Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Yes they were different guys and their teaching should not be conflated. However, The Lord's Recovery Movement claims allegiance to both. So, the faithfulness of the movement to Nee's teachings ought to be evaluated. For that matter, Nee's adherence to his own teaching can be assessed. His teachings over time can be also be compared for consistency.

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

[testallthings]

To Zeek

I'll try to find if Nee remained humble or not (although I don't see the connection with Politics and the Church). The quote I posted refers to the same magazine you took your quote from, probably is the same year (I am not sure).

Would you please tell me where Nee says that he is was the minister of his age?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Zeek

I'll try to find if Nee remained humble or not (although I don't see the connection with Politics and the Church). The quote I posted refers to the same magazine you took your quote from, probably is the same year (I am not sure).

Would you please tell me where Nee says that he is was the minister of his age?

I haven't seen that Nee did make that claim explicitly but the LSM defends the claim that he was the MOTA. My impression is that he implied it. http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html Whether or not Nee considered himself the unique MOTA is presently a controversy between LSM and Nigel Tomes and others.

As if that isn't problem enough, the anonymous author of the piece states "At the end of his ministry Brother Nee expressed his feeling that the Lord desired to turn the age from the age of spiritual giants to the age of the whole Body serving." Yet Witness Lee claimed to be the MOTA so the putative Lord's desire was delayed while he was alive according to the LSM.

In my opinion, these preachers should really have stuck to reading the Bible rather then all this speculation about people being the MOTA, an issue which really can't rise beyond the level of opinion. To any somewhat objective observer it looks pretty silly. Don't you agree?

[testallthings]

DID NEE REMAIN THAT HUMBLE?

Originally Posted by zeek

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

Not Taking What We See Today
as the Whole Truth

We cannot judge God's word by what we see in this age. What we see today is still limited. Perhaps fifty years from now, other brothers will rise up to say that we are in darkness. We only wish we could climb higher than we are to see God's word. Just as we are not saved and then regenerated, in the same way we do not first receive an individual life and then come to realize the Body life. Just as salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, the realization of the individual life and the Body life happen at the same time (Acts 9:17-18). In every age there are truths of that age. There are also errors of that age. We cannot make the truth of an age become an error just because we do not have enough knowledge about that truth. Take again the example of baptism and the laying on of hands. The two things should happen at the same time. After a person is baptized, he should immediately experience the laying on of hands, and he should immediately be brought to see the coordination, the Body, and be joined to the brothers and sisters. Due to the fact that some truths were recovered first and some later, men set a sequence to the order of the truth. This is wrong. This is why we cannot consider what we have seen today as the whole truth, nor can we judge God's word by our own experience. Never forget that we are ministers of God's word.(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 6, Section 2) [emphasis added](These words were spoken in 1948).

I am not sure if this can answer your question. I will still look for more.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID NEE REMAIN THAT HUMBLE?

Not Taking What We See Today
as the Whole Truth

We cannot judge God's word by what we see in this age. What we see today is still limited. Perhaps fifty years from now, other brothers will rise up to say that we are in darkness. We only wish we could climb higher than we are to see God's word. Just as we are not saved and then regenerated, in the same way we do not first receive an individual life and then come to realize the Body life. Just as salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, the realization of the individual life and the Body life happen at the same time (Acts 9:17-18). In every age there are truths of that age. There are also errors of that age. We cannot make the truth of an age become an error just because we do not have enough knowledge about that truth. Take again the example of baptism and the laying on of hands. The two things should happen at the same time. After a person is baptized, he should immediately experience the laying on of hands, and he should immediately be brought to see the coordination, the Body, and be joined to the brothers and sisters. Due to the fact that some truths were recovered first and some later, men set a sequence to the order of the truth. This is wrong. This is why we cannot consider what we have seen today as the whole truth, nor can we judge God's word by our own experience. Never forget that we are ministers of God's word.(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 6, Section 2) [emphasis added](These words were spoken in 1948).

I am not sure if this can answer your question. I will still look for more.

Interesting. I remember Witness Lee saying the same kind of thing from time to time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry,

But why was Nee being humble?

Talking about the resumption of Nee's ministry, in 1942 was the "SCA Storm" as it was called. It was when Nee was dis-fellowhipped for scandals with a couple of sisters:

"After his arrest, Nee disclosed the names of the two victims, MYC and ZQN. Not until 1956 did we know of Nee’s affair with ZQN. Yet the discovery of his affair was the underlying cause of the “SCA Storm” in 1942."
~ Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 2061-2063). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.

After the SCA Storm and with many coworkers alienated from him, Nee had nowhere to go but back to his hometown, Fuzhou.
~Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 2928-2929). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.

Then in 1949 Witness talked Nee back. So of course Nee would be humble.

The Prelude to Nee’s Resumption
Witness Lee Convinced coworkers to Accept Nee Lee was unswervingly loyal to Nee. He realized there were bitter feelings toward Nee among SCA leaders because of the “SCA Storm in 1942.”(1) Upon his arrival Nanjing and Shanghai, he talked to most of the senior coworkers, including Li Yuanru, Zhang Yuzhi, Xu Dawei (David Hsu), Du Zhongchen, and Yu Chenghua. He persuaded them by saying that the cause of their spiritual back-sliding was their focusing on “Was something truly wrong with Watchman Nee?” They forgot to show gratitude to Nee for his spiritual help. Also, he repeatedly emphasized: “The issue is of ‘the Tree of Knowledge’ versus ‘the Tree of Life.’”

Kinnear writes: Already in 1946 Witness Lee had challenged the Shanghai elders: “Were you in the Spirit when you made the decision to reject him? And what was the effect? Can you say it brought life?” “No,” they had replied sorrowfully to each question.(2)

The coworkers accepted Lee’s viewpoint of “considering ‘life,’ but not ‘the knowledge of good and evil.’” The previous grudge was then resolved.

Lee and Wang Prompted the Resumption of Nee
Witness Lee and Wang Peizhen were eager to have Nee returning to his ministry. Lee said: By being in Shanghai again, I had much opportunity to see Brother Nee after a separation of more than six years. .*.*. Also, at this time Peace Wang [Wang Peizhen] and I were concerned for the recovery of Watchman’s ministry. For this reason we both took every opportunity to have fellowship with him.*.*.*. We presented to him the urgent need to resume his ministry because of the restoration of the church in Shanghai and the wide doors opened in new fields. I asked him to resume his ministry, but he told me that because of certain rebellious brothers, his ministering spirit would not allow him to minister to the church in Shanghai. I realized from this that in order to recover his ministry, there was the crucial need of a revival among us.(3)
~Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 857-859). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.


So Nee was being humble because he was like a little boy coming back after being punished.

[testallthings]

To zeek “Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee.”

Isn't that the purpose of this (your) thread?


“Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?”


You could turn your question around and ask, Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was right for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush? Of course the answer is a bit more complicated.

“Or second, He might command the angels to proclaim His word. The Bible does record some instances of angels delivering the word of God, but these are very rare and only used as an exceptional or emergency measure. This is not the normal and regular way of God’s speaking. Nevertheless, should it please God to propagate His word by the angels, He could simply compile many articles similar to the Ten Commandments and command the angels to deliver them to men to learn. No personal experience would be involved, and no human error would be possible. We might think this would eliminate many theological problems, arguments, and heresies. How simple it would be if God’s word were reduced to the form of a law of five or six hundred articles. By hearing or reading these items men would know God’s word in total. Perhaps many believe that the Bible would be easier to comprehend if it were one thousand one hundred and eighty-six articles instead of that many chapters. It would not be unlike a handbook of Christianity. A quick glance would give a general summary of the Christian faith. But God has not so done.” The Ministry of God's Word, chapter 2, page 21, Watchman Nee, Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc. New York Copyright ©1971[emphasis added]


“A New Testament believer prays, gives thanks, praises, or seeks after the Lord without the need of a prophet to act on his behalf. The greatest blessing for a New Testament believer is the ability to receive the leading of the Holy Spirit, as Hebrews 8:11 says, "And they shall by no means each teach his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all will know Me from the little one to the great one among them." We have many fellow citizens and brothers, but there is no need for them to teach us, saying, "Know the Lord." We have the Holy Spirit within us. The Spirit is our prophet today. In the Old Testament there was Nathan, Gad, and many other prophets, in addition to many "fellow citizens." But in the New Testament, we do not need all these "fellow citizens" to teach and guide us......A prophet cannot give anyone personal guidance; this is the essence of the New Testament. In the New Testament there are no personal prophets. Everyone can know God directly and be led of God and know God's will directly. Do you have a prophet? I am ashamed that many people have considered me a prophet, that is, the kind of personal prophet mentioned above. The danger of a worker is to burden himself with the work of a prophet. When there are too many personal prophets, the proper place of the new testament prophet is annulled. The New Testament church does not need any spiritual giants to act as personal prophets to teach others what they should do. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of the prophets. The main work of the new testament prophets is for building up, encouraging, and consoling men. This is the work that God's workers should do today.”
(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 2) Vol. 42: Conferences, Messages, and Fellowship (2), Chapter 3, Section 1)[emphasis added]


“Nee states "A government officer is one who executes the law. The laws in the world are based on justice, and all transgressors have to be punished. However, the principle of conduct of Christians today is mercy (Matt. 5:38-48). Can world politics act according to the teaching on the Mount? The words "do not judge, that you be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) have forever disqualified believers from interfering with politics or being executors of law."

“If mercy is the principle that Jesus taught us to practice, then why not practice it in every sphere of life including government? Didn't Jesus expect his followers to bring the practice of the Kingdom of God to the world? Wouldn't practicing mercy in government be doing exactly that?”


This is what in a 2006 speech, then-Sen. Barack Obama, in a mocking way, said, “Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was so radical the Defense Department wouldn't survive its application.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWpAQDx1iVQ

What shall a Christian do if, being the president of a country, he faces war? Shall he follow the Lord Jesus teaching, “But *I* say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other”, and so condemn to death millions of his own people, who probably do not share his belief, or shall he use the sword and in so doing going against the Lord's commandments and his own conscience?


“According to Nee's teaching, since Jesus' principle is mercy we should avoid situations where think mercy is inappropriate. According to Nee then, should we just avoid people and situations where we don't wish to show mercy? So, if I don't like you, I should just stay away from you because if I'm around you, I might have to show mercy toward you. Avoidance including avoidance of political office seems to be a poor standard of practice for Christian life that would lead to social isolation rather then bringing the Kingdom of God into the world like Jesus did.”


I am not sure what you are saying. Could you clarify, just for me, please.


Many Christians had a strong aversion about politics, (Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, the Brethren, Nee, etc..)

“I owe no duty to forum, campaign, or senate. I stay awake for no public function. I make no effort to occupy a platform. I am no office seeker. I have no desire to smell out political corruption. I shun the voter’s booth, the juryman’s bench. I break no laws and push no lawsuits; I will not serve as a magistrate or judge. I refuse to do military service. I desire to rule over no one – I have withdrawn from worldly politics! Now my only politics is spiritual – how that I might be anxious for nothing except to root out all worldly anxieties and care.”- Tertullian

In us, all ardor in the pursuit of glory and honor is dead. So we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings. Nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. – Tertullian

Celsus also urges us to “take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.” But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation–that is, the Church–rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God–for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all–of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshipping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God. – Origen

http://unsettledchristianity.com/the...ublic-service/



Still, every Christian should decide by/for himself, according to the Word and the leading of the Spirit (and his own conscience).

Col 3:1 If therefore ye have been raised with the Christ, seek the things which are above, where the Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God: Col 3:2 have your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth.

[testallthings]

To awareness
“So we're back to Nee being Biblically wrong. To bad he's not here to admit to it.”
First, you have to prove that he was wrong on this point, then I am sure if he was here he would gladly admit to it.




“But then, if historically factual, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey:
Joh 12:15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"
Publicly displaying that he's the king of the Jews. His kingdom then would be of this world, and a
government figure, by more than implication.”
'Now, do I understand you correctly, with this one verse you are proving that Christians should be involved in politic, in government office, etc.? Should you not provide at least two witnesses?

But, again, you are proving that the Lord Jesus was/is a King. On this point, let me assure you, I know no Christian who would object to it. The Magi from the East, and the Romans (Pilate) from the West, recognized Him as the king of the Jews, in accord with the tenor of the Gospel of Matthew. Those who didn't accept Him as Messiah-King were the Jews.

Joh 19:14 (now it was the preparation of the passover; it was about the sixth hour and he [Pilate] says to the Jews, Behold your king!
Joh 19:15 But they cried out, Take him away, take him away, crucify him. Pilate says to them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.


Act 3:13 The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom *ye* delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when *he* had judged that he should be let go.
Act 3:14 But *ye* denied the holy and righteous one, and asked that a man that was a murderer should be granted to you;

Furthermore, let's look at Luke 19:11-27, “But as they were listening to these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God was about to be immediately manifested. He said therefore, A certain high-born man went to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom and return. And having called his own ten bondmen, he gave to them ten minas, and said to them, Trade while I am coming. But his citizens hated him, and sent an embassy after him, saying, We will not that this man should reign over us. And it came to pass on his arrival back again, having received the kingdom, that he desired these bondmen to whom he gave the money to be called to him, in order that he might know what every one had gained by trading. And the first came up, saying, My Lord, thy mina has produced ten minas.
And he said to him, Well done , thou good bondman; because thou hast been faithful in that which is least, be thou in authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, My Lord, thy mina has made five minas. And he said also to this one, And *thou*, be over five cities. And another came, saying, My Lord, lo, there is thy mina, which I have kept laid up in a towel. For I feared thee because thou art a harsh man: thou takest up what thou hast not laid down, and thou reapest what thou hast not sowed. He says to him, Out of thy mouth will I judge thee, wicked bondman: thou knewest that *I* am a harsh man, taking up what I have not laid down and reaping what I have not sowed. And why didst thou not give my money to the bank; and *I* should have received it, at my coming, with interest? And he said to those that stood by, Take from him the mina and give it to him who has the ten minas. And they said to him, Lord, he has ten minas. For I say unto you, that to every one that has shall be given; but from him that has not, that even which he has shall be taken from him. Moreover those mine enemies, who would not have me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”


What I understand from this parable (you might have another understanding, I don't know) we see this:

1. He said this parable because many believed the kingdom of God was going to be manifested (it didn't happen).
2. The Lord Jesus had to go first in a far away country to get the kingdom and to return.
3. His disciples/believers had to exercise, trade, their talents.
4. At Christ's return He will reward His servant. Then, and only then, they shall rule over cities.
5. He will be avenged of His enemy.

He will exercise His right to reign at His second coming, and so will his disciples.



That He would be rejected at His first coming we can see it from the story of Joseph and Moses, too.

Gen 37:5 And Joseph dreamed a dream, and told it to his brethren, and they hated him yet the more. And he said to them, Hear, I pray you, this dream, which I have dreamt: Behold, we were binding sheaves in the fields, and lo, my sheaf rose up, and remained standing; and behold, your sheaves came round about and bowed down to my sheaf. And his brethren said to him, Wilt thou indeed be a king over us? wilt thou indeed rule over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams and for his words.

His brothers sold him. Later, in a “distant country” he became the second in power. After that his brothers bowed to him.

Concerning Moses we read, Act 7:23 And when a period of forty years was fulfilled to him, it came into his heart to look upon his brethren, the sons of Israel;
Act 7:24 and seeing a certain one wronged, he defended him , and avenged him that was being oppressed, smiting the Egyptian.
Act 7:25 For he thought that his brethren would understand that God by his hand was giving them deliverance. But they understood not.”

Moses, too, went to a “distant country” Act 7:30 And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai, in a flame of fire of a bush...and now, come, I will send thee to Egypt.
Act 7:35 This Moses, whom they refused, saying, Who made thee ruler and judge? him did God send to be a ruler and deliverer with the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.


It is interesting that the Lord Jesus himself quoted this same words in the Gospel of Luke 12:13-14, Luk 12:13 “And a person said to him out of the crowd, Teacher, speak to my brother to divide the inheritance with me.
Luk 12:14 But he said to him, Man, who established me as a judge or a divider over you?”

Being the King of the Jews, why did he refuse to judge?


Another case.


Pro 20:8 A king sitting on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes.

Pro 14:35 The king's favour is toward a wise servant; but his wrath is against him that causeth shame.

Pro 20:26 A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.

In the Gospel of John we have a famous story.
Joh 12:3 Mary therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of pure nard of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Joh 12:4 One of his disciples therefore, Judas son of Simon, Iscariote, who was about to deliver him up, says,
Joh 12:5 Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?
Joh 12:6 But he said this, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag, and carried what was put into it .
Joh 12:7 Jesus therefore said, Suffer her to have kept this for the day of my preparation for burial;
Joh 12:8 for ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always.

Did the Lord Jesus judge Judas? Shouldn't this be the case for those who hold a government office? Shall he condone thieves, murderers, etc.?

There will be a time for His judgment.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goes a sharp two-edged sword, that with it he might smite the nations; and he shall shepherd them with an iron rod; and he treads the wine-press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 19:16 And he has upon his garment, and upon his thigh, a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords.


And for His kingdom to come.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded his trumpet: and there were great voices in the heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world of our Lord and of his Christ is come, and he shall reign to the ages of ages.
Rev 11:16 And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 saying, We give thee thanks, Lord God Almighty, He who is, and who was, that thou hast taken thy great power and hast reigned.


May He come quickly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To awareness
“So we're back to Nee being Biblically wrong. To bad he's not here to admit to it.”
First, you have to prove that he was wrong on this point, then I am sure if he was here he would gladly admit to it.

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

No, He didn't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did Jesus tell the tax collectors that he hung with to get out of gov'ment?

I wish He would hang out with some of those IRS agents.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To zeek “Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee.”

Isn't that the purpose of this (your) thread?


“Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?”


You could turn your question around and ask, Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was right for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush? Of course the answer is a bit more complicated.

Gee I don't know...could it be that God allows humans free will and doesn't coerce them or is that a foreign concept to you?

“Or second, He might command the angels to proclaim His word. The Bible does record some instances of angels delivering the word of God, but these are very rare and only used as an exceptional or emergency measure.

Right after you figure out how many angels fit on the head of a pin you'll figure out the answer to this angel question.

This is not the normal and regular way of God’s speaking.

What exactly is the NORMAL AND REGULAR way of God's speaking? It seems pretty normal for him to be silent outside of the Bible for most people.

This is what in a 2006 speech, then-Sen. Barack Obama, in a mocking way, said, “Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was so radical the Defense Department wouldn't survive its application.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWpAQDx1iVQ What shall a Christian do if, being the president of a country, he faces war? Shall he follow the Lord Jesus teaching, “But *I* say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other”, and so condemn to death millions of his own people, who probably do not share his belief, or shall he use the sword and in so doing going against the Lord's commandments and his own conscience?

“Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”

[Ironically, most Right-wing Christians these days are war hawks who would agree that national defense cannot be run on a policy of love, mercy and forgiveness if it wasn't Barack Obama making the proposition. There is also a smaller group who are of the libertarian-isolationist persuasion like Ron and Rand Paul]

Still, every Christian should decide by/for himself, according to the Word and the leading of the Spirit (and his own conscience).

Exactly