What have we learned?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

If there's any take-home message from the gospels, it seems to me, it is that the kingdom of God is not a zero-sum game. Jesus said to treat your neighbor as if he/she were yourself. Give to those who cannot and will not repay you. Be nice to those who don't "deserve" it. Bless those who curse you; pray for those who persecute you.

It is the opposite of our natural concept, that the other has to go down for me to rise.

In my other studies (outside these discussion boards and not about the LRC) I am learning that even those that the Evangelical and Fundamental sides of Christianity consider fallen or nearly apostate are not really as they have been labeled (well mostly not). While there are some truly apostates out there, in terms of the primary errors, it might be that the more zealous are the worst in that they, as aron has said, are not loving any others even half as much as they love themselves.


Since I was completely "off the grid" for about a week and the Berean site is "down for maintenance," I have no idea where the source of this thread is going. But these are the things that I have learned from these two forums, coupled with my other studies:

• God is greater than all our petty differences.
• Christianity is robust and is not nearly so divided as I was taught in the LRC.
• Language does not enhance truth, although it can help to clarify it.
• Language does not increase the level of worship or improve it except to the extent that it corrects errors in thought.
• "Decisions for Christ," or "line in the sand" conversions are not the only way people come to Christ. Note that at the wedding in Canaan, the disciples began to be impressed. But it was when he stilled the storm that they really began to believe in him. Their conversion was by listening and observing and becoming convinced.
• Based on the above, there are many Catholics that are, as we would term it "saved" even though they cannot decipher the line in the sand. They observe, are taught, begin to follow along, and eventually believe. Mixed in there are many who simply do the motions and the works and never believe.
• The "rapture" and dispensational theology did not exist before JN Darby. I don't necessarily disbelieve it, but I do not center my belief on one day achieving it (if alive) any more than I hope for a mansion on the 14th tee on a golf course, down Mulberry lane, GS (Golden Street) and can just appear anywhere I want without our present modes of transportation. If it actually happens, OK. If not, I am not concerned.

• God has revealed himself in stages. Not in modes. While the NT speaks of the Father, Son and Spirit with intent, the OT speaks of God.
• In the OT, God had the Israelites wipe out certain enemies. Maybe because they had been given enough time to repent but remained hard against God. maybe for other reasons. I do not buy the position of some current writers that suggest it was simply written down that God was behind it but he actually was not.
• The revelation of God in the OT is of the God who creates, provides, protects, judges, etc. While we can find types of Christ in certain men of the OT, they were not called god, God, or Christ. It is only in the look-back from the NT that we can call it a type of Christ. In the OT times, it was merely righteousness expressed in men who sought God.

• God did not order all Jews to return to Jerusalem after the captivity. In fact, one of the books of the OT was written by a servant of the King of Persia who allowed him to go build the wall of Jerusalem and then return to his service.
• Despite some of the problems that the Jews caused the early Gentile churches, it was the presence of Jews all over the Roman empire that aided in the spread of Christianity.
• Those who did not return to Jerusalem were not in captivity. In fact, they spread as free men/women all over the earth. How else was the earth to be blessed through them.
• The synagogue system was not some sinful anomaly. Jesus used it and spoke in it and never said a word against it. Synagogues provided a community gathering focused on God each week. Going to Jerusalem was never more than the feasts.
• Restated, there is no "recovery/restoration" of Jerusalem position for the LRC to hang any kind of "going to Jerusalem is superior to being in Galilee and going to a synagogue" theology.
• Mentioning some churches by reference to the city in which the 12 or so people who were int it were found does not provide a rule about the ground of the church.

I have also learned that Nee and Lee misrepresented the scripture on many occasions. Some of the more notable ones are:

• 1 Timothy does not tell anyone to teach God's economy. It says that God's economy is the result of teaching right things.
• God's economy is not "simply dispensing."
• The Last Adam did not become the Holy Spirit.
• The Father is not the Son, nor the Spirit. (And no others either)
• 1 Corinthians 3, talking about the wood, hay, and stubble, is talking about the builders (Paul, Apollos, Peter, etc.) and not the Corinthians.
• 1 Corinthians 14 does not say that all can prophesy. It says that all of the 2 or three that are designated to speak can prophesy.
• "Nicolaitan" is almost clearly not clergy/laity.

While not about the theology, I learned that Lee was willing to slander righteous men to protect a lecherous son whom he left in charge of his ministry. According to Paul, that made Lee unqualified for ministry.

The list goes on and on. But based on those, I cannot accept the teachings of Nee and Lee as anything more that philosophical musings of, in one case, a well-intentioned Christian, and in the other, a desire for power by yet another Christian.