him without proper discernment.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dont you know that an accomplice to murder can be charged as felony murder in many countries? Why are you ignoring the standard of Jesus and not defining murder as he did?

I could quote almost any bible teacher now who would agree that Paul was a murderer. Who you got to support your view? Which bible teachers? Show me yours I show you mine.

Great, two types of law are not enough for you, now you have to turn to "basic law".

Ohio has pointed out earlier that different people has different view of what "law" is. Some think it is the old covenant law like cicumcision, some think it is what God requires of us in the new testament.

Actually either view is fine, as long as a person is consistent in how he treats the law according to how he understands it. If you refer to old testament law, you cannot accuse Paul of murder or other violations of law. If you are using the new standard from Jesus, that you cannot igore this new standard and say you don't need to keep this. Why would Jesus reveals to you a higher standard if it has no significance?

You asked for reference from bible teachers. Let's talk about John Piper as you mentioned his name. If I understand him correctly, he considers Paul murderous using the higher standard set by Jesus. And how he views this higher standard?

I just did a quick google search and find the following from him. Not very different from what I have been saying, right?

Faith is required by the law. Faith is the sole means of union with Christ whose righteousness vindicates us at the judgment. All the other obedience that comes from that faith is fruit — fruit of that union, not the means of that union. That is so crucial. Let me say that again. All the obedience that the Christian performs, all that obedience, is fruit that comes from a faith-established union, not a works-established union, a faith-established union with Christ, and so that fruit is not a means of being a good tree. It is the result of being a good tree. And you get to be a good tree by faith alone in union with Jesus. And then the Holy Spirit is moving. So Romans 2:13 is not a contradiction on my reading either of Paul’s teaching of justification by faith alone.

Source: https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...christian-life

That is what I call consistence.

When I asked you whether Paul kept the law, I don't think you have thought about what law we are talking about. You just pick whatever kind of law that helps support your own argument. This type of thinking could be fruit of WL's teaching as well because that's what he did to commonly understood terms. He changed the definitions and turned godly matters (law, justice, mercy, humility) into human natures that have no value.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Great, two types of law are not enough for you, now you have to turn to "basic law".

Ohio has pointed out earlier that different people has different view of what "law" is. Some think it is the old covenant law like cicumcision, some think it is what God requires of us in the new testament.

Actually either view is fine, as long as a person is consistent in how he treats the law according to how he understands it. If you refer to old testament law, you cannot accuse Paul of murder or other violations of law. If you are using the new standard from Jesus, that you cannot igore this new standard and say you don't need to keep this. Why would Jesus reveals to you a higher standard if it has no significance?

You asked for reference from bible teachers. Let's talk about John Piper as you mentioned his name. If I understand him correctly, he considers Paul murderous using the higher standard set by Jesus. And how he views this higher standard?

I just did a quick google search and find the following from him. Not very different from what I have been saying, right?

Faith is required by the law. Faith is the sole means of union with Christ whose righteousness vindicates us at the judgment. All the other obedience that comes from that faith is fruit — fruit of that union, not the means of that union. That is so crucial. Let me say that again. All the obedience that the Christian performs, all that obedience, is fruit that comes from a faith-established union, not a works-established union, a faith-established union with Christ, and so that fruit is not a means of being a good tree. It is the result of being a good tree. And you get to be a good tree by faith alone in union with Jesus. And then the Holy Spirit is moving. So Romans 2:13 is not a contradiction on my reading either of Paul’s teaching of justification by faith alone.

Source: https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...christian-life

That is what I call consistence.

When I asked you whether Paul kept the law, I don't think you have thought about what law we are talking about. You just pick whatever kind of law that helps support your own argument. This type of thinking could be fruit of WL's teaching as well because that's what he did to commonly understood terms. He changed the definitions and turned godly matters (law, justice, mercy, humility) into human natures that have no value.

Verrrry interesting that you mention John Piper. Here some articles where John Piper said Paul was a murderer:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...ome-a-murderer

https://www.christianpost.com/news/j...-christ-69994/

It's very simple. If Paul was a murderer then He broke God's laws. That's why he needed Christ. Paul was never ever sinless in the eyes of the law, neither old testament or new testament law.

By the way, another example of a murderer is David. David conspired to kill Uriah, yet Nathan said David himself struck him down:

2 Samuel 12:9 ".....You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own."

You don't seem to understand that conspiracy to murder is the same as murder in God's eyes. It doesn't matter whether Paul or David actually held the knife or not, it's still murder.

Also, the "higher standard" of the New Testament was actually Jesus explaining the full, spiritual meaning of the Old Testament Law.

Matthew Henry commentary:
5:21-26 The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now.

You are talking like one of those Pharisees when you disagree that Paul was a murderer:

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

The concept of "direct murder" versus "indirect murder" is a Pharisee concept. Jesus made clear that all forms of murder, even hatred, is murder in God's eyes.

This is why I said that Paul was a murderer. John Piper agrees with me.

You are clearly wrong when you said

"He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law."

Paul was never sinless according to the law in God's eyes. Whenever his heart started to hate a Christ-follower he became a law breaker as a murderer.

[Drake]

Boxjobox>”WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle”

Boxjobox,

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling? I am not saying everyone needs to believe what they taught and I am not saying there are not many different Christian ministries..... I am saying, as pertains to the local churches (the working assumption and definition we are using in this discussion), there is one work of ministry that is responsible for raising them up and one that is responsible before the Lord to teach, edify, and strengthen them. Our history is water under the bridge, no one can deny the ministry that facilitated the producing of the local churches, or the one that functions as the keeper of the teachings and practices of the local churches. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the many coworkers were not and are not just bible teachers with a set of interesting teachings... no, rather if what they did and do is not the biblical description of the work of ministry to build up the local churches, the responsibility of a Timothy and a Titus or any number of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, then please show me what is. That is how a I view it and that is probably how the elders you mentioned viewed it too, or something close to that. If the work of this ministry strayed from the vision, if their teaching or practice were to veer off the course of this special calling, I would by the Lords mercy and grace stay on this path anyway.

Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Verrrry interesting that you mention John Piper. Here some articles where John Piper said Paul was a murderer:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...ome-a-murderer

https://www.christianpost.com/news/j...-christ-69994/

It's very simple. If Paul was a murderer then He broke God's laws. That's why he needed Christ. Paul was never ever sinless in the eyes of the law, neither old testament or new testament law.

By the way, another example of a murderer is David. David conspired to kill Uriah, yet Nathan said David himself struck him down:

2 Samuel 12:9 ".....You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own."

You don't seem to understand that conspiracy to murder is the same as murder in God's eyes. It doesn't matter whether Paul or David actually held the knife or not, it's still murder.

Also, the "higher standard" of the New Testament was actually Jesus explaining the full, spiritual meaning of the Old Testament Law.

Matthew Henry commentary:
5:21-26 The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now.

You are talking like one of those Pharisees when you disagree that Paul was a murderer:

What does it prove? Threatening murder means murder?

You know yourself there is no reference of Paul committing direct murder in the scripture. That's why you have to refer to what makes him "a murderer in God's eyes (even hatred is murder according to Jesus)."

The concept of "direct murder" versus "indirect murder" is a Pharisee concept. Jesus made clear that all forms of murder, even hatred, is murder in God's eyes.

This is why I said that Paul was a murderer. John Piper agrees with me.

You are clearly wrong when you said

"He still claimed he was sinless according to the law at that time. Unless he was lying, he did keep the law."

Paul was never sinless according to the law in God's eyes. Whenever his heart started to hate a Christ-follower he became a law breaker as a murderer.

Seems you didn't even carefully read what I last wrote...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It says Paul was breathing murder, as if that is all he lived for. He didnt just crack one day under pressure, he had murder in his heart. Stephens death was not enough to quench his murderous zeal. He had a name for himself as one who helped murder Christians. He probably had people under him who did his dirty work like a crime boss. He would conspire and arrange to put people to death.

I dont know what planet leastofthese and Ohio live on but this would be enough to send someone to jail for felony murder. They talk about Gods law but seems they dont understand the basic laws.

But bro Evangelical you're perchance kicking the toe of their idol. Paul founded Christianity. All us gentiles are followers of Jesus because of him.

Paul should have been locked up for life, or executed, for his murderous crimes ... but he gets a pass ... a get out of jail free pass, for founding Christianity.

Christianity was founded by a murderer, and that's very hard to swallow.

But unless he's preaching Lee these days, on mainstream media, that murderer has very little to do with how many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery.

Conversely, that Lee hasn't been heard of, in the whole world, is hard for LCers to believe, and therefore also a hard pill to swallow. He's their idol.

All idolaters of Lee, please speak up. Just admit the truth and be done with it. That would be refreshing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Seems you didn't even carefully read what I last wrote...

I read it. Why you disagree with Piper that Paul was a murderer?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

But bro Evangelical you're perchance kicking the toe of their idol. Paul founded Christianity. All us gentiles are followers of Jesus because of him.

Paul should have been locked up for life, or executed, for his murderous crimes ... but he gets a pass ... a get out of jail free pass, for founding Christianity.

Christianity was founded by a murderer, and that's very hard to swallow.

But unless he's preaching Lee these days, on mainstream media, that murderer has very little to do with how many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery.

Conversely, that Lee hasn't been heard of, in the whole world, is hard for LCers to believe, and therefore also a hard pill to swallow. He's their idol.

All idolaters of Lee, please speak up. Just admit the truth and be done with it. That would be refreshing.

Then so is John Piper he thinks Paul was a murderer too.

Some seem to believe in two perfect people who never broke the law...Jesus and Paul.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I read it. Why you disagree with Piper that Paul was a murderer?

Well, actually I don't disagree with Piper's view.

As I mentioned earlier, it depends on which standard the person uses to judge Paul and how that person treats the standard he is using.

Piper uses Jesus' higher standard and then he believes we should live out our lives according to that standard, not as requirement for justification, but as fruit of good tree.

Your view, if I understand correctly, is different. You use the higher standard as the law to condemn Paul a murderer. At the same time, you say as believers we don't need to keep the law - in which you generalize the "old" law as what was referred to in "keeping the law" and ignore the higher law.

Your reference to basic law indicates one important point - Time. Which law was Paul aware of when he did what he did? Certainly not the basic law of the modern world. When he was persecuting Christians, he did not commit the type of murder mentioned in the written law in the Pentateuch. And after he was converted, he became aware of the higher standards revealed by Jesus. And he lived a different life since then, just like other truly saved Christians.

So was Paul a murderer by the written law in the Pentateuch? No.

Was he a murderer by the standard of God more clearly revealed by Jesus? Yes. But God judges not only by those murderous acts Paul performed, also whether there is a change in his heart and in his life. Isn't that what His grace is about?

Did Paul abandon keeping the "old" law after his conversion? This could be another topic of debate but I don't think there is any solid evidence in the scripture to prove he did. He understood those shadows would not justify him righteous, but neither keeping those shadows would make him unrighteous as long as his faith is true. By keeping the old but not considering this a gain, he could be as under the law before those under the law and as without law before those without law. He emphasized "I am not without law to God but within law to Christ" (1 Cor 9-20-21)

Also, as I mentioned earlier, if he did violate the "old" law and claimed himself sinless (By the laws of the Jews, temple and Caesar. He didn't mention the law of God) in Acts 25, he would be a lying Christian, and a lying MOTA from LC perspective.

So I believe he was keeping both the "old" and the "new' after his conversion. In fact, he kept all the laws including those of the Jews, the temple, and Caesar. Would he fail from time to time keeping the "new" law? Probably (Rom 7:22-24). That's when he would apply God's grace to help himself back on track in his heavenly journey.

Last but not least, let's not forget the more important matter - what do we do now that we have no excuse anymore - the higher standard was already revealed by Jesus.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I suspect many of us have a vision of the church- it would be really good if those who claim to meet as the "LC" would repent, drop LSM and start meeting in that vision again. They stole the meeting hall from the church, they stole the simplicity of meeting as the church, and turned it over to LSM. I don't want to meet with delusional thiefs. If repentance ever comes, I would be one of the first to return to breaking bread, fellowship, preaching the gospel, love feasts, meeting in the home, and enjoying the saints as the simple church in the city.

Amen. I have listened to others speaking the same thing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Well, actually I don't disagree with Piper's view.

As I mentioned earlier, it depends on which standard the person uses to judge Paul and how that person treats the standard he is using.

Piper uses Jesus' higher standard and then he believes we should live out our lives according to that standard, not as requirement for justification, but as fruit of good tree.

Your view, if I understand correctly, is different. You use the higher standard as the law to condemn Paul a murderer. At the same time, you say as believers we don't need to keep the law - in which you generalize the "old" law as what was referred to in "keeping the law" and ignore the higher law.

Your reference to basic law indicates one important point - Time. Which law was Paul aware of when he did what he did? Certainly not the basic law of the modern world. When he was persecuting Christians, he did not commit the type of murder mentioned in the written law in the Pentateuch. And after he was converted, he became aware of the higher standards revealed by Jesus. And he lived a different life since then, just like other truly saved Christians.

So was Paul a murderer by the written law in the Pentateuch? No.

Was he a murderer by the standard of God more clearly revealed by Jesus? Yes. But God judges not only by those murderous acts Paul performed, also whether there is a change in his heart and in his life. Isn't that what His grace is about?

Did Paul abandon keeping the "old" law after his conversion? This could be another topic of debate but I don't think there is any solid evidence in the scripture to prove he did. He understood those shadows would not justify him righteous, but neither keeping those shadows would make him unrighteous as long as his faith is true. By keeping the old but not considering this a gain, he could be as under the law before those under the law and as without law before those without law. He emphasized "I am not without law to God but within law to Christ" (1 Cor 9-20-21)

Also, as I mentioned earlier, if he did violate the "old" law and claimed himself sinless (By the laws of the Jews, temple and Caesar. He didn't mention the law of God) in Acts 25, he would be a lying Christian, and a lying MOTA from LC perspective.

So I believe he was keeping both the "old" and the "new' after his conversion. In fact, he kept all the laws including those of the Jews, the temple, and Caesar. Would he fail from time to time keeping the "new" law? Probably (Rom 7:22-24). That's when he would apply God's grace to help himself back on track in his heavenly journey.

Last but not least, let's not forget the more important matter - what do we do now that we have no excuse anymore - the higher standard was already revealed by Jesus.

Actually what Piper believes in is keeping the law, and Paul says we are not under law but under grace. People misinterpreted this to mean that we should sin more so that God's grace may increase. However Paul made clear that we have died to sin, so we cannot live in it any longer.

In Christ we died to the law (Gal 2:19, Rom 7:4), that's what Paul taught. Paul did not teach the concept of keeping the higher standard of law.

Jesus showed the higher standard to show people that they cannot keep the law - keeping 600+ laws was hard enough, but now even the "heart-laws" are too much to bear.

Christians do not "keep the law". They live in God's grace through Christ. Their sins are forgiven and the only work which God requires is to believe in Christ (John 6:29).

Paul is not an example of one who couldn't keep the law but after conversion could keep it according to Christ's standard. Paul is an example of someone who couldn't keep the law but "through the law died to the law" and found grace through Christ.

After believing in Christ it is not possible for a person to please God anymore through their own good works or keeping a higher standard of morality (whether by God's power or not).

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually what Piper believes in is keeping the law, and Paul says we are not under law but under grace. People misinterpreted this to mean that we should sin more so that God's grace may increase. However Paul made clear that we have died to sin, so we cannot live in it any longer.

1 Cor 9:21 To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law.

Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will impart My laws into their mind, and on their hearts I will inscribe them; and I will be God to them, and they will be a people to Me.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Christ we died to the law (Gal 2:19, Rom 7:4), that's what Paul taught. Paul did not teach the concept of keeping the higher standard of law.

Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves the other has fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:10 Love does not work evil to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Gal 5:13-14 For you were called for freedom, brothers; only do not turn this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus showed the higher standard to show people that they cannot keep the law - keeping 600+ laws was hard enough, but now even the "heart-laws" are too much to bear.

Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ completely.

Phi 4:13 I am able to do all things in Him who empowers me.

1 John 3:9 Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christians do not "keep the law". They live in God's grace through Christ. Their sins are forgiven and the only work which God requires is to believe in Christ (John 6:29).

Mat 7:21 Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who does the will of My Father who is in the heavens.

1 John 2:3-4 And in this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, I know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in this one;

2 Pet 2:21-22 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb: The dog has turned to its own vomit, and the washed sow to wallowing in the mud.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul is not an example of one who couldn't keep the law but after conversion could keep it according to Christ's standard. Paul is an example of someone who couldn't keep the law but "through the law died to the law" and found grace through Christ.

After believing in Christ it is not possible for a person to please God anymore through their own good works or keeping a higher standard of morality (whether by God's power or not).

2 Cor 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound unto you, that, in everything always having all sufficiency, you may abound unto every good work;

Col 1:10 To walk worthily of the Lord to please Him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work and growing by the full knowledge of God,

1 Thes 4:1 Furthermore, brothers, we ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that even as you received from us how you ought to walk and please God, even as indeed you do walk, that you abound still more.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox>”WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle”

Boxjobox,

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling? I am not saying everyone needs to believe what they taught and I am not saying there are not many different Christian ministries..... I am saying, as pertains to the local churches (the working assumption and definition we are using in this discussion), there is one work of ministry that is responsible for raising them up and one that is responsible before the Lord to teach, edify, and strengthen them. Our history is water under the bridge, no one can deny the ministry that facilitated the producing of the local churches, or the one that functions as the keeper of the teachings and practices of the local churches. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the many coworkers were not and are not just bible teachers with a set of interesting teachings... no, rather if what they did and do is not the biblical description of the work of ministry to build up the local churches, the responsibility of a Timothy and a Titus or any number of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, then please show me what is. That is how a I view it and that is probably how the elders you mentioned viewed it too, or something close to that. If the work of this ministry strayed from the vision, if their teaching or practice were to veer off the course of this special calling, I would by the Lords mercy and grace stay on this path anyway.

Drake

Drake, it sounds like you are saying that because WL brought forth the idea of the churches being a locality and that people began to meet as such, that somehow the churches are his, and all meeting as the church in a city must accept all of his other teachings. Now, because he is dead, all the churches must accept LSM and any teachings and practices that LSM may administer. In considering this, I still do not have a grasp of what you feel comprises a clergy/laity system. And What exactly do you mean by "We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.". What exactly does each one have in your opinion?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox>”WL defined himself as a little bible preacher- this would be far different than the apostle Paul coming in, or sending representatives to a new group of believers to establish them. Paul had the credentials of being called by God as an apostle. WL, no matter what his convictions in becoming a bible teacher, was not a called apostle”

Boxjobox,

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling? I am not saying everyone needs to believe what they taught and I am not saying there are not many different Christian ministries..... I am saying, as pertains to the local churches (the working assumption and definition we are using in this discussion), there is one work of ministry that is responsible for raising them up and one that is responsible before the Lord to teach, edify, and strengthen them. Our history is water under the bridge, no one can deny the ministry that facilitated the producing of the local churches, or the one that functions as the keeper of the teachings and practices of the local churches. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the many coworkers were not and are not just bible teachers with a set of interesting teachings... no, rather if what they did and do is not the biblical description of the work of ministry to build up the local churches, the responsibility of a Timothy and a Titus or any number of apostles mentioned in the New Testament, then please show me what is. That is how a I view it and that is probably how the elders you mentioned viewed it too, or something close to that. If the work of this ministry strayed from the vision, if their teaching or practice were to veer off the course of this special calling, I would by the Lords mercy and grace stay on this path anyway.

Drake

I would agree that the LRC was raised up through the ministry of WL and WN, though to be fair some churches, like the church in NY were raised up by other ministries and then "brought into the fold" of the LRC.

I also would agree that WL has the authority to appoint elders.

However, this is where I diverge from WL's doctrine. I don't believe that the NT teaches that elders must be appointed by "the apostle". As long as you are faithful to the word in the NT you are fine. Otherwise, what happens now? WL is dead, who appoints elders now? What happens if a new church is raised up via the gospel, saints moving, etc. Who appoints the elders now?

So the ultimate authority is not WL, or WN. It is the NT. Elders are the husband of one wife, raise their children well, etc. You could create a score card. Everyone may love one brother because he is charismatic with great messages, but, oh well, teaching the word well is not a major category but perhaps you could give bonus points. Maybe in the event of a tie.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Your argument is compelling if you believe that Brother Lee was only a little bible preacher and that LSM was only the publishing business for his teaching. On the surface it could appear that way to some yet to many it is not so simple and probably not to the elders you mentioned. Let me say it this way, if the elders you mentioned believed as you do, and then aligned the local church with the teachings of a little Bible teacher and his publisher then that action would indicate a sectarian spirit on their part and in violation of the clear teaching of the scripture. However, though Brother Lee was not, nor ever would be another Apostle Paul, he was to many local churches a sent one in function, a little “a” apostle not unlike the many that are mentioned in scripture such as Timothy and who through their labor were instrumental in raising up local churches according to the New Testament pattern as was his predecessor Watchman Nee. If you erase the ministries of these men from our spiritual history then through what gifts to the Body were the present local churches raised up? What Christian ministry did they issue from? Where is the work of ministry for the local churches if not the work of ministry from the two leading ministers for that particular work and special calling?

This is a gross darkness to attribute every LC to Lee. None of the Midwest churches, the NYC church, and dozens of others. Many of these churches existed before Lee's operatives moved in to take over. Now the Blendeds, many of whom never birthed any church, are now the apostolic authority over all LC's?

Paul and Timothy, however, clearly delineated between what church they actually birthed, and which they did not, like Rome.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a gross darkness to attribute every LC to Lee. None of the Midwest churches, the NYC church, and dozens of others. Many of these churches existed before Lee's operatives moved in to take over. Now the Blendeds, many of whom never birthed any church, are now the apostolic authority over all LC's?

Paul and Timothy, however, clearly delineated between what church they actually birthed, and which they did not, like Rome.

The church in Odessa was raised up by several brothers having a Bible study around Watchman Nee books. From there they contacted the LRC. You could give some credit to Watchman Nee, but let's be fair, these brothers were Christians before they read Watchman Nee, all he really added was the idea of the "ground of the church". At that point "LSM operatives" moved in and they were wrapped into the fold. They weren't raised up by Nee they were divided into a sect by Nee.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

1 Cor 9:21 To those without law, as without law (though I am not without law to God but within law to Christ), that I might gain those without law.

Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will impart My laws into their mind, and on their hearts I will inscribe them; and I will be God to them, and they will be a people to Me.



Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves the other has fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:10 Love does not work evil to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Gal 5:13-14 For you were called for freedom, brothers; only do not turn this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."



Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ completely.

Phi 4:13 I am able to do all things in Him who empowers me.

1 John 3:9 Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God.



Mat 7:21 Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who does the will of My Father who is in the heavens.

1 John 2:3-4 And in this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, I know Him, and does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in this one;

2 Pet 2:21-22 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb: The dog has turned to its own vomit, and the washed sow to wallowing in the mud.



2 Cor 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound unto you, that, in everything always having all sufficiency, you may abound unto every good work;

Col 1:10 To walk worthily of the Lord to please Him in all things, bearing fruit in every good work and growing by the full knowledge of God,

1 Thes 4:1 Furthermore, brothers, we ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that even as you received from us how you ought to walk and please God, even as indeed you do walk, that you abound still more.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, That the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.

You wrote previously:

Put it this way, I think there are two types of keeping the law:

(1) we keep the law by the flesh through efforts in order to gain righteousness ("a good show")
(2) we keep the law by the heart through efforts because God is right, we love Him and want to please Him.

God does not want (1). But I believe He wants (2), and (2) is achievable when we live Christ.


There is a difference between fulfill the law and keeping it. Note how many verses you quoted say fulfill the law. Sometimes Christians say "keep the law" but this is normally understood in the context of Christ fulfilling it on our behalf.

See what Piper says about being free from law-keeping for justification OR sanctification:

When the fulfilling of the Law it is called the “law of liberty” it means that as Christians we pursue love in liberty from law-keeping as the ground of our justification or the power of our sanctification.


https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...n-romans-8-3-4

As I mentioned before, some Christians think they need to keep the law to be sanctified. But the truth of the bible is that the law is fulfilled in Christ.


Here Piper writes how any effort to keep the law is a transgression of the law itself:

The effort to keep the law as a means of obliging God or man to bless you is a transgression of the law itself (2:18), and it brings a person under the law's curse (3:10). So the Judaizers are wrong to teach the Galatian Christians to supplement their faith with works of the law, and Paul is bending all his efforts in this book to cure Christians of such deadly legalism.


https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...ul-the-promise


Keeping the law through efforts as you wrote, is contrary to what Piper taught.

Now let's compare what Piper wrote with Micah:

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

In Micah 6:8 the word "require" is a strong word.

MacLaren commentary says

The Prophet read off rightly God’s requirements, but he had not anything to say about God’s gifts. So his word is a half-truth, and the more clearly it is seen, and the more earnestly a man tries to live up to the standard of the requirements laid down here, the more will he feel that there is something else needed, and the more will he see that the great central peculiarity and glory of Christianity is not that it reiterates or alters God’s requirements, but that it brings into view God’s gifts. ‘To do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God,’ is possible only through repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, it sounds like you are saying that because WL brought forth the idea of the churches being a locality and that people began to meet as such, that somehow the churches are his, and all meeting as the church in a city must accept all of his other teachings. Now, because he is dead, all the churches must accept LSM and any teachings and practices that LSM may administer. In considering this, I still do not have a grasp of what you feel comprises a clergy/laity system. And What exactly do you mean by "We meet in mutuality, that is, each one has and not in a clergy laity system.". What exactly does each one have in your opinion?

Boxjobox,

There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You wrote previously:

Put it this way, I think there are two types of keeping the law:

(1) we keep the law by the flesh through efforts in order to gain righteousness ("a good show")
(2) we keep the law by the heart through efforts because God is right, we love Him and want to please Him.

God does not want (1). But I believe He wants (2), and (2) is achievable when we live Christ.


There is a difference between fulfill the law and keeping it. Note how many verses you quoted say fulfill the law. Sometimes Christians say "keep the law" but this is normally understood in the context of Christ fulfilling it on our behalf.

See what Piper says about being free from law-keeping for justification OR sanctification:

When the fulfilling of the Law it is called the “law of liberty” it means that as Christians we pursue love in liberty from law-keeping as the ground of our justification or the power of our sanctification.


https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...n-romans-8-3-4

As I mentioned before, some Christians think they need to keep the law to be sanctified. But the truth of the bible is that the law is fulfilled in Christ.


Here Piper writes how any effort to keep the law is a transgression of the law itself:

The effort to keep the law as a means of obliging God or man to bless you is a transgression of the law itself (2:18), and it brings a person under the law's curse (3:10). So the Judaizers are wrong to teach the Galatian Christians to supplement their faith with works of the law, and Paul is bending all his efforts in this book to cure Christians of such deadly legalism.


https://www.desiringgod.org/messages...ul-the-promise


Keeping the law through efforts as you wrote, is contrary to what Piper taught.

Once again you have perfectly demonstrated your selective vision. You only see what you want to see. (I have given you benefit of doubt already. Otherwise, you are intentionally twisting the meaning of what Piper and I said.)

You quoted Piper on effort of keeping the law but you didn't see the red words I highlighted.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now let's compare what Piper wrote with Micah:

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

In Micah 6:8 the word "require" is a strong word.

When he said "require" is a "strong" word, you see it as something bad. Have you ever thought "strong" simply means it is very important? What is the source for this quote?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

MacLaren commentary says

The Prophet read off rightly God’s requirements, but he had not anything to say about God’s gifts. So his word is a half-truth, and the more clearly it is seen, and the more earnestly a man tries to live up to the standard of the requirements laid down here, the more will he feel that there is something else needed, and the more will he see that the great central peculiarity and glory of Christianity is not that it reiterates or alters God’s requirements, but that it brings into view God’s gifts. ‘To do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God,’ is possible only through repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Isn't half-truth part of the truth? Hasn't God been progressively revealing His truth? If you constantly think you don't need to keep the law, all these requirements are not even in you radar screen. How would you then earnestly try to live up to God's standard? That earnestness would lead you to Christ according to MacLaren.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Thanks
Drake

This is where it gets crazy. And why LC diehards see no room for legitimate disagreement.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is where it gets crazy. And why LC diehards see no room for legitimate disagreement.

K,

I think the intolerance is found in your post, not mine.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

K,

I think the intolerance is found in your post, not mine.

Drake

Drake, it's okay for Christians not to believe that LSM = "the work of ministry." In fact, it's okay and good to reject that view.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, it's okay for Christians not to believe that LSM = "the work of ministry." In fact, it's okay and good to reject that view.

Koinonia,

And it is also okay and good for christians to believe that there is a work of ministry that produces local churches according to the scriptures and to accept that ministry. If a Christian does not accept the scriptural definition of a local church, does not believe there is work of ministry to produce local churches, or does not believe that Living Stream Ministry is that work of ministry for those local churches, then that is between them and the Lord. They need to be faithful to what the Lord has shown them.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Isn't half-truth part of the truth? Hasn't God been progressively revealing His truth? If you constantly think you don't need to keep the law, all these requirements are not even in you radar screen. How would you then earnestly try to live up to God's standard? That earnestness would lead you to Christ according to MacLaren.

I was mistaken. MacLaren (not Piper) commentary on Micah 6:8 says the word require is a harsh (not strong) word which to me has negative connotation.

To me there are no requirements to keep the law for a few reasons

a) As a gentile I do not understand God's laws. I have a sense of morality in my heart but it is no use talking to me about the 534th law of the Torah.
b) Christ fulfilled the law on my behalf. If I break even just one law then I break them all. There is no chance of me keeping all of them so it is not worth trying to keep one of them. The only requirement is to believe.
c) the law is given for the unrighteous. In Christ God says I am righteous, so the law "does not apply".
d) there is no difference between a believer who tries to keep the law and a believer who doesn't.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I was mistaken. MacLaren (not Piper) commentary on Micah 6:8 says the word require is a harsh (not strong) word which to me has negative connotation.

I think he was just referring to the difficulty in meeting those requirements (the half-truth), especially Micah didn't mention the "gift". MacLaren didn't mean it is human concept.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To me there are no requirements to keep the law for a few reasons

a) As a gentile I do not understand God's laws. I have a sense of morality in my heart but it is no use talking to me about the 534th law of the Torah.
b) Christ fulfilled the law on my behalf. If I break even just one law then I break them all. There is no chance of me keeping all of them so it is not worth trying to keep one of them. The only requirement is to believe.
c) the law is given for the unrighteous. In Christ God says I am righteous, so the law "does not apply".
d) there is no difference between a believer who tries to keep the law and a believer who doesn't.

May be next time when you read the bible, please take note of how many times the apostles advised the believers to do good and stay away from evil. If the only requirement is believe and it doesn't matter whether the believers follow God's standard, probably a large portion of the epistles would be unnecessary.

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your heart having been enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and greediness, which is idolatry;

Col 3:6 Because of which things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience;

Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering;

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

And it is also okay and good for christians to believe that there is a work of ministry that produces local churches according to the scriptures and to accept that ministry. If a Christian does not accept the scriptural definition of a local church, does not believe there is work of ministry to produce local churches, or does not believe that Living Stream Ministry is that work of ministry for those local churches, then that is between them and the Lord. They need to be faithful to what the Lord has shown them.

Drake

Drake, there is a difference between accepting (in your terms) the "scriptural definition of a local church" or that there is a "work of ministry to produce local churches" and believing that LSM is the "the work of ministry."

Do you believe the Lord showed you that LSM is the work of ministry?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, there is a difference between accepting (in your terms) the "scriptural definition of a local church" or that there is a "work of ministry to produce local churches" and believing that LSM is the "the work of ministry."

Do you believe the Lord showed you that LSM is the work of ministry?

Not in the same way as the vision I received. I have said in this thread that, it is not only a historical fact but if the contribution and service of a LSM is not the work of ministry then please show me where it is.

Yet, if you dont believe the local church is the New Testament model or that there is the work of ministry to build up those churches then frankly a discussion about the role of the Living Stream Ministry in the work is irrelevant..... a non-starter.

Drake

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox,

There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, I seem to have to read your posts over a few times and then still am not sure of your meanings, probably because I'm not sure we would define words the same. The history that I lived through in the LC doesn't match what you say about LSM. LSM became a dividing point between the saints in my city. Most would have been happy to meet without the LSM affiliation, yet were forced to make a choice between carrying on in the LC with LCM at the helm and walking away. Many walked away. The LSM did not build up the church- it was a point of division. It is true that WL was probably most responsible for the concept of the LC coming about in my city, but when I started meeting in 1976, he was not the main influence, rather the elders were the ones who ministered along side the saints. As time went on, the influence of WL/LSM increased until there was no more room for anything else. Eventually this overt interference broke the Christian oneness the saints enjoyed. Where the ministry of the elders, who were apt to teach and encourage and set the example built the church, LSM divided it. That is historical.
I live in San Diego; if you look up the church in SD website, you do not find speaking about WL nor LSM being the building ministry- neither are written about in their statement of belief, practice or history. You seem to say that WL/LSM are the center and circumference of all things local.
It also makes no sense to me that you talk about the gifts and inspirations of the members of the local assembly yet see a need for a business to oversee the functioning of the saints. It seems to me that- and I may be mixing your opinions with others, or my own, that the real function of LSM is to supply content for the meetings and to insure that all participating in the meetings (functioning?) use that content. And that LSM is in the business of selling that content. I don't see a ministry, but a business. When I left the LC in the late 80's, it had become this sort of thing, and appears that it has only continued. Those who did not like the content had no choice but to leave. The meeting hall we had all contributed our time and money to maintain for the use of all the saints was turned over to the LSM business through some crafty elders- others left. The meeting hall was stolen from the saints. This is the history I went through.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, I seem to have to read your posts over a few times and then still am not sure of your meanings, probably because I'm not sure we would define words the same. The history that I lived through in the LC doesn't match what you say about LSM. LSM became a dividing point between the saints in my city. Most would have been happy to meet without the LSM affiliation, yet were forced to make a choice between carrying on in the LC with LCM at the helm and walking away. Many walked away. The LSM did not build up the church- it was a point of division.

It is true that WL was probably most responsible for the concept of the LC coming about in my city, but when I started meeting in 1976, he was not the main influence, rather the elders were the ones who ministered along side the saints. As time went on, the influence of WL/LSM increased until there was no more room for anything else. Eventually this overt interference broke the Christian oneness the saints enjoyed. Where the ministry of the elders, who were apt to teach and encourage and set the example built the church, LSM divided it. That is historical.

I live in San Diego; if you look up the church in SD website, you do not find speaking about WL nor LSM being the building ministry- neither are written about in their statement of belief, practice or history. You seem to say that WL/LSM are the center and circumference of all things local. It also makes no sense to me that you talk about the gifts and inspirations of the members of the local assembly yet see a need for a business to oversee the functioning of the saints. It seems to me that- and I may be mixing your opinions with others, or my own, that the real function of LSM is to supply content for the meetings and to insure that all participating in the meetings (functioning?) use that content. And that LSM is in the business of selling that content. I don't see a ministry, but a business.

When I left the LC in the late 80's, it had become this sort of thing, and appears that it has only continued. Those who did not like the content had no choice but to leave. The meeting hall we had all contributed our time and money to maintain for the use of all the saints was turned over to the LSM business through some crafty elders- others left. The meeting hall was stolen from the saints. This is the history I went through.

This post is worth re-reading.

This is exactly what happened to nearly every LC I was in starting in 1976 also.

Boxjobox, your story has been repeated hundreds of times across the country and around the world.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Not in the same way as the vision I received. I have said in this thread that, it is not only a historical fact but if the contribution and service of a LSM is not the work of ministry then please show me where it is.

Yet, if you dont believe the local church is the New Testament model or that there is the work of ministry to build up those churches then frankly a discussion about the role of the Living Stream Ministry in the work is irrelevant..... a non-starter.

Drake

Drake, "the work of ministry" is a spiritual principle. LSM, as a totally outward and temporal organization, cannot equal "the work of ministry." That is basic.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, "the work of ministry" is a spiritual principle. LSM, as a totally outward and temporal organization, cannot equal "the work of ministry." That is basic.

Koinonia,

Please provide a scriptural explanation for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a spiritual principle.

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

Boxjobox >”Drake, I seem to have to read your posts over a few times and then still am not sure of your meanings, probably because I'm not sure we would define words the same”

That may be Boxjobox. However, thanks for your last note. It was clear. I will consider it carefully and read it several times before responding.

Thanks
Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia, Please provide a scriptural explanation for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a spiritual principle.
Thanks Drake

Drake, it would be on you to provide a scriptural explanation for your remarkable assertion that "the work of ministry" is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim, California.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, it would be on you to provide a scriptural explanation for your remarkable assertion that "the work of ministry" is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim, California.

Koinomia,

I did already. I gave my explanation and rationale.

Then, you made an assertion that the work of ministry is merely "a spiritual principle".

It's not my responsibility to chase every unfounded assertion made in this forum.

You made the assertion so please validate your assertion from the Bible. Maybe you are right and we will all learn something.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

..that the work of ministry is merely a spiritual principle.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

...that "the work of ministry" is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim, California.

In reality, "the word of ministry" should be both "spiritual" and "earthly". After all, we know that God wants his will done "on earth as it is in heaven".

Both these brothers are very familiar with the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee. So why the differing views? Well, one of them has been able to take a step back and accurately describe the reality of the situation....a dynamic that has been noted by many former Local Church members, and even by outsiders, for many years.

Our friend Drake wants to pretend that "The One Publication" does not exist. He wants to pretend that there is no OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED declaration regarding "the work of of ministry" in the Local Church of Witness Lee. The work of ministry has been OFFICIALLY and PUBLICLY personalized and memorialized in the person and work of Witness Lee. There is an OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED declaration that there is a "Vision of The Age", a "Ministry of the Age" and a "Minister of The Age" The vision of the age is given by Witness Lee. The Ministry of the Age is the personal ministry of Witness Lee. The minister of the age is of course Witness Lee.

koinonia is right. The work of ministry is a spiritual principle.

Drake is also right. To the followers of Witness Lee, the work of ministry is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim California.
-

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

I did already. I gave my explanation and rationale.

Then, you made an assertion that the work of ministry is merely "a spiritual principle".

It's not my responsibility to chase every unfounded assertion made in this forum.

You made the assertion so please validate your assertion from the Bible. Maybe you are right and we will all learn something.

Drake

Drake, if you don't like my wording about "a spiritual principle," it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't even affect my point.

My point is that there is no scriptural basis for asserting that LSM is the work of ministry. And your assertion as such is astounding.

[Boxjobox]

Starting my research on LSM

(b) Relationship between interested person and the organization (c) Amount of assistance (d) Type of assistance (e) Purpose of assistance
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ. Cat. No. 50056ASchedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015Page 2 Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015Page 2 Part IV Business Transactions Involving Interested Persons.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 28a, 28b, or 28c.
(a) Name of interested person (b) Relationship between interested person and the organization (c) Amount of transaction (d) Description of transaction (e) Sharing of organization's revenues?
Yes No

(1) KERRY ROBICHAUX SECRETARY/DIRECTOR 31,200 RENT No
(2) TIMOTHY GRAVER CHILD OF OFFICER 55,141 W-2 WAGES No
(3) AMY GRAVER CHILD OF OFFICER 29,854 W-2 WAGES No
(4) THEODORE HAGE IN-LAW OF OFFICER 60,102 W-2 WAGES No
(5) NICOLE DUSSELJEE CHILD OF OFFICER 30,541 W-2 WAGES No
(6) JOSEPH PRIM IN-LAW OF OFFICER 62,804 W-2 WAGES No
(7) YIN FONG LEE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF FOUNDER 81,101 W-2 WAGES & RENT No
(8) SAMUEL LEE GRANDSON OF FOUNDER 59,406 W-2 WAGES No
(9) JOANNA KUO DAUGHTER OF FOUNDER 28,553 W-2 WAGES No
(10) PHILEMON LEE SON OF FOUNDER 51,835 W-2 WAGES & RENT No
(11) RACHEL LEE DAUGHTER OF FOUNDER 6,840 RENT No
(12) VALENA WARDEN WIFE OF OFFICER 43,204 W-2 WAGES No
(13) SHARON WARDEN DAUGHTER OF OFFICER 2,671 W-2 WAGES No

[UntoHim]

Boxjobox,

Please provide the link to this document.

Thanks
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Starting my research on LSM

(b) Relationship between interested person and the organization (c) Amount of assistance (d) Type of assistance (e) Purpose of assistance
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ. Cat. No. 50056ASchedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015Page 2 Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015Page 2 Part IV Business Transactions Involving Interested Persons.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 28a, 28b, or 28c.
(a) Name of interested person (b) Relationship between interested person and the organization (c) Amount of transaction (d) Description of transaction (e) Sharing of organization's revenues?
Yes No

(1) KERRY ROBICHAUX SECRETARY/DIRECTOR 31,200 RENT No
(2) TIMOTHY GRAVER CHILD OF OFFICER 55,141 W-2 WAGES No
(3) AMY GRAVER CHILD OF OFFICER 29,854 W-2 WAGES No
(4) THEODORE HAGE IN-LAW OF OFFICER 60,102 W-2 WAGES No
(5) NICOLE DUSSELJEE CHILD OF OFFICER 30,541 W-2 WAGES No
(6) JOSEPH PRIM IN-LAW OF OFFICER 62,804 W-2 WAGES No
(7) YIN FONG LEE DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF FOUNDER 81,101 W-2 WAGES & RENT No
(8) SAMUEL LEE GRANDSON OF FOUNDER 59,406 W-2 WAGES No
(9) JOANNA KUO DAUGHTER OF FOUNDER 28,553 W-2 WAGES No
(10) PHILEMON LEE SON OF FOUNDER 51,835 W-2 WAGES & RENT No
(11) RACHEL LEE DAUGHTER OF FOUNDER 6,840 RENT No
(12) VALENA WARDEN WIFE OF OFFICER 43,204 W-2 WAGES No
(13) SHARON WARDEN DAUGHTER OF OFFICER 2,671 W-2 WAGES No

Wow! This is LSM?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! This is LSM?

Just a family business ... not the New Testament Ministry.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, if you don't like my wording about "a spiritual principle," it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't even affect my point.

My point is that there is no scriptural basis for asserting that LSM is the work of ministry. And your assertion as such is astounding.

Koinomia,

And the underlying premise of your assertion is faulty.... the work of ministry is not merely a "spiritual principle". This is not a disagreement about terminology. There is no scriptural basis for the notion of a spiritual principle for the "work of ministry" without an earthly practice. Scripture is clear on that. On that point, I agree with UntoHim's first sentence in#253 The argument you are making, incomplete as it is, is dismissing the clear testimony of scripture concerning the work of ministry and if what you assert is true, then as regards the work of ministry just about anything will do.

You may not agree with how I have explained it, you may not agree with anything I have said about it but please Koinomia, don't act like I did not offer a scriptural based explanation for the work of ministry, and don't ask me to refute an argument that you have yet to make. Really, there is enough to disagree on about what has been said already without disagreeing on incomplete arguments.

As I said, it is a moot point to discuss what role Living Stream Ministry plays in the work of ministry to produce and build up the local churches (though I have offered my view on this) if you do not believe there is a work of ministry and if you do not believe that the new Testament model of local churches in each city is valid.

Thanks,
Drake

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Boxjobox,

Please provide the link to this document.

Thanks
-

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ Just type in living stream ministry

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

And the underlying premise of your assertion is faulty.... the work of ministry is not merely a "spiritual principle". This is not a disagreement about terminology. There is no scriptural basis for the notion of a spiritual principle for the "work of ministry" without an earthly practice. Scripture is clear on that.

Clear? Read II Corinthians 3, for starters.

Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, letters of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our letter written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 For as much as you are manifestly declared to be the letter of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

The New Testament ministry, for starters, does not even need LSM's printing presses.

[Boxjobox]

Drake, maybe if you would answer some questions, I could get a better feel of your working definitions of some terms and ideas you present:

What is your history with LSM, how have you interacted with them?

What is the affiliation of the church in your city with LSM, and on what basis do they interact?

If the elders (I'll add with the fellowship of the local saints) decided not to have any interaction with LSM, would you still meet with them?

If LSM closed shop, what do you think would happen to your definition of ministry?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ Just type in living stream ministry

Thanks Boxjobox.

This tells us what we already know, that LSM is just big business, peddling the word of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This tells us what we already know, that LSM is just big business, peddling the word of God.

The form showed 15 voting directors, 13 of whom received reportable (W-2) wages from the same non-profit business (Living Stream Ministry) which they direct. No small conflict of interest, here?

But then they learned from Witness Lee, so what else would one expect.

Also makes one wonder how many shell companies are out there, as well: entered "Bibles for America" and found a separate entry on the same site. 2+ Million $$ donations. $120+K in salaries.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

And the underlying premise of your assertion is faulty.... the work of ministry is not merely a "spiritual principle". This is not a disagreement about terminology. There is no scriptural basis for the notion of a spiritual principle for the "work of ministry" without an earthly practice. Scripture is clear on that. On that point, I agree with UntoHim's first sentence in#253 The argument you are making, incomplete as it is, is dismissing the clear testimony of scripture concerning the work of ministry and if what you assert is true, then as regards the work of ministry just about anything will do.

You may not agree with how I have explained it, you may not agree with anything I have said about it but please Koinomia, don't act like I did not offer a scriptural based explanation for the work of ministry, and don't ask me to refute an argument that you have yet to make. Really, there is enough to disagree on about what has been said already without disagreeing on incomplete arguments.

As I said, it is a moot point to discuss what role Living Stream Ministry plays in the work of ministry to produce and build up the local churches (though I have offered my view on this) if you do not believe there is a work of ministry and if you do not believe that the new Testament model of local churches in each city is valid.

Thanks,
Drake

Drake, you have not provided any scriptural basis whatsoever that LSM is the work of the ministry--because--you can't.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, you have not provided any scriptural basis whatsoever that LSM is the work of the ministry--because--you can't.

Koinomia,

You are twisting the question. I am not going to follow you. You have my explanation and can read it again if you care. Whether you do or don't it is fine with me either way.

In any case, you have not provided a sliver of scriptural evidence for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a "spiritual principle".

None, nada, nunca, zip..... because you can't.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, maybe if you would answer some questions, I could get a better feel of your working definitions of some terms and ideas you present:

Ok Boxjobox. I was considering a more detailed response to your previous note as my next entry to you but let's discuss your questions.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What is your history with LSM, how have you interacted with them?

No different than most local churches (exempting for the moment your experience). I read their publications, I go to their conferences, their trainings, I participate in some of their evangelization initiatives. My library has almost everything... but not exclusively. I have a big personal library.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

What is the affiliation of the church in your city with LSM, and on what basis do they interact?

Same as most. Speaking for all the local churches I have been a part for over forty years my observation is that LSM is a service provider in the work of ministry, meaning they provide teachings through spiritual materials in the form of books, organize conferences, when invited come to a local church to speak. If a local church feels inspired they can also sponsor the radio broadcast. Where invited they will distribute Bibles for free, send you free Bibles and other material to distribute if requested. They will assist in setting up gospel outreach. The co-workers are precious brothers, in my home for meals and fellowship from time to time.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If the elders (I'll add with the fellowship of the local saints) decided not to have any interaction with LSM, would you still meet with them?

Yes, if they did not deviate from the scriptural model of a local church, did not become a denomination, received all believers, etc. However, having rejected the work of ministry they were receiving up and to that I would be keen to understand what work of ministry we would now be part of. I shared before that I lived in a city that had broke away from the ministry of Brother Lee and started their own ministry for their region. When I asked to join their meetings, not wanting to start a new local church they said "we'll ask our leaders, don't call us we'll call you". They never called. At that point, they lost the basis as a local church since they refused to accept all believers in that city. So the answer is yes, but if that local church became something different then of course I would not meet with them no matter whose ministry they adopted (their own or another).

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

If LSM closed shop, what do you think would happen to your definition of ministry?

Nothing. No change. My definition of the work of ministry is from the Bible. There is a work of ministry and I would still expect the Lord to provide one to supply the local churches. I intimated this when I said even if the leading ones in the ministry were to depart from this way that I would by the Lord's mercy and grace continue in it.

Thanks
Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Our friend Drake wants to pretend that "The One Publication" does not exist. He wants to pretend that there is no OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED declaration regarding "the work of of ministry" in the Local Church of Witness Lee. The work of ministry has been OFFICIALLY and PUBLICLY personalized and memorialized in the person and work of Witness Lee. There is an OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED declaration that there is a "Vision of The Age", a "Ministry of the Age" and a "Minister of The Age" The vision of the age is given by Witness Lee. The Ministry of the Age is the personal ministry of Witness Lee. The minister of the age is of course Witness Lee.
-

Koininia is very well aware of The One Publication. So is Mr. Drake. Until Drake comes clean on his acceptance or rejection of this OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED deceleration, from the OFFICIAL leadership of the Local Church movement, this is all much ado about nothing. Unless of course Drake wants to declare himself as one the the Blended Brothers and wants to officially rescind or retract from this OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED deceleration. "The work of ministry" can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different Christians. WHOSE WORK? WHOSE MINISTRY?
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

You are twisting the question. I am not going to follow you. You have my explanation and can read it again if you care. Whether you do or don't it is fine with me either way.

In any case, you have not provided a sliver of scriptural evidence for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a "spiritual principle".

None, nada, nunca, zip..... because you can't.

Drake

My post #261 provides a smidgen of evidence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The form showed 15 voting directors, 13 of whom received reportable (W-2) wages from the same non-profit business (Living Stream Ministry) which they direct. No small conflict of interest, here?

But then they learned from Witness Lee, so what else would one expect.

Also makes one wonder how many shell companies are out there, as well: entered "Bibles for America" and found a separate entry on the same site. 2+ Million $$ donations. $120+K in salaries.

I felt it was quite shameful in Ingalls' book to have Lee's wife on the board of directors. Obviously W. Lee was used to having his closest associates disagreeing with his methods, so he could never trust anyone.

LSM has $20Million in annual revenue, and $100Million in tangible assets, mostly real estate!!! Pretty incredible for this "humble little publisher of the ministry of Nee and Lee." And to think that LSM fronted a handful of loyalists in Mansfield and Columbus, Ohio to file lawsuits to confiscate meeting halls worth perhaps a couple hundred grand. This is Ohio, land of cheap real estate, and LSM couldn't just obey the scriptures in I Cor 6 about lawsuits, and use that money to help their people get another place to meet? So pathetic!

Drake constantly tries to guilt-shame the posters here for exposing corruption at LSM, yet never owns what his people do. Think millstone!

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinomia,

You are twisting the question. I am not going to follow you. You have my explanation and can read it again if you care. Whether you do or don't it is fine with me either way.

In any case, you have not provided a sliver of scriptural evidence for your assertion that the work of ministry is merely a "spiritual principle".

None, nada, nunca, zip..... because you can't.

Drake

Right, Drake--the work of ministry is not "merely a spiritual principle;" it's LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I felt it was quite shameful in Ingalls' book to have Lee's wife on the board of directors. Obviously W. Lee was used to having his closest associates disagreeing with his methods, so he could never trust anyone.

LSM has $20Million in annual revenue, and $100Million in tangible assets, mostly real estate!!! Pretty incredible for this "humble little publisher of the ministry of Nee and Lee." And to think that LSM fronted a handful of loyalists in Mansfield and Columbus, Ohio to file lawsuits to confiscate meeting halls worth perhaps a couple hundred grand. This is Ohio, land of cheap real estate, and LSM couldn't just obey the scriptures in I Cor 6 about lawsuits, and use that money to help their people get another place to meet? So pathetic!

Drake constantly tries to guilt-shame the posters here for exposing corruption at LSM, yet never owns what his people do. Think millstone!

So much for the "testimony of Jesus".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, if they did not deviate from the scriptural model of a local church, did not become a denomination, received all believers, etc. However, having rejected the work of ministry they were receiving up and to that I would be keen to understand what work of ministry we would now be part of. I shared before that I lived in a city that had broke away from the ministry of Brother Lee and started their own ministry for their region. When I asked to join their meetings, not wanting to start a new local church they said "we'll ask our leaders, don't call us we'll call you". They never called. At that point, they lost the basis as a local church since they refused to accept all believers in that city. So the answer is yes, but if that local church became something different then of course I would not meet with them no matter whose ministry they adopted (their own or another).

This is a bogus claim in that context because the elders of the church are required by scripture to "mark those who make division and causes of stumbling." (Romans 16.17-19)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Concerning your question about clergy laity. The local churches are a procedure, temporary, and transient on the earth. Unlike a clergy laity system, every member in a local church must be taught and encouraged to function. Therefore, the work of ministry is to bring every member of the Body into their function as Paul taught in Romans 12 and as practiced in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (Each one has is the exercise of gifts and inspiration when we come together). When we speak of clergy laity we often focus on the clergy but the big issue is with the laity. The Body of Christ is built up by each member functioning not just a few gifted members....but every member. The Clergy Laity system annuals the function of the members.

Local churches have become every bit a clergy laity system. It's been decades gone past since the time every member could function in the manner of Paul's epistles. Sure you could have different ones speaking, but it's not the same as functioning. The speaking is restricted to ministry publications or solely to Holy Word for Morning Revival depending on your locality of fellowship.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox, There was a specific and special ministry focused on producing the local churches and that ministry and the workers in that ministry have a responsibility before God to support, teach, exhort, etc. those local churches on an ongoing basis. That is a historical fact and the scriptural teaching concerning the relationship between a local church and the work of ministry. It doesn’t really matter if a local church was planted by Watchman Nee or Witness Lee or coworkers of those brothers for they are all of the one and same ministry. It also does not matter if someone planted a local church and that church later became aligned with the ministry that builds up the churches. One may plant, another water, but it is God that increases. If you do not see or agree that LSM is that work of ministry then where is the work of ministry? To well meaning brothers I say.. well ok, if you agree with the model of the local churches, the work of ministry to build up the Body of Christ, then if not this ministry, where is that ministry?

Drake, this is my view of the relation of WL/LSM to the Local churches. I base this part on my 13 year experience in the LC, part on what I've read on this site by followers and rejectors of WL/LSM, and part on what you are saying: WL was largely responsible for the formation of LC's in the USA ( I won't talk of other places, because I don't have enough background). His ministry then progressed to an expository of the Bible, other related topics, and then to a method of expanding the scope of influence and spread of his material and LCs. At some point- and I'm sure he was well aware of it, if not instrumental in it coming about, his ministry was considered the unique and only legitimate ministry for the LCs. While it would be dangerous for the LCs to call him an Apostle, the thought of him being an apostle, and the apostle for the rest of this age, grew until it was generally accepted.

In the view of the LCs, his being an apostle became greater than Paul the Apostle, in that he had the works of John and Paul and Paul only had himself. James, Jude, Peter were really pedestrian and did not have the great revelation Paul had, but John had revelation Paul did not, so when WL could draw from both sources and mold them into one message, obviously the writings of WL were superior to the two individual. And because he had both, he could expand on their ministries, and fill in the gaps. This put WLs writings above what one would have with just the scripture alone. So, it would be impossible to say WL was an Apostle, because he was not an actual disciple of Jesus on earth , nor had the unique calling to Apostleship as Paul. In the end WL and his writings became bigger than the parts presented in scripture.

So the LCs need to follow WL because his unique, up to date ministry is viewed as the superior and only clear speaking that matches God's desire. To rely on scripture alone would leave one with only parts, and only WL is able to properly connect the parts. By speaking, reading, fellowshipping over WLs work, people will be brought into the complete revelation and building of the church. Others, that only use scripture, do not produce the church, but something inferior. There must be speaking in the meetings by each one using the WL material for the real building to occur. Other ministers both past and present, only saw parts, WLs ministry gave the complete revelation and way for the proper churches to be built up. Other people's speaking may be nice, but not complete.
One needs a revelation that this is the proper ministry, and when one accepts that and practices that in the proper church, then they are being built up.

When WL died, LSM, the company he established for his work, is fully carrying on this vision and needs to be accepted by local assemblies in order for them to be a proper church. If others use the term local church but do not join to and practice the LSM way, they are not in fellowship with the up to date ministry and fall short.

Drake- is this a good summary of what you believe and what the LC believes and practices?

[Drake]

Boxjobox >”Drake- is this a good summary of what you believe and what the LC believes and practices?”

Boxjobox, thanks your note and thanks for asking. I’ll clarify.

My views and the views of those I met with forty years do not believe that Brother Lees or Brother Nees writings are greater than those writers of the Bible.....Pauls, John, Peter,.... Brother Lee and Nees writings are not scripture. Neither is their apostleship greater than the original Apostles. Their teachings are derived from scripture not net new scripture.

What we believe is that Nee and Lee are following the New Testament teachings and New Testament pattern defined by those writers and in these days the Lord is recovering or restoring the pattern of the churches in the New Testament to build up the Body of Christ and consummate this age. The Lord raised up ministers in various times and places in the past to recover something..... what remains still in these days is the recovery of local churches as the procedure and testimony according to the Nee Testament pattern to close the age and bring the Lord back.

Therefore, we do not elevate Brother Lee above the Apostles, rather we accept that he was an apostle to the local churches raised up under his and Nees ministry for this era. We do not elevate the writings of these two servants above the scripture. They are interpreters of scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. We also believe this a special calling and apart from this special calling we would have reason to exist separately. We also recognize the Christian life and work is carried out according by the Holy Sprirt as the ultimate authority through men who are less than perfect yet nonetheless bear responsibility as the Lord sees fit and has arranged.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I think he was just referring to the difficulty in meeting those requirements (the half-truth), especially Micah didn't mention the "gift". MacLaren didn't mean it is human concept.



May be next time when you read the bible, please take note of how many times the apostles advised the believers to do good and stay away from evil. If the only requirement is believe and it doesn't matter whether the believers follow God's standard, probably a large portion of the epistles would be unnecessary.

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your heart having been enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and greediness, which is idolatry;

Col 3:6 Because of which things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience;

Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering;

what does do good mean? Phil 1.6

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Drake

We do not elevate the writings of these two servants above the scripture. Drake

In many saints homes, it seems to be a common practice to display only life study books in bookshelves, neatly and in chronological order. Many times, there's an accompanied bookshelf with many soft cover books/pamphlets. I'm estimating my family has over 500 books (granted they've been in the LC for 30 plus years).

I've been around long enough to know this isn't an exception. Many saints homes have LSM material on display- almost as "decoration" of some kind. I know my family had special bookshelves built in to their home when building it- for the specific purpose of displaying the Life Studies.

Do you think that the tendency for saints to exhibit this behavior contradicts with the common "idea" of members in the LC saying that they're not elevating the writings of these two "servants" (jury is out for me on this, sorry) above the scripture? I think it would be fair to say, they're at least SEEMING to elevate this writings to a place EXTREMELY close to scripture, right up to equal. I know they don't think that, but the tendency to display their LSM material seems like a red flag to me in the WAY its displayed- almost reverently.

Do you openly display your LSM purchases in this way as well? Not just in a bookcase with other books, but in a SPECIAL way, that's somehow "elevated" and "shown off?"

I don't think it's necessarily intentional, but it's interesting to me how these bookcases in saints homes seem to hold (many times) ONLY LSM material and seems to somehow be the focal point of the room.

Also, Do you think its dangerous to read material from only one source?

[Evangelical]

It definitely livens up the room. Lol

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

Boxjobox >”Drake- is this a good summary of what you believe and what the LC believes and practices?”

Therefore, we do not elevate Brother Lee above the Apostles, rather we accept that he was an apostle to the local churches raised up under his and Nees ministry for this era. We do not elevate the writings of these two servants above the scripture. They are interpreters of scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. We also believe this a special calling and apart from this special calling we would have reason to exist separately. We also recognize the Christian life and work is carried out according by the Holy Sprirt as the ultimate authority through men who are less than perfect yet nonetheless bear responsibility as the Lord sees fit and has arranged.

Drake

It's been 30 years since I met with the LC in my city. At the time I left was the start of, I think it was referred to as, " the new way". I can recall going to a meeting and everyone was sitting in small circles reading from- memory may not be exact but, I think it was truth lession book. It was the same thing as if we were reading the Bible and then talking about the scriptures. I got up and left the circle because it was a replacement for scripture. I could site other examples of things said and practices and video that gave me the feeling the Bible had become a reference book and Lee material was the living and operating word. This was a time after witnessing the tape room dumping anything produced locally and the bookroom dumping all non- LSM material, so it was apparent that there would only be one source. I think the bookroom also dumped W Née books that were not under the LSM label.

Not that long ago, I went to listen to Christian radio station, and on came WL. It was a short excerpt from a training, and then a couple of people were interpreting his speaking- not because of his English, but just like one would read a portion of scripture and then expand on it. I quickly changed the channel and actually thought of calling the station and having a talk with the programs director.

When you say "They are interpreters of scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. We also believe this a special calling and apart from this special calling we would have reason to exist separately." this, to me, is the same as putting WL in the same category as Paul, Luke, John etc. you are saying he is special and that his interpretations are as important as scripture. It is the same as Peter's explanation “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” II Peter‬ *1:20-21‬ *NKJV‬‬.

The thing that really gets me is that if I look up the web site for the church in San Diego, there is no mention of WL or LSM. If the churches give such weight to WL/LSM, and feel his writings are for the completion of God's will. I would think it would be paramount to get this out. I'm thinking there is some shame in mentioning this special relationship with LSM, because the site leaves the impression that it's just a gathering of Christians not unlike all other Christian gatherings in San Diego. Yet the thing that really separates them is their yolk with LSM.

Drake, I see a problem with what you say are the beliefs of the LCs. Those beliefs separate any who would want to meet as the church if they do not agree with what you say is believed by the LC. Indeed, if I look at the web site for the C in SD, in their beliefs section, there is no mention of what you say are the beliefs. Would you say that the C in SD is not in fellowship with the other LCs or is there some craftiness going on here?

This is my experience of the LC bumping up against your beliefs, and it seems others that were in other locations have had similar experiences. I don't think any of the people that post who came out of an LC have turned their back on God, but have major problems with the current set up after the LSM takeover. The church should be the church of the believers with the like precious faith, not an organization that is run by a company where there is too much room for faults. There is not the spiritual checks and balances necessary for the consciences of the saints. So the LC is left with only those who follow the LSM, which is divisive.

[Drake]

-1

thanks Boxjobox. You raise some excellent conversation points.

First one is that people reading the Truth Lessons gave you the feeling that they were elevating Brother Lee's writings above the Bible. I do not understand how that practice would be any cause for concern because those truth lessons are in that way no different than christian study material one might find in a typical Sunday School class or a Bible study class. Its a study in mutuality around a particular topic. Assuming you attend a Sunday School class of some sort, do you not have material already designated provided by some ministry? Even free groups, such as the house church movement, have study material that is centered around their beliefs and practices. There are very few christian groups that do not follow some type of ministry and read and study the beliefs and practices of the group they are apart of. I do not see how the practice of studying christian writings in any christian group can be cause for concern (your objection to this was not the content of the truth lessons but "everyone sitting around in a circle reading from the Truth Lesson book").

Second point is the "special calling". Understand that the special calling, calling it a special calling, or teaching it as a special calling, did not originate with Witness Lee. It started with Watchman Nee in the booklet "What are We?" available online at LSM.org to read for free. Suggest reading that, but how it is articulated is as gracious a christian thought as ever there was one. It is not placing a burden on other christians to comply or conform, it is simply stating that the Lord has revealed a special work in these days and if a person hears and accepts the Spirit's call they may participate and if not they are free to follow the Lord's leading in their own life. In every detail this calling is aligned with scripture. That is not elitist, nor is it placing anyone or anything above scripture or the biblical revelation. Rather, it is the biblical revelation entrusted to us not because we think we are superior but because we were called to it. It is not above the scripture or a private interpretation, rather is a rightly dividing the scripture, cutting straight the word of truth, or correctly handling the word of truth as stated in 1 Timothy 2:15.

Last point about the local church and the beliefs concerning the work of ministry, and San Diego as an example. I believe that website strikes exactly the right balance... the beliefs are focused on the christian faith, the Bible, God, salvation, and the church as the Body of Christ. The links section show the affiliation with the work of ministry. That is the precise relationship that is proper and scriptural between a local church and the work of ministry. The beliefs are eternal, unchanging, fixed. Should the Lord delay the links could change or perhaps the Lord will raise others to stand on the shoulders of Watchman Nee/Witness Lee in the same way we stand on others the Lord raised up before us. For now, in this era/age, those links are proper and in the right place. I do not rule out the possibility that the Lord could raise up another group of people to complete the age but for now, it has not been revealed to us. Yet we cannot reject what the Lord has shown us for His revelation is progressive.

Boxjobox, in the above I just want to be clear that I am not dismissing your experience or point of view. I am providing my own and though it differs from yours I absolutely believe you must follow your leading before the Lord. You will not be ultimately judged by me, or anyone else, but by the Lord at His Bema as will I, as will Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I hope you also will allow that the Christians in the local churches must also follow the Lord's leading according to what He has shown them. A major gap in our different points of view concerns the work of ministry and the role and service of that work to the local churches. I have provided my scriptural explanation for this relationship.

Drake

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

When you say "They are interpreters of scripture under the leading of the Holy Spirit. We also believe this a special calling and apart from this special calling we would have reason to exist separately." this, to me, is the same as putting WL in the same category as Paul, Luke, John etc. you are saying he is special and that his interpretations are as important as scripture. It is the same as Peter's explanation “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” II Peter‬ *1:20-21‬ *NKJV‬‬.

Great verse to quote from II Peter! I'm not sure I've seen it written but definitely was taught, growing up in the LC, that WN and WL were apostles- like Paul.

I don't think I remember hearing any sort of comparison between them as to who was greater- it was explained more that it was equal.

Like I said, I don't know if it was printed but it was definitely taught in our locality. It was and still is presented in a way of WN and WL being the HIGHEST Christian authorities that provided the CORRECT way to move forward in Christian history, to "recover" the church.

It's interesting how all other fundamentalist/totalist groups also have such a set apart, strict culture and elite calling apart from other Christians.

But the LC is different, right?

Sorry, don't buy it!

You can't systemize the body of Christ, God, Jesus with a business meant to "carry out" God's eternal purpose as proposed by two men. Not to mention, two men that 99% of Christians (assuming) don't agree with.

Paul was an apostle and wrote a lot of the New Testament. EVERY protestant agrees with Martin Luther on justification by faith.

MOST Christians DO NOT believe WN and WL were apostles. It's outrageous in my opinion, to claim they were.

[kumbaya]

Drake,

In your opinion, why do Christians on campus (college ministry of LC) not call themselves, "The church in <BLANK> Student Center?"

Why do they use terms like "inoculate" (personally heard this) when teaching you how to minister to college students about not only the Bible, but the writings of WL.

My point is, there's a reason why WL's name isn't paraded around. If it drew people in, they'd be using it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Drake,

In your opinion, why do Christians on campus (college ministry of LC) not call themselves, "The church in <BLANK> Student Center?"

kumbaya,

Because the work of ministry does not equal the local church.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Why do they use terms like "inoculate" (personally heard this) when teaching you how to minister to college students about not only the Bible, but the writings of WL.

You'll have to provide the specific use case then I can answer.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

My point is, there's a reason why WL's name isn't paraded around. If it drew people in, they'd be using it.

It is not paraded around because that work isn't about Witness Lee.


kumbaya, you did ask me to leave you alone. Are you sure about this?

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

It is not paraded around because that work isn't about Witness Lee.

Kumbaya,

Maybe Drake is speaking... ironically? Everyone that reading this that has "touched" the LSM churches knows that his statement isn't true. The work isn't just about Witness Lee it is for Witness Lee.

The Campus Ministries have a prescribed method for "gaining" college students - I believe it was created in Texas - then distributed from Anaheim. This method includes not talking about Witness Lee at first. In fact, they are told not to invite college students to the LSM churches right away, but instead 1ST "Fellowship", 2ND bring to home meetings, then 3RD invite them to church.

Don't misunderstand, they WILL preach Witness Lee, but just not use his name at first. You can't have these college students reading anything on the internet about their great leader. As one "elder" said to me - the LSM churches (obvious paraphrase) have a "PR issue" and a simple investment in a PR firm would go a long way.

[HERn]

In my locality the college ministry had its own Sunday morning service, to which none of the saints were invited, for the new ones. It was even at the same time as the table meeting I believe. The full timers could not chance the new contacts being terrified by a real LSM LC table meeting. It was like presenting a false face to the newbies until they were strong enough for the meat of a real LSM LC church meeting.

[Koinonia]

This is a practice that originated in Austin and was then exported elsewhere. I have heard it referred to as a "porch meeting"--something about the porch of Solomon's temple being an entrance into the temple (the regular LC meeting). This "porch meeting" would be designed to look more like a service/meeting in "Christianity," and LSM materials would not be (explicitly) used.

[aron]

One of the big eye-openers for me was to see the Eastern Lightning recruiting guidelines. First, just look like 'plain vanilla' Christians. Get them to open up, let down the guards of caution. Second, establish relations. We are your freinds! Then comes dependency and commitment. Third, convince them that everyone else is wrong, & we alone have the 'recovered truth'. Our leader is God's special anointed vessel. Submit and you will know true happiness.

Step by step, they are led into the group's conceptual overlays, and away from what Paul called "the simplicity of the gospel" (2 Cor 11:3). And the only difference that I could see about the EL was that it was so obvious with them. No pretense or subtleties with that group. But in the child I could see the parent (LSM).

[Drake]

-1

Nice reporting aron. Right up there with the Weekly World News and Bat Boy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Drake

thanks Boxjobox. You raise some excellent conversation points...

Drake, I heard the Bema exhortation before from a local church member when, after meeting one of their members a number of years after I walked away from the LC. I asked the person "are you still following WL?", his response was "we don't follow a man". We had a small discussion about that point and he eventually said " if you were an Israelite in Egypt wouldn't you follow Moses?", justifying the following of WL. Then came the "meet you at the bema seat" statement.

My view is that WL both was largely instrumental in raising up LCs in the US and also wholly responsible for tearing them down, and he did this through insisting that every LC would be married to the LSM. The LSM is the husband of every proper LC. Without being wed to and staying married to the LSM, an LC becomes a divorced or shamed woman. This marriage actually produces a disfunctional family which destroys the whole idea of the local church that should have been established. In reality, the local church should have been local, with Christ as the head, but in actuality, and it doesn't matter how you want to bend and weave around it, WL/LSM is the head of the LC. I, for one, write this post because I am quite saddened that this is the case- that what could have been a real work of the Lord, was usurped by the work of a man. I did go and read the W Née "What are we?" writing. This really stood out to me. "When we consider the present-day church organizations, we see many human traditions and opinions and little direct leading of the Holy Spirit. This is not according to God’s desire. In God’s will, the church should not be under man’s control; it should be directed only by the Holy Spirit. All those who belong to the Lord should learn to be led by the Holy Spirit and should not follow man’s direction. These are all truths discovered by the Brethren.". If only WL would have learned this lesson from WN; the LCs could have been truly a recovered truth. Instead, a man created a business out of "ministry", married it to a Bible truth and destroyed the work that had been a long time making. It will only be that when the LCs divorce themselves from LSM that the truth will be restored.

Drake- look at the C in SD web site- history of section- no mention of WL, LSM? Come now, the married woman is afraid or ashamed to mention her husband! She wants to attract the lonely seeker with a smiling face, while sitting at home is the mean old man that will put the innocent seeker into indentured servitude. The seeker will then find out the attractive woman is a trap to catch souls for the husband's business. The seeker will either submit to the husband or run away and have a certain fear of ever trusting a simple Christian message again.

Drake, I think there is one standing outside a closed door knocking, saying be zealous and repent. The question is, is the LC movement so filled that they don't want to open that door? I hope not. I think the first thing would be to admit the real relationship between the LSM and the LC is the work of man, not the Holy Spirit.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nice reporting aron. Right up there . . .

Sorry you couldn't learn anything from that.

But I know the party line is "No connection whatever" with the cultic spin-offs. Anything otherwise, as the LC elder put it, and we have a "PR problem." Well, you have a lot of them, so keep on manning the pumps.

But I see the opening gambit, "We are just Christians" used by those who have long since left the simplicity of the gospel and are looking to drag others along. Both EL and LSM.

And it's true, Christianty is devilish, satanic, fallen, dark and all the rest. But your proposed alternative makes people worse off than before. At least sinners know they're enslaved.

I know this wasn't your experience, but it was for many. What do you suppose the churn rate is for LC youth, who have 18+ years of close observation?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Sorry you couldn't learn anything from that.

But I know the party line is "No connection whatever" with the cultic spin-offs. Anything otherwise, as the LC elder put it, and we have a "PR problem." Well, you have a lot of them, so keep on manning the pumps.

But I see the opening gambit, "We are just Christians" used by those who have long since left the simplicity of the gospel and are looking to drag others along. Both EL and LSM.

And it's true, Christianty is devilish, satanic, fallen, dark and all the rest. But your proposed alternative makes people worse off than before. At least sinners know they're enslaved.

I know this wasn't your experience, but it was for many. What do you suppose the churn rate is for LC youth, who have 18+ years of close observation?

Actually aron, I have learned a few things from your oft repeated false argument to associate the riotous, murdering, head stomping, blasphemous female Christ, know as Eastern Lightning with the Living Stream Ministry.

First, I learned that the false argument of guilt by association is alive and well in your posts.

Second, I learned that even christians can and do fabricate the truth and through thoughtlessness and carelessness have no consideration for the persecution they potentially heap on dear brothers and sisters in China who living under a repressive regime may suffer as a result of their false accusation.

Third, I learned that stories about Bat Boy though patently fabricated yet purport to be factual can gain traction if repeated often enough.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

First, I learned that the false argument of guilt by association is alive and well in your posts.

Second, I learned that even christians can and do fabricate the truth and through thoughtlessness and carelessness have no consideration for the persecution they potentially heap on dear brothers and sisters in China who living under a repressive regime may suffer as a result of their false accusation.

Third, I learned that stories about Bat Boy though patently fabricated yet purport to be factual can gain traction if repeated often enough.

Drake

That's so ironic, Drake.

Because I learned the same about W. Lee when he covered over the obnoxious sins of his degenerate sons by fabricating patently false accusations against men of God (John Ingalls et. al.) who were brave enough to speak their conscience in that oppressive system.

So whether or not Eastern Lightning was birthed by W. Lee's self-exalting teachings and practices is still questionable, his profligate sons Timothy and Philip are not.

Amazing how that works, don't you think?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Drake, I heard the Bema exhortation before from a local church member when, after meeting one of their members a number of years after I walked away from the LC. I asked the person "are you still following WL?", his response was "we don't follow a man". We had a small discussion about that point and he eventually said " if you were an Israelite in Egypt wouldn't you follow Moses?", justifying the following of WL. Then came the "meet you at the bema seat" statement.

My view is that WL both was largely instrumental in raising up LCs in the US and also wholly responsible for tearing them down, and he did this through insisting that every LC would be married to the LSM. The LSM is the husband of every proper LC. Without being wed to and staying married to the LSM, an LC becomes a divorced or shamed woman. This marriage actually produces a disfunctional family which destroys the whole idea of the local church that should have been established. In reality, the local church should have been local, with Christ as the head, but in actuality, and it doesn't matter how you want to bend and weave around it, WL/LSM is the head of the LC. I, for one, write this post because I am quite saddened that this is the case- that what could have been a real work of the Lord, was usurped by the work of a man. I did go and read the W Née "What are we?" writing. This really stood out to me. "When we consider the present-day church organizations, we see many human traditions and opinions and little direct leading of the Holy Spirit. This is not according to God’s desire. In God’s will, the church should not be under man’s control; it should be directed only by the Holy Spirit. All those who belong to the Lord should learn to be led by the Holy Spirit and should not follow man’s direction. These are all truths discovered by the Brethren.". If only WL would have learned this lesson from WN; the LCs could have been truly a recovered truth. Instead, a man created a business out of "ministry", married it to a Bible truth and destroyed the work that had been a long time making. It will only be that when the LCs divorce themselves from LSM that the truth will be restored.

Drake- look at the C in SD web site- history of section- no mention of WL, LSM? Come now, the married woman is afraid or ashamed to mention her husband! She wants to attract the lonely seeker with a smiling face, while sitting at home is the mean old man that will put the innocent seeker into indentured servitude. The seeker will then find out the attractive woman is a trap to catch souls for the husband's business. The seeker will either submit to the husband or run away and have a certain fear of ever trusting a simple Christian message again.

Drake, I think there is one standing outside a closed door knocking, saying be zealous and repent. The question is, is the LC movement so filled that they don't want to open that door? I hope not. I think the first thing would be to admit the real relationship between the LSM and the LC is the work of man, not the Holy Spirit.

Thanks Boxjobox,

First, the BEMA is real. I cannot speak for the one that mentioned it to you first, but if you read my comment on it, I applied to myself, Witness Lee, and Watchman Nee as well. Every christian will be judged at the Bema for how they build on the foundation. Ultimately, He is the righteous Judge and I am certain we both agree on that. Though it may not have been presented to you in a considerate way it is nevertheless an important event that we should have in view while in this life.

Yet, I still do not understand what is your view on the New Testament work of ministry.... the scriptural view of course. Because, the situation can be cast in any number of ways, but the glaring vacancy in your description is that there appears to be no work of ministry to care for and shepherd the local churches. You are someone that at an earlier time was impressed with the teaching about the local churches and enjoyed the church life for some time. Along comes LSM and asserts itself as "the husband of every LC" in your view..... but to that I say, not so at all. I never felt LSM was a husband in the half dozen churches I was in for forty years. Not one iota. Not even a little bit. But then, I understood the relationship to be the legitimate work of ministry according to the scriptures for the building up of the local churches, not a husband because we have only one Husband. So we are servants with a commission obligated to carry out our function before the Lord. The work of ministry is not the duty of a husband, rather it is a service to local churches to build the Body of Christ. If you do not have the scriptural definition of the work of ministry in your understanding then you will misinterpret the relationship between the work of ministry and the local churches.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if the history tab on the SD local church website mentions Brother Lee. If the connection is important it is in the Link tab and there you will find it. I would prefer the history not mention the work through which it came about because each local church was raised up by the Lord no matter which servant was the instrument. Yet, no one is distancing themselves from LSM.... even the Church in Cleveland links themselves to LSM!

thanks for the dialogue
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Actually aron, I have learned a few things from your oft repeated false argument to associate the riotous, murdering, head stomping, blasphemous female Christ, know as Eastern Lightning with the Living Stream Ministry.

First, I learned that the false argument of guilt by association is alive and well in your posts.

Second, I learned that even christians can and do fabricate the truth and through thoughtlessness and carelessness have no consideration for the persecution they potentially heap on dear brothers and sisters in China who living under a repressive regime may suffer as a result of their false accusation.

Third, I learned that stories about Bat Boy though patently fabricated yet purport to be factual can gain traction if repeated often enough.

Drake

Perhaps you're right, and the similar deceptive recruiting styles are coincidental and not associated. Ditto for the isolation of members practised by both groups. And the exaltation of 'untouchable' leaders.

Perhaps. But maybe the similarities are telling us something, and people need to be warned, by pointing out the result of Bat Boy Theology. One minister per age, anyone? Deputy God? Today's Moses?

I've been posting on this forum for a while and don't recall many responses like yours. But maybe you have special, LSM-derived powers of perception. Or denial.

You say it's a false argument: Group B comes from Group A, documented; engages in similar recruiting & control practices, also documented. . . "Guilt by association"? Perhaps. But perhaps people need to be warned. The Apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

Of course there are differences. When members of Group A tried to call WL God, he strongly demurred. (That was, however, before the "becoming God" teaching). Leadership of Group B took the claim & ran with it. And Group B is violent; Group A rarely so. But both are deceptive, manipulating, controlling, isolating. Perhaps that's worth noting.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whether or not Eastern Lightning was birthed by W. Lee's self-exalting teachings and practices is still questionable, his profligate sons Timothy and Philip are not.

Ohio, don't you know that Daystar & PL are tired, old claims?

That's similar to what the bank robber said when he was caught in California with the loot. He told the judge, "What happened in Oregon is old news. I'm focused on the present."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio, don't you know that Daystar & PL are tired, old claims?

All church history is old and tired until we breathe new life into it -- usually by not learning from it, and repeating others' failures.

John Ingalls' account in STTIL was "old and tired," forgotten, and banished to the recycle bin until LSM played doctor and quarantined the Midwest.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

My view is that WL both was largely instrumental in raising up LCs in the US and also wholly responsible for tearing them down, and he did this through insisting that every LC would be married to the LSM. The LSM is the husband of every proper LC. Without being wed to and staying married to the LSM, an LC becomes a divorced or shamed woman. This marriage actually produces a dysfunctional family which destroys the whole idea of the local church that should have been established. In reality, the local church should have been local, with Christ as the head, but in actuality, and it doesn't matter how you want to bend and weave around it, WL/LSM is the head of the LC.

I, for one, write this post because I am quite saddened that this is the case- that what could have been a real work of the Lord, was usurped by the work of a man. I did go and read the W Née "What are we?" writing. This really stood out to me. "When we consider the present-day church organizations, we see many human traditions and opinions and little direct leading of the Holy Spirit. This is not according to God’s desire. In God’s will, the church should not be under man’s control; it should be directed only by the Holy Spirit. All those who belong to the Lord should learn to be led by the Holy Spirit and should not follow man’s direction. These are all truths discovered by the Brethren.".

If only WL would have learned this lesson from WN; the LCs could have been truly a recovered truth. Instead, a man created a business out of "ministry", married it to a Bible truth and destroyed the work that had been a long time making. It will only be that when the LCs divorce themselves from LSM that the truth will be restored.

Drake- look at the C in SD web site- history of section- no mention of WL, LSM? Come now, the married woman is afraid or ashamed to mention her husband! She wants to attract the lonely seeker with a smiling face, while sitting at home is the mean old man that will put the innocent seeker into indentured servitude. The seeker will then find out the attractive woman is a trap to catch souls for the husband's business. The seeker will either submit to the husband or run away and have a certain fear of ever trusting a simple Christian message again.

Great summation of LC history, Boxjobox.

[Drake]

Aron>”You say it's a false argument”

Yep. Yours is a false argument... you are applying the actions of one group to another through a circumstantial link.

Here is another false argument example. Hitler was a German and wanted to kill Jews and did when he had the chance. You are also German therefore you also want to kill Jews and would if you had the chance. The absurdity of that false argument won’t get by most people, your false argument is just more subtle.

But here the tragedy Aron. The Chinese government searches the internet for every shred of evidence to condemn and justify prosecution of not only the murderous Eastern Lightening cult (who should be persecuted) but also the precious brothers and sisters that make up the majority of Christians in China labeled as Shouters by the government. Both are perceived as threats to their government. By your reckless, unfounded, and false association you may be contributing to their persecution and creating an offense against His little ones. Do not think that your words are hidden from the Chinese government and don’t think they are not searching and scanning. But for the sake of expressing a vindictive opinion in a pubic forum you would potentially throw them under the bus without a care. Be more selective in your battles Aron so you don’t cause harm to the innocent.

I requested this of you in the past and doing so here again.

Drake

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by Drake

kumbaya,

Because the work of ministry does not equal the local church.



You'll have to provide the specific use case then I can answer.



It is not paraded around because that work isn't about Witness Lee.


kumbaya, you did ask me to leave you alone. Are you sure about this?

Drake

Ok- several issues going on here.

First, I'm open to discussing things but as I mentioned several weeks ago- I was in a really emotional place realizing all this about the LC and right off the bat- you insinuated that I may not be who I was claiming to be (child of an elder). After that, you avoided many questions which I'm assuming it was just bc you didn't have a good answer for it but would call me out of the teeniest of errors and basically "shamed" me for accidentally using a quote that Gloria Steinem took from the Bible.

You were obviously picking on me a bit- no denying that. So yeah, I told you to stop. But I'm in no way scared of discussing things with you if you can stick to some basic rules of communication. 1) answer the question/the whole one 2) give someone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise

Those two are probably the most important. If you can do that- I'm fine discussing anything with you or anyone else on here.

Given those guidelines and going back to the point....

I asked you why Christians on Campus didn't call themselves "The church in <BLANK *city*> Student Center" and you responded with....

"Because the work of ministry does not equal the local church."

I agree that the work is different. I was implying that the PEOPLE leading Christians on Campus are all members in the LC. Yes, the work is different because you're reaching out to college students. They would have "porch meetings" singing basic hymns and then about 3-4 college/post college students would stand up and give their testimonies (obviously talking about their college experience and life as related to being in Christians on campus, all positive of course!) So yes, the work is different but it's still the same group of people and they are literally EMPLOYED by the LC. Just that fact alone makes it seem a bit deceiving that they're calling THIS group something else. They could even call themselves, "Christians on Campus"- student association of the Church in <Blank>. So, why don't they? Just be upfront about who you are- other groups of Christians have no issue doing this with their college ministries. That's a healthy practice with college ministry. The fact that the name is different when they're employed by the LC is a red flag- right off the bat!

Did you know it's a common cult practice to have recruiting arms that have different names than the groups they're trying to recruit for?

Do you think it's OK for the local church to fall in line with such a misleading practice that's used in Scientology and other cults?

I personally don't. Just be honest about who your group is! To IGNORE that they're wanting to raise up full-timers full the "Lord's move" in Europe- seems ridiculous! That's definitely what the "blending brothers" are saying is the "Lord's move." You seriously don't think Christians on Campus has anything to do with them trying to accomplish that goal? Who signs the paycheck for Christian's workers? THE LOCAL CHURCH. We'll just have to agree to disagree that they're not trying to gain full-timers with that college ministry! I just know- I'm constantly hearing about it the "Lord's move in Europe" and I'm not even going to meetings! There are trips, posts on Facebook about it, etc. Several of my family members just got back from Europe- and have been multiple times. It sure would seem like they're trying to make that move less "scary" by offering up "blending trips." That can easily be an "escape" for people and it can be used in an exploitive way- no doubt.

Meanwhile, I can think of 3 former church kids with terrible health situations in their families. Where's the organized effort there? I know these families disappointment because I've talked to them They've personally told me they feel abandoned. I do too- so I can't even imagine the level they feel it! The LC isn't doing a great job of "shepherding" in the US to the people who actually need it. Before you go off to another country, and leave your family- shouldn't you have a stronger "base" first in the US? Sorry, but it seems like a desperate attempt to get people deeper in, and farther from their lives and connections with friends/family in the US.

I just don't think the pressure they're putting on people is ethical, even if it is unspoken... many times it's not! That's definitely the "hype" right now and there's a clear feeling of being "left out" if you can't go on these trips.

Also, you broke the first rule- Drake. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt in our discussion now as you haven't accepted these ground rules yet You didn't acknowledge the comment I made about using the term "inoculate" to train LC members in the practice of mentioning WL's name briefly, then later when they look up negative things about WL- there's sort of a diffusement that's already occurred. I didn't just hear the term "inoculate" - I heard it described to me in exactly that way. So again, what do you think about that?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the reason that WL's name isn't paraded around. I feel it's a little hypocritical to say that the work isn't about WL because he was sort of claiming to be the "minister of the age" and it was his work (mainly-not clearly defined by WN on how the "work" was carried out in the LC. WN's teaching's could have been interpreted in many different outcomes- with LSM never even existing and the practices/culture completely different!)

That's somewhat besides the point, but we can agree to disagree on why WL's name isn't mentioned too much in Christians on campus, and just in the LC....

If you want to stick to your idea that this is just bc the work of the ministry is different than the work of the local church (which I already mentioned that wasn't my point- it's about having the same people running it), then ok. But you don't think that it's even a POSSIBILITY, even a small one, that his name isn't mentioned bc we all know one google search of WL's name will send those poor college kids running?

In your opinion, there's not even the slightest chance that's why they don't mention his name? You don't even think that's PART of the reason? Come on...what about the practice of "inoculating" college students that was taught to me? Do you honestly believe that doesn't happen? If it does, does that contradict and possibly change your stance on why WL's isn't mentioned much with Christians on campus?

Again, if you want to agree to those guidelines.... then let's discuss it.

I really want someone in the LC to answer these questions for me.

If not you, then someone else!

[Drake]

Kumbaya>”Again, you want to agree to those guidelines.... then let's discuss it.

I really want someone in the LC to answer theses questions for me.

If not you, then someone else.”

Hi kumbaya,

If you want answers from local church members and since you are acquainted with members of a local church where you live and they with you why don’t you ask them your questions in private setting ? Wouldn’t that yield a better result? Alternatively if you insist on a public setting you could invite some of them to this forum and have an open discussion here. I sure everyone would welcome the fresh perspectives.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Yes! Better yet... Drake can invite members from his “locality”.

That should be easy enough, right “Drake”

LofT,

She needs to talk to those who can render her the most help and probably in a private setting. She has a lot of questions and those that know her and care about her will probably have the best response.

Drake

[Steel]

I find something in the speaking of one of UntoHim's comments interesting...

The below quotes are not in the sequence that UntoHim presented them in his comment... But I've presented them in the way I have for the sake of presenting my thought regarding these points UntoHim made...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

koinonia is right. The work of ministry is a spiritual principle. . . . Drake is also right. To the followers of Witness Lee, the work of ministry is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim California.

All this "...right..." stuff.

How about some "...reality..." stuff...

Here we go...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In reality, "the word of ministry" should be both "spiritual" and "earthly". After all, we know that God wants his will done "on earth as it is in heaven".

In the light of UntoHim's above quoted speaking...

And...

The light of this wonderfully enlightening scripture verse...

1 Corinthians 13:9... "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;..."

Wouldn't there be a need for koinonia's "...spiritual principle..." to be presented in an earthly manner... Such as might be according to "...the work of ministry is a 501(c)3 corporation in Anaheim California."

Surely yes... Once you remove all human opinions and preferences out of the mix that is.