What is Building Up?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Since Lee is the source of the teaching on recovery, he is the source of all data concerning it. Even if he were to claim to have discovered it within scripture, it is still the result of his own analysis of that scripture.

Then, if the definition of recovery is dependent upon his analysis of scripture, it would tend to follow that he would naturally find that he followed his own thinking on the subject.

Classic OBW at his best.

What he's saying is that if Lee invented the Recovery, then he is by definition the global expert on the Recovery.

Just like if I invented McFleebles, then I darn sure am the expert on McFleebles.

That was in essence Lee's mentality, and error. It is crucial to understand this to the core.

He called it "the Lord's recovery." But the fact is it was really Lee's recovery. It was his invention.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Classic OBW at his best.

What he's saying is that if Lee invented the Recovery, then he is by definition the global expert on the Recovery.

But Lee persuaded us that the brilliant Nee, standing on the shoulders of brothers gone before, reading and gleaning from mountains of books lining his bedroom, received this concept from others. Then Nee used the seven churches in Asia, contained in the book Orthodoxy of the Church, to prove how the Recovery proceeded from Sardis (Luther) to Philadelphia (Darby-Nee-Lee) to Laodicea (Exclusives) stuck on objective doctrines. Lee had a way of presenting the Recovery from every book of the Bible.

Like I have repeatedly said, "all church history told by Lee is suspect."

[OBW]

Without looking back, I recall that in the past few days, on some thread, there was a mention of Miller's Church History. It has been many years, but I recall reading it. It was mostly an accurate history of the things that happened.

But, in hindsight, I realize that the overlay of the chronology of churches in Revelation is just that . . . an overlay. It is an interesting perspective, but nothing substantive to force out of it as Nee/Lee did.

I believe that it is nothing more than a thought that was made into "reality" by pushing and stretching. It essentially discards three of the types as lost historical churches. None is recommended as simply being "as it was from the beginning." It presumes that there are none who are simply wandering into losing their first love but otherwise fine. It ignores the pattern of persecution that persists to this very day. (I believe that is because it is written by Westerners who do not experience the kind of persecution that many Christians in more distant lands do.)

If anything, the churches in Revelation do not simply define the right church. Rather, they point to a collection of problems. Even in the church that did not seem to have problems, we are not told what was right (as if there is a formula for it) but rather to hold on to what they had (whatever that was).

Those problems all persist to this very day. And even if we have no sense of problem in whatever group we are currently in, we need to hold onto it. And holding on does not mean keeping the formula set. Such a group could be, like any other, in danger of losing their first love, of becoming overconfident in their knowledge, of welcoming someone into their midst that slowly carries them off after some kind of error or idol (even a Bible idolatry).

In any case, I cannot recommend Miller's history as a tremendously insightful work because, other than the accurate descriptions of the actual events of church history, I'm not convinced that the chronology overlay is much more than a parallel that is seen because it is suggested as something to see. Like hearing words in records played backward or in the noise of electromagnetic static from the universe.

Or hearing words in your favorite song wrong because someone suggested it. Back when Grease was in the theaters, someone called into a radio station and suggest that they heard "You're the bull of the wall" where the song said "You're the one that I want" and I have heard it everytime that song plays ever since. Or that silly commercial about the line in Rocketman . . . "Burnin' up the room with cheap cologne."

We are wired to find patterns. Our brains fill in visual and auditory cues and clues constantly. And our minds love to find a pattern. It helped us stay alive when we lived out in tents and noticing wild animals hiding in the bushes was important. Our needs have diminished. But the fill-ins continue. That is why five eye-witnesses to a crime cannot describe the same scene. There are similarities (probably the real facts) mixed with what the brain added to complete the picture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But, in hindsight, I realize that the overlay of the chronology of churches in Revelation is just that . . . an overlay. It is an interesting perspective, but nothing substantive to force out of it as Nee/Lee did.

I believe that it is nothing more than a thought that was made into "reality" by pushing and stretching. It essentially ...

• discards three of the types as lost historical churches.
• None is recommended as simply being "as it was from the beginning."
• It presumes that there are none who are simply wandering into losing their first love but otherwise fine.
• It ignores the pattern of persecution that persists to this very day. (I believe that is because it is written by Westerners who do not experience the kind of persecution that many Christians in more distant lands do.)

OBW, Great points here!

Nigel Tomes brought out many more flaws in his paper Examining LSM's Eschatology -- Revelations's 7 Churches.