Ground of Locality and Generality

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Ah! So then that puts local churchers at a disadvantage?

When it's NOT TRUE, yes...it puts the LC at a disadvantage...for the Anointing and the Presence of God is not there...only dead works..dead teachings from the pulpit of the LSM/LC.

[Shawn]

Hi CMW,

I am more the exception than the rule, I started a concecrated life at about the summer of '86 with an Inndependent Baptist group using the Scofield reference Bible (mainly the Brethern teaching), which led me very easily into brother Lee's expounding of the Word, around the winter of '88.

Since then I have been a LC'er going through whatever storms arose; but insulated from the direct corruptions as described by many that happened in the churches from CA and TX, as my home is Pittsburgh, PA.

I guess I have always appreciated brother Lee's ministry (and still do), but have never lost the realization that it is just one of many ministries given by God to perfect us. My concept has never been brought into question by my brother and sisters in Pittsburgh and, as such, has allowed me to have a healthy pursuing of our Lord, without the "LSM only" trappings.

Shawn

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi CMW,

I am more the exception than the rule, I started a concecrated life at about the summer of '86 with an Inndependent Baptist group using the Scofield reference Bible (mainly the Brethern teaching), which led me very easily into brother Lee's expounding of the Word, around the winter of '88.

Since then I have been a LC'er going through whatever storms arose; but insulated from the direct corruptions as described by many that happened in the churches from CA and TX, as my home is Pittsburgh, PA.

I guess I have always appreciated brother Lee's ministry (and still do), but have never lost the realization that it is just one of many ministries given by God to perfect us. My concept has never been brought into question by my brother and sisters in Pittsburgh and, as such, has allowed me to have a healthy pursuing of our Lord, without the "LSM only" trappings.

Shawn

Thank you for your post Shawn. It was heartfelt. I, like many of us here, consecrated ourselves to the Lord Jesus while in the LC...& to the church. The problem most of us realized after we declared our consecration to the church..was that we are pledging our allegiance solely to Lee's ministry...not really to building up the entire body of Christ whereever we meet..or 'don't meet'. Of course, my experience there was not as harsh as others. Others did not have good experiences at all..especially if they were raised by parents in the LC.

So for me, as I've stated time & time again, I am very THANKful for having been saved in Christ Jesus through the LC ministry. It was my foundation in the Word and it was there I learned to fellowship & study the Word.

In MY opinion, had we just remained faithful to reading and studying the Word..without the emphasis of Brother Lee in everything, and without the puffed up attitude that the LC was better than poor, poor Chrisitianity..God could have used that ministry MIGHTILY.

Of course, Satan saw the threat to his career shortened and thus did everything to delay his judgment.

If more people would stop elevating men of God..or women of God and placing them on pedestals..God could use us all in a most Glorious Way..mightily..

Well...it is still in the works. God doesn't give up on us and we are not giving up on HIM! Praise the Lord.

He began a most excellent work in us, through our Salvation and the Blood of the Lamb, and by the anointing of the Holy Spirit on us, He will finish what He began. Thank You Lord Jesus!

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

When it's NOT TRUE, yes...it puts the LC at a disadvantage...for the Anointing and the Presence of God is not there...only dead works..dead teachings from the pulpit of the LSM/LC.

Therefore it stands to reason that whenever the various Reformers and those generally considered "pillars" within Christianity have criticized the apostate condition of our faith, they were also promoting dead works and dead teachings from their pulpits.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Therefore it stands to reason that whenever the various Reformers and those generally considered "pillars" within Christianity have criticized the apostate condition of our faith, they were also promoting dead works and dead teachings from their pulpits.

No, it doesn't stand to reason. Sounds like you are trying to sharp shoot inconsistencies in others' arguments. But you are not doing a very good job because I don't see the connection nor the point you are trying to make.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, it doesn't stand to reason. Sounds like you are trying to sharp shoot inconsistencies in others' arguments. But you are not doing a very good job because I don't see the connection nor the point you are trying to make.

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

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.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

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.

TLG,

You're on the right track. A person can be very GIFTED in teaching but they can lose the anointing and the Presence of God., YET retain the GIFT to teach, to 'fellowship', to heal or whatever their particular gift is...until eventually the LORD will touch their thigh and humble them as He did Jacob.

It happened even to little ole' ME. I have always loved to tell people about Jesus. I have brought many people to the LORD....even when I was in rebellion to the Word of God. Oh..I paid a heavy duty price....no doubt. But that sin of disobedience brought me to deep repentance and brokenness.

I learned it is better to OBEY than to sacrifice........for sure.

God WILL NOT be mocked.

I now know the ABSOLUTE, mighty power of repentence and I know the power of brokenness and I know the power of the Blood of the Lamb.

And btw... even though in Christ there really is no male or female, I am a SHE..not a he.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

TLG,

You're on the right track. A person can be very GIFTED in teaching [B] but they can lose the anointing and the Presence of God., ...

CMW,

Not to get too far off the subject, but just prior to this post you wrote that we are "called to be Bereans." Without disputing your understanding of whether we are all called to be Bereans or not, I am wondering where, given this claim, it can be found in Scripture that "the anointing and Presence of God" can be lost.

The Bereans tested What Paul and Silas taught in the synagogue by, "examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." What I understand of "the anointing" is that it is generally believed by certain Pentecostal groups and especially the Word-Faith movement in America, to be an ethereal substance given by God to carry out certain commissions, healings, baptisms, and spiritual experiences. "The anointing" is sometimes referred to as "dripping" or "pouring out" of the person/preacher/pastor to whom it has been imparted.

With regard to "the Presence of God." If it is as I understand it, the presence of God is His, "literal presence of Person in every aspect and degree, freely given without precondition," how is it that such can be removed? The Lord Jesus promised that He would be, "with [us] until the end of the age," and He also promised that, through His presence, the Father would also be with us." So how is it that God's presence can be removed?

As one who is called to be a Berean I am interested in the Scriptural foundation for both of these expressions.

Thanks

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

CMW,

Not to get too far off the subject, but just prior to this post you wrote that we are "called to be Bereans." ....As one who is called to be a Berean I am interested in the Scriptural foundation for both of these expressions.

Thanks

TLG,
Let's start a totally different thread on a subforum..for we are getting away from the topic.

IF I can't come back to this today as I have a few commitments today/tonight, I'll do my best to answer your questions tomorrow.

Receive the Lord's blessings He has for and on you for you are a Son of the Most High God...a king and priest to co-heir with Christ the KING.

[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.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

Noted. Thank you.

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.

Perhaps. But that yet stands to be proved.

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

I think there was an implication, but now that point appears to be moot.

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.

I disagree. The concept of locality was formulated in whole by Watchman Nee. I do not believe that Lee carried Nee's concept to an unreasonable extreme. Nee said, "this is the pattern of locality in the Bible, which should be followed for this reason." Lee said, "This is the pattern as Nee said said it, we practice it, and others should as well." Witness Lee never stated or implied that "salvation is only in the local churches," which is what you have implied here. I have no qualms whatsoever of either Nee or Lee condemning the widespread acceptance of religious division in Christendom (I'll address this in a little more detail with my next response to CMW).

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.

I'd like to. Well, sin is a pretty black and white issue, wouldn't you agree? As such, that which is sourced in the flesh of man should also be a black and white issue. Therefore, if a person perceives something to be sourced in the flesh (ie. divisions), then it pretty much would amount to a black and white issue with them. The problem, then, may not necessarily be that such a vision is sectarian - different from the norm so as to be strange - but that an established acceptable paradigm is offended. See, Watchman Nee claimed that denominations were essentially of the flesh and soul, and that offended some. Witness Lee claimed that the local ground is the ground upon which Christ affirms the church, and that offended many.

As a side note (and one which I find particularly fascinating) one of the main items of contention between Witness Lee (That is, his teachings) and his detractors is the footnote in Rev. 17 which identifies the sects in Christianity as the harlots. For a few hundred years Protestants had absolutely no problem with the identification of the mother of the Harlots, Babylon, as being the Roman Church (in fact Martin Luther taught this very thing). Yet when it came to Lee's identification of the harlots as being, "all the different sects and groups in Christianity that hold to some extent the teaching, practices, and traditions of the apostate Roman Church," the issue became something entirely different. How dare Witness Lee call Protestant Christianity a bunch of harlots (Despite the fact that he clearly identified them as being those who "hold to some extent the teaching, practices and traditions of the apostate Roman Church")! This, in and of itself, smacks of hypocrisy.

[Cal]

I'd like to. Well, sin is a pretty black and white issue, wouldn't you agree? As such, that which is sourced in the flesh of man should also be a black and white issue. Therefore, if a person perceives something to be sourced in the flesh (ie. divisions), then it pretty much would amount to a black and white issue with them. The problem, then, may not necessarily be that such a vision is sectarian - different from the norm so as to be strange - but that an established acceptable paradigm is offended. See, Watchman Nee claimed that denominations were essentially of the flesh and soul, and that offended some. Witness Lee claimed that the local ground is the ground upon which Christ affirms the church, and that offended many.

You continue to talk about "denominations" as if everyone outside of the LC is in one. But the fastest growing segment of Christianity for a long time is the community church movement, which cannot, generally, be included as another denomination. I know it helps you case superficially to continue to use the term "denominations" in a broader way than you should. But it's unfair to do so.

I would agree that setting oneself apart from others based upon doctrine is of the flesh. That's what some denominations do wrong. But simply forming a church is not wrong. Forming one which basically says all are wrong except people which think like us is the problem.

The problem is not holding certain doctrines as important. We all do that. The problem is how we use them to view others. Do we view those doctrines as "for man" (as the Lord viewed the most important Jewish doctrine, the Sabbath), or do we view man as for them (as the Jews viewed "man for the Sabbath.") Local churchers manifestly believe man is for the local ground, rather than the correct way, if there is any way, which is the other way around. So in essense, the local church is doing exactly what denominations are doing wrong, just with a unique and different doctrine.

The LC claimed to have the best collection of doctrines ever. They claimed to have a treasure comparable to no other. So what did they do with this "treasure?" Did they try to bless others with it? No, they used it to prop up their identity as "God's best." Rather than condescend and try to minister to a world which they must have thought dearly needed what they had, they became self-enclosed and self-serving, and still are.

Why couldn't the LC try to share the truth of oneness in locality with the rest of Christians? Firstly, I honestly I don't believe they ever really wanted to. I think they more wanted to maintain control of the movement and define it under their terms. They didn't want to lose their culture. They liked their identity as a remnant, as something special. If everyone joined them they would lose control and they wouldn't be special anymore.

Secondly, I think they knew the doctrine of the local ground could never hold up under wide public scrutiny, as it requires a tightly spun web of required arbitrary presumptions to operate. You first have to accept someone as the apostle, and few believe in apostles anymore. You secondly have to get people to accept an arbitrary set of elders in each city. This is relatively easy to do when you've got a small, isolated and tightly controlled group of people believing in some heirarchy of authority which comes down from the "apostle." In other words, an enclosed, inbred group operating under fear of excommunication. But it's not going to work with a huge number of people who sooner or later are going to wonder and ask why the emperors are wearing no clothes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As a side note (and one which I find particularly fascinating) one of the main items of contention between Witness Lee (That is, his teachings) and his detractors is the footnote in Rev. 17 which identifies the sects in Christianity as the harlots. For a few hundred years Protestants had absolutely no problem with the identification of the mother of the Harlots, Babylon, as being the Roman Church (in fact Martin Luther taught this very thing). Yet when it came to Lee's identification of the harlots as being, "all the different sects and groups in Christianity that hold to some extent the teaching, practices, and traditions of the apostate Roman Church," the issue became something entirely different. How dare Witness Lee call Protestant Christianity a bunch of harlots (Despite the fact that he clearly identified them as being those who "hold to some extent the teaching, practices and traditions of the apostate Roman Church")! This, in and of itself, smacks of hypocrisy.

Well, when someone starts saying that everyone is a harlot except the group he founded then people are going to get indignant. And I don't recall Lee saying the daughter harlots were offshoots which hold to RC stuff. I recall him saying that all Protestant churches were harlots and "free groups" were the fornicating daughters of Moab. But his group was the pure and spotless Bride. Well, how convenient.

If Lee had said something like "we all are harlots" or "we all have been harlots from time to time" then maybe people would have listened. But he said "you're a harlot and I'm not." Who is going to listen to that? Self-righteousness is not a convincing platform from which to persuade skeptics. It usually just makes people want to tell you to stick it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I do not believe that Lee carried Nee's concept to an unreasonable extreme. Nee said, "this is the pattern of locality in the Bible, which should be followed for this reason." Lee said, "This is the pattern as Nee said said it, we practice it, and others should as well." Witness Lee never stated or implied that "salvation is only in the local churches," which is what you have implied here.

Well, let's see. I know Lee said that there could be "overcomers" outside the LC. But his implication was that those were the ones who loved the Lord and served him purely but had never "seen" the local ground. Once you'd "seen" it, meaning understood the teaching, you were on the hook for it and meeting in any other way was to willfully engage in a grievous error. This was the thought he put in the minds of his members. So effectively he told his members that for them practical growth and salvation could only be experienced in the local churches. To leave the LC was to shipwreck oneself. This was what we were taught.

Benson Phillips stated that no one who has ever left the local church movement has gone on to be a great spiritual Christian (as if he would know for sure.) He also stated, publicly and infamously, that if you leave the local church the sanctification process effectively stops. Now, has BP ever stated anything publicly that he didn't get directly from Witness Lee? No, it's his boast that he endeavored to in all things imitate Lee, so surely he got these thoughts from Lee as well.

Sorry, TLG, but your claims above just do not hold up to scrutiny.

I have no qualms whatsoever of either Nee or Lee condemning the widespread acceptance of religious division in Christendom

Condemning things is easy. The world is full of critics. Coming up with a viable solution for the problem is hard. They failed to do so. Rather they seemed to have simply raised up a generation of critics who when pressed can't answer simple questions about the so-called "solution."

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Therefore it stands to reason that whenever the various Reformers and those generally considered "pillars" within Christianity have criticized the apostate condition of our faith, they were also promoting dead works and dead teachings from their pulpits.

Some..YES!....not all.. That's why we are called to be Bereans..and to test the spirits. We know one another by the Fruit of the Spirit....not merely from quoting the scriptures..or putting out a good 'message' or sermon.