Ground of Locality and Generality

[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.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

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.

I'd be glad to start such a thread with my question to you as the lead-off. However, I am confused as to which may be the most appropriate forum. Perhaps Fellowship Hall?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

I'd be glad to start such a thread with my question to you as the lead-off. However, I am confused as to which may be the most appropriate forum. Perhaps Fellowship Hall?

Hi TLG.. and everyone ...WHEW! I had a close call with my PC today. It almost crashed! Thankfully, I have a computer savvy brother who walked me through "dis-infecting" the viruses that sneaked in!

Just like the enemy.......when you least expect him..he rears his ugly head.

........back to topic...

I looked at the different sub forums..and thought this 'apologetics' sub-forum is still appropriate....since I'm sure we'll be discussing Nee & Lee's..(mainly Lee's viewpoints/teachings vs others or finding a middle ground.

We just have to start a new thread on this same Apologetics forum..unless UntoHim finds a better fit.

Thanks..

[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.

[countmeworthy]

[QUOTE=Igzy;5828])

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."

And that is when the Presence of God leaves...the anointing of the Holy Spirit, that is the Power of God..leaves. When people prop themselves like a Peacock showing off its feathers, the Blessing of God is removed.

Rather than condescend and try to minister to a world which they must have though dearly needed what they had, they became self-enclosed and self-serving, and still are.

Exactly...It's all about what 'Brother Lee' wrote and saw. Hello? Does God not reveal His WORD to His servants of today? If WE ALL studied the Word of God, built our relationship and Fellowship with HIM through the Word, the anointing, the Power of God, the Love of God would spill over...no body would point to any one 'church'. For we would all be One just as the Son is ONE with the Father.

Why couldn't the LC try to share the truth of oneness in locality with the rest of Christians?

PRIDE !

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.

Exactly. That is why the LC's terminology is different from most Christians'. That's why they 'looked' different..especially in the 70s. Many of the older die-hard saints still do.

Igzy...I like the way you think! Good job in explaining your thoughts!

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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 believe that I stated the irony of denominationalism in a post above. Even the "community church movement," inasmuch as it is a "movement" becomes unavoidably a sect, a division, a denomination of Christianity. This movement is, by the way, somewhat connected with the Emergent Church movement, and Saddleback Community Church headed by Rick Warren. I have personally experienced the phenomenon of the "mega churches." My personal opinion is that they are riddled with "Corinthian" issues.

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.

But that's traditionally been the basis for forming "new churches." Were it not for the fact that groups of people naturally (in their natural selves) desire to form relationships with other like-minded persons, there would be no divisions at all. Church groups are not formed by single persons - "pastors" - who say to themselves, "Okay, now that I've graduated from seminary I can go out an market my own church." They are formed by groups of like-0minded persons who seek out like-minded pastors to lead them.

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.

I think I made that point earlier. It's a sticky wicket for any group. But what's the solution? We should accept as inevitable that we are forever doomed to division, or we should take a stand and make our best attempt at following the Bible's example?

The LC claimed to have the best collection of doctrines ever.

No, they didn't. :rollingeyes2:

They claimed to have a treasure comparable to no other.

No, they didn't.

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.

While you are free to your opinion, this is not evidenced in fact at all. You are merely showing your prejudice here.

Why couldn't the LC try to share the truth of oneness in locality with the rest of Christians?

They did, and do. All the printed material is freely available to the public and there is a large internet presence with all of this information available.

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.

Well, isn't that the case for everyone? Ask yourself why it is the Jews aren't so freely open the gospel. When you can answer that question you will realize the answer to your quandary about the LC's exclusiveness (or at least your perception of it).

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.

This is insulting. Inbred? What should compel me to answer this diatribe?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

This is insulting. Inbred? What should compel me to answer this diatribe?

The fact that I'm telling the truth. And you should know it. Denying the LC claims to have to have the best set of teachings going (or even that are possible, since "everything's been recovered") doesn't put you in very good stead with the facts.

The LSM/LC is not interested in any teaching that does not come through Witness Lee. This means they are talking to each other and reinforcing the same information over and over, with no new "DNA" coming it. That's the definition of inbred.

[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.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Yeppers...I was there for those meetings too. My 'eyes' were really 'opened'.

To build on what Igzy wrote, there may be truth to the denominations/non denominations being an offshoot from the mother harlot...BUT, many people left because they saw through the RCC...The clergy laity system has been around 'forever' too...nothing WRONG with teaching people from the Word of God, God desires a pure and spotless Bride...and WILL get his Pure and Spotless Bride.

But Lee had a very arrogant attitude with his presentations. He manipulated people in the LC to believe the LC under HIS MINISTRY was 'God's ordained way'...and it was through the LC, the Lord was going to get His Bride. He put a FEAR factor onto people. "Wow...if I leave the LC, I won't be part of the Bride!' That's why people were and are afraid to leave the LSM/LC today. Does God want some people to be in the LSM/LC...sure..He has has His reasons...God uses people in every sector of Christianity out there. When their job is complete, God lets them know and releases them.

[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Complete quotations with citations, please. I've evidenced what the footnote clearly states. If you don't recall it, then you weren't paying attention.

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.

Untrue. If a person - any person - interpreted the verse and said, "these are the harlots," and then "here's how we can avoid being the harlots," then people may or may not listen, depending upon how they are apt to receive the message. The simple fact of the matter is that "God hates our religion." Both Nee and Lee were unapologetic about saying so in a variety of ways. Some of those ways offended popular Christianity, so that made them "cult leaders." How long did it finally take for "popular Christianity" to see the error of their ways and acknowledge the valid point these two brothers had? More then 30 years.

[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."