[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Maybe you're not getting it, which doesn't make my point any less valid.

No, it just makes it unclear. Which is why I asked you to clarity.

CMW made the point that Lee's statements with regard to the "poor, fallen, blind, etc." state of Christianity (Which is in reference to the apostate condition of Christianity) is not true, and that by virtue of that "local churchers" are at a disadvantage. He furthermore stated that because of this charge God's presence and anointing are not in the local church (That in and of itself is a very serious charge).

Therefore it must follow that whenever another Christian teacher historically leveled the same or similar charge, God's presence and anointing left that teacher and those that followed their ministry. By virtue of such a charge, then, the works and teachings of that ministry were made dead.

No, it still doesn't follow. You are trying to imply the existence of a general rule based up a CMW's specific observation. I don't think CMW stated a general rule applied. I think her point was is that Lee/LSM/LC were arrogant to an extreme fault and that caused their downfall.

Not only were the Reformers of the early Protestant revolution era generally prone to pointing out the apostate condition of the faith, but many acknowledged Christian theologians did the same in their writings. Andrew Murray, for example, wrote of "the sad state of the church of Christ on the earth" (Absolute Surrender). Therefore, if "It's not true" that Christianity is in a fallen state, blind, poor, etc., then those Reformers and teachers who spoke the same things, in their own various ways, are just as dead, and have not God's presence or anointing.

Again, you are trying to create a rule where none was implied.

Lots of preachers and teacher sometimes point out the (ostensive) sad state of the Church. My own pastor does it from time to time. But that's not what Lee was solely doing. Lee was wholesale condemning and invalidating the whole of contemporary Christianity, Christendom or whatever you want to call it, with the view that his movement was God's only viable alternative. It was a black and white issue with him. Either one was in Babylon or one was in the Recovery (which, not coincidentally, he happened to have founded and lead). There is a huge difference here. Let's try to keep things straight.