Ravenhill's School of Thought

I havent done much searching on this subject but I was curious if anyone knew where Ravenhill stood as far as calvinism and armenianism. I saw one post that said that he believes that man can lose his salvation.

But I would say he is more biblical then anything else you can't narrow him down to a certain theology.Great quote! Might that be said of us all...Notice, we never pray for folks we gossip about, and we never gossip about the folk for whom we pray! For prayer is a great deterrent. Leonard Ravenhill

I like what Keith Daniel says If you are a good armenian or calvinist people should not be able to tell.That is not an exact quote but to the best of my knowlege it is prety close.

Practically speaking, Calvinism and Ariminianism teach the same thing. They teach the need for a godly life, and that it is impossible to be saved without enduring unto the end. The end result is the same. Calvinism, while I suppose one could say it teaches once saved always saved, only does so through it's understanding of the doctrine of the perserverance of the saints. It says these individuals WILL endure to the end, and WILL be godly. Arminianism teaches no doctrine of assured perserverance, and that one can fall away from the faith and go to hell, though it teaches that all who endure until the end WILL be godly. The end result is ultimately the same.Some of what passes somehow as a form of Calvinism these days, as once saved always saved is popularly taught, though the Reformers never taught such, teaches that godliness is simply an option to being a Christian. Such persons usually are opposed to the doctrine of Lordship salvation, a bit if not totally dispensational, and are anti-nomian. They are heretics.

I have always enjoyed Ravenhill's preaching and He genuinly had a heart for God and a passion to preach holiness. But I recently listened to a taped intervew with Ravenhill and He made a remark which was revealing. He said, "The Christian is of course free from the ceremonial laws and ordinances but is still bound to the moral law."It seems brother Ravenhill did not have a grasp on the New Covenent and its distinction from the old. His preaching is a mixture of the Old covenent and the New.IN 2 Cor 3 Paul lays out this distinction clearly and identifies the Old Covenent with letters written in stone, outward vs. the New Covenent which is written in the heart by the Spirit of the LIving God. "Letters written in stone" is a direct reference to the decaloge. The Ten Commandments which are the moral law. And Paul contrasts this with the New covenent which is by the Spirit of the Living God written in the heart.Without even going to Galatians which is the clearest revelation of the whole "law vs faith" questian, If we go to Romans 7 Paul states in no uncertian terms the Christian's relationship to the Law. That is in Christ we have died to the law that we might live and bear fruit to God.The requirement of the Law which is that those who fail to keep it must die, has been fullfilled by Christ who died on the Cross on our behalf. Not only that, but in Romans 7 we are shown that the juristiction of the Law ends when we die. He then goes on to tell us that in Christ we have died to the Law. Christ died and we are joined to HIm. IN His death He met the Laws requirement and also died to its juristiction and so in resurrection, the Law has no juristiction over Christ nor over us in HIm.The Christian Life is not one lived to the Law. It is one lived in Christ to God. You have died to the Law thrugh the body of Christ that you might be joined to Another, even to Him who was raised from the dead that you might bear fruit to God.Christ is the end of the Law for rightousness to everyone who believes. Paul also in Phillipeans 3 says, "That I may be found in HIm (Christ) not having a rightousness of my own derived from law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the rightousness which comes from God on the basis of faith. That I might know Him, and the power of His resurrection...The Christin's relationship to the law is not one of obligation but one of severance. He is free from the Law. It has no claim on him. He has no obligation to it. ON the contrary, He is joined to Christ and lives to God, not the Law. And God is a living God, not laws written in stone.Paul before His conversion was one who was blamless according to the Law, but he was opposed to Christ. He was contrary to Christ and persecuted the church. HIs living to and obedience to the Law he later counted as dung in order to gain Christ and be found in Him.As Christians we do not seek to improve ourseves by imposing the Law of God or even our own laws as the gentiles did. Instead, we live in Christ by the Spirit. We live to God in a living way by the indwelling Spirit of the resurrected Christ. We have died to law. We live to God. IN Galatians Paul relegates the law with the flesh and death and He relegates the Spirit with faith and eternal Life. THe Law speaks to the flesh and brings in death. the Spirit speaks to faith and brings in Life. Only Christ pleases God and only Christ in us makes us pleasing to God. The Christian life is not one of living trying to please God by law keeping, It is one of living by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us. As we contact God daily in His word by exercising our regenerated spirit, and as we behold HIm and Christ is revealed to us, we are transformed from within, even as by the Lord Spirit. Our attempts at pleasing God by adopting rules, regulations, this law or endevoring to improve ourselves serves to sever us experientially from Christ. But when we come to the Liveing God in faith, contact Him in faith, love Him, and touch Him in our spirit, we are strengthened, convicted, transformed, and Christ is imparted into us as our holiness, our rightousness, our everything. As romans 8 says, "the rightouse requirement of the law is continually fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.Ravenhill is an excellent brother who loved God and sought with all His being to preach to motivate believers to pursue the Lord. But He is deficient in revelation and in a clear understanding of God's New Testament economy. He mixed Law with grace, the Old covenent with the New and the Old testament godliness with New Testament holiness.Graftedbranch

Just an observation...I'm curious as to the nature of GraftedBranch(es) post. Was he implying that the Tanakh' (OT Scriptures) are irrelevant, or as he attempting to make a distinction between the Old and the New. I must admit that after my conversion my theology concerning this matter was, well, off. I did not have a grasp on the fact that in Christ the sinful nature is removed. I held to what I believed was "holiness" teaching - i.e. misconception concerning "dying daily", the "thorn in the flesh", Pauls "Romans Seven Dilemna" and the like. It wasn't until 3 - 4 years ago that I realized the power of the New Covenant was in the destruction and in the removal of the sinful nature from man - that in Christ we literally become a New Creation. It is not simply that a fountain for cleansing has been opened to us. It is that through His blood and sacrifice the nature which drove us to sin is removed. The Law (decalogue) shows us this when we are unconverted sinners. It is our schoolmaster which drives us to the foot of the cross. Once we go to the foot of the cross and die to the old nature - we enter into the glorious born-again/resurection experience where we become new creatures.We have all been born of water, but at this point we are born of Spirit - the old gone and completely done away with. The distinction then between the Old and the New is this - under the Old the law is outside of man pointing its finger and calling him to repentance. Every unbeliever is STILL under the Old Covenant, and so the law is THE tool which brings the sinner to repentance.Under the New (not speaking simply of era's in history, but of our present position due to our experience) the law is within man as a part of his nature. Now holiness is not demanded of us by an outside force, it is second nature. The sin nature is gone, and now we have become partakers of the divine nature.Although this reality should in now way cause us to believe that the OT Scriptures are irrelevant or unimportant. It is through this experience that we can finally understand the mysteries the OT Scriptures were trying to show us!just my two cents...Burning,Jeff

We are "grafted" into the spiritual israel and the lineage of faith. My name is taken form John 15. IN 15:5 the Lord Jesus says to His diciples,"I am the Vine; you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit: for apart from Me you can do nothing".This relationship of branches to Vine speaks of an organic union of Life of the Believer whith the crucified and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.1 Cor. 6:17 says, "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.."When we believe into the Lord Jesus Christ, our dead human spirit is regenerated and the Living Christ comes into us as the Life Giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45 making us children of God with His Life and nature. His Spirit is mingled with our regenerated human spirit and we are born of God to be genuine Children of God.To be a "grafted branch" is to be grafted into Christ as the Vine and the Spirit is the Divine Sap which flows from the Vine though the branches and causes it to bear fruit.This Christ fulfilled the terms of the Old covenent on our behalf and enacted the New Covenent in His Blood. We are not under Law but under Grace. Graftedbranch

"The Christian is of course free from the ceremonial laws and ordinances but is still bound to the moral law."Not recalling exactely the context where this was spoken in that interview am just wondering if this is a bit too much extrapolation from just a comment.Could it be that he was only refering to;Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD:I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.?That moral law?

I'm curious as to the nature of GraftedBranch(es) post. Was he implying that the Tanakh' (OT Scriptures) are irrelevant, or as he attempting to make a distinction between the Old and the New.I would not suggest that the Old Testament Scritpures are in any way "irrelevant" but misused. Paul said, "The Law is lawful if used lawfully". That is it has it's function and place which in Galatians we are told was a "child conducter to bring us to Christ" The Value of the OT is that it shows us God's Eternal Purpose in Creating Man. It shows us our origins, our fall, and God's plan of redemption in Types, shadows, figures, and prophecies.The OT gives us many pictures of Christ such as the Taberncackel, the Passover, the exodus, the wilderness, the Manna, the good land. All these are types of Christ and a picture of our life in HimBut these things are shadows and pictures. Christ is the Reality. When we have the Reality, we can learn from the pictures and shadows so the OT has this value.The OT also gives us much in the way of understanding Isreal, God's dispensational deallings, eschatology, etc.But in terms of applicability, We are no longer under the Old Covenant. Christ is the End of the Law for rightousness to everyone who believes. THe Old Covenent is superseeded by the New and any attempt to mix the two is grevious to the Lord Himself. This is the message of Hebrews and Galatians. We need the revelation of the Spirit to see Christ as the centrality and universality of God's New Testament Economy. When the Lord took Peter and John up on the mountian and there Moses and Elija appeard wtih Christ in glory, Peter wanted to make 3 tents for each of them. But the Lord thundered from the heavens and said, "This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Hear Him" and suddenly Moses and Elija were gone and only Christ remained.This is God's economy. It is Christ. Not the Law, Not the prophets. Christ alone. Christ plus nothing. Christ is the fulfillment and the end of the latter two. We need to see this glorious Christ. We Need our eyes opened to see this One who is God manifested in the flesh, crucified for sin and resurrected in glory to impart Himself into us as the Life giving Spirit to enliven us and to make us sons of God in life and nature and to conform us to His image and to make us partakers of His Glory. This is the Gospel. The Law has nothing to do with it. It is in Christ by the Spirit through faith. We also need to see that this wonderful glorious Christ is the One who indwells us as our LIfe, our rightousnsess, our holiness, our everything. Paul in Colossians said He was appointed to complete the Word of God which is the revelation of the Mystery... which is "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory" Graftedbranch

Not recalling exactely the context where this was spoken in that interview am just wondering if this is a bit too much extrapolation from just a comment.Ravenhill's context as I recall was simply speaking of the Need for holiness. But his words reflect the opinion of many who find it obhorant to suggest the Christian is free from the obligation to "keep the law". The natural thought is, "If the Christian is "free from the Law" then surely he will just live as he pleases and live a life of fleshly indulgence"This thought reflects a natural view and neglects the Person of Christ HImself who is holiness, rightousness and every positive virtue.When we believe into the Lord Jesus Christ there is more than just a legal transaction of justification and forgiveness. That is the basis for regeneration and sanctification.Regeneration brings the Life of Christ into us and all He is. The Spirit regenerates us and our dead spirit is made alive. There comes into us a Life which was not there before and this LIfe has its issue, It's desires, It's Ways, IT's attributes which is nothing less than the Lord HImself.Not only that but according to Romans 8:29 Because those whom He forknew He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the First Born among many brothers"So salvation and regeneration brings us into the process whereby the Spirit HImself from within us begins His work to conform us to the Image of the First Born Son. This process does not leave us in our natural condition but renews us, elightens us, sanctifies us, and transforms us from within.So we do not "take up the Law" but rather regeneration brings in the Spirit who creates in us a Love for Christ, a desire to Know HIm, to follow Him and as we see the beauty of Christ we desire and seek to be transformed into His image. We are taken up with a Person, not with a set of rules. And this Person is the Living Christ, not dead letters applied to our flesh which only brings in defeat and death.The Christian Life according to Romans 8 is not lived by the Law in the energy of our natural being but is lived in faith by the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.This is the Christian Life and this is Christian Victory and Holiness. It is the Living Christ formed in us and manifesting Himself in us.IN Galatians 2:21-22 Paul says, "Through Law I died to Law... It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me and the Life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. This and this alone is the Christian Life.Graftedbranch

All well and good but I do not think in any form or fashion that Ravenhill would be advocating such a thing.Ravenhill's context as I recall was simply speaking of the Need for holiness. But his words reflect the opinion of many who find it obhorant to suggest the Christian is free from the obligation to "keep the law". Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: Have you read or listened to much beyond this of Leonard Ravenhill? I believe you are reading far too much into that comment.

Have you read or listened to much beyond this of Leonard Ravenhill? I believe you are reading far too much into that comment.Hebrews 2:10,11 - For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons to glory, to make the Author of thier salvation perfect in all things. For both He who sanctifies (Christ) and those who are being sanctified (us - who are redeemed) are all of One (Father) for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers"Romans 8: 15,16,17a - For you have not recieved a spirit of slavery brining you into fear again, but you have recieved a Spirit of sonship in which we cry Abba Father! The Spirit HImself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God. And if Children, heirs also...RcV___________________________________________________________________I have heard Ravenhill personally in the late 70s as well as listened to several on line Sermons. I believe at one time I read a book by him on revival.I believe his background is pentecostal holiness. He also has a very "arminian" theology and believes a person can lose his salvation which alone should tell you that he has a measure of "legalism" and does not have a full grasp on the New Covenant, regeneration and it's permenancy or even it's nature. He certianly preached the need for regeneration and the New Birth but his definition of what that is exactly is in question.He emphasises in a very Old Testament sense the relationship of the worshiping creature to his Creator but I don't find much concerning the relationship of the redeemed and regenerated child of God to his Father. He is about rightousness, holiness and worship of God. Good things but the heart of the New Testament is that in Christ we are brought into the divine Sonship and share His life and nature through regeneration and the New Birth to be children of God (John 1:12,13). The Gospel does not merely restore the creature/Creator relationship but establishes the organic relationship of Father/children which is in LIfe, not just a legal standing (Romans 8:15,16).The gospel does not just reveal to us the glory of God that we may bow down and worship God, It brings us into the Divine Sonship to be partakers of His Glory and to live and express God as the God of Glory. The Glory of God is not outside of us for us to admire and worship. The Glory of God is God Himself within our regenerated spirit as our indwelling LIfe and as we live by God in Christ and llve God, He is glorifed in the church.God never commanded Adam to fall down and worship Him. Rather he put him before the Tree of Life and said, "freely eat". God's goal is not pets for his amusement, nor creatures to be worshiped by. He has this in the angels. His goal is many sons in the Image of the Firstborn Son in resurrection with His very life and nature to be His corporate expression on the Earth, to bear His testimony and to exercise His dominion over His enemies. This was God's goal in creation and His goal in redemption according to the Bible. And this is the consumation of the Bible as the New Jeruselem in the New Earth.I don't find these things in Ravenhills preaching or teaching.Graftedbranch

I believe his background is pentecostal holiness. He also has a very "arminian" theology and believes a person can lose his salvation which alone should tell you that he has a measure of "legalism" and does not have a full grasp on the New Covenant, regeneration and it's permenancy or even it's nature. He certianly preached the need for regeneration and the New Birth but his definition of what that is exactly is in question.With all due respect GB have found Leonard Ravenhill to be the epiphany of a man who's soul was totally given over to the Lord despite whatever constructs of theology you might want to crowd him under or into. We have had more than a few discussions on the whole realm of Armenian\\Calvin items if you care to go back through them all. His particular leanings tell me no such thing.So for you to come in here unknown and start making comments of this sort is unwelcome. Why should we believe that you have a "full grasp" more so then he? Just because you say so or are adept at moving through the scriptures?This is a forum comprised of many different believers at all stages of their walk with different backgrounds and cultures. If you have come to set us all straight you have come with the wrong approach.

Brother your questioning of this man's ministry is quite sad. Have you the fruit of this man and the experience of this man with God? I think you are making very broad terms and quite possibly trying to ruin a man's ministry with some words that have not been weighed properly in the balance.I mean no disrespect to any who esteem brother Ravenhill. But, according to the title of this thread it is concerning "Ravenhill's School of thought"It seems that the reaction to my post is purely on the grounds that I have questioned his teaching and it seems this is unacceptable. No one addressed any of the points made which would seem to be the scriptural response of those who love the Lord and seek the truth. "Let God be true though every man a liar".I think when we elevate anyone above the scriptures and refuse to consider their teaching in light of it we are on the wrong ground.I do not critize His person nor the fruit of his ministry but in keeping with this thread, I question his postion on certian things in light of the revelation of Scritpure and seek to understand his 'school of thought"I don't believe my post is outside of this guidline. Nor is my 'critique" one of condemnation or of impuning his ministry. But rather we should seek to "seach the scriptures to see if these things be so"But I will say that when we exalt a person we can even Idolize them. And this becomes evident if anyone "touches them". We react and take it personally. I like Ravenhill and appreciate His spirit and His ministry and as I said, I believe the Lord has used him greatly.I have been a belvier for 30 years, am a Bible school graduate (Evangelical Institute of Greenville, SC) and have followed the Lord for 30 years.And I am a member of the local church in my city and am a functioning member of the body of Christ. I might add that I am not a new believer and have my measure of the experiences of Christ, the cross, and of the Christian Life and not without my measure of 'fruit'. And find the Lord more than willing to open up His Word even to those who are not neccesarrily the 'gifted evangelist". I am not an extrodinary Christian but I believe I am a normal one accoding to the New Testament. That is one who loves Christ, is growing in grace and in the knowlege of the Lord Jesus Christ, and has a level of maturity according to my years in Christ. I worship God in spirit, glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in my flesh.AS such and as a fellow partaker of the Grace of Life and of the Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul says, "we believe, therefore we speak".I will also add that I attended the Bible School of Joseph Carroll, author of "How to Worship Jesus Christ" and considered him to be of all men the most godly and the most spiritual. He was a missionary to missionaries in the far east, a "deeper life" teacher and ministered to the spiritual life of some of the great servants of Christ. He labored with A.W. Tozer, was a frequent speaker at the Keswick convention, a friend of Martin Lloyd Jones, and I sat for two years daily under his ministry. Yet after many years the Lord showed me he just was not right on some things. As I went on I began to realize that He, Tozer, and Lloyd Jones, and Watchman Nee whom I also admired were not in aggrement on many things, yet I had to admit that they each had fruitful ministries and were full of Christ. Finally I came to the Lord and realized that the Lord Himself is the only final source of Truth and the Scritpures the only authority. When I came to the Lord in this way, the scritpures came alive and I began to live unto Him and not unto any man or his teaching. Yet I appreciate the Lords work and His teaching in all of them and gain from them.So when I say we can idolize a person, I speak from experience. We can elevate someone above the Lord Himself and their teaching or preaching above the scritpures. But they are men as we are and earthen vessels. And we follow the Living Christ who is within us, not any man. None the less we should hold those who suffer and preach and teach and pour out their lives for Christ and the church in high regard and not esteem them lightly so I respect those who admire Ravenhill. He is worthy of respect.Graftedbranch.

Well let's try this again:I have heard Ravenhill personally in the late 70s as well as listened to several on line Sermons. I believe at one time I read a book by him on revival.With that as a backdrop you would expect us to follow your examination as being anything other than what appears to be a cursory, practically off the cuff assessment, compared with more than a few here who have read and listened to the man and find that his theology likely would blur the lines on just this one aspect, which is not essential in the first place and was addressed earlier in the thread.It seems that the reaction to my post is purely on the grounds that I have questioned his teaching and it seems this is unacceptable. No one addressed any of the points made which seems to be the scritpural response of those who seek the truth. That would be a faulty perception if part of it wasn't true. Will give you that, but for different reasons. One is that when newer people come in here and start out with a particular air of having all the answers without formally introducing themselves, getting a feel for the site and interacting, getting to know other believers, it can put us a bit on the defensive. Yes, we love Len for a number of reasons but if he were alive and thought we saw in him anything more than was what due him ... Would be sure a tongue lashing would be in quick order, kind of against everything he ever expressed. So, no.But I will say that when we exalt a person we can even Idolize them. And this becomes evident if anyone "touches them". We react and take it personally. Again, no. The umbrage is in a certain rudeness to be blunt about it. There is a sense of family here and that is not in any fashion inclusive\\exclusive but just what we have experienced from time to time here... Some will come with an agenda whether they recognize it or not, a teaching, a certain train of thought and before even getting their feet wet are off and running.AS such and as a fellow partaker of the Grace of Life and of the Lord Jesus Christ, I speak.Don't know how to put this nicely but that is the problem sir.Misunderstandings abound and it often time takes some time to get things expressed and clarified. Hope you might take some time to explore a bit more, read some of the preceding discussions around even this particular issue, it has been brought up quite often.A couple of messages that might interest you:Authority By Stephen Kaung

With that as a backdrop you would expect us to follow your examination as being anything other than what appears to be a cursory, practically off the cuff assessment, compared with more than a few here who have read and listened to the man and find that his theology likely would blur the lines on just this one aspect, which is not essential in the first place and was addressed earlier in the thread.I appreciate your response and acknowlege that what you say is very valid. In a forum such as this it is easy just to come in and start.And I will admit that my writing is "off the cuff" however it is not superficial nor without a long consideration of what is said. I spent an afternoon listening to Ravenhill two weeks ago because a new brother in the church was speaking of him highly and I wanted to listen to regain an appreciation for what He preached and where he was comming from. And by the way I said nothing negative to this brother about Ravenhill.On the other hand, I find it sometimes helpful to toss out a few hand granades just to see what happens and in this way I get a feel for the realtiy of things and where others are comming from.. It is effective. And in fact it brings about dialoge which is profitable such as I believe this is.I apoligize if I acted in a way which is offensive. One thing I remember Ravenhill saying in 1975 I believe, was that if he were invited to the Whitehouse and placed under ristiction as to what he could say to the president, he would go and restrain himself. But then, at the end he would say, "Let us Pray... " meaning in his prayer he would say all the things he felt he was burdoned to say.As to Stephen Kaung, I am in the Stream of the Lord's recovery. Graftedbranch

You may have responded to my post before I added this addendum:I will also add that I attended the Bible School of Joseph Carroll, author of "How to Worship Jesus Christ" and considered him to be of all men the most godly and the most spiritual. He was a missionary to missionaries in the far east, a "deeper life" teacher and ministered to the spiritual life of some of the great servants of Christ. He labored with A.W. Tozer, was a frequent speaker at the Keswick convention, a friend of Martin Lloyd Jones, and I sat for two years daily under his ministry. Yet after many years the Lord showed me he just was not right on some things. As I went on I began to realize that He, Tozer, and Lloyd Jones, and Watchman Nee whom I also admired were not in aggrement on many things, yet I had to admit that they each had fruitful ministries and were full of Christ. Finally I came to the Lord and realized that the Lord Himself is the only final source of Truth and the Scritpures the only authority. When I came to the Lord in this way, the scritpures came alive and I began to live unto Him and not unto any man or his teaching. Yet I appreciate the Lords work and His teaching in all of them and gain from them.

Yes, I have been meeting with the local church in my city for about 3 years. The local churches are the fruit of the ministry of Watchamn Nee and Witness Lee. Stephen Kaung was also I belive a co-worker with Watchman Nee at one time.Graftedbranch

Again, no. The umbrage is in a certain rudeness to be blunt about it. There is a sense of family here and that is not in any fashion inclusive\\exclusive but just what we have experienced from time to time here...IN a broader sense, while I am sure there is a "sense of family" and I don't belittle that. There is in effect a "greater" family. That is the 'body of Christ" of which if we are members, we are all brothers and sisters with the Divine Life within us as our commonality.Surely our oneness is not based on our gathering around this or that person or preacher, teaching, or doctrinal system. It is based in our union in spirit with the crucified and resurrected Christ. As Paul says, "Did Paul die for you?' Is Christ divided?. "For sure it takes a little time to get to know this and to recognize this in one another but we all have to take our place as members of the One Body and members one of another. And this is not based on any orginization or any "group" or "who has the most seniority or been here the longest" but rather based in Life. That is we share the One Life of the One Lord in the One Faith in the One Spirit.On this basis we are to "recieve one another" and that not to doubtful disputation.Graftedbranch

Just as matter of where I am comming from, I will say that I regard the ministry of Lenard Ravenhill and A. W. Tozer among the highest in the West. I will add that I believe T. Austin Sparks was the highest as far as Light on the Spiritual Life. As regards each mans devotion and Love for Christ and commitment to the truth, I could not begin to even speculate on who is the "highest". They were all Servants of Jesus Christ and wonderful ministers of Christ.But, T. Austin Sparks upon his departing from and separating from the ministery of the recovery in the east testified later that on his return flight from Tiawan, "he lost the presence of God in the way which He had it before and never recovered it in the same way."I believe the ongoing work of the Spirit in recovering the New Testament revelation and the practice of the church life is unique in the Lord's recovery. I believe Watchman Nee opened up the mine shaft of the riches of Christ in a way that was unpresedented since the early church. It has grown, suffered, been matured and multiplied. It has stood the test of time and is deeper and richer and more intensified, and broader today than it ever was over its 70 year history.And I have come to believe that the recovery today is in the same stream and operating out of the same mine shaft. The level of life and light in the Lord's recovery today is in my experience, observation, and according to much prayer, study, and seeking the Lord, the highest I have seen anywere else in this age. And I have been privelaged to sit under the teaching of some of the greats.The points I set forth are simply the key points in the Recovery today. I beieve they exemplify the kernal of the Divine Revelation and God's New Testament economy.Tozer, Ravenhill, and others like them were tremendous men, full of Christ. But they were products of western Christianity which is steaped in tradition gained over many hundred's of years.I believe God has in His soverignity chosen in recovering the pure New Testament church gone "outside the camp" to China, a land with a limited Christian history and the traditions of the west are only "imported". That is it was furtile soil for His work in this age. And through the crucible of testing, of the fires of persecution, accusations, misrepresentations, slanders, and setbacks, has refined it, purified it, and established it, and matured it in an unprecedented way.T. Austin Sparks, a godly and spiritual man, yet could not get past his western tradition as can be seen in the accounts of the interaction he had with the saints in Tiawan in the 1950s. (See "the Vision of the Age" published by Living Steam Ministries - "www.lsm.org")And in this country (the US), It was the church established by T. Austin Sparks which initually invited Witness Lee to the US to minister to them which after his departure back to Tiawan, came to the conviction to take the ground of the Church and invited Lee back. They became the first "local church" in the US. That was in 1962. From there today there are over 300 in the US and 3000 world wide including 300 in Russia with full time training centers in 9 countries.The points I put forward reflect something of the "High peak of the Divine Revelation" which is just the consumate essense of the New Testament. I believe these things are lacking in most of Christianity today especially in the west. But they are the heart of the Lord's ministry in the East through both Nee and Lee and those who are the co-workers today.Ravenhill labored in Christ to revive and to restore modern Christianity to Christ. Nee and the Lord's recovery are a work apart and outside the camp. They regarded the mixture and degradation in the denominations as Babylon and followed the Lord to "come out of her my people". While regarding themselves one with those believers in the traditional institutions, they regarded the Lord's work to build up the body of Christ as Local churches with no other head than Christ Himself and no other Name but the Name of the Lord Jesus as simply the church in their locality.Graftedbranch

bro ravenhill always told those who knew him to not believe everything any preacher said; but seek the scriptures for the truth. he did not have nail prints in his hands either. jimp

The large and noisy ruling assembly from which Lee governs all is titled "The Church in Los Angeles." He maintains that God is present only in the local assemblies--theirs, that is. All others are outside the will and blessing of God. He stresses that Christian "victory" is not gained by teaching, doctrine, or prayer, but by just four words of praise. The assemblies often repeat in unison, either spoken, sung, or shouted: "O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah!Lee, once in an address was encouraging all the saints to function in the meetings of the church. Many saints are reluctant to speak in a large gathering. He said," at least, if nothing else, you can exercise your spirit to say, "Amen, Oh Lord. Hallelujah". From this those who oppose have construed him to suggest that this is the hight of Christian experience which is as far fetched and out of context one could imagine.What is taught which is according to the Bible is that the believer is one spirit with the crucified and risen Christ (1 cor 6:17). That is, when we believe into Him by repenting and calling on His Name, we are regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. This is a reality and not merely a doctrine, or a teaching. Therefore Victory in the Christian life comes through the exericise of our spirit in contact with the Living Lord and not merely by learning doctrines and filling our head up. Though we need the correct teaching and doctrine, Victory is not by mental knowlege but by the Lord Himself, In this way he encouraged the Saints to exercise their spirit in calling on the Lord, Saying "Amen" when the truth is spoken and when we are in agreement in prayer, and Hallaluah in rejoicing in our wonderful Lord and Saviour.The issue is the exercise of the spirit and the functioning of all the members in the meetings of the Saints. When someone says, "Thank you Lord Jesus that you are God manifest in the flesh, the Saints say, "Amen". When the saints testify of the work of Christ within them or their enjoyment of Christ in the Word, the Saints say, "Amen". This is biblical and the Spirit is active in the exercies of our Oneness in spirit.If someone has a problem with this I would say they have a problem with Christ and the ones who say these things I have observed are those who oppose any experiential knowlege of Christ. The hyperfundimentalist who deny that the Spirit is anything more than an "influence" to make us feel bad when we sin.I am not suggesting the writer of this poste is of this mind but those from whom the quote is take are.This is all.Graftedbranch

H. C. G. Moule published (or someone did using his writing) a small tract called, "The daily affirmation of faith". It went something like this:"I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, therefore I am in Him having redemption through His Blood and Life by His Spirit. And He is in Me for all my hourly need. There is no difficulty inward or outward which He is not ready to meet in me today. The Lord is my Shephard, Amen."When I was in Bible school under the ministry of Joseph S. Carroll, he emphasised this and encourage us to begin our day this way and to "relate everything to Jesus Christ who is our indwelling all sufficient Lord and Saviour."IN the Lord's recovery, this is the same teaching only using a more biblical phrase of "calling on the Lord". That is, in everything we should practice to call on the Lord. We should exercise our spirit to say, Lord Jesus! acknowleging our union with Him in spirit through faith. This is a biblical practice and one which experientially brings us into the conciousness of the Lord as our indweling Life and Life Supply for every need.For instance, when in traffic and we are tempted to lose our patience, we call 'Lord Jesus" and in so doing we find a response in our spirit and the Life of of the Lord flows in us and we are brought into the experience of Christ as our patience. Those who ridicule this are those who are content to be full of knowlege but with no experiential knowlege of "Christ in you, the hope of Glory" who is "made unto us both wisdom from God, rightousness, sanctification and redemption."It is all one and the same thing. It is living in the Reality of our union with Christ and walking in faith in the Son of God and deriving everything from HIm by the inward aspiration of faith.Brother Lee said this which I like. He said, "try an experiment. Say "George Washington" three times and see if there is a response in your spirit. Then call, Lord Jesus, three times and see what happens in your spirit." The Word says. "No one can say "Lord Jesus" except in the Holy Spirit. It is a fact that when we call on the Lord there is indeed a response in our spirit and there is a flow of Life. When you call the Lord's Name, you get the Person.Sure, you can call. Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus. in a glib way. That is not what is spoken of here. But an exercise of our whole being to call on the Lord. The resson 3 times is said is not some magical number or formula but because the first time it may be very surface, the second time is a little more focused and by the thrird time in experience our spirit is exercised and there is a conciousness of the flow of Life. IT is not a formula but it is experiencially a practical reality. My brother in law came to stay with me and my wife for a couple of months. Every day my wife and I would get up early, we would pray through some scriptures and call on the Lord. My brother in law made fun of us and ridiculed us. But one day as he was leaving, he turned and said, "you know, I make fun of you for doing that, but every time you call on the Lord it makes me think of Christ and I believe maybe I too should call on the Lord. He did and now He is a regenerated believer and a growing Living thriving Christian. He meets with us two or three times a week and we pray, call on the Lord and get into the scritpures. Last friday a number of us met in a brother's home and a new one came in. We had a wonderful time of fellowship in the word and she shared concerning some friends she was concerned about. At the end we began to pray for many things including her friends. And as we prayed the saints would say "Amen". when we concluded this young sister said," when you say "Amen", do you sense the Holy Spirit? I listened carefully because I thought she meant, "do you do that becuase you have a sense of the Holy Spirit?" But as she went on she said. I want to know if you are experienceing the same thing I am. When all the saints say, "Amen" I have a sense of the Holy Spirit. do you? We all said, "yes". by saying "Amen" we testify of our oneness of spirit and we all have the same sense of the Spirit when we pray and "Amen" is just our testimony of our oneness.Oh Lord, Amen, Hallaluah. Simple words connected to the most profound depths of the reality of faith and our union with the crucified and resurrected Lord of Glory. Let those scoff who will. But simple words such as "faith, hope, and Love are on the surface very simple but underneath them lies the Triune God Himself. Oh, Lord, Amen, Hallaluah, are simple words but underneath them is the whole revelation of the New Testament, the depths and riches of Christ and of our union by faith in HimThere is a simple song for children in the Lord's recovery which goes like this:"Oh Lord, Amen, thats the way to let Him in. Hallaluah, I love to here it. He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor 6:17)Graftedbranch

For instance, when in traffic and we are tempted to lose our patience, we call 'Lord Jesus" and in so doing we find a response in our spirit and the Life of of the Lord flows in us and we are brought into the experience of Christ as our patience.Hold up a second, isn't the problem more centered around the fact of losing your patience? Wouldn't it be more true to say, that because we are walking in the spirit in the first place that a normal response would be such of calling on the Name of the Lord... regardless of what 'it' was? Something about this does sound much like what you mention next; Those who ridicule this are those who are content to be full of knowlege but with no experiential knowlege of "Christ in you, the hope of Glory" who is "made unto us both wisdom from God, rightousness, sanctification and redemption."That is a straw man argument is it not? It is to say if one was to disagree then they have no experiential knowlege of "Christ in you, the hope of Glory and that is absurd.It is all one and the same thing. It is living in the Reality of our union with Christ and walking in faith in the Son of God and deriving everything from HIm by the inward aspiration of faith.I seems that this would only likely turn into a never ending dialouge as it also appears that you have only one perception before you, that of Witness Lee and this particular teaching. To be honest, I do not know all that much about it and would be way out of place making any substantial opinion of it other than what comes from what you have been primarily attempting to push here.Oh Lord, Amen, Hallaluah. Simple words connected to the most profound depths of the reality of faith and our union with the crucified and resurrected Lord of Glory. Let those scoff who will.Is this always with the caveat of suspicion? Anticipating something that has yet to be spoken?More examples:From this those who oppose have construed him to suggest that this is the hight of Christian experience which is as far fetched and out of context one could imagine.If someone has a problem with this I would say they have a problem with Christ and the ones who say these things I have observed are those who oppose any experiential knowlege of Christ. The hyperfundimentalist who deny that the Spirit is anything more than an "influence" to make us feel bad when we sin.More straw men, more "If____ Then____"There is something altogether suspicious alright with this 'teaching', this 'recovery'. Despite whatever is being said to the contrary it is attempting to loft itself above the rest. Your own words of appreciation for these past saints fall down under the weight of the word "But"The emphasis on one teacher and one teaching itself ought to be enough to raise all kinds of questioning, that which from what has been seen here in the past with this ministry has the same setups and rebuttals. We have been down this road before.

I am sorry, but I don't follow the logic, the sense or the purpose of this response. It does not seem to address anything said in a comprehensible way.If you can testify that you never experince the 'loss of patiance" in traffic then well, Amen to you. but I do. and all saints do and all saints can testify that calling on the Lord in such a circomstance brings in the Life, the riches, the abundant supply of ChristGraftedbranch

That is a straw man argument is it not? It is to say if one was to disagree then they have no experiential knowlege of "Christ in you, the hope of Glory and that is absurd.It is not a matter of disagreement. the statement is that those who refuse to acknowlege the sufficiency of Christ and the available experience of Christ in such circomstances deny the reality of Christ in us. That is His availability to us as the indwelling Life giving Spirit to supply us with Himself as our all sufficiency.I find it hard to concieve that those who appreciate the ministry of Lenard Ravenhill who is the King of 'quips and one liners" would take offense in a concise statement such as this.Graftedbranch

The emphasis on one teacher and one teaching itself ought to be enough to raise all kinds of questioning, that which from what has been seen here in the past with this ministry has the same setups and rebuttals. We have been down this road before.I don't believe in my post I quoted one teacher. I quoted H. C. G. Moule and Joseph Carroll. I also quoted Witness Lee and used the others to support what he said. I also gave genuine testimony to the realty of the teaching and practice. I don't think this is in any way deciptful or contrary to good practice.What is it? Do you just have an inherent dislike for the "recovery"? do you without consideration just consider it bad or unscritpural? What is the nature of your offense?Graftedbranch

my grandfather (manley beasley sr.) knew Rev. Ravenhill personally and preached with him for years at the Milldale conference. Mr. Ravenhill did not beleive in works salvation, or righteousness achieved by the Law. Obedience to the moral Law does not mean that a person's standing before God is affected by it. it only means that a person who is saved by grace will bear fruit. the moral law is a reflection of God's own nature. if God lives in a person the result is God's nature is revealed through him or her. they will desire to not sin. lying, stealing, murder, adultury is now something the person hates. this is the point that rev. ravenhill was making; God effects His holy life (reflected in the moral law) within' those born again. The moral law is still important it just can't save you. It can certainly show the beleiver the way they should live and behave. rev. ravenhill never taught that it could save. when we obey God's word and tell the truth or refuse to steal it is honoring to Him when done in faith (relying on Him for the power to do it) while also recognizing the inability to please God with our own effort. when we rely on Him we have all that we need to obey. when we rely on our own effort it will become obvious because we will fail miserably. this is what John 5:3 means when it says,"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and his commandments are not burdensom."obeying His commands are not burdensom when done in faith, they bring God glory.

also, approach the local church with some caution. I have known a person involved with them and I have to say they are very exclusive in their dealings with other Christians. In reading Lee's Bible comentery it became very clear that he commits the same error that many hyper-dispensationalists commit. He interprets his doctrinal books by his eschatology instead of vice versa. According to the book "Jesus in Bejing" the main group of Chinese evangelicals have now excluded Lee's group (Little Flock as its called in China) from fellowship because of some of its teaching.they do like watchman nee though (as do I).

if God lives in a person the result is God's nature is revealed through him or her. they will desire to not sin. lying, stealing, murder, adultury is now something the person hates.Amen. if this is what Ravenhill Means, then "Amen"

According to the book "Jesus in Bejing" the main group of Chinese evangelicals have now excluded Lee's group (Little Flock as its called in China) from fellowship because of some of its teaching.The Lord Jesus who is our Pattern, at one time had many followers. But at the peak of His popularity, He turned to them and said, "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in yourself". As a result, many turned away and walked with him no longer. He turned to His diciples and said, 'will you not go away also?" They responded, 'to whom else shall we go for you have the words of Eternal Life".Brother Lee also had many who followed his ministry. But when he began to release "the High Peak of the Divine Revelaiton", many simply could not take this word. They left.Watchman Nee also was very popular in the United States in the 70s. That is his books were very popular and embraced by many in Evangelical Christianity. However when the books were released which showed his view and burden for the church and the ground of the church and his teaching that the Clergy/Laity system was unbiblical, Evangelical Christianity in the US turned away from him and he lost favor and many began to critisize him.This just shows that human nature does not change, and religion does not change. When something touches it, it turns on it and condemns it. It was religion that crucified the Lord Jesus. Why should we believe that religion is any different today?Graftedbranch

What is it? Do you just have an inherent dislike for the "recovery"? do you without consideration just consider it bad or unscritpural? What is the nature of your offense?It is manifold. And yes, I do find that this is greviously sad, being that the truth becomes muddy and difficult to sort through, but there is something back of it that is telling enough...Will back up here a little bit;On the other hand, I find it sometimes helpful to toss out a few hand granades just to see what happens and in this way I get a feel for the realtiy of things and where others are comming from.. It is effective. And in fact it brings about dialoge which is profitable such as I believe this is.Was of a mind to let this go and have changed my mind. This mindset, this audacity. Do you make this sort of welcome in peoples homes? Other places where you are a guest? What manner of spirit is this of? Pragmatism is effective as well, that doesn't make it right. Here is what is very surprising to me. That someone who has such a long tenure of walking with the Lord can miss just such elementary spiritual as well as practical things such as "manners". Finally I came to the Lord and realized that the Lord Himself is the only final source of Truth and the Scritpures the only authority. When I came to the Lord in this way, the scritpures came alive and I began to live unto Him and not unto any man or his teaching.So when I say we can idolize a person, I speak from experience. We can elevate someone above the Lord Himself and their teaching or preaching above the scritpures. But they are men as we are and earthen vessels. And we follow the Living Christ who is within us, not any man.Contrasted with;The points I put forward reflect something of the "High peak of the Divine Revelation" which is just the consumate essense of the New Testament. I believe these things are lacking in most of Christianity today especially in the west. But they are the heart of the Lord's ministry in the East through both Nee and Lee and those who are the co-workers today.And I have come to believe that the recovery today is in the same stream and operating out of the same mine shaft. The level of life and light in the Lord's recovery today is in my experience, observation, and according to much prayer, study, and seeking the Lord, the highest I have seen anywere else in this age. And I have been privelaged to sit under the teaching of some of the greats.No contradaction here? Let's cut to the chase. It is obvious that you are much taken with this whole teaching and there is enough red flags in Witness Lees Ministry to cause great concern and as it was stated this has been addressed here in times past, another area that can often be overlooked in the haste to push forward one's known or unknown agenda; That is to actually search through the previous discussions here.What is extremely difficult and deeply grevious is that there is much truth I am sure within these things that are a part of his ministry. Reading through many of the previous discussions it is a great effort to attempt to dialouge with these advocates as it presuposses much and is usually on the defensive. If what they believe is true, why the defending all the time? Why the lawsuits? Why the cult like seperating and elevated thought as even you expressed in these quotes? I am no where near adept enough to go through all that it might take to attempt to unravel the distictions between Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.I will honestly admit that this really is spirtualy depleting and likely have gone out of the way to address this here not so much as an attack but as to ask the question, why? Why is it that the basic spiritual understandings can be thrown to the side, humilty, self exalting, pride, haughtiness, 'exclusiveness', being offended... Not all these are in evidence here but often come about from followers of this man. I am just as sure the same charges could be leveled against what I am now saying or have said, the appearance of being offended. I really could not care less about that, no one has been more due the 'right' to be offended than our Lord and He was not. How could I dare to? No, it is just very sad and very grevious to see some caught up in all this and to sit by and say nothing to it's effects would be worse.This is just as likely a poor job of explaning what it is specifically that is troubling. In regards to the matter of patience in the example given, what I was attempting to state was that the order seems backward. Do all have this problem as you stated? I don't believe so, in former days would be amongst the worst of the worst, classic road rage almost... The thought here was only in if we are rightly related and these things have died along with the others like hatred and bitterness and jealousy we would not even have the need of asking for help in this 'temptation' and no, I am not advocating some unrealistic perfection nor have I 'attained' to such. But the difference now in patience in so many matters is even surprising to myself, a life long 'worry-wart' and child of litttle patience. Can be sure it is not of my own self will that brought this forth.

Well brother, This conversation came about because I stated some reasons why I felt Ravenhill was lacking and a concern I had about his position on the Law and the Chrisitian. I was chastised for "impuning this man's ministry' by a few off the cuff remarks (in essense).And yet it seems to be of no concern at all to take a few circulated accusations and impune another's ministry with no first hand knowlege or any exposure to the man's ministry. Just hearsay.You suggest that we are always defensive. Well, when one attacks ones position or someones ministry which is appreciated, expecially when the charges are based on mininformation, the only position to take is defensive. Just as many did here when I made some comments about ravenhill.No contradaction here? Let's cut to the chase.Brother, I do not deny I appreciate the ministry of Nee, Lee and the recovery today. But I do so not blindly. I see in the scritpures the views of the recovery and that is why I am in the recovery. When I began to meet with the Saints I did not know Lee and accepted nothing on anyones word, expecially just because brother Lee said it.Rather I sought the Lord and researched and studied the materials, compared what is taught with both Nee's works, with all the Christian resources at my disposal, and especially the scriptures. What I found in the meetings of the church was a level of Life and Light and a depth of reality I had never seen or experienced in any Christian group. And I had the sense in my spirit that this was the real thing. And my study and my research confirmed it objectively. Like the Bareans, I searched the scritpures to see if these things were so.In the end it is the Spirit alone who is our teacher. The Apostle John told us this however we appreciate His epistles and the teaching it contains.The botton line is you or any may attack or criticise the Ministry of Witness Lee and I do not take it personally and am not personally offended by it. However I will seek to demonstrate that the charges are baseless. I don't say, "how dare you say such a thing about one whom I hold so dear?" That is to be attached to a man and not the Christ of the man. Brother Lee is with the Lord and he does not meed me to "defend him", but for the sake of those who might be swayed by false accusations, it is necessary to offer a defense at times.What is a shame is that instead of being in a profitable dialoge concerning the truths and their scripturalness, we have to go off on this or that view of this or that man or a "movement".The issue in the end is what the New Testament teaches and the Christ it reveals, not this or that man.I was told I should "introduce myself" and so I did so and presented who I am and where I am comming from and what I held so there would be no questian.I just suggest that instead of condemning a man or a work or a group based on heresay, If you don't care to take the time to do the research. At least keep things wihtin the framwork of discussing things from the perspective of scritpure.Graftedbranch

I will also add that the reason I attended the first meeting of the local church was because I was seeking the Lord and doing research and came upon the web site of Jim Moran, the leading opposer of the recovery on the web. As I read his remarks, I said, 'this man doesn't know the Lord, or at least he dosent have a grasp of the abc s of the Christian Life. I sensed no life in him. He was opposed to any and all forms of experimental Christianity.Yet as I read the posts of those in the churches who were responding to his accusations, I sensed Christ. It was this that led me to say to my wife, We will go to a meeting on the Lord's day.Subsquent to that, for the next 9 months I became the leading contributer to Moran's web site and he and I even exchanged many personal emails and He did develop a respect for what I had to say.But in the end he was just an opposer. And he even had no testimoy of his regeneration or the New Birth. Finally the Lord took him. I corosponded with him to the end and he died of a massive heart attack at age 45.But it was our dialoge which forced me to call on the Lord, to read, to study, to get out my church history and theology books, to inquire, to varify, and to find the truth by the resources I had. And the Lord was very faithful to me to lead me to the proper resources. I can say that I have given more time to objective consideration than most anyone I have met. And I would also ask you this. If someone published a book titled, "cult leaders and false teachers" and included in that book was a chapter on Leonard Ravenhill, Would there be no effort on the part of those who appreciate his ministry and Know differently to take steps to have such a thing taken out of circulation?Graftedbranch

The Lord Loves the church, He loves all regenerated believers everywhere and gave His life to redeem them. But the Lord does not love the religious systems created by man which hinder the growth in Life of His believers and suppress the functioning of the body of Christ. All genuine believers I think abhore the sad state of Christianity and the lack of genuine Life and the use of secular methods and all the rest. This is the whole basis of ministries such as Ravenhill's, Tozer's, and the rest. They were burdened because of the sad state of the church and the lack of reality and spirital life in it. That is what "revival" is all about. The reviviing of the dead. And if the state of things was not "dead", there would be no need for "revival".But woe to any who take steps to come out of those systems and lay claim to any sort of genuine reality apart from those systems. They are accused, maligned, criticised, and oppossed. This is the history of Christianity from day one. They are accused of arogance, of exclusivness, of pride, and every other sort of thing.The fact that there is so much opposition to the "recovery" is no supprise. It is in keeping with both the life of the Lord, the experience of the Apostles, the testimony of all who have followed the Lord in any generation.The Jews took up stones to throw at the Lord Jesus because "He being a man, makes Himself out to be God". And any certinity or spiritul conviction in any Christian of the Spirit within him will bring forth the same reaction because the Same Christ whom they sought to stone is within his regenerated believers. Religion always condemns and accuses and opposes Christ. "The Servant is not above His Master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." "if they called the Master of the house "Beelzabul" how much more those of His houshold?"Graftedbranch

Hello,It is interesting that this thread got onto the topic of the Witness Lee groups. I just wanted to testify here that I have been in fellowship with many from this movement (although our fellowship is not apart of it) and I have been hugely blessed by those I have been in fellowship with. I myself would also not agree with many of Witness Lee's teachings and the easy believism doctrines which so often saturate these believers, but I do want to testify that those I know from this group are wholehearted, totally devoted to God and have been a major encouragement. I have also attended a few of the meetings in cleveland, and was blessed by that as well.

I would also like to add my thoughts in response to GraftedBranch's original post. You seemed to disagree with Ravenhill that Christians are bound by a moral law. However, Romans 8:2 says "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." We are still under a law, it is the law of the Spirit. This could, indeed, be called a "Moral law", for God is Holy and the Spirit is Holy and He will produce in us Holiness.Are we bound by this law? Certainly! Romans 8:5-14 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

Amen Brother. I agree 100% with what you said.The Christian is bound by the "Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" But this Law of the Spirit of LIfe is not an outward moral law imposed from the outside. Rather it is the inate law of the Spirit Himself. That is it (this Law) operates according to His Nature which is holy, rightouse, etc.That is why the Apostle says, "The just requirement of the Law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." That is when we walk in the Spirit, the Holy nature of Christ is manifested in us. And we exibit the qualities and charecter of our indwelling Lord. We are not under the bondage of the outward Law. We have died to it in Christ. But we are "joined to Another, even Him who was raised from the dead that we might bear fruit to God"THe fruit of holiness and rightousness is not obtained by our determination to live a holy life and live by the precepts of the Law. But rather it is obtained by Loving Christ, by being filled with Christ, by feeding on Christ and by looking to Him to manifest Himself in us. We can seek to obey the law with no relationship to Jesus Christ and no living contact with Him. But if we are abiding in Him. the fruit of the Spirit is manifest in us and we are daily conformed to His image and we grow in His Life and progressivly live Him out as He gains ground in our whole being. This is the difference between the Old covenant and the New. Christ is sufficient and as we Love Him, worship Him and as the Spirit unveils this wonderful Person to us we desire Him, we seek Him to be Himself in us and we experience Him in our practical life. This is the reality of Romans 8 vs. Romans 7.But to walk in the Spirit requires us to spend time with the Lord every day. It requries us to pray through the scritprues, to feed on Christ through the Word, to contact the Lord in our spirit and to be strengthened with power by His Spirit into our inner man that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith... (Ephesians 3:17) It requres us to be in Living Contact with the Living Lord who indwells us in our regenerated spirit. It is a life of dependancy on Christ, not one of independantly trying to conform our life to outward precepts. It requres the Living Spirit of the LIving Crucified and resurrected Christ.The Christian Life is one of this Divine Seed, the Eternal Life of God in Christ sown into us growing in us and becomming the controlling factor in our living (As many as as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God). This Life works from the inside out and not from the outside in. Our attempts at seeking to outwardly conform our behaviour to our concepts of "what would Jesus do?' only frustrate the operation of the Divine Life within us. It is only when we come to the end of our failed attempts as Paul enunciates in Romans 7, "Oh wreched man that I am, who shall delivier Me" Can the Spirit lead us into the experience of the "Law of the Spirit of Life."Graftedbranch

I believe his background is pentecostal holiness. He also has a very "arminian" theology and believes a person can lose his salvation which alone should tell you that he has a measure of "legalism" and does not have a full grasp on the New Covenant, regeneration and it's permenancy or even it's nature.I'm late to this particular party but this may still be relevant as the to the original question. Leonard Ravenhill's background would have been pretty much 'Wesleyan Holiness'. Many have accused John Wesley of being 'legalistic' too. John Wesley's believed that the purpose of 'Wesleyan Methodism' was to proclaim 'Sancification by Faith'. His brother Charles stressed this as a 'crisis' whereas John concentated on the process while 'expecting the crisis'. Part of the 'expecting' was to take advantage of all the means of grace and John Wesley taught the need to 'let the law do its work' before the gospel brought relief. (I have difficulties with this myself as I have often expressed on SI) Ravenhill trained at Cliff College, Calver, Derbyshire in the UK. HIs principal at that time was the saintly Samuel Chadwick, so Chadwick's writings should give you an idea of what was most likely Ravenhill position at that time. You can find quite a few of Samuel Chadwick's writings on theHoliness Classics library. Whilst at Cliff College, Leonard Ravenhill conducted 'evangelistic missions' in many places,particularly in the North of England. These missions under the leadership of Maynard James preached classic 'second blessing holiness' as taught by the Salvation Army and many others during those days.The 'pentecostal' experiences of the early 20th century threw many 'holiness movements' into some disarray eg the Pentecostal League of Prayer (Oswald Chambers, Reader Harris; the Christian & Missionary Alliance (AB Simpson, AW Tozer). The position regarding charismatic 'gifts' adopted by Maynard James, Leonard Ravenhill and their newly founded denomination 'Calvary Holiness Church' was captured in the phrase 'seek not, forbid not'. This caused division from the Holiness groups which had declared that charismatic gifts were either 'not for today' or 'demonic'. Ultimately the denomination that Ravenhill had co-founded was absorbed into the Church of the Nazarene with a special understanding that the Church of the Nazarene's forbidding of charismatic gifts did not apply to the UK's ex 'Calvary Holiness Church'. Later this was disputed and caused some distancing between the founders of the CHC and the Church of the Nazarene. Maynard James and Leonard Ravenhill were always 'more open' to the charismatic movement although as far as I am aware neither claimed any charismatic 'gifts'.From the time of his emigration to the US, Leonard Ravenhill seemed to have move more widely and was certainly not tied down to classical Holiness groups such as the Church of the Nazarene, but I would doubt very much that he would ever have subscribed to the theology of the 'Pentecostal Holiness' churches which taught a three stage 'salvation' of Regeneration, Sanctification and Baptism in Spirit for power.Like many of God's people he was much wider than his theological roots and concentrated on the burden for 'revival'. This had been the experience of the CHC in its earliest beginnings but that group became more staid as the years progressed. My own listening and reading of Leonard Ravenhill would make him 'second blessing holiness' but with a specific burden for the failing testimony of the 'church' and an increasing urgency as the years passed.Was he 'legalistic'? I think that depends of your definition. Wesley would have denied it and so would Ravenhill. Does the church have a responsibility for the testimony entrusted to it? Yes it does. Ravenhill, perhaps not consciously, used the failure against a standard as a means of bringing his hearers face to face with their need for 'a new work'.

I really appreciate this short history. And I believe it explains why, "the power of the Spirit" was in Ravenhill's preaching. I believe it shows the Lord's leading in him and the very fact that his Vision was wider than any particular denomination shows the level of Light He had on the reality of the body of Christ he saw in the Scriptures.I believe that the Lord has raised up men of His caliber as a testimony in Christianity. And I believe that at the Judgement seat of Christ many will be "without excuse" as a result of the preching of men such as he.graftedbranch

John 17:20,21 And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word. That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me.___________________________________________________________________I am going to postulate here. And Webster defines postulate as: to assume without proof, to be true, real, or necessary, especially as a basis for argument.When you consider the minisrties of men such as Tozer, Ravenhill, and others and the realtiy that there was in their preaching the geunine Presence and power of the Spirit, even though they are not in agreement on many of the finer points, you see something of a common thread.And I postulate that this thread is a vision which expands over and above the denominational distinctions and the divisions which exist in modern Christianity. They ministered to Christians as Christians and as members of the One body of Christ.According to 'A brief history of the Baptist" John Bunyon, who was a baptist, refused to be called a baptist. He said, "I am a Christian, not a baptist." And who can deny the power of the Spirit and the reality of Christ in this servant of Jesus Christ?THe fact is that the Spirit never condones or works to build up divisions, or any system which divides or "denominates" one believer from another. To denominate is to take a name which is exclusive and which divides one set of Christians from another.I submit that the work of the Spirit in all of church History is to bring the body of Christ into oneness. Not in an eccumenical way, but in the way of the commonality of the one body, one faith, One Lord, One Spirit, one God and Father who is over all, in all, and through all.I don't recall ever hearing Tozer preach on how to be a good member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (and I used to meet with the Alliance).I don't recall anyone who was preaching in the power of the Spirit advocating this or that denomination.This is just an observation and a postulation, but as Paul said, "I also think I have the spirit of God.Graftedbranch