"recovery version" of the bible

bro GregFootnotes from the Book of Revelation state that denominational groups are spiritual fornicators for taking on names other than that of Christ (Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc), that Christianity is degraded for taking on these denominational names, that denominational groups are the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon, and that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Judaism have become an organization used by Satan as a tool to damage God's economy"this struck me. Those that followed Christ were first called Christians at Antioch and yet now there are so many different denomintations...I never thought about this but after having been bought by Christ's very blood, somehow going about by another name just doesn't sit well with me...i know it may not seem like much but if indeed this is spiritual fornication then we need to repent of it real quick.it also calls into question how much of what we hold so dear in terms of orthodox Christianity is really of God? also are we prepared to put our souls on the line for said beliefs? personally i'm not willing to go down upholding some tradition or belief that may be centuries old or considered orthodox if the Lord reveals to me that it's not of Him...not getting into that fight. i pray that the Lord looses us from whatever bondages are upon us under the guise of orthodoxy, tradition or any other such thing. AMEN

Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone2Ti 2:19 Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness. I don't know who witness lee is personally and haven't read any of his stuff, however after reading the above I'd guess he's the head of a cult. Generally they start by adding to the bible "thier books" on how to understand thier doctrine, usually they explain it outside of the Bible and then they modify the Bible much like the JW's inorder to make it(The Bible) fit thier doctrine. I 'd be cautious of starying to far from the teachings of the early church fathers. As for denominational names? God still looks at the heart and we are still on a faith walk.

bros Greg and Dohzmani have a question and i ask it in the Spirit of building up the kingdom of God. How is it that when an alternate view of scripture/God we have a tendancy to think it's wrong. This is not to say that everything else we har is right by any means but perhaps we also should exercise caution before deciding that one is a cult leader? What if we ourselves have it wrong and miss out on what God has for us by holding onto something we've long believed which perhaps if we sought the Lord on we'd find it to be wrong/baseless.i also never thought of this before till the first post i put on this thread but i'll say it again, if we are bought by Christ's blood, a very very...no the dearest price of all it seems to me that it's not a good idea to wear any other name than that of Christian. When people ask me what faith i am (i have drealocks so people assume i'm rastafarian but that's another story...) or some other such heathen so i tell them i'm a Christian. i'm asked "of what denomination" and of late the Lord has been impressing me no reply "Christian" i think i am beginning to see why...it seems to me that various denominations have elements of truth in them about God and yet deny certain things about Him too at the same time.i guess this may not all seem like a big deal but somehow i sense in my spirit that there is more to it than it appears...at any rate this is what the Lord has been showing me and i just wanted to share. may the Lord continue to bless you dear brothers and may we continue to hold one another up in prayer that He may be revealed to us in even greater measure to His glory. AMEN!

Ironman,I would say that denomination is not as deep as you think it is. When I (a North American Baptist) talk to a Presbyterian, I am not saying that his faith is incorrect. I am not warring over my affiliation. However, that affiliation will have a major bearing on quite a few of my doctrinal stances. This should not be confused with core issues - we share a same faith and believe in one Supreme God. My belief in my God shares very, very many points with my brethren in the Assemblies of God, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and many other denominations not limited to but hinging on that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, he died for our sins and rose again on the third day, and shall come again for his bride.But, I have a tendency to lean towards a free will argument whereas many lean towards a sovereignty standpoint. What is the proper way to respect the Sabbath according to the New Testament church, etc.My denomination is not the name I would go by. In a world (ala the western world) where Christianity is known, expressed, and quite explored, simply saying I am a Christian is a bit like standing in front of the Smithsonian with cowboy boots and spurs. Alright. Certain denominations have a tendency to carry with them certain "interpretations" of the bible. We are allowed to disagree where the doctrine is not explicit, although within reason.This is not a bad thing. I can walk into a Methodist church across the country and hopefully feel as welcome as if I were at home with the group where I hold membership. But by stating my denominational preference, I also state a little bit about my theological training as well as (to some degree) my leanings.To say that expressing myself to another Christian with disregard to his ability to understand that I may hold disagreeing viewpoints is about as disrespectful as spitting in a bowl of soup in a buffet line while he's standing behind me. Saying that doing this is of the devil is about like saying since I walk into a church in northern Mississippi that I should go to hell. This is why these footnotes are a bit troublesome.Maybe you could think of it like flags. If I were to fly a banner, what flags would I fly where? On my flagpole right outside my door, highest flies the flag of my country (due its rights and respects). Next flies the flag flown by Christian missionaries for centuries. Behind that flies the state flag. If I were to display a banner of my spiritual self, what would fly there? First and foremost, the flag of my King, that same flag flown second to my country's. Next would fly the flag of a North American Baptist. Behind that I would probably fly a flag with the emblem of several other denominations. This is a bit of a nautical analogy, so hopefully it goes over ok.

If you re-read what I posted I was laying a formula, if you will, on discerning a cult. Cults follow a pattern and from the little I've read of with this group its all the same. The word of God says the spiritual man judges all things. While symatics is one thing, to call the organized churches devices of satan because they have the label or name baptist, methodist, etc... is a pretty broad stoke of the pen and shows that they have some serious issues they really need to address before they can presume to even claim to be used of God in any real impactifull way, Ps 133 Behold how good an pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity.....We can have differences in some doctrine and still serve the same Jesus. When ever one sect claims divinely appointed authority over,.... better watch out! EDIT[Reading thier doctrinal statements will be like drinking poison. If you buy into it you'll find that you will increasingly seperate from other true christians and eventually stray into all sorts of error that will eventually shipwreck your faith. As to the groups piety and sincerity? I know Jw's, Muslims, krishna's etc.. that are very devoted and show an amazing amount of outward piety, but they too need to be Born again or they also will go straight to Hell for all eternity without Jesus Christ! Harsh? Truth! This group is a cult and the Lord will show it for what it is as the day reveals all things at the rising of the sun! Just watch.]After reading the bible reference at the top of the heading I decided to look into witness lee and found that witness lee's ministry has little to bear inon the statements of that flawed translation of the Word of God. So I had to edit my statements but left them intact so as to keep the integrity of the thread.

bro Gregi thank the Lord for your honesty concerning this and the realization that we should look for the good fruit in these things and do away with what isn't of God. the only way to do that it to take it all before God and gave Him show us what is right and what is wrong and also to have Him examine our own beliefs to see if they are in line with what He would have us do. Let us seek the Spirit of Unity in out Saviour Christ Jesus indeed. AMEN!

PTywama3thank you for your response!I would say that denomination is not as deep as you think it is. When I (a North American Baptist) talk to a Presbyterian, I am not saying that his faith is incorrect. I am not warring over my affiliation. However, that affiliation will have a major bearing on quite a few of my doctrinal stances. This should not be confused with core issues - we share a same faith and believe in one Supreme God. My belief in my God shares very, very many points with my brethren in the Assemblies of God, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and many other denominations not limited to but hinging on that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, he died for our sins and rose again on the third day, and shall come again for his bride.i am beginning to feel that denomiational affilication is if probably more significant than we think. if we share the same core values ok that's cool but what about the things we differ on? more importantly how does what i believe about XYZ and what you believe about XYZ compare to what the Lord taught the early church through the apostles? that's what's the Lord has me concerned about.the Lord is not the author of confusion, satan is. the early church was unified not just on core values but also doctrines also. are the things that differentiate us Christians into different denominations rooted in the word of God or traditions of men? indeed Christ shall return for an unblemished bride, one which is unified in every aspect, doctrine, belief, purpose and love for God. at the church's inception all they were known as were Christians and the way i see it is the enemy came in and divided and conquered. Paul said to the Galatians in Galations 1 vs 6-9:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.i guess at some point someone preached another gospel to someone and it stuck and then it happened again and again resulting in all this confusion. what the Lord is impressing on me is that it shouldn't have turned out like this but we deviated from the original instructions God gave us through the apostles. in doing that we gave the enemy a free pass to come in and divide and conquer. i don't think that the footnote implies that if you walk into a church in northen MS (if i may use your example) you'd go to hell, but rather if you adhere to the beliefs of said church which are not of God you're in rebellion to God and rebellion against God is not a thing we should be involved in.Paul wrote to timothy in 2 Tim 1-4 the following:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.How much then of the things thar separate us into denominations are such fables? This is not to say that all things in the different denomniations are untrue because there is some truth in most of them but there is also fallacy and we have to sort through it all, or rather have God show us the way so we don't hold onto foolish doctrines which have no basis in the bible. if Paul wrote this about such and such and Martin Luther let's say wrote something different, who should we follow then? the Lord had me come back and ad this...if Martin Luther is wrong in light of what God taught us through the Holy Spirit through the apostles is wrong, then to hell with that bit which is out of line with God (coz it's from the enemy and that's where it belongs) not everything Luther said or wrote is wrong and what it truly of God we should hold onto. this applies to anyone else. The Lord is also impressing on me that we should investigate the roots of our doctrines and if they are not backed up by the word of God or go against it, then to hell with them lest we stir the anger of God by holding onto them against His instruction.

bro Dohzmanthank your for your response too! If you re-read what I posted I was laying a formula, if you will, on discerning a cult. Cults follow a pattern and from the little I've read of with this group its all the same. The word of God says the spiritual man judges all things. While symatics is one thing, to call the organized churches devices of satan because they have the label or name baptist, methodist, etc... is a pretty broad stoke of the pen and shows that they have some serious issues they really need to address before they can presume to even claim to be used of God in any real impactifull way, Ps 133 Behold how good an pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity.....i would humbly ask of you before deciding that this is a cult to see what bro Greg had to say about it. aren't denominations also caused by the same things that bring about a cult? people adding or subtracting from scripture to suit their beliefs? there is some truth in what they have to say and we have to go before the Lord and have Him try by His fire the words they speak rather than us doing the trying for God. again i ask if the early Church went by the name Christians and had no other name why do we respond with a denominational affiliation when asked of our faith? bro somehow this bothers me and the impression i'm getting from the Lord is that we were bought by Christ's blood and we belong to Him since we are His church. Those that lived in the years after Christ's death had a better concept of this than we because for them, they were there (hope that makes sense) bro all these denominations are because at some point someone decided to move away from what the the Lord taught and that was repeated down through history and here we are with however many denominations and we are members of said denominations aren't aware of the histories of the doctrines we hold so dear and which shape our view of Christ. in this regard, denominationalism is the work of the enemy sowing confusion in what should be 1 church, the church of Jesus Christ!if we say our brothers who feel so strongly about denominationalism have serious issues to deal with it seems to me that their strong feelings on denominationalism says that we also have some serious issues to look into before ourselves can be used of God in a poweful way. i agree with you bro that it is good when we as brethren dwell in unity. but the only way we can have that is if we return to the roots of the church,beyond Luther, Calvin and the other church fathers of the reformation but to the original church fathers the apostles. the Gospel of Jesus Christ atoning death for our salvation and the doctrines and teachings of how we should conduct ourselves toward one another and toward the world written by the Holy Spirit through the apostles.We can have differences in some doctrine and still serve the same Jesus. When ever one sect claims divinely appointed authority over,.... better watch out! Reading thier doctrinal statements will be like drinking poison. If you buy into it you'll find that you will increasingly seperate from other true christians and eventually stray into all sorts of error that will eventually shipwreck your faith.we can have differences with eachother as far as doctrines but we're not at liberty to have differences with what the Lord instructed us through the apostles, so again if whatever our denomination teaches is not backed up by the things the Lord gave to the apostles as governing regulations for the church then to hell with it (coz it's of the enemy and that's where it belongs) lest we kindle the Lord anger against us. just as surely as reading into their doctrines which are not of God can shipwreck faiths, so can holding onto some denominational view of things which is not of God either. As to the groups piety and sincerity? I know Jw's, Muslims, krishna's etc.. that are very devoted and show an amazing amount of outward piety, but they too need to be Born again or they also will go straight to Hell for all eternity without Jesus Christ! Harsh? Truth! This group is a cult and the Lord will show it for what it is as the day reveals all things at the rising of the sun! Just watch.bro dohzman just as surely as there are man pious people of various denominations, lots of them will end up in hell just the same as hindus, muslims etc for the same reason of false doctrinal beliefs. Here is what the Lord is impressing on me concerning our denominational beliefs, we need to let Him examine us and show us what is of Him and what is not. having allowed Him to do that, quickly casting away all that is not of Him because when the fire comes to sweep away all this false mess, if we're found holding onto any part of it, we too will get swept away with that judgement.let us not be foolish here coz our very souls are on the line, i pray that if there is anything which is tradition, or doctrine or practice which is not of God which we hold onto that the Lord make it plain to us and we drop it like it's hot and fall on our faces and repent before a Holy God who will not have any confusion or any other foolishness before Him. AMEN

i would humbly ask of you before deciding that this is a cult to see what bro Greg had to say about it. aren't denominations also caused by the same things that bring about a cult? An interesting measure of 'cult' might be just how easy it is to leave! If 'leaving' results in ostracism you can be sure you have a cult on your hands. This is simply because 'control' is at the heart of 'cult'. Consequently a 'cult' may be as small as a local church or as large as a denomination.

I've got to say, also, that when coming a church and a pastor to learn from, knowing the doctrinal beliefs of that person and church are incredibly important, and thus, denominational "descriptions" are likewise very important.A little while ago we were discussing the "All Saints" church in Florida. They believe in same-sex marriage, homosexuals leading church, etc. Now, do some there know Christ? There might be. But are they also teaching a doctrine contrary to scripture? Most definitely. Now, just that is enough for me to stay away- their beliefs are shown to be corrupt and aren't edifying those learning in a way that serves God.Now, when we go so far as to classify cults, it works on the same premises, but with other doctrines- namely that of Salvation. For example, the Jehova's Witnesses: Christ wasn't God, didn't raise from the grave, and his crucifixion was only partial in atoning for our sins. Do they teach the message of salvation? No. Are some saved in that group? I really doubt it.But with many things- predestination, evangalism methods, etc., I think there's room for debate. So, I go to an Independent Baptist church, but I call myself a Fundamental Christian. When I talk to a Presbyterian, do I dis-associate myself? No. They serve the Lord, and even though we might understand some things differently, they havn't twisted God to "fit theri box", as the Cults do.So, in conclusion, I think it's important to not say "I follow Pastor ______," but to know doctrinal beliefs of differing denominations and cults to be able to know what they're really teaching.Grace and Peace...

bro RonAn interesting measure of 'cult' might be just how easy it is to leave! If 'leaving' results in ostracism you can be sure you have a cult on your hands. This is simply because 'control' is at the heart of 'cult'. Consequently a 'cult' may be as small as a local church or as large as a denomination.Indeed brother Ron! that's not something i'd thought of at all really. i wonder what the reaction would be from say a pastor whose congregant said to him "i feel that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still needed and active today" :-? is it the baptists who hold this view anyone? or perhaps even if a congregant of a charismatic pentacostal whose pastor believed for anyone to prove he/she has the Holy Spirit they must speak in tongues, what would the pastor say :-( more and more i feel that a closer God overseen investigation on our part is needed into what we hold dear, coz if there are some things we don't need to be believing you can bet that's going to bring some problems with it...may the Lord free us from all such things. AMEN

I don't know who witness lee is personally and haven't read any of his stuff, however after reading the above I'd guess he's the head of a cult. Generally they start by adding to the bible "thier books" on how to understand thier doctrine, usually they explain it outside of the Bible and then they modify the Bible much like the JW's inorder to make it(The Bible) fit thier doctrine. I 'd be cautious of starying to far from the teachings of the early church fathers. As for denominational names? God still looks at the heart and we are still on a faith walk.When I obtained a copy of the Recovery Version of the Bible, I first took my Greek commentaries by H.C.G. Mole, Lightfoot, Westcott and others and compared the text. I took key verses which I believed would be representive of the whole of it's translation and for many months I made it my habbit to take verses and compare them in this way.I have to testify that without fail, in any given text, when I would come to Moule, and he would quote a standard version and then would say, "this literaly says "....." This was the text in the Recovery Version. I have found it to be the most accurate and enlightening translation. It's design is not to be as readable as many of the newer translations who often smooth things out to make it flow in a more readable way, but it's goal is to be as accurate in its wording to convey the actural meaning of the Greek text.The footnotes as in any "study bible' are extensive with cross references. I have found them to be the most accurate in conveying the meaning of any given text in it's context. Many times when I would read a footnote I would say, "what? where did he get this?. Then I would take the text, pray through it, look up the cross references and sure enough I would see, "yes this is the sense of the Aposles words". The footnotes in the Recovery Version are primarily taken from a book by book commentary written by Witness Lee over a 20 year period. These are called "LIfe Studies of the Bible by Witness Lee" It is a massive work and it takes the books of the Bible line by line and expounds it from the point of view of "God's Economy" which is the core of the New Testament as Paul states in Ephesians and 1 Timothy. And this "Life Study" was the core of Witness Lee's ministry for 20 years and the content of all the trainings and conferences during that period. God's Economy in a nut shell is "God's Eternal Purpose in creating man to dispense Himself in Christ into Man to be His expression on the earth." And it begins with Genesisis and Adam and the Tree of Life, an aspect of the account not usually addressed in most theologies. and it takes into account mans fall, and Christ's redemption to reconcile us to God and to bring God into man, and concludes with the New Jeruslem which is according to the Bible the consumation of Christ's redemption. The Wife of the Lamb, the dwelling place of God and the Eternal Divine/Human incorporation.A sample of the Life study on Genesis is as follows:"The tree of life was a symbol, signifying God as the proper source (cf. Psa. 36:9; John 1:4; 10:10b; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 5:12; Col. 3:4). If we only read Genesis 2, we will be unable to understand the meaning of the tree of life. However, the Gospel of John reveals the life denoted by the tree of life in a concrete way. John 1:4 says, "In Him was life," and John 15:5 tells us that the Lord Jesus is a vine tree. If we put these two verses together, we will realize that Christ is the tree of life. Jesus, the embodiment of God, is the tree of life. Therefore, the tree of life in Genesis 2 is a symbol of God as the source of life."_______________________________________________________The notes are purely expository and there is nothing read into the text but the text is interpreted in light of the whole revelation of the Bible as any commentary should be.It was Watchman Nee who testified that he always wanted to write a complete commentary on the whole Bible. But He was imprisoned and martyred and appointed Witness Lee to take the ministry to Tiawan, and eventually to the US. It fell to Witness Lee to complete the task.I was schooled in evangelical Christinaity in an excellent Bible school and have known the Lord for 30 years. I have never found another work that is as enlightening, as scritpural, as cohesive, and consistant as this work on the entire Bible.I find it sad that anyone would key in on one or two notes which are of the most "contraversial" nature to represent the spirit and content of the footnotes. And if all the related footnotes on Revelation were read it would be seen why he believed this was the understanding of Babylon, the harlot, and her many daughters. And also a reading of Watchman Nee's "The Orthodoxy of the Church" would show this as Nee's understanding as well.Graftedbranch

An interesting measure of 'cult' might be just how easy it is to leave! If 'leaving' results in ostracism you can be sure you have a cult on your hands. This is simply because 'control' is at the heart of 'cult'. Consequently a 'cult' may be as small as a local church or as large as a denomination.I find the word "cult" to be not the best word to use. I believe, "heretical sect" is a better word as today the word "cult" is a psycological term and it's standard is modern psycology. Christians have adopted this word and added theological implications as well. And now, any thing considered "outside the norm" or outside of the practice of traditional Christianity as found here in the US is considered "cultish". Christians have mixed modern psycological standards with tradition and the bible and that is the common standard of judgement, not the pure revelation of the Bible.However that said, I have met with the beievers in the local church for 3 years and can testify that in my whole experience for 30 years as a Christian I have never been among believers and experienced the liberty and freedom that I have among the saints in the local churches.There is nothing required, No one tells you what to do, what to read, what meetings to attend, how much to give, what to wear, who to marry, or any such thing. There is no "authoritative control" There is the liberty of the Spirit and whatever anyone does it is out of the Spirit's leading and conviction, not from any compulsion from any 'authority". Saints are "shepharded" to the Lord and encourged to seek the Lord, enjoy the Lord, study the Bible and get into the ministry, but there is no force, no compulsion, but rather the demonstration of a Christ filled life. And any "fellowship" I have recieved from any leading brothers regarding some decision goes something like this, 'What is the Lord telling you to do brother? I encourage you to follow the sense of Life in your spirit." And in regards to our meetings (we have small home meetings during the week), rather than "authoritative control" I usually recieve a phone call in the order of, "brother, we were thinking we might do this or that study and wanted your fellowship on it". If a new one or anyone comes in and brings up a question or shares something other than the intended "study" we let the plan go and follow the Lord in what is being shared.In the large meetings on the Lord's day it is completely open. Anyone who comes is free to participate, to share in the Lord's table. to call a hymn, and to testify and share in the meeting. If a person leaves the church, they leave and the saints who know them will surely pray for them. But no one comes running after you and trys to talk you down or tries to captivate you. The Spirit is the One who capitivates us and that not to our "group" but to the Lord Jesus Christ.I like the story of Witness Lees beginnings in Tiawan. He came and it was circulated among the locals that there would be a gospel preaching meeting. Several hundred people showed up. Brother Lee said to his co-workers, 'there are too many people here" He then went on to say to the people, "we are here to offer you Christ alone. If you are here to get a job or to have your marriage helped, you will not find it here. We have only Christ to offer you. If you want Christ, come back." He then went on to preach this wonderful Christ to them.The next day only half showed up. Lee said, "this is better" these are those who are the real seekers". The local churches are not interested in maintaining numbers or keeping people under compulsioin. The local churches are only interested in those whom the Lord brings and enlightens to the riches of the mystery of God's economy and see the reality of the body of christ and have it in their spirit to meet with the saints as the church in their locality.We should be careful not to throw around terms and assign them without knowlege based simply on speculation and heresay.Graftedbranch

bro Groh frogA little while ago we were discussing the "All Saints" church in Florida. They believe in same-sex marriage, homosexuals leading church, etc. Now, do some there know Christ? There might be. But are they also teaching a doctrine contrary to scripture? Most definitely. Now, just that is enough for me to stay away- their beliefs are shown to be corrupt and aren't edifying those learning in a way that serves God.bro i agree with you in that the doctrine that they are teaching as far as homosexuality is concerned is wrong but so is a lot of what most denominations uphold concerning marriage and divorce. As per Christ's instruction an man or woman may divorce because of marital infidelity but not remarry because that causes them both to commit adultery. except in the case of death, noone can remarry. if you ask people in most denominations they'll probably tell you that it's ok to remarry after divorce for whatever reason according to their beliefs. does this turn people away from said denominations? not likely. also we should remember that while there are some things wrong with the differeing denominations, there are some things which are of God that we would do well to know and learn. Now, when we go so far as to classify cults, it works on the same premises, but with other doctrines- namely that of Salvation. For example, the Jehova's Witnesses: Christ wasn't God, didn't raise from the grave, and his crucifixion was only partial in atoning for our sins. Do they teach the message of salvation? No. Are some saved in that group? I really doubt it.but isn't it also the same with differing denominations ie differing doctrine? pentacostals believe that for one to prove he/she has been baptized with the Holy Spirit that person must speak in tongues, that is not a biblical teaching at all, in fact it was one Paul preached against in his letter to the Corinthians. that is an example of twisting scripture to to fit their belief or just flat-footedly rejecting the scriptures for something else. But with many things- predestination, evangalism methods, etc., I think there's room for debate. So, I go to an Independent Baptist church, but I call myself a Fundamental Christian. When I talk to a Presbyterian, do I dis-associate myself? No. They serve the Lord, and even though we might understand some things differently, they havn't twisted God to "fit theri box", as the Cults do.As far as predestination goes Paul said this to the romans in romans 829 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.that says that good knew ahead of time who would be His and those ones were destined to be conformed to the image of Christ. it's spelled out simply enough as far as i can tell (i like simplicity...less headaches :-? ) at any rate i guess there is room to debate if our beliefs aren't in line with God but if they are, then there is no such need. but how then is a cult different from a denomination? if they both adhere to some strict belief which isn't of God but have used scripture incorrectly for the purposes of backing what they believe? :-? So, in conclusion, I think it's important to not say "I follow Pastor ______," but to know doctrinal beliefs of differing denominations and cults to be able to know what they're really teaching.agreeing with you totally on the last bit! we should be sure of what we hold to in terms of doctrine and see to it that it's of God. on that last day we won't be able to say "oh but God so and so told me this so i just held to it" that won't fly...praying the Lord frees us from all such bondages. AMEN.

As per Christ's instruction an man or woman may divorce because of marital infidelity but not remarry because that causes them both to commit adultery.Just to be clear, the Lord Jesus said specifically, that if a person divorces and remarries "Except for the cause of fornication" he commits adultry. He included remarrying in the "except' otherwise it would make no sense to say, A person who diveroces except for the cause of fornication commits adultry. It is only the remarrying that is adultry if the divorce is not 'for the cause of fornication.And Paul in 1 Cor. In regard to a believer who is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever departs, he says, "the believing one is not under bondage in such cases"We need the whole testimoy of scripture and we need to be accurate in our interpretation of it.But I must add that I don't believe this is the nature of this thread which is "the Recovery Version of the Bible" Graftedbranch

If you re-read what I posted I was laying a formula, if you will, on discerning a cult. Cults follow a pattern and from the little I've read of with this group its all the same. The word of God says the spiritual man judges all things. While symatics is one thing, to call the organized churches devices of satan because they have the label or name baptist, methodist, etc... is a pretty broad stoke of the pen and shows that they have some serious issues they really need to address before they can presume to even claim to be used of God in any real impactifull way,John 17:20-21 Father, I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word. That they 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.1 corinthians 3:3-5 For you are still fleshly. For when one says, I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos, are you not men of flesh? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, even as the Lord Gave to each one of them.1 Corinthians 1:2 to the Church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, whith all those who call upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours.__________________________________________________In 1 cor. 1:2 we see the Church is of God and it is in Corinth. God is its source and Corinth is its location. And it is made up of all who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus who call on the Name of the Lord. And that together with all who call upon Him in EVERY PLACE. Christ is both theirs and ours. Paul gave this introduction to the Church in Corrinth specifically because there were divisions among them. It sets the stage for the whole epistle.This is the basis of the Church.The local churchs consider that in the bible there is no such thing as the "church of Paul, the church of Peter, the Church of Apollos and according to Paul's word to make such divisions based on this or that person or this or that special teaching or practice such as a mode of baptism is to divide the Body of Christ and fails to recognize that the body of Christ is universal and icludes all believers.IN the Bible there is only local churches. there is the Church in Ephesis, the Church in Thyatira, the Church in Pergamos the Church in Corinth, the church in Jeruselem, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Thessalonica, the Church in Phillipi, and the Church in Rome. There is no distinction other than locality. Then there are the 'Churches in Galatia" which is plural because Galatia is a Province, not a city and there were many local churches there.Why is this? It is because the Church is the body of Christ and Christ is not divided. To segregate ones self and to be a Baptist Christian is to make "mode of baptism" a center for division. And to take is as one's name is to officially denominate oneself according to a speacial teaching. This is not found in the Bible but Paul in 1 Cor 3 says that these divisions are fleshly. Lee did not come up with this, Watchman Nee did not come up with us. IT is just the plain revelalation in the Bible.The Divisions which exist in modern Christianity are not the product of the Spirit but the product of the flesh. They are the result of opinionated men and those who followed them in their opinions. The Spirit never builds up divisions but the Spirit always brings us into the One Accord and the Unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace.To say that one cannot be used of God who embraces and labors to build up local churches as the local expressions of the body of Christ is to say that God is for the divisions and that only those who seek to maintain them and build them up are useful to God.According to this kind of thinking. Paul could not be used of God because he did not endourse divisions or denominations.And as far as being "used of God' there are 3000 local churches in the world not including mainline China. There have been 300 churches raised up in Russia. There are over 1,000,000 believers in China who embrace the ministry and in Tiawan, through the ministry of Witness Lee the church grew in 5 years from 400 to over 50,000. And the fruit of the ministry can be seen in the depth and reality of Christ, His manifest presence in the meetings of the saints and in the fruit of the Spirit seen in the lives of the believers in the local churches.And the local churches are not the "churches of Witness Lee". They are local churches built up through the ministry of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee just as the church in Corinth was established and built up through Paul and Apollos. But they are not the churches of Paul and Apollos, they are just the church and they are of God and in Christ.And I would also add that relegating the local churches to "cult" is to use a "broad stroke of the pen" without even any knowlege of what is being spoken of.Graftedbranch

Dear Brother Greg,My post of "bingo" was immature and not in the spirit of God. I really do not want to write off the witness lee movement at all I am sorry that my comments went down in that direction. I think there is some good fruit from that movement. But at the same time there definetly are "cultish" tendencies from that movement which are abit scary. But I know there is much good divine truth in it also.Who am I? I am nothing, and yet I am your brother in Christ. I just wanted to give you praise for showing such humility. I think we could all take a lesson from your good example of what it means to be truly humble. You are the administrator of this message board, and yet, you stepped down from this high position to show us what it means to be truly humble. May God bless you brother. I also pray that Christ might bless me with humility such as this. Thank you,In love,Blake

I too appreciate this brothers admission. You know, we all have to admit that whatever background we are brought up in, for instance if we have been in the Baptist denomination for many years and we walk into a Presbyterian meeting or a Methodist, we immediatly think, "this is odd, we don't do this this way". It is inherent in our nature to be suspect of what is not according to our normal experience.In the same way I would add that we are more governed by our tradions and practices than we think we are. WE are suspect of anything that is different. When we come to the scritpures we are very much influenced by our tradition and our preconcieved concepts and it is difficult for the Lord to separate us from what we hold.But I would submit that none of us would argue that the state of things in our denominations are an accurate representation of the revelation of the church in the New Testament. We may have good doctrine and preach Christ and have genuine fruit. but we have to admit that we find in the Bible something richer, something more profound, something which always seems to alude us in our genuine practice of the church Life.Surely the Lord is not satisfied with the state of things in Christianity. We may be. But to the degree we are one with the Lord in His feeling and His purposes, we have to admit that we are dissatisfied. What brought me out of the denominations was the conviction that "they preach Christ for us but not Christ in us. And I was conscious that the system suppresed the functioning of the body of Christ because of the intact clergy/laity system.I submit that the 'Lord's recovery" of which the local churches are the fruit of, came about in China just because of this reason. In China there was not the establishment of Christian tradition which is so engrained in the west. In this furtile soil through those who had given themselve completely to Him for His recovery, the Lord has been able to birth, establish, test, mature, and refine the genuine recovery of the New Testamant church Life in a way that could not be done in traditional Christianity in the west.The Lord'e recovery has grown up apart from the traditional concepts which govern us here. And in practice it looks quite different. Tradition holds much more sway over us than we believe.And it took many years of testing, or trial, of persecution and suffering, and of growth and maturity to bring it to the place where it could be transplanted to the west and grow here. And that is exactly what it is today. It is firmly rooted in Christ, in the Scriptures and its practice is wholly based in scripture and not in tradition.This is the reality I have found in the recovery today.As an example, T. Austin Sparks who was asked to come and minister to the Saints in Tiawan in the 1950s, as godly and as spiritual as he was, could not get past his tradition. He had a problem with the fact that some of the Chinese believers who were soldiers kept their hats on in the building and did not remove them until they sat down to pray. He said, "Are you more for tradition than for the Bible?Yet the reality was that it is a western tradition which requires a person to remove his hat in the building, not the bible which only says a man should not pray or prophecy with his head covered.Sparks was imposing a western tradition in a legalistic way and rebuked the Chinese saints for it. It was his inability to get past his traditions that caused him to break with the saints in the recovery.Graftedbranch

bro graftedbranchJust to be clear, the Lord Jesus said specifically, that if a person divorces and remarries "Except for the cause of fornication" he commits adultry. He included remarrying in the "except' otherwise it would make no sense to say, A person who diveroces except for the cause of fornication commits adultry. It is only the remarrying that is adultry if the divorce is not 'for the cause of fornication.thanks for setting that straight for me. and for also adding the instruction that the Holy Spirit through Paul gave concerning marriage to unbelievers too. i agree we do need the the whole testimony of scripture and it's good that we can show and teach eachother where we may be lacking in something :-D thanks again bro

bro grafted branchwhat can i say save for praise the Lord for what He had you share!the Spirit of God is not the spirit of confusions which divides but brings us to accord in God through Christ Jesus by way of the Holy Spirit!Praise God that He is quickenning His children and drawing us near to Him.

brethreni've been reading this book called "pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and although i've just started it, it's amazing how much pagan/imperial tradition found it's way into how church services are conducted and how the church is structured. :-? it's frightening but this among a couple of other things would explain the impotence of the church in the world today.1) much of what we practice has no root in the N.T. which has the governing prinicples for the church given to us through the Holy Spirit by Paul et al. that's bad business to begin with.2) the structure of the church today isn't as was outlined by God again by the Holy Spirit through Paul in terms of apostles for church governance, prophets to deliver messages from God, preachers to preach, teachers to teach and evangelists to spread the good news. we have the last 3 but in most places there is no rrom in the structure for the former 2. it's like having a table which should have 4 legs stand on 3 or even 1 leg, it's going to come crashing down. the enemy has so exploited this and given us this false structure of the church. for people who're gearheads as myself (i love mechanicing) if you don't put something together as it should be, it's not going to work right...this makes it worse3) instead ofthe church shaping the world, the world has shaped the church. it's gone from people believing so fervently in the saving grace of God through Christ that people were martyrd in large numbers. that says to me the early church was definiately giving the world much grief...now we get together (for the most part i guess) once a week and the world is not at all concerned. that should be a sign to let us know that we have much repenting to do before a Holy God whose Son shall return a an unblemished bride...dear brethren let us fall on our faces and repent!

I stand corrected. I edited my original post without removing any of the context as the site rules are. I made a notation to such and stand in correction on comments made about watchman lee's ministry. As to the original post and what I would term as a flawed view of the denominations and its usage of them in a very negative light, that I cannot agree with. As you posted, some said am I not of Paul , Apollus, etc... so labeling has always taken place. I have seen non-denominational churches that are more like the organizations they came out of than the actual denomination itself. My comments about Lee were more a "knee jerk" reaction to the comments I read from that bible reference. I was wrong to make such comments. I ask for the groups forgiveness and if my "broadstroke" comments have caused any harm on personal level to that individual I ask your forgiveness.

And think about this... "Recovery Version" implies that something was lost. In fact, if you read the publisher's introduction you find out that that is their premise. The original understanding of scripture was lost because of evolving languages.Brother,Recovery meaning "recoveing that which was lost", does not refer to the text but to those things revealed in the New Testament which through the degradation of the Church were lost to us. The "Recovery Version" is the Version put out by the "recovery". The Recovery includes the reformation where "justification by faith alone" was "recovered" from its dormancy in the degraded Roman Catholic church for many centuries. As well as the "Open Bible" and the priesthood of all believers was recovered throuh Luther.Recovery has been taking place for many centuries. That is through this group and that and this Servant of Christ and that one. It includes many aspects of the faith and practice including the inner life teachers, the Moravians, the Brethren, and many moves of God in restoring to the church many of the things lost in the "Dark Ages".In fact the whole "Puritan" movement was a movement to "Purify" the Church from the taint of Roman Catholicism. They considered their movement one of, if not 'recovery", then "purification" which is a synonym.The books of II Timothy, Galatians, and Colossians are books written to "recover the church" as well as the epistles to the 7 Churches in Revelation.Recovery implies not a new teaching but the recovery of the original as contained in the Text of the Bible. And every move of God in history has been to 'recover the Saints back to the centrality of Christ and the truth revealed in scritpure. And it is a recovery from traditions of men, of false teachings, and of many things that come in to obscure and degrade the purity of the Divine Revelation.If you can say that today's Christianity has no need to "recover" anything then I believe that you are not looking at the same horizen that many are.Graftedbranch

Ironman,I would like to take a moment to truly examine your argument that these "divisions" are truely bad. First, your point that there was no division (especially on doctrine) in the early church... what are these epistles you speak of if not proof of that? This is not a biblical arguement but a logical one. The two are, however, in no ways separate. But there is nothing in the bible about discretion in piracy on the internet, either. It is meant as a study tool and as a very strict guideline. However, logic and reason are also needed in guided thinking.We scream for revival. We raise our banners and say quite calmly that those gathered near us are christians and no one else is. I will say with absolute and incredible authority that this is not the case! How can this be the case if I can be warmly welcomed in, yea, made a person of honor in a denomination that I have never seen, set foot in, nor hardly noticed before while it sits halfway across the world? WHY!! I can tell you that this was not just a single occurance, but a request. I was treated with honor for the occurance of my company by men of many backgrounds in several places despite personal objection. Does this really seem so unbiblical?What is it in us that screams we need to be united so I MUST BE RIGHT! Can I not learn godly principles from a child? Is it so hard to fathom that a man I have never met before who has different traditions and has a different upbringing may actually be able to teach me something? REALLY? I will shout it at the top of my lungs, that THIS IS INCORRECT!THIS is not righteous, not in the least, not at all. This saying that I cannot hold true to my traditions. Is the God of the New Testament so different from the God of the old? Do you really believe this? This same God told Israel to persecute its enemies with unbridled passion and severety. This same God told the kings of His favoured nation to commit genocide. Then one of these same kings turns around and accepts and invalid enemy into his house! Now if this doesn't seem like a normal division, I don't know what is. The house of Jonathan, the house of David. Is it not the same as a very norse concept of the house of Ole?PEOPLE ARE NOT STUPID! I used to assume that the church I attended growing up was nothing but "Sunday Christians." I used to assume that people I met on the street did not have a clue what this living God was that I so passionately fell in love with. You know what? I was wrong, so wrong. And I have never been so glad to be wrong in my life. Did this family of God fail me in my childhood? Yes, I think that in several ways they did. But that does not mean they do not understand what the Spirit is saying. In a baptist church, I have seen the Spirit more clearly than in any charismatic meeting I have ever attended.Do not count out the men of God, and do not expect to see what you intend to see. Abraham had Melchisadech. Isaac had Esau. Jacob met with the king of Egypt and had his brothers. Moses met with the sons of that King. These are the "fathers" of our faith. Look about the US. Where are you from? Do you remember where Jesus was born? These things, too, follow us, just as much so as our denominational preferences. Would you deny that a German may have a different tradition than you? Would you respect the wishes of your father and mother even if it meant kneeling beside a cabinet with candles to pray on Christmas night? This is denomination, never so more evident than my nation of birth, my mother's lineage or my father's temper. Do you really believe that God never intended to allow for separation? Why then was there ever a house of Israel?I may remind you that Peter, the rock, said quite plainly that he found Paul's words hard to comprehend.Brother Greg, I do appreciate your withdrawal of insinuation that Witness Lee indeed founds a cult. But I really do appreciate your incurrence of request of inquiry. Because I can only see that as good.Brother D., I believe your appology is a bit overreaching, though I will also be there to say thank you for its offering. Knee-jerk reactions, although not always most accurate, are indeed something God has used in His people more than once.And for those reading this, I am sorry if my language is a bit harsh, but this drives me nuts. I have never been so more put off than by someone saying my arguement was only devisive and that I only needed to shut up. We are not there yet but awefully close. And the end result of being told that has only ever been for me to be divided, set as worthless and unknowledgeable not for lack of decent evidence but on the difference of another's passion.

Graftedbranc wrote:If you can say that today's Christianity has no need to "recover" anything then I believe that you are not looking at the same horizen that many are.I can only say that with the report of my friends and my own (very brief) finding, exploring that horizion often has a different result than looking at it.If the eyes of mine own heart have wandered so greatly as to see that my brother's have as well...Are we empassioned of men or are we empassioned of doctrine?

I may remind you that Peter, the rock, said quite plainly that he found Paul's words hard to comprehend.Yes, Peter did say Pauls words were in some things "hard to comprehend" but in the same passage He identified Paul's word's as scritpure and that many "twist them to their own undoing."I cannnot speak for other "groups" but I can testify that no one in the local churches believe that only those who meet with us are genuine Christians.The ground of the Church is inclusive, not exclusive. The Ground of the Church is the recognizing that every regenerated beiever is a member of the One body of Christ no matter where they are found. And that any member of the body of Christ is automatically a "member" of the church in any locality. Whether they see the "ground of the church" or not and whether they choose to come out of "denominationalism" or not. We regard them as members of the church. And we call any and all believers "brothers and sisters. And we welcome any to break bread with us as the church. No one is required to "join" anything. There is no joining. If you come and are a believer, you are a member and you will be called, brother. If you leave and are a believer, you will still be refered to as "brother".This is the reality in the local churches and it is the way in which the Lord leads to conduct and recieve all believers.Graftedbranch

Graftedbranch wrote:And we call any and all believers "brothers and sisters. And we welcome any to break bread with us as the church. No one is required to "join" anything. There is no joining. If you come and are a believer, you are a member and you will be called, brother. If you leave and are a believer, you will still be refered to as "brother".This is the reality in the local churches and it is the way in which the Lord leads to conduct and recieve all believers.If it is so easy to believe of my own neighborhood, is it such a stretch that it can exist elsewhere? This is my arguement, not that the concept isn't sound, but that we (as humans) naturally exclude that which we don't know from being able to grasp such a concept.

PTywama3I would like to take a moment to truly examine your argument that these "divisions" are truely bad. First, your point that there was no division (especially on doctrine) in the early church... what are these epistles you speak of if not proof of that? This is not a biblical arguement but a logical one. The two are, however, in no ways separate. But there is nothing in the bible about discretion in piracy on the internet, either. It is meant as a study tool and as a very strict guideline. However, logic and reason are also needed in guided thinking.you're right indeed in that the epistles with the instructions for how the church should conduct herself showed divisions in the people. but the intent was for the people to be show their unity in Christ by not only belief in His death being the only salavation but by following the regulations given to us by His father through the Holy SPirit via the apostles. there may not be an explicit mention of piracy on the internet in the bible but the bible does say thou shalt not steal. that to me condemns theft of any kind. Logic and reason work to some extent but what we really need is to follow the very Spirit of God, nothing else can stand in for that. We scream for revival. We raise our banners and say quite calmly that those gathered near us are christians and no one else is. I will say with absolute and incredible authority that this is not the case! How can this be the case if I can be warmly welcomed in, yea, made a person of honor in a denomination that I have never seen, set foot in, nor hardly noticed before while it sits halfway across the world? WHY!! I can tell you that this was not just a single occurance, but a request. I was treated with honor for the occurance of my company by men of many backgrounds in several places despite personal objection. Does this really seem so unbiblical?i agree with you in that it's not true at all that anyone not gathered with us isn't Christian. we have brothers and sisters in the varying denominations and all.it is good that you were welcomed and treated well on your visits, that is how we should love one another, but others have been treated with contempt also. THIS is not righteous, not in the least, not at all. This saying that I cannot hold true to my traditions. Is the God of the New Testament so different from the God of the old? Do you really believe this? This same God told Israel to persecute its enemies with unbridled passion and severety. This same God told the kings of His favoured nation to commit genocide. Then one of these same kings turns around and accepts and invalid enemy into his house! Now if this doesn't seem like a normal division, I don't know what is. The house of Jonathan, the house of David. Is it not the same as a very norse concept of the house of Ole?well as far as traditions go for the various denominations, check to see how much of what is tradition if rooted in the N.T. a lot of it isn't and is rooted in paganism and this is the portion which must be done away with because it is from hell. if the traditions you choose to stay true to are contrary to Christ's instruction to us then you need to drop it real quick, an dthat goes for us all. i'm from Zimbabwe an done of the major traditions we have is belief in the ancestral spirits and appeasing them and speaking to them and so on. i held onto that for a while but the Lord showed me it was from the devil and i had to drop it coz it was hot. the world has had so much influence on the church that we need to go back to the word of God and start all over coz too much stuff is done in the name of tradition which have pagan influences and are destestable in the eyes of God. i'm not about to hold onto any such thing which is not rooted in God coz it's from the enemy so to hell with it. i pray the Lord reveal said things to us all so we may be freed from the bondages imposed by the enemy via traditions which are unGodly. AMEN.PEOPLE ARE NOT STUPID! I used to assume that the church I attended growing up was nothing but "Sunday Christians." I used to assume that people I met on the street did not have a clue what this living God was that I so passionately fell in love with. You know what? I was wrong, so wrong. And I have never been so glad to be wrong in my life. Did this family of God fail me in my childhood? Yes, I think that in several ways they did. But that does not mean they do not understand what the Spirit is saying. In a baptist church, I have seen the Spirit more clearly than in any charismatic meeting I have ever attended.People in general don't care for God, this is evidenced by the way in which we conduct ourselves daily. the killings, kidnappings, theft, adultery, abortion and so on. i take you at your word that you love the Lord and have no doubt that you could feel the Spirit more at a bapstist church than a charismatic one. here's the thing though, it should not be that way. we shouldn't have baptists, methodists etc, we should be one Church in Christ. This splintering is of the enemy to divide us and conquer us. now this doesn't mean that anyone in any denomination can't be used of God. Do not count out the men of God, and do not expect to see what you intend to see. Abraham had Melchisadech. Isaac had Esau. Jacob met with the king of Egypt and had his brothers. Moses met with the sons of that King. These are the "fathers" of our faith. Look about the US. Where are you from? Do you remember where Jesus was born? These things, too, follow us, just as much so as our denominational preferences. Would you deny that a German may have a different tradition than you? Would you respect the wishes of your father and mother even if it meant kneeling beside a cabinet with candles to pray on Christmas night? This is denomination, never so more evident than my nation of birth, my mother's lineage or my father's temper. Do you really believe that God never intended to allow for separation? Why then was there ever a house of Israel?i'm not sure what you were trying to get across in the first part :-? perhaps you could clarify. i agree that a german would have very different traditions than i but why should we uphold traditions from our cultures which are in opposition to God? the Lord made for separation of those that are His from those that are not but not that those that are His be divided into differing camps because Christ wanted us to be one in Him just as He and the Father are one. I may remind you that Peter, the rock, said quite plainly that he found Paul's words hard to comprehend.this may be so but still the doctrines concerning how the church should conduct herself were given to Paul and Peter had no objection to them. Paul at one point had to call Peter out for being a hypocrite as far as interaction with gentiles. this to me in no way dimishes Peter's authority but rather exhorts us to keep eachother honest by calling out sin and rebuking and correcting as the Lord leads. And for those reading this, I am sorry if my language is a bit harsh, but this drives me nuts. I have never been so more put off than by someone saying my arguement was only devisive and that I only needed to shut up. We are not there yet but awefully close. And the end result of being told that has only ever been for me to be divided, set as worthless and unknowledgeable not for lack of decent evidence but on the difference of another's passion.if i have offended you in any way or told you to shut up then i apologize and ask for your forgiveness. for me this is not a matter of passion but a genuine grief i feel in my spirit about this and the Lord will not let me go until He has done whatever he needs to in me and through me concerning this. if nothing else of this we can be sure whatsoever we hold dear be it tradition or any other such thing which is not of God we must drop lest we stumble our brethren and cause God to be angry.Lord set us free from whatever keeps us from being united in you. AMEN

I pray, brother, that the Lord give you wisdom and understanding in this area.Many an uninformed Christian has done more harm than good, me being the best example I know. There is truth to this argument, but I believe you are being too sweeping in your statements.When I talk of ancient Israel in the time of Kings, I speak of a natural division among believers. A cursory study of the books reveals three camps: Saul's camp, David's camp, and those camped for Israel. A great example of the third is Job as well as the men who granted David the crown after Saul's death. They didn't want to, but it was best for their country and at the command of their God. Yet David invited Jonathan's crippled son into his house even though almost that entire family had warred against him.One of my greatest teachers could not have had more different views than I. Yet I respect him a great deal, and do believe he has helped teach me firm biblical principle. That difference is prominent, and should be noted for because of it I would never be considered his protige. Yet he is still one of my greatest teachers.One of my most trusted pastors is also outside of this denominational boundaries. I don't think of him as not within my denomination, but as my pastor. Yet if asked I will state my denomination. Why? Because it does accurately reflect quite a few of my doctrinal stances.The funny thing is, we don't disagree about the character of God. In fact in almost every case because of our inherent differences, these men have been able to teach me something new about this incredible God.In fact, I think I had a wonderful oppourtunity to learn a lot about the character of God from a wonderful episcopalian pastor once while out and about with some friends. His mantra was all about very specificly adhered to tradition because he believes that it honours God. I would assume that the reflections of the temple of Solomon would suggest similar things about Israel. I cannot say that I am able to disagree with his practice.The traditions of the New Testament church are being examined constantly by the minds of noble men all across the globe. I trust these men. I believe that God can effectively speak to them as well as me or better, as the men I trust whom I do know. Being pagan or no, it is their response which ultimately matters. It may be, sir, that one of your duties is to sit and reason with these very men. If their traditions are antibiblical, then there will be some opposition, but their interdependence on one another will hold strongly first. In other words, they will need to trust you to take your words - and telling a person they are wrong because they hold a belief that has been attacked by cults throughout a few known generations is not gonna be a great first step.*Edit:* I must ask why we so firmly stand on that people don't prefer God. I believe they do. They just don't know it yet. It is hard to lean on such a complex God, beyond doubt, but we were created for this very thing.

Dear Farai,Please don't take that last post the wrong way. I believe that taking such a footnote and gaining revelation from it is quite ok, but I don't believe you should then base a doctrinal belief on a statement of whom two of your brothers have expressed concern over. It is circumspect. I have a study bible with doctrinal errancies in it.However, I will have to argue with this:Logic and reason work to some extent but what we really need is to follow the very Spirit of God, nothing else can stand in for that.Jesus sat in the time of his temptation and quoted Deuteronomy. He reasoned, sir, as his defence. Should I not do so?The Spirit will do things beyond our understanding, but just as our discernment is key in its effect, so are logic and reason part of that very thing.

Hi David,Following your train of thought through all this and appreciative of the taking the sentiment of let us reason together seriously.Logic and reason work to some extent but what we really need is to follow the very Spirit of God, nothing else can stand in for that.Jesus sat in the time of his temptation and quoted Deuteronomy. He reasoned, sir, as his defence. Should I not do so?The Spirit will do things beyond our understanding, but just as our discernment is key in its effect, so are logic and reason part of that very thing.Well said. We can get two thirds of the equation; Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Reminded of Philologos great line about the will and the underlying sentiment of being compartmentalised... "There is just you"Can only help wonder if as you mentioned earlier in discussing the truths of scripture with anyone from whatever particular tradition, culture, upbringing, denomination the onus is really less on what one might accept if proved from scripture and against all these things but more so on what is willing to be let go of.

bro MikeCan only help wonder if as you mentioned earlier in discussing the truths of scripture with anyone from whatever particular tradition, culture, upbringing, denomination the onus is really less on what one might accept if proved from scripture and against all these things but more so on what is willing to be let go of.that's what i was looking for! the things which we hold dear that are not of God even though so proved to us still have to be let go. the question then is, how willing are we to let go?thanks bro

I find the word "cult" to be not the best word to use. I believe, "heretical sect" is a better word as today the word "cult" is a psycological term and it's standard is modern psycology. I use the word 'cult' because it conveys the spirit of the biblical concept of heresy better than the way we now use the word 'heresy'. Biblical 'heresy' really focuses on the 'sectarian, separatist' spirit of certain individuals which then manifests itself in their teaching.IN the Bible there is only local churches. there is the Church in Ephesis, the Church in Thyatira, the Church in Pergamos the Church in Corinth, the church in Jeruselem, the Church in Antioch, the Church in Thessalonica, the Church in Phillipi, and the Church in Rome. There is no distinction other than locality. Then there are the 'Churches in Galatia" which is plural because Galatia is a Province, not a city and there were many local churches there. It is the implications of this teaching that has sometimes caused the Witness Lee groups to be regarded as cultish/sectarian. I am a passionate believer in the local church but to state that there can only ever be one church in a city is ultimately sectarian in that it must require the ending of all 'other churches' ie non Witness Lee churches.Modern cities are difficult to define. How would you define the 'city of Rome'? not by its postal codes clearly. It is interesting that the letter is addressed to the saints in Rome, rather than the 'church in Rome'. In fact, as far as I can see the 'saints in Rome' are never called 'a church'. The references to 'a church' in the Roman letter do not refer to such an entity. (Rom. 16:1,4-5,16,23)Witness Lee adds a fairly long note to the reference in Titus toTitus 1:5 (DRBY) ¶ For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained [unordered], and establish elders in each city, as I had ordered thee: Witness Lee takes this to mean that each 'city church' must be under the jurisdiction of the same 'city church elders'. His commentary on the verse reads:These words, compared with every church in Acts 14:23, indicate not only that the jurisdiction of a local church is the city in which it is located but also that in one city there should be only one church. The eldership of a local church should cover the entire city in which that church is located. Such a unique presbytery in a city preserves the unique oneness of the Body of Christ from damage. One city should only have one church with one presbytery. This practice is illustrated beyond any question or doubt, by the clear pattern in the New Testament (Acts 8:1, 13:1; Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 1:2; Rev 1:11) and is an absolute prerequisite for maintaining of proper order in a local church. Because of this, the first thing the apostle charged Titus to do in setting things in order was to appoint elders in every city.(my underlinings) It is the implication of this teaching which has caused the Witness Lee groups to be regarded with some suspicion by 'other' local churches in a vicinity. What validity does the 'local church' on the other side of the city have if there is a Witness Lee group in town? The definition of a city (polis) is notoriously difficult to establish. Ancient cities tended to be smaller than most folk would expect. Ist century Rome is thought to have had a population of around 450,000. But by 1975 Tokyo had a population of 23 million. Is there to be 'only one church with one presbytery' in Tokyo?My little use of the Recovered Version has not disturbed me. The truths developed here are not very different from those highlighted by J N Darby whose translation is freely available for most bible software. It is in this area alone and in its implications and perhaps outworking that Witness Lee has facilitated a certain 'heretical' (I am using the word in its biblical sense) practice which has given rise to suspicion.I have frequently quoted Anthony Norris Groves in my posts. He was from the first 'generation' of 'Brethren' bible students. For those who may have missed it and for my own constant admonition, as a fully paid up member of "idealists anonymous"...what a blessing it is that the Lord's heart is so large, that He can help wherever He finds some good thing; whereas man withdraws, because he sees some evil thing, which is generally found to mean something that wounds his own self-love in the little scheme he had set up as perfection.

It is the implication of this teaching which has caused the Witness Lee groups to be regarded with some suspicion by 'other' local churches in a vicinity. What validity does the 'local church' on the other side of the city have if there is a Witness Lee group in town? The definition of a city (polis) is notoriously difficult to establish. Ancient cities tended to be smaller than most folk would expect. Ist century Rome is thought to have had a population of around 450,000. But by 1975 Tokyo had a population of 23 million. Is there to be 'only one church with one presbytery' in Tokyo?It does seem difficult to concieve of "one church in one city" in these cases, but in practice the churches in the recovery, in large cities are broken up into districts and have district meetings but are all one as one church" for the one testimony of Christ in any given city.It must be rememberd that there were many thousands of believers in Jeruselem but there was only one church there, the "church in Jeruselem". And they met daily from house to house as well as at Solemons Pourch.It might also be added that there are some local churches who have chosen not to embrace the ministry of Witness Lee and the present ministry in the recovery. There are severl Churches in Ohio who do not. However in the recovery these are still regarded as genuine local churches. Not only that but because these churches exist no one would go to that city and seek to establish another "local church around Lee's ministry. It is recognized that a genuine local church is a genuine local church no matter who's ministry is being embraced.This is in Keeping with Watchman Nee's experience of being excommunicated from the local church in China because he did not want to "ordain ministers". Though he was excommunicated for a time, when anyone suggested he begin another church or work, he refused and said that the Church is the church and he dare not seek to establish another work.The definition of a genuine local church is not one of embracing Lee's ministry. Rather it is in taking the local ground as the church, the local expression of the body of Christ.It is desirable that all the local churches should be in fellowship one with another Just as Paul instructed his epistles to one church to be circulated among the others. After all, there is only One body of Christ and every local church is merely a local expression of the One body and should be in fellowship in the One Lord and One Spirit, and one faith. But, in fact every local church takes the ministry by choice. There is no compulsion, no requirement to recive the ministry. And any co-workers who come to any church are invited. They never impose some "authority". There is no central authority. Christ is the Head of the Church. IN fact in the church in Anehime, where Lee lived and met with the saints, he had no authority in the local church. He had no dealings in the administration of the church. He was not an elder there. But at the same time, the churches raised up through Lee's ministry are enjoying the riches of Christ they have recieved through this ministry and why would you drink the water and then despise the spicket from which it has flowed?Graftedbranch

It does seem difficult to concieve of "one church in one city" in these cases, but in practice the churches in the recovery, in large cities are broken up into districts and have district meetings but are all one as one church" for the one testimony of Christ in any given city.How is this different to all the local churches in a city seeking to maintain the unity of the Spirit? Cities 'broken up into districts' is a denial of this fundamental position of Witness Lee. How then' according to Lee' can there be a single disciplinary function of the 'one body' in the city?t must be rememberd that there were many thousands of believers in Jeruselem but there was only one church there, the "church in Jeruselem". And they met daily from house to house as well as at Solemons Pourch. There is always only one church. There is one church in heaven and earth but the local churches do not make up the 'earth' part of this wonder. There are many who cannot be in local gatherings but they are still part of the 'one church'. I would prefer to go back further to the simple Brethren teaching that there is no unit larger than the local assembly and smaller than the whole church of Christ. Anything larger than the local church and smaller than the whole church has no basis for its organisation in the New Testament. There is, for example, no 'American church', nor 'chinese church' nor '21st century church'. There is no 'youth church', no 'children's church', no 'tomorrow's church', no 'today's church'. There is just the whole church of Jesus Christ and the local unit. To combine more than one local unit into another entity is to create a denomination, especially if discipline is being conducted by some kind of super-oversight.It might also be added that there are some local churches who have chosen not to embrace the ministry of Witness Lee and the present ministry in the recovery. There are severl Churches in Ohio who do not. However in the recovery these are still regarded as genuine local churches. Not only that but because these churches exist no one would go to that city and seek to establish another "local church around Lee's ministry. It is recognized that a genuine local church is a genuine local church no matter who's ministry is being embraced. Surely the phrase 'some local churches' really ought to read the 'vast majority of local churches'. What kind of 'local church' would 'the recovery' still regard as a 'local church'. Could a local branch of the Pentecostal church be a 'local church', and if so, would no one go to that city and seek to establish another? Does this mean that Witness Lee churches have only ever been begun in cities where there was no evangelical witness? I doubt it.It appears that not only are we struggling to define 'city' we are now struggling to define 'local church'. What exactly do you mean by this phrase? Is the definition of 'local church' a local gathering of saints who believe the same about 'local churches' as does Witness Lee?

Could a local branch of the Pentecostal church be a 'local church'Sorry brother, but I believe you are missing the whole point. Here in this context a "local church" is defined as a church that meets "as a local church with no other name". That is, it takes the ground of the church simply as the church in ... It is not a "local expression of the Penecostal church", or a local expression of the Baptist church. But a local expression of the One Church which is inclusive of every regenerated believe in every place. This is the proper and biblical ground of the church. It includes all believers and does not denominate itself or segregate itself based on a man, a teaching, or a peculiar doctrine. It is just the church made up of regenerated believers. In fact there is biblically speaking no possibility of a "pentecostal church" or a "baptist church" because to add these names to the Church is to minunderstand the definition of "Church" as used in the New Testament. Paul says, "The Church" which is the body of Christ". The Church is the body of Christ. There is not here a little body of Christ and there a body of Christ. Could you say, "The pentecostal body of Christ? No. You could not call this group the "Baptist body of Christ. Christ only has one body and every believer is a member by Life. Christ does not cloth Himself with multiple Bodies. He has only one. One corporate Body and all beievers are members of it and share in the One Life of the Head. And this One body is not divided up in any way except by its localtion. Therefore to be in a locality makes it a local expression of the One body of Christ.This is the proper ground. It is not to take a denominational affiliation. It is to meet as the inclusive church in that locality. This is what in the recovery is considered a "genuine local church" because it meets on the ground of the onenss of all believers as "just the church".No one in any "local church would claim to be in a "wintess Lee church". That is contrary to the principle of the church. Witness Lee may have been instrumental in its establishing. But just as the church in corinth was not the church of Paul or Appolos, so a local church is not a "church of Lee, Nee. or any other minister of Christ.Graftedbranch

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point, here.The point is that we don't disclude ourselves from the Bride of Christ by claiming to be baptists or methodists or lutherans. This is a description.Surely when you read the new testament you see the strife between the jews and the gentiles? Surely when you look outside you see the difference between a fir and a conifer. Just as you would be able to see the difference in the skin tone of a black man from that of a white one.Just as one church does not accept the idea of all of Mr. Lee's teachings, that as surely identifies them as one that does. To disallow our ability to describe ourselves is fundamentally ignorant.There is only one Church. And I am a baptist. Just as there is only one holy catholic church. But don't tell that to the Holy Catholics, because that would be defeating the point.History denotes (especially through God's intervention in the book of Genesis) that separation in man is an intended and yet overcomable obstacle.We cannot argue this concept in the context of today because it is not new. And we certainly can't ignore the imput of our forefathers who so dilligently spent much of their lives in turmoil over this very same issue.Every arguement pro-separatist I have seen has been in light of a current context.Sorry brother, but I believe you are missing the whole point. Here in this context a "local church" is defined as a church that meets "as a local church with no other name". That is, it takes the ground of the church simply as the church in ... It is not a "local expression of the Penecostal church", or a local expression of the Baptist church. But a local expression of the One Church which is inclusive of every regenerated believe in every place. This is the proper and biblical ground of the church. It includes all believers and does not denominate itself or segregate itself based on a man, a teaching, or a peculiar doctrine. It is just the church made up of regenerated believers.I find this context to be very separatist. Key phrase being "regenerated believers." And I find it quite disheartening to know that you would not accept my past.

I am sorry for my last post. I don't think for the words I said, but for the post.Thank you, Neil, for your rebuke.

No one in any "local church would claim to be in a "wintess Lee church". That is contrary to the principle of the church. Witness Lee may have been instrumental in its establishing. But just as the church in corinth was not the church of Paul or Appolos, so a local church is not a "church of Lee, Nee. or any other minister of Christ. Eph 2:19 So then ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but ye are fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the corner-stone, Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. It would seem to me that the translation you refer to does try to add to something that was already complete and that Witness Lee has set himself up as an apostle in redefining what the organic body of believers is. In his distancing himself from all other denominations he has in effect set up his own denomination or "sect" , if you like. The simple truth is that there is a church within the organized "denominational" system, as much as there is a church "with in" witness Lee's sect or denomination (even though it doesn't outwardly reconize itself as a denomination). But that's the way it has always been, King David said I will worship the Lord in the great congregation and in the congregation of the upright, 2 classes of believers.

In fact there is biblically speaking no possibility of a "pentecostal church" or a "baptist church" because to add these names to the Church is to minunderstand the definition of "Church" as used in the New Testament. Paul says, "The Church" which is the body of Christ". The Church is the body of Christ. There is not here a little body of Christ and there a body of Christ. Could you say, "The pentecostal body of Christ? No. You could not call this group the "Baptist body of Christ. Christ only has one body and every believer is a member by Life. I may be missing your point but I think you are missing mine. Is a 'local church' only a 'local church' if it is a 'local church - not otherwise designated'? Are you saying that a 'plant' from 'Calvary Chapel' which has the words 'Calvary Chapel' on its literature cannot be a 'local church'?I consciously ignore all such 'designations'. I think perhaps God does too. His child is His child whatever His child chooses to call themselves. A 'local church' is a 'local church' whatever they choose to call themselves.Christ does not cloth Himself with multiple Bodies. He has only one. One corporate Body and all beievers are members of it and share in the One Life of the Head. And this One body is not divided up in any way except by its localtion. Therefore to be in a locality makes it a local expression of the One body of Christ.What does this mean? There were 'churches in Judaea'; is not this 'multiple bodies'?This is the proper ground. It is not to take a denominational affiliation. It is to meet as the inclusive church in that locality. This is what in the recovery is considered a "genuine local church" because it meets on the ground of the onenss of all believers as "just the church".This sounds like a good idea unless the one 'local church' which does not give itself a label takes the high moral ground and consequently demotes all other such revelations of Christ in community as 'not local churches'.There is a group of people who are currently endeavouring to create a 'meeting which is not a meeting'. The idea is that modern modes of 'meeting' are so alien to the NT pattern that we need to be taught 'how NOT to have a meeting'. I am not joking; I have read books on 'how NOT to have a meeting'. How to arrange the chairs so that a 'meeting' doesn't happen. How to spot a 'meeting' developing and nip it in the bud! Bizarre? The Witness Lee concept of a 'local church' is doing the same thing but the things which must not be allowed to happen is a 'local church with a label'. Of course, what it produces is a 'local church' which is labeled the 'no label local church'.I am a strong advocate of 'no label local churches' but I dare not claim that the 'local church without a label' is the only genuine local church in the city. Currently I live in a 'city' of about 150,000. We have a 'no label local church' here which has embraced the Witness Lee position. It seems to take the position that 'it' and 'it alone' is the genuine expression of Christ in the town. To all the other 'local churches' in town this claim is seen as nonsense, and by many, as arrogant nonsense.So I repeat my question. Is the local Pentecostal church a 'local church' and would the Witness Lee people not begin a work in a town which had a Pentecostal church? Witness Lee seems to have redefined both the words 'local' and 'church'. Having done so it is easy enough to judge a place to be without a 'local church'.

What does this mean? There were 'churches in Judaea'; is not this 'multiple bodies'?Brother, Judea if I am not mistaken is not a city but a region. Just as Galatia is not a city but a region and there were the "Churches of Galatia"But we need to see from the Scritpures that the Body of Christ is a reality. Christ in heaven is the Head and we are the many members here on this earth. And what makes us members is that His LIfe is within us. We are regenerated and born agian with HIs resurrection Life.We are used to speaking of "a student body" or this body or that body of work, etc. But in the Scritpures the body of Christ is not a mataphore. IT is a reality. We really are the "body of Christ" And He only has ONe body. It is corporate. But it is just ONe.We are the body of Christ because the very LIfe of Christ is imparted into us and we are being daily sanctified by the indwelling Spirit through the word to give Christ the Head ground in us that we become more and more animated by His indwelling Life and under the direction and controle of the Head. This is a matter of organic relationship and not a matter of membership in a group or orginization.When we come to the Word and the Spirit's work in us, we are brought into the reality of our organic union with Christ. In John 14 the Lord Jesus said, "In that day (when the Spirit comes) you shall know that I am in My Father and you are in Me and I am in you. "A local church is not a local "body". A local church is a local expression of the One body of Christ. This is crucial.Graftedbranch

This bracketed segment below is explained and just wanted to add that this was all written out before seeing some of these recent replies that might better ask similar questions.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Some good things coming out of all this but it is deflecting a bit off target from the heading.Here is what is bothersome. This whole particular movement is full of doublespeak.The words used in repetition. Just two here;Recovery.Local Churches.While it is stated otherwise, 'recovery' is alluding back to and according to Witness Lee and according to this 'Recovery Version which is loaded with more of his particular thoughts than scripture itself, it is more of a commentary with scripture than the other way around. But they would have you believe that to take note of this or take issue with any of what they are doing is divisive."Local churches". The way these words are sprinkled about and the way they are used in this bait and switch is to say two things at once, doublespeak. Though the argument goes that it is not exclusive but inclusive, when the term 'local church' is used it IS according to the usage outlined in his teachings. Every church is 'local' to somebody and they can deny it all they want but they might as well call it a denomination or 'Witness Lee Church' and quit with this 'local' business because it IS according to and NOT what is subtly introduced as 'all believers' or whatever gobbledygook they are using to convince otherwise.Is it all bad? Of course not.Is this 'divisive'? Would appeal back to earlier thoughts here. The biggest problem with all this is that it is dishonest.It is subtly exclusive.It does set itself 'above the rest'It does mean what it says.Local churches mean 'other than'It may well accept other Christians but the underlying sentiment is that whoever they are, are not quite up to their particular 'level', 'height', 'understanding' they can deny it to the hilt, but it is still doublespeak.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(This was written out yesterday and shelved. Instead of correcting it as time has given place to more reflection, will leave it as it is and let the progression go on from there, I wouldn't necessarily agree with it in it's seemingly negative conotation... but I digress)There was a point awhile back after some wonderful fellowship and basking in the warm afterglow of it, the sense of the Lords Presence so remarkable,...Tired from the whirlwind weekend, many hours worked, flying back home with all the thoughts peaceably roaming about, praying and musing trying to read and yet drawn to look out on Gods creation...At one point I uttered, "Lord, what is it that you are doing?" The answer came so quickly; "I am reconciling the world to Myself" and the verse came to mind, 2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. To look back on it, the call and response, think it would have taken me by surprise if it wasn't for the sense of being so close to His thoughts in that wonderful moment, even that sounds more lofty than it should . It has obviously stayed all these many months since... Now what if I was to take that experience and begin to use it as part of my language, peppering it as a noun everywhere; "This and this and that are all part of the Lords reconciliation". It could be true in many instances and yet false in others, but that is rather irrelevant.Going on with this hypothetical, let's say I was to begin a ministry movement around this theme, this word. I put out the "Reconciliation Version" of the Bible, because that is what the Lord is doing, reconciling the world to Himself. I start up a new gathering and hedging on calling it a church because of all the confusion surrounding that word, decide that according to scripture I should propose that the gatherings be called "The church of____" as it is in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, the blank being filled in by whatever locality it is in. We too would accept anybody that believed on the Lord into 'our' midst and not be hard on those 'other denominations'...What have I now done? I can deny it forever that I am making a separation but as this goes on every time someone hears the the verbiage "The Lords reconciliation" what is the normal response going to be? Is it going to be "Oh yes, 2Co 5:19" or "Martyr Lee Balog" (Lee is my middle name), he has started this whole "reconciliation" business, has a "reconciliation version" of the Bible..."What's wrong with it? It is always going to be pointing back at one man no matter how hard I try to dissuade otherwise. But wouldn't the argument come that this is the same as the Methodist's, the Quakers or Friends, Baptists, Pentecostals and so on? I think the difference is these didn't go out of their way in doublespeak-ing if I may coin the term and whether they intended to or not, to have to be constantly explaining "We don't mean that" ought to be something to be wary of. The is a difference between having a label or a name attached and attempting to force a verb into acceptance by a constant appealing to it.There is no way of getting around the fact that "The local church" means according to Witness Lee and the "Lords recovery" the same. Every time it is uttered I do not think of "The Lord recovering what was lost" I think of one man, Witness Lee. Every time I hear the "local church" I am not drawn to the church sitting on the corner of 4Th and Main or a building that saints gather into (because the church is.....) I think of followers of Witness Lee because this is the verbiage they constantly use.So what?It's a distraction.It's divisive.It's deceptive, because by it's nature it has to be on the defensive and always explaining, always correcting, always having to provide definition of "what we are not saying".It detracts from the Lord Himself despite the contrary argument because by it's nature draws adherents to a man, Witness Lee and what he teaches and that makes it 'Cult-ish'. IF as it is postulated this is not true and they really believed all that they mean by excess definition, one would think either that they would leave well enough alone and accept the misconceptions or just go ahead and be another denomination, "Witnessleeist's" or "Recoverism", it is all this defining and dodging that is problematic and frankly dishonest.And to make matters worse, it is not that Witness Lee is so far from basic orthodoxy, or that there is some sinister motive, it is that it put's itself into a state of suspicion by the long lengths of explanation it has to go to, is always pointing back to a man for those same explanations and is an influence not towards the Lord, but to what the Lord is supposedly doing according to Witness Lee.And that by definition makes it a cult. It is in this subtlety that makes it dangerous even if the doctrine is above board. It is grievous in that I do not find you GraftedBranc to be mischievous or coming with an ulterior motive perhaps, your particular mannerisms didn't necessarily help with the hand grenades nor the presumptions or the constant "buts" due to your experience with this particular group that you want to add an addendum to a Sparks, a Tozer, a Ravenhill, a George Fox using the same doublespeak, applauding them but with the notion that they fall short of what Witness Lee taught. That IS the perception you are leaving regardless of what you might say otherwise.To reiterate, the opposite argument that we would be doing the same by "coming to defend" these past greats that have been so used of the Lord as mere men yet valiant soldiers filled with the Holy Spirit is only true in the legacy of what they left. And thankfully, this present generation that is in such need of a true expression of what this walk is all about, not what is being passed along to the masses in many a glossy, out of context, mixed up with the world kind of way.The great majority of speakers here are equally dead, equally similar with their bones buried and equally now present with the Lord. Oh to be where they are! This world is bent on cannibalizing itself and rebelling against the God that created their beautiful but despicable selves, that are neither thankful unless things go their particular way nor by and large all that concerned that they will meet the same fate that covers the coffins of everyone that has gone before them. Eternity is always another day, just not this one. The skewed logic and rationalizing, the spurious notions of what is characterized as an "easy-believism" or more sinister that somehow ones so called "good" will outweigh the bad, give way to pardon at the judgment and passage into the Lords Heaven.Paris Reidhead was exactingly right;And when I got to Africa, I discovered that they weren’t poor, ignorant, little heathen running around in the woods, waiting for, looking for someone to tell them how to go to Heaven. That they were a monsters of iniquity. They were living in utter and total defiance, of far more knowledge of God than I ever dreamed they had. They deserved hell because they utterly refused to walk in the light of their conscience and the light of the law written upon their heart and the testimony of nature and the truth they knew.The point is, none of these is above the other. Men. Creatures. You and I are no different. The beauty here is in different reflections and points of view of the same diamond and that diamond is Jesus. Anything that begins to detract from Him even if it purports to do just the opposite is going to fall under suspicion. It would be way out of bounds to begin to say that this is what anyone is truly after here, even with the whole of this Witness Lee 'teaching, verbiage' however you want to characterize it. But there is no escaping that you are bound up in it, it has it's own language and meaning and leader. Wouldn't it be an effort to now stop using this language? That which to an outsider is likely to be puzzling, how would one know what is meant by "The Lords recovery" that comes in here and reads what you write? Do you not see this? Nor care? There are a multitude of prying eye's that come here and never say a word, but they are reading it. Is it more important that your particular point of view is expressed than the Lord is glorified, the saints are edified and the prying eye's made to consider?Something that gets lost here often times is the wonder of appreciation that welcomes and allows the brethren to speak their hearts in this setting. We are guests and have been given a great privilege to be able to do so. For that and to just one saint, stirred by God to launch forth all that we have been freely given here. Think of it!All these past greats, what if there wasn't a Greg to have poured out his soul to give this out to the world again? I am becoming more and more convinced the Lord very well may have spoke through many of these men and women to this generation. Maybe it's overstating it, but is it not needed? This mere website has taught me more about the living God and Jesus Christ than I could ever imagine getting in a seminary and that is not a slight it is in this; The emphasis is to negate the word I just used, "about", it is not the mere head knowledge though it has to get to and through this thick skull at some point, it is in the heart, it is in the regions that defy explanation, it is to further along the ultimate and pearl of great price;Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.But to go beyond anything other than that, to make this more than what it is, to appeal to some kind of inclusive\\exclusive, particular mindset ... "It" has been called "Charismatic" or "Pentecostal" and tried to be described and labeled and it's just comical... Call it "old", call it perhaps even the appropriately titled "Old Paths" doubt one would find an argument there. If there was a mission that would be it, goodness you might even be able to use that word 'recovery' if it was stripped of it's attachments. There is something lost, the very history of the saints through the ages and the modernism of the world and "Christendom" so mixed together that to attempt to separate them is necessitated by division. How could it be otherwise? The path has become so broad to get back on to the narrow we have to turn around and figure out where it got off track.But for all that, to make this into anything other than what it is, to pit one against another, to push a particular teaching, an 'agenda' it is not. Surely the heartbeat was launched forth for a true and real revival, something not cooked up by mere mens imaginations, a program, a teaching a whatever. Something that God does, unmistakably Him and some are still praying for this and I will include myself on that list. It is not aimless but dependent on prayer and hopefully what the Lord would have to be done and to and for His glory and as a byproduct our understanding. I think I know this servant's heart from this short time here and it is a bit mysterious in the sense that I have had much more dialog with many that have come through here than with Greg himself. When we finally did meet up it was like I had know him since childhood in a way that just defies explanation. There used to be a bit of kidding around that a couple of fools are being used to produce all this here and saying that makes me squeamish, Greg is the one that is pouring his life out into all this, I am just the rambling rattle trap going off on tangents and hovering over this place like a mother hen praying for those that come through here and that all this might somehow be used to force some sanctified thought, some real contemplation...Why is that? Because it's precious and intangible and it most certainly is being used of the Lord. The responses that come on occasion are enough to just bring tears of joy and praise to God for the changes in perception, the gratitude of finding lost treasure, the camaraderie of "I am not alone in this searching for something genuine, honest and real in this confusion of what is now considered "Christianity"". Pardon my exuberance but I had to get this off my chest and it is now going on I don't know how many hours to get this all down. It is a mighty privilege and one that I do not take lightly, there is far too much at stake.I am very uncomfortable going beyond proper bounds and have a great deal of respect for anyone who has long tarried with the Lord. It is saints like this that give us all hope and prove out the endurance needed to truly walk through all that comes against one set aside for the Lords purposes. I have a great deal of impatience with a lack of respect for ones 'elders' regardless of the setting, when discussions turn from disagreements over doctrine, interpretation what have you and start in on personal slights, character assassinations, name calling, back-bitting etc. there will be some intervention from the mods. here. Just as well, the conduct and rudeness, high mindedness, the lack of consideration for others will always bring a swift response. Failings and clarifications, misunderstandings, admission and forgiveness ought to be forthcoming and are needed. We are all in this together if we are the Lords and should never lose sight of that fact.Forgive me, I am sure my emotions have gotten the better of me here and have failed in what I could only but hope was a better example of the concerns I have with this particular 'ministry' of Witness Lee and you GraftedBranc. I will not however stay silent to be 'nice' or accommodating when there is a sense of danger approaching, I may be off and overreacting and will gladly accept into consideration that which I may have misunderstood, it would be the same that I am asking here for you yourself to do with the questions asked so many paragraphs back.The more and longer I live, the more I find I don’t know.Leonard Ravenhill

Brothers, we need to come back to the simple revelation in the Word of God. 1 cor 1:2 To the Church of God which is in corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours.This the the word of God, It is Paul's word to the church In Corinth in a letter in which he is addressing the issue of divisions.Here in this one pregnant verse, is the reality of the church. It is OF God, It is in corinth and it is composed of all those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, Called Saints, who are together with all those who call on the Lord in every place.This verse is pregnant, it contains the essense and reality of the New Testament revelation of the nature, and the standing, the fellowship of the church.I suggest taking this verse and praying through it . Praying each point and calling on the Lord for revelation in it. It is full of revelation concerning the church, it's nature, its standing and it's fellowship.Then, 1 Thess. 1:1 Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; Grace to you and peace.IN this verse in 1 Thess we have a different emphasis. The church here is shown to be made up of the "thessalonians" who are "in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Here the composition of the Church is the Thessalonians and they are "IN God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The emphasis here is that all the believers who make up the church in Thessalonica are in the Triune God which corosponds with John 14: IN that day, you shall know that I am in My Father and you are in ME and I am in you..."When we lay aside our opinions and our strongly held beliefs, and come to the simple Word of God asking for light through His indwelling Life, It becomes very plain. Here is the nature and reality of the Church. Are we living it today in modern Christianity? No. But if any sees this reality and chooses to act accordingly, they are 'cultish and suspect" because they choose to follow the Lord in His Word and live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.Let everyone sit on the sidelines and scoff but 70 years history of taking this ground has born the fruit of the testimony of the Presence of God in the local churches. Graftedbranch

Brother, Judea if I am not mistaken is not a city but a region. Just as Galatia is not a city but a region and there were the "Churches of Galatia"My point was that the 'churches of Christ' could be considered together in a locality not that Judaea was a city. Although the population of Judaea would be far smaller than many of our modern cities.A local church is not a local "body". A local church is a local expression of the One body of Christ. This is crucial. Is this every local church or just the 'no label' local churches. You seem rather determined not to answer my questions about the status of any other group in a locality.I ought to make it plain that my own understanding of a local church would be very similar to your own with the exception of the Witness Lee stipulation that there can only be 'one body' in a city. In this he moved beyond the teaching embraced by many with a 'Brethren' persuasion of the 'local church'. If Laodicea and Colossae ever got together to worship God or to listen to travelling speakers, would that assembly have been two bodies or one body? Would it have been under 'one head'? If so would it not have constituted 'one body' for the duration of its meeting?The mistake that I see Witness Lee making is in defining 'local' and 'church' and then using that definition to determine whether or not a gathering is a local church or not. His definition of 'local' as 'city' breaks down immediately in the prospect of 'cities' of modern proportions. But his definition of 'local church' depends upon his definition of 'local'. He has invented a value for 'local' in his formula which he then used to determine the second unknown. This is not sensible thinking and is certainly not proven by the few references in the NT.I was asked recently 'how many people would be needed to constitute a 'local church'? My answer was based on the simple sense that 'ekklesia' as used in the NT (and in the Greek OT) is simply a 'covenant community' which has both a vertical and a horizontal dimension. Consequently my answer was '3' persons are necessary; a minimum of 2 human persons for the covenant to have a 'horizontal' dimension, and 1 divine person to fulfill the vertical dimension of that covenant.A local church is not a local "body". A local church is a local expression of the One body of Christ. This is crucial. How do you see the metaphor of 'body and members' in 1 Corinthians? In particular, what do you think Paul has in mind when he speaks of the 'one cup and one loaf' in 1 Cor 10:16ff? This is where he makes the statement that 'we are one loaf, one body: for we are all partakers of that 'one loaf'. Paul's earlier reference to 'leaven' within the assembly at Corinth surely wasn't suggesting that the whole 'church of Christ' was being polluted by the sin of one member in Corinth?

Is this every local church or just the 'no label' local churches. You seem rather determined not to answer my questions about the status of any other group in a locality.If Laodicea and Colossae ever got together to worship God or to listen to travelling speakers, would that assembly have been two bodies or one body? Would it have been under 'one head'? If so would it not have constituted 'one body' for the duration of its meeting?Brother. Witness Lee nor anyone in the "recovery' or any local church would make such an absured assertion. There is only one body in existance.There is not "only one body in any locality" there is no such thing as a "local body". This is the whole point.Christ has only One Body and it is inclusive of all believers everywhere and in every time. There is only one body of Christ. If you are a regenerated believer and you are meeting with "baptitist" you are still a member of the One body of Christ. YOu are just not acting like it because you are denominating yourself as a "baptist" church. John Bunyon, author of "Pilgrims Progress" the Puritan was a Baptist minister. Yet according to "a short history of the Baptist" He refused the title. He said, 'I am not a Baptist, I am a Christian" And he ministered to believers as Christians. He had a lot of light.But local churches are not local bodies but just expressions of the One body. If two churches come together for felloiwship, they are not two bodies but two local churches in the fellowship of the one body.Graftedbranch

The emphasis here is that all the believers who make up the church in Thessalonica are in the Triune God which corosponds with John 14: IN that day, you shall know that I am in My Father and you are in ME and I am in you..." Is this to imply that all 'Witness Lee' local churches are, without exception, without mixture? I am sure it is not, but what you are doing is imposing a revelation of the 'true church in Thessalonica' upon a single local gathering. The true church in one place is constituted in those who are Christ's in that one place. There IS 'one church' in Thessalonica, Rome, London etc. but that 'one church' cannot be identified with a single gathering of believers.'the church in Jerusalem' was numbered at several thousand by the time we get to Acts 2:41; 4:4. Do you see this vast gathering meeting together as 'one local church' under the care of its single oversight after the manner of 1 Corinthians? How would the wonderful injunction of... “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” (1Cor. 14:30, KJVS)...have operated in a gathering of 8000+? Do you think that the 'church' that gathered in the home of Priscilla and Aquila in Rome was the only such gathering in a city of 250,000. (Rom 16:4,5) What size house did they have? If Paul was referring to a different gathering in 1 Cor 16:19, does this also mean that at that time too the only local church in that city was the one that gathered in the home of Priscilla and Aquila? Did the entire church at Colossae meet in the home of Nymphas? (Col 4:15) Where did Philemon live? Was the church which gathered in the home of Archippus (apparently in the same locallity) the only such gathering in that locality? (Phile 1:2) These fascinating glimpses into the lives and witness of the early Christians just do not fit into the Witness Lee 'local church' hypothesis.

Again: the simple Word of God:Ephesians 4:3-6 Being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body, one Spirit, even as also you were called in one hope of your calling: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all._______________________________________________________________________Here there is One body. Period. there are not thousands of "local bodies" there is no such thing as the body of Peter, or of James, or of John or of Paul. There is only one body.The Local churches recognize this and meet simply as the local expression of the one body. It is inclusive of all believers and we just meet as the church in our city. If others of the body of Christ see this and choose to take this ground, Amen. If they don't then they can remain where they are and they live unto the Lord who redeemed them.But because we see the reality of the One Body and choose to take this ground and maintain this position, does not make us "cultish" it makes us scriptural. If you see it, Amen, If not, well, then you don't. But it is clear in the Word and the denominations are not being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. Rather they meet according to their peculiar doctrine and teaching and person and not as the all inclusive church in their locality.If you see this. Amen. If not, well. You don't see the revelation in the Scritpures. I say this not in a haughty way but just in the way of truth. Those in Islam do not see that Christ is the Way, the truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by HIm. This does not make us as Chriatian believers haughty or proud, but we just act and Live and believe according to God's mercy and the Christ He has revealed to us. We take the way of Christ. And those of us who have seen in the revelation of the New Testament the reality of the One body of Christ and choose to meet in this Light, then we do. We are not haughty because of it. We just seek to follow the Lord according to the Light we have received. If others feel "put out by it" then they do. But if they turn to the Lord and seek His face and are open to His light in the Scritpures. they too will be brought into the same Light because it is available to all. We are not special. The Lord is not a "respector of Persons" And the Light we have is the Light for all believers.Graftedbranch

The Local churches recognize this and meet simply as the local expression of the one body. It is inclusive of all believers and we just meet as the church in our city. If others of the body of Christ see this and choose to take this ground, Amen. If they don't then they can remain where they are and they live unto the Lord who redeemed them.but are they then to be regarded as genuine 'manifestations of the body of Christ' or is this only for those who have 'seen the light'? Are they or are they not, local churches?

But it is clear in the Word and the denominations are not being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. Rather they meet according to their peculiar doctrine and teaching and person and not as the all inclusive church in their locality. With all due respect, I minister to several different denominations, all of these meet "in the name of Jesus Christ " and thier desire is to not only glorify God but to grow in the knowledge and grace of our Lord and savior. These folks could stay home in bed but they make the effort to come together as a body of believers to see Jesus. In all my years I can't ever recall hearing of christian people who gathering to exalt thier beliefs in thier church denomination and its creed. I'll write more but I'm late for an engagement. God Bless

but are they then to be regarded as genuine 'manifestations of the body of Christ' or is this only for those who have 'seen the light'? Are they or are they not, local churches?Are only those Christians who have genuinly seen the Light of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ and believed into Him calling on His Name genuine Christians? Yes. They are the only ones.Are only those who through the Spirit's illumination in HIs Word, have seen the Reality of the Body of Christ, ceased to denominate themselves and follow the Lord according to the Divine Revelation in the Bible the only ones who are on the genuine ground of the church? Yes. Does this mean others are not Christians? No. Does this mean God is not using them? No. God uses them and people are saved. But God is not obtaining His ultimate goal in the denominations. That is He is not gaining a Visible expression of the Oneness which exists in the Godhead and in the Members of the Body of Christ who are in God the Father and the Lord Jesus christ.God can only obtain this through revelation and our embracing the revelation and our entering into His purpose as revealed in Scripture. "That they be one as You are in Me and I in YOu, that they may be in US that the World may know that you have sent me.The Lord Jesus prayed "that they be One... That the world may know...If there is no visible expression, how can this be a testimony to the world? The World looks at all the "Churches" in a town and says. "why are their so many denominations. Christians don't agree. They must not know anything.I lived for 3 years in a small town in Georgia. In this little town there was,1st Baptist Church2nd Baptist ChurchMacedonia Baptist ChurchBible Baptist ChurchThe Methodist ChurchThe Presbaterian ChurchTHe Cahtolic ChurchJoshua's Place, a Perfect Church for Imperfect PeopleThe Deliverance ChurchThe Church of Biblical TeachesThe First Church of GodCalvery Church of GodAnd pretty much all were along side the same main street whith a couple of exceptions.Now, I somehow find it difficult to see, "the Unity of the Spirit and the uniting bond of peace.Did those who attended one assembly regard those others as "brothers and sisters?' Did they greet them in this way? NoDo the various "Pastors" compete with one another for growth and such? Yes they do. They are very competitive.This is not a manifetation of the One Body of Christ. This is a manifestation of the divisions which divide modern Christianity and a lack of the unity of the Spirit and the uniting bond of peace. One says "I am of Paul. another, I of Apollos" Another, We speak in tongs, Another "We don't speak in tongues" another, "we believe in predestination, Another, we beiever in free will and second blessing. And on it goes and they meet around these peculiar things, not around the crucified and risen Living Lord Jesus Christ who is All and in All.Graftedbranch

Am really trying to understand this but something keeps coming up in contradiction:Philologos:The mistake that I see Witness Lee making is in defining 'local' and 'church' and then using that definition to determine whether or not a gathering is a local church or not. His definition of 'local' as 'city' breaks down immediately in the prospect of 'cities' of modern proportions. But his definition of 'local church' depends upon his definition of 'local'. He has invented a value for 'local' in his formula which he then used to determine the second unknown. This is not sensible thinking and is certainly not proven by the few references in the NT.GraftedBranc:When we lay aside our opinions and our strongly held beliefs, and come to the simple Word of God asking for light through His indwelling Life, It becomes very plain. Here is the nature and reality of the Church. Are we living it today in modern Christianity? No. But if any sees this reality and chooses to act accordingly, they are 'cultish and suspect" because they choose to follow the Lord in His Word and live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.Who is "they" and everybody else is? Who?Let everyone sit on the sidelines and scoff but 70 years history of taking this ground has born the fruit of the testimony of the Presence of God in the local churches.Which 70 years are you referring to? Is it not to what was established by Witness Lee? And to these "local churches"? If you see it, Amen, If not, well, then you don't. But it is clear in the Word and the denominations are not being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. Rather they meet according to their peculiar doctrine and teaching and person and not as the all inclusive church in their locality.If you see this. Amen. If not, well. You don't see the revelation in the Scritpures. I say this not in a haughty way but just in the way of truth. Those in Islam do not see that Christ is the Way, the truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but by HIm. This does not make us as Chriatian believers haughty or proud, but we just act and Live and believe according to God's mercy and the Christ He has revealed to us. We take the way of Christ. And this is different than all the aforementioned churches you outlined above?Did those who attended one assembly regard those others as "brothers and sisters?' Did they greet them in this way? NoExclusively? Can you prove this? Speculation? Granted to say this doesn't go on would be ridiculous, not trying to be unduly picky here...Do the various "Pastors" compete with one another for growth and such? Yes they do. They are very competitive. Again, the same sentiments.This is not a manifetation of the One Body of Christ. This is a manifestation of the divisions which divide modern Christianity and a lack of the unity of the Spirit and the uniting bond of peace. One says "I am of Paul. another, I of Apollos" Another, We speak in tongs, Another "We don't speak in tongues" another, "we believe in predestination, Another, we beiever in free will and second blessing. And on it goes and they meet around these peculiar things, not around the crucified and risen Living Lord Jesus Christ who is All and in All.I am in agreement of the way that great adopted Grand dad put it, "Abominations, uh I mean denominations" (Ravenhill) But at the same time it is going to be an impossibility that even "non-denominational" efforts have proven faulty and I think the point here is that the We\\They constructs that are emboldened in those out takes are showing the exact same thing that you are having issues with. It is to say that we (Christians) are to be One Body, granted. But it is still according to what we define that as and the "we" that you keep referring to is the "we" of the "recovery" and "the local churches" as defined by Witness Lee, is it not?And that is not a separatist agenda, that is not different than what the Jehovah's Witness's do?The difficulty here is in definition partially.Again while I would agree that there is far too much unnecessary division and the whole 'inclusive\\exclusive' absurdity, this does come to mind:1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. IF and that being a big IF we understood better what we ought and where I am in wholehearted agreement with you and what the Lord stated and here I might interject a curiousness as well;Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Interesting that Jesus said may as if none of this was not to be expected.Going back to the IF, what IF these particular 'denominations' were only emphasizing certain aspects that we all could be encouraged by? Different expressions and appreciations for certain attributes of The Most High God? This does happen almost by accident if we could get past some of the dogma (and yes, much it needs to go obviously). I am not in any shape or form thinking of some kind of patchwork Theology, Bereans we must be. But what of the expressions of the church in other lands than we are accustomed to? Beyond the two main participants here even primarily the "West" and China? Different language and culture, what of their particular churches that are within some kind of close proximity where they get together to have fellowship and prayer and meet and worship? (local has become too confusing here)The comparison is to this place right here. If one was to take a scalpel to it you could dissect it for days on end, the labels would be flying (and they do anyway)... But there is much to glean from all these different perspectives, without having to "hold" to any particular dogmatic interpretation that is beyond the fixed essentials that one would likely find in just about every 'denomination' that you listed at the beginning here. Have found it quite interesting that what might be expected in a misconstrued kind of way of "opening one's mind" to past Christian thought and through the very history thereof is vastly different than to "opening one's mind" to the mixing of the worlds philosophy and it's intrusion or the modernism of Christendom today's acceptance of humanism and compromise. It has helped greatly to narrow in one sense what is of import. What has been carried on through since the days of the disciples? How is it that one can read something from the 700's the 1800's and maybe even up to 1950 :-) and it is as 'new' as the latest best seller? (That's a problematic analogy ... "fresh" might be a better word). The scriptures themselves, living and breathing, but what I would note is the thread woven throughout Christian history, it's detectable in those regions of the spirit, that unspoken agreement... The Holy Spirit perhaps?One last thing about divisions or maybe 'differences'.The churches addressed (and undressed) by Jesus in the Book of Revelation. What does that say about them being particularly "the same"? Maybe we aren't supposed to all be on the same exact page at the same time after all...

The Lord Jesus prayed "that they be One... That the world may know...If there is no visible expression, how can this be a testimony to the world? The World looks at all the "Churches" in a town and says. "why are their so many denominations. Christians don't agree. They must not know anything.Didn't you miss a rather important bit? John 17:11 (KJVS) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. John 17:22 (KJVS) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: This was not prayer for 'a visible expression' of unity, unless you see the incarnation of the Son as a 'visible expression' of the oneness of the Godhead. If some other postings are any guide many see Christ's 'expression' of His Father as very confusing. It was a oneness of Spirit which is what Paul says God's people already have“using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:3, DRBY) This is not the creating but the maintaining of an 'invisible unity'.I lived for 3 years in a small town in Georgia. In this little town there was,1st Baptist Church2nd Baptist ChurchMacedonia Baptist ChurchBible Baptist ChurchThe Methodist ChurchThe Presbaterian ChurchTHe Cahtolic ChurchJoshua's Place, a Perfect Church for Imperfect PeopleThe Deliverance ChurchThe Church of Biblical TeachesThe First Church of GodCalvery Church of GodAnd pretty much all were along side the same main street whith a couple of exceptions.Now, I somehow find it difficult to see, "the Unity of the Spirit and the uniting bond of peace. And you think that the arrival of another group regarding themselves as the only genuine manifestation of the Body of Christ in town will reduce the potential confusion? :-?

And you think that the arrival of another group regarding themselves as the only genuine manifestation of the Body of Christ in town will reduce the potential confusion? I think the arival of Light in the Scriptures, the seeing by the Spirit of the organic nature of the body of Christ, and the obediance of the heart yeilded to Him brings about what you find in the recovery. that is a return to the ground of oneness and the ground of the church as revealed in the New Testament and testified to by the indwelling Spirit of the One Christ.We may not be any better in our condition than any other. But we are on the right ground. That is the ground of the Oneness of all the Body.When the Children of Isreal returned to Jeruselem to rebuild the temple and the wall of Jeruslem, they were not all so "spiritual". But they were building on the right ground. God eventually raised up Ezra, the "priestly scribe" to teach the Scriptures and to interprete them to them and give them the "proper sense".Brother, we take this ground, If you don't see, it then you don't see it. But we see it and we stand on it. And we are building up the body of Christ as local churches on this ground. And just as Isreal had to build with a shovel in one hand and a sword in the other, so too we build as opposition is fierce.If others are offended by it, that is their difficulty. We choose to follow the Lord according to the Light we have recieved from Him in His Word. And we will continue and the Lord today has established over 3000 local churches around the World. with 300 in the US. We meet as the church in our city. We enjoy the Reality of Christ in our meetings. We grow, we testify of this wonderful Christ who is our all in all. If others have a problem with this, then they may need to search their own hearts to see what it is they find so objectionable.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.Graftedbranch

We meet as the church in our city. We enjoy the Reality of Christ in our meetings. We grow, we testify of this wonderful Christ who is our all in all.We would give the same testimony although I don't know how the local 'Witness Lee' meeting would regard us.If other have a proble with this, then they may need to search their own hearts to see what it is they find so objecttionable.What is 'objectionable' is the refusal to acknowledge other gatherings of God's people as 'local churches'.In his comments of Romans, Witness Lee writes Rom 1:3ffIn the Bible 'flesh' is nota postive word. Nevertheless, the Bible declares that the Word became flesh;according to the flesh He became the seed of a man...Before His incarnation Christ, the divine One, already was the Son of God (John 1:18; Rom 8:3) By incarnation He put on an element, the human flesh, which had nothing to do with divinity; that part of Him needed to be sanctified and uplifted by passing through death and resurrection. By resurrection His human nature was sanctified, uplifted and transformed. Hence, by resurrection He was designated the Son of God with his humanity...The concept of 'putting on an element' is disturbing. Did he 'become flesh' or did He 'put on an element'? Did He add humanity to godhead or did He become human?What does 'part of Him needed to be sanctified' mean in this context?

The concept of 'putting on an element' is disturbingI would also be concerned by the concept that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same person, while at the same time three persons. The so called 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 view.

Did He add humanity to godhead or did He become human?Christ's incarnation is God comming into Humanity and becomming one with it. Resurrection is Christ bringing humanity into God. In Resurrection Chris'ts humanity was glorified and trasfigured and uplifted. And In Ascension His humanity was exalted to the throne of God. Christ's humanity is derived from Mary, his mother, His Divinity as the Eternal Son of God is derived from His Father.Christ has a dual nature, He is God and He is Man, He did not cease to be God by becomming man. But this Eternal God put on Humanity. The Creator put on created humanity. Christ is both the Creator and the Creature, He is "God manifest in the flesh.Graftedbranch

I would also be concerned by the concept that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same person, while at the same time three persons. The so called 1 in 3 and 3 in 1 view.I would be more concerned about those who hold a trithiestic view of God as though they are three separate God's. There is only One god and God is triune.The Father, the Son and the spirit exist eternally distinct in all conditions and in all times. There is no sequence of being. They are eternally Distinct.At the same time they co-inherre mutually indwleling one another and they share One Essense, One Life, one substance. They are One God and the three though distinct are never separate. When you have ONe you have the Others.The Bible says the Holy Spirit is in you, The Bible salso says that "Christ is in you" The Bible also says the Father is in you. How many God's are in you? One God or three? Graftedbranch

At the same time they co-inherre mutually indwleling one another and they share One Essense, One Life, one substance. They are One God and the three though distinct are never separate. When you have ONe you have the Others.I understand this, but are you suggesting that they are one person or three persons within the Godhead or both?

I understand this, but are you suggesting that they are one person or three persons within the Godhead or both?Brother, They are One God. the word "Person" is a faulty term. The great theologins like Calvin liked the word, "hypostasis" disliking the word, "Person". but in the sense of the Triniy they are three "Persons" because they each posess self awareness and exist in a relationship to the other two. But at the same time they are One God with One Life and one essense. The Son eternally proceeds from the Father and the Spirit is the outflow or tranmission of the Godhead to us.The Godhead is a mysteryGraftedbranch

The great theologins like Calvin like the word, "hypostasis" disliking the word, "Person". Yes. I was just concerned that some can get confused as in our other discussions on Godhead and not make the distinction. I do agree that this is a mystery. I have read Witness Lee's views and was concerned that there was a greater than normal stress on the 3 in 1 aspect as to cause some to accuse him of modalism. I am not going to say that, but I know that his view is admittedly unorthodox.

I can only repeat my question:The concept of 'putting on an element' is disturbing. Did he 'become flesh' or did He 'put on an element'? Did He add humanity to godhead or did He become human?What does 'part of Him needed to be sanctified' mean in this context?

The concept of 'putting on an element' is disturbing.Brother,It seems that it is the use of the word "element' that is disturbing to you. To say Christ who already had the "element of Divinity' and "put on the Element of humanity in incarnation" is no different from saying, Christ, who already had the Divine Nature, in incarnation "put on human nature".We may say that in Christ there are two essential elements. The Element of Divinity, that is His Eternal Divine Nature, and the element of humanity, that is His created human nature. Both of these elements make up the One Christ who is One Person both Divine and human.It is one and the same, only looking at it from a lttile different angle. By using the word "element" brother Lee is emphasising the intrinsic substance as opposed to the 'inate charescteristic" of that substance. To use the word element is simply to focus in on the substance rather than attributes of the substance.For instance if we take the word, "Eternal Life" we could say that from a "charecteristic point of view" it is a life which is 'endless" in duration. But from an elemental point of view we would say that Eternal Life is the very Life of God Himself which is eternal in nature. It is incorruptable and immutable in its element. And so when we believe into Christ we do not just recieve a promise of endless existance in a place called heaven, we recieve the Very Life of God Himself in Christ which is eternal in its nature and element. 1 John 5:11,12 says, God has given to us Eternal Life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the LIfe; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the Life." Peter emphasise this in saying that through the precious promises "we have been made partakers of the Divine Nature".I might add that in taking on human nature he did not cease to be God but His Divininity was concealed and confined in His humanity (only briefly revealed on the mnt of Transfiguration). His divnity was released in His death and in resurrectin His humanity was glorified and permeated by the Divine Nature as Paul says in Romans 1:3,4; "concerning His Son, who came out of the Seed of David according to the flesh, Who was designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of Holiness out of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord"In Chirst's Divine Nature, He was incorruptable, immutable, and eternal. But in His humanity He grew and changed, He was limited in space and time, He was hungry, He was tired, He was thirsty, He had all the qualities of Created humanity, He was even subject to death (Phil. 2:8) and He died in HIs humanity.In Resurrection His humanity was uplifted and glorified by "the power of an endless Life",and He became in resurrection, the First Born Son of God from among the dead. That is the First among many brothers who were to follow. That is us who partake of Him and become sons of God through Him, with His Life and nature.If there is some scriptural basis for believeing this to be somehow "unorthodox" then please show me. But if you are just "unconfortable" with the use of a word. Perhaps it is just because you are not familiar with the way it is being used.Graftedbranch

It seems that it is the use of the word "element' that is disturbing to you. To say Christ who already had the "element of Divinity' and "put on the Element of humanity in incarnation" is no different from saying, Christ, who already had the Divine Nature, in incarnation "put on human nature".But does Witness Lee believe that Christ 'put off' divinity as an element? (I know he doesn't, I am just trying to illustrate the point) It is the idea of 'putting on' which is disturbing me. Did Christ 'put on human nature' or did he 'become flesh'? Anything that one 'puts on' he can 'put off', but if one 'becomes flesh' this is a permanent change.In Chirst's Divine Nature, He was incorruptable, immutable, and eternal. But in His humanity He grew and changed, He was limited in space and time, He was hungry, He was tired, He was thirsty, He had all the qualities of Created humanity, He was even subject to death (Phil. 2:8) and He died in HIs humanity.In the words of Witness Lee what aspect of this would need 'sanctification'? Lee says that 'flesh' is not a positive word in the NT and that Christ put on the element of 'human flesh' and then 'that part of him needed to be sanctified...'. What does 'sanctified' mean in this context?

In the words of Witness Lee what aspect of this would need 'sanctification'? Lee says that 'flesh' is not a positive word in the NT and that Christ put on the element of 'human flesh' and then 'that part of him needed to be sanctified...'. What does 'sanctified' mean in this context?John 17:19 "And for their sake I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth."2 Thess. 2:13,14 But we ought to thank God always concerning you brothers beloved of the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. To which also He called you through our gospel unto the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ". Brother Lee makes it clear that in taking on human flesh, Christ was "without sin" God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the rightousness of God in HIm"'And in reference to Christ (if you read the footnotes in John 3), As the Type of the Bronze Serpent, which was "in the likeness of the Serpent, but not the Serpent," so Christ came "in the Likeness of the flesh of Sin' but without sin.But Christ as the "Last Adam" was born into the Old Creation. And on the Cross He terminated in HImself the Old Creation. And in Resurrection He brought into being the New Creation.In Resurrection, Christ's dead humanity was saturated with the Divine Nature. It was "sanctified and uplifted" from that of the common "old creation" to be permeated with the Divine Life and Divine Element. His humanity was "sanctified" that is set apart and uplifted into the Divine Glory.Just a note to consider. Even in our own experience, our salvation which is in Sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13,14) Is not just from sin, it is also from what is natural and common. That is the Spirit separates us from that which is sinful (becasue we are sinners) and also that which is natural (because we are also natural). Our sanctification is also from touching death.And in the same way as Christ. Romans 8:11 says: "And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." When our Lord's body was "sanctified and uplifted in resurrection" it does not imply it was sanctified from sin, but from being natural, of the old creation and it was brought into resurrection as the Seed of the New Creation.That the Lord was sanctified is evident in John 17:19 "And for their sake I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.I can testify that the Christology of brother Lee is impecible. And I have studied the scriptures, church history, the Church fathers and the great theologins for 30 years. I can say that the Christology in the recovery is the highest I have encountered anywhere.Graftedbranch

Graftedbranch,Two words: SPELL CHECK

But Christ as the "Last Adam" was born into the Old Creation. And on the Cross He terminated in HImself the Old Creation. And in Resurrection He brought into being the New Creation.I am uncomfortable with this. It may just be the way that Witness Lee is expressing it, but the 'Old Creation' is under a curse and Christ was certainly not born 'under a curse'. It was not the 'Old Creation' he terminated at the Cross but the 'Old Man' which is corporate humanity under the wrong head. This is frequently what happens when we invent new terms rather than trying to define those already given to us in the scripture. The 'Old Creation' will be 'terminated' by fire.The 'sanctifying' or 'setting apart' of John 17 has nothing to do with separation from weak or 'negative' elements but has reference to Christ's High Priestly role to which He consecrated Himself at this time. “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” (John 17:19, KJVS) His 'sanctification' was not from any 'negative element' but on behalf of his own. Christ's humanity/flesh was not a 'negative element'.You say that Witness Lee's 'Christology is impeccable'. Of course, your own Christology would have to be 'impeccable' before I could receive such a testimony.;-) My 'being disturbed' with Witness Lee's comments arises from several red lights present in my own understanding (for which I do not claim impeccability). These red lights flicker when a theology gets close to a heresy. One of them is 'attached' to my understanding of human nature, what happened to it, and the way in which Christ assumed human nature through virgin birth. The Greeks as you know deeply distrusted the 'material world' and their distrusts were expressed in those who taught that the physical world had been created by an 'inferior' god. The body, in particular, was regarded as a prison from which death released the soul. This may be one of the reasons why Paul's preaching on physical resurrection met such a response as we find in Acts 17; for those Athenians the retrieval/resurrection of the body was a backwards step.Notions of the 'body' being a prison are evident in early Christian writing, including those of that 'nuisance' Ignatius who longed for the wild beasts of the arena to 'grind the wheat of his body to liberate the true bread'. Coming more to our present day, Oswald Chambers claimed that it was the unique glory of the human race that we were designed to be thoroughly at home in both the physical and the spiritual world. Man's body was thus a unique glory. I am of Chamber's persuasion here. I sense in the incarnation personal testimony "a body hast thou prepared me" nothing which will require 'sanctifying' in a purging sense. Any indication in a theology that the 'flesh' requires 'purging' in a physical, humanity, sense will start my red light flashing.Jesus of Nazareth was conceived and born 'holy'. “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35, KJVS) He was 'holy' from the first. However, “But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.” (Psa. 4:3, KJVS) and a holy person can be 'set apart' for a specific favour or task. Our sense of propriety may be slightly offended at the description of Jesus as a 'holy thing' but it is a perfect designation nevertheless. This being who became flesh in a virgin's womb was 'holy' was start to finish.Witness Lee states that 'By incarnation he brought God into man, by resurrection He brought man into God'. This is a great sound bite but he continues 'He brought His humanity into the divine sonship. In this way the only begotten Son of God was made the firstborn Son of God, possessing both divinity and humanity.' You say that Witness Lee's 'christology is impeccable' but I begin to wonder in the light of this comment. If Christ's bringing of 'humanity into divinity' does not occur until His resurrection what does that say of the incarnate Word made flesh during 'the days of his flesh' (Heb 5:7)? Jesus' testimony during the 'days of his flesh' was not only that 'the Father is in me' but also that 'I am in my Father'. The union of God and man, and man and God, takes place at incarnation. He is, during the days of His flesh', the Son -of God and of man.

Two words: SPELL CHECKHere is a great little tool that is helpful for everyone;http://www.iespell.com/

I am uncomfortable with this. It may just be the way that Witness Lee is expressing it, but the 'Old Creation' is under a curse and Christ was certainly not born 'under a curse'. It was not the 'Old Creation' he terminated at the Cross but the 'Old Man' which is corporate humanity under the wrong head.Colossians 1:19,20 For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having make peace through the blood of His cross-through Him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.2 Corinthians 5:17 "So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation. The old things have passed away, behold, they have become new."Romans 8:20-23 For the creation itself was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, In hope that the creation itself will also be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now. And not only so, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, eagerly awaiting the sonship, the redemption of our body.Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away."The term "New Creation" is not a term coined by Witness Lee. It's origins are in the New Testament. And "New Creation" implies an "old creation".Adam was of the Old creation. Christ in resurrection is the Fistborn of the New Creation. eventually on the basis of Christ's redemption who, "reconciled all things to Himself, having make peace through the blood of His cross-through Him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens" We will have at the consumation of the ages a "new heavens and a new earth". And all of us who have partaken of Christ and are now of the New Creation will constitute the New Jeruselem.Today our bodies have yet to be "redeemed" according to Romans 8:23, at least not in it's application. Our spirit has been regenerated, our mind is being renewed by the Spirit and our bodies will one day be "redeemed" transfigured, and glorified. But for this event, even though we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we await.In romans 7:24 Paul says, "Wreched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death..." ANd in Galatians he tells us that, "if by the Spirit you do put to death the deeds of the body you shall live. The Body has it's deeds. It's deeds are to be "put to death by the Spirit. If our bodies were not fallen and still corrupted, we would have no need to "by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body".This body today is a body of death. It is also a "body of sin" Romans 6:11. With all due respect to Oswell Chambers, Our bodies today are not as God created them. They were poisened by the venom of the Serpant through the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. Our bodies are the "seat of sin" or the principle of sin is in our flesh. Mater as created mater is not evil as the Greeks suggest. But the creation created by God is today fallen and enslaved and corrupted. Our bodies are not yet in the enjoyment of Christ's reconciliation and today our bodies are the seat of our sinful passions and it wars agaist the indwelling Spirit.To try to infer that a "negative view of the flesh" is somhow related to Greek mythology is to ignore both the fall and the record of scripture concerning the nature of our fallen flesh and the fact that our bodies are not yet "freed from slavery to corruption"Graftedbranch

The term "New Creation" is not a term coined by Witness Lee. It's origins are in the New Testament. And "New Creation" implies an "old creation". Indeed it does. I am not objecting to the concept of an Old Creation, I am objecting to the teaching that Christ was part of it until His resurrection, which is what I understand Witness Lee is teaching.Today our bodies have yet to be "redeemed" according to Romans 8:23, at least not in it's application. Our spirit has been regenerated, our mind is being renewed by the Spirit and our bodies will one day be "redeemed" transfigured, and glorified. But for this event, even though we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we await.So are you saying that, to use the language of this passage, Christ needed to be delivered from the bondage of corruption? “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Rom. 8:20-21, KJVS)With all due respect to Oswell Chambers, Our bodies today are not as God created them. They were poisened by the venom of the Serpant through the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. Our bodies are the "seat of sin" or the principle of sin is in our flesh. Are you saying that Christ's body was 'poisoned by that venom' and as such was a 'seat of sin'?To try to infer that a "negative view of the flesh" is somhow related to Greek mythology is to ignore both the fall and the record of scripture concerning the nature of our fallen flesh and the fact that our bodies are not yet "freed from slavery to corruption"So are you saying that Christ's body was in 'slavery to corruption'?

Are you saying that Christ's body was 'poisoned by that venom' and as such was a 'seat of sin'?Christ came in the "likeness of the flesh of sin' but without sin.I don't understand the metaphysics or genetics of it, Christ was indeed part of the old creation but did not have the corruption and sin of the old creation which came in through the fall. Christ was born of a Virgin. She was of the old creation. But Christ was without the sin of the Old creation. I can only deduce and speculate that the fallen corrupted nature is transmitted through the man, not the woman. "In the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under law that He might redeem them which were under law".If Christ were not 'born under Law, he could not have redeemed them who were under law. If Christ were not part of the "old creation" he could not have redeemed them whcih were of the Old creation.Adam before the fall was of the Old creation. But he was not fallen and his flesh was not corrupted. But he was of the Old (origional) creation. It is therfore possible to be of the old creation and not have the fallen nature of the present "old creation.Christ as the Last Adam was of the Old creation but without its corruption. But in terminating in Himself vicariously the "Old creation" he terminated the realm and sphere in which the corruption exists. The New Creation is brought into being in Christ's resurrection. IN the New creation there is no corruption, Satan has no authority, and God is in the New Creation. The realm of Satan's power is destroyed, and the realm where the corruption of sin reigns is terminated in Christ vicariously.Again, in John 3 we have the Type of the Brazen Serpent which Moses held up and the children of Isreal who were bitten by the serpents and were dying, "looked upon it and lived" In the Same way Christ said, "Just as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whosoever believes into him might not perish but have eternal Life.The Brazen Serpent was in the likenss of the Serpent. And Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin. But without it's poisen.Graftedbranch

If Christ were not 'born under Law, he could not have redeemed them who were under law. If Christ were not part of the "old creation" he could not have redeemed them whcih were of the Old creation.Those who were 'under law' were only a subset of the Old Creation.Adam before the fall was of the Old creation. But he was not fallen and his flesh was not corrupted. But he was of the Old (origional) creation. It is therfore possible to be of the old creation and not have the fallen nature of the present "old creation.So you are saying that Christ was born in an Adamic state, prior to Adam's disobedience? Did the 'negative element' of the flesh exist in Adam prior to his sin? If so ought Adam to have 'sanctified' it?The New Creation is brought into being in Christ's resurrection. IN the New creation there is no corruption, Satan has no authority, and God is in the New Creation. The realm of Satan's power is destroyed, and the realm where the corruption of sin reigns is terminated in Christ vicariously.I do not believe that the New Creation was brought into being in Christ's resurrection. Christ in His person, not through his history, was the Beginning of the New Creation. His death opened up the way for a New Covenant, His Resurrection proved that His work was accepted with God, and we become part of the New Creation by regeneration.I think I see what Witness Lee is trying to do, but I think he has opted for the wrong event. My understanding is that Jesus of Nazareth was 'shielded' from all Adamic contagion, not by virtue of the absence of the male link but by God's action or simply that the transmission of 'original sin' does not take place in this manner. Older Bible students have often used the idea of 'shielding' as quoted “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.” (Psa. 139:13, KJVS) However, he was not 'shielded' from Adam's humanity. In this sense He was the second man and the last Adam. He did come then, in the words of that carefully framed sentence, "in the likeness of sinful flesh". Not in "sinful flesh" as that would have meant that his body would have 'seen corruption' during the burial period; the 'sinfulness' of man having affected his body. Not in the "likeness" of flesh as that would be Docetism or the teaching that Christ was not genuinely human but only 'appeared' so. In this condition Jesus of Nazareth shared the 'weakness' of the human condition but without its Adamic damage.When, then, was the final 'identification' with the human race as it then stood accomplished. The language of baptism is used in Romans 6 to illustrate 'union'. Cloth 'baptized' into purple die united the die with the cloth and the two became one. Christ spoke on more than one occasion of 'a baptism'. (Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50) It was clearly his death on the cross that was in mind. If his calvary death was a baptism, into what was he so baptized? I see the answer in...“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2Cor. 5:21, KJVS)This is where He 'became' the 'serpent lifted up' of John 3. I dare go no further. God drew a veil of absolute darkness over the event, but we hear the cry 'My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me'? Surely it is not insignificant that Psalm 22 provides an answer to this question; “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.” (Psa. 22:1-3, KJVS) The God who is Holy and the Saviour who has 'been made sin' are separated here. The final union and identification with what the race had become was effected here, not at the incarnation and not at the resurrection.The Old Man was co-crucified together with Him so that the Body of Death might be 'made inoperative', so that we should no longer serve as Sin's slaves. Even in death His body suffered no corruption; Sin's power was broken. God's approval and confirmation that the cross-work had been completed was evidenced in Christ's resurrection. The New Man who became the Old Man has stripped it off and stands forth again as the New Man. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:” (Col. 2:11, KJVS) The phrase 'putting off' is actually a noun. and is derived from the verb used later in Colossians;Col. 2:11 (YNG) in whom also ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh in the circumcision of the Christ, (literally, "the stripping off"RB)Col. 2:15 (YNG) having stripped the principalities and the authorities, he made a shew of them openly — having triumphed over them in it. Col. 3:9 (YNG) Lie not one to another, having put off the old man with his practices,(literally: 'having stripped off") This work was all 'cross-work'. It was while he was upon 'the horns of the wild ox' that 'he was heard'. (Ps 22:21)He was raised as God's demonstration that the work was done. Witness Lee wants to make this moment the origin of the New Creation; I think he is wrong. On the cross Christ was united with us; in regeneration we are united with Him. He was baptized into our condition and we are baptized into His. The 'new man' appeared in the incarnation and we are to be joined to Him in regeneration and so become those who put on the New Man. The resurrection Christ was not the beginning of the New but the triumph of the New having embraced and emerged victorious over all the consequences of the Old.

Witness Lee wants to make this moment the origin of the New Creation; I think he is wrong. On the cross Christ was united with us; in regeneration we are united with Him. He was baptized into our condition and we are baptized into His. The 'new man' appeared in the incarnation and we are to be joined to Him in regeneration and so become those who put on the New Man. The resurrection Christ was not the beginning of the New but the triumph of the New having embraced and emerged victorious over all the consequences of the Old.This is interesting and not far from the interpretation of Brother Lee and Watchman Nee. It is not a matter of if but when that is in question.But what it comes down to is the Cross as the center of God's dealings with the Old creation. On the Cross according to Ephesians He terminated all the laws and ordinances and in HImself brought into being the "One New Man". In Christ on the Cross all the old distinctions which are of the old creation such as race, status, ordinances, etc. were terminated and in Christ is brought into being the One New Man.We have to see that the Cross is God's way of dealing with the Old fallen creation. And Resurrection is God's way of bringing into being the New.The Cross is the center of God's administration.THe Cross terminates everything negative in the Universe and the Resurrection brings into being the New Creation in which there is no negative thing But Christ is All and in all.This is I believe the emphasis of Scritpure.In Christ resurrection His humanity was glorified and uplifted. And it is His Resurrection Life He imparts into us regenerating us and making us sons of God with His life and His nature. It all hinges on the cross and in resurrection.Galatians tells us, "if any man be in Christ he is a new creation. Old things have passed away, behold all things have become New." The old things have passed away because of Christ's death on the Cross. All things have become new because Christ is risen. And we are partakers both of His death and resurrection having died in Christ to sin, to the flesh, to the law, and to all the things of the old creation.Also in 1 cor. 15 we have Christ as the "Last Adam and also Christ as the Second Man. Brother Lee see's a distinction between the two. The Last Adam was Christ in Incarnation and as the Last Adam He terminated the old creation. As the Second Man He is the beginning, the First born from among the dead. He is the head of the New Race in resurrection. The First Adam became a living Soul, the Last Adam (having terminated the Old creation on the Cross) became (in resurrection as the second Man) a Life Giving Spirit.And a last point. Our old man was crucified with Christ.. (Romans 6:11) who is the "Old Man"? The old man is Adam. How was the "old man crucified with Christ on the cross if Christ was not of "the Old creation.Christ in comming into humanity was not just "Created from the dust of the ground as a New Man. He was born into the humanity which already existed. It was this "humanity" the Old Man that was crucified with Christ on the cross.Graftedbranch

Dear Ron,The resurrection Christ was not the beginning of the New but the triumph of the New having embraced and emerged victorious over all the consequences of the Old.So then, what do you make of 1 Corinthians 15? How does it equate with what you have said? In love,Blake

Here are some other scriptures to consider: Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all Creation.Here we see Christ has the preeminance over all creation as the "Firstborn". Firstborn here implies His incarnation. Not in time but in status. In Time He is the last Adam. But in Status He is the firstborn by virtue of the fact that "In Him (as God) all things were created..." for in "Him (as God) all things cohere"However in vs 18 it says, "And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, The Firstborn from the dead... The begining of what? The new creation. The New Race.Here we see Christ in resurrection as the "Firstborn from the dead.His resurrection is a birth. Hebrews 1:5 says: For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'you are my Son, this day have I begotton you.And that this is not refering to incarnation but resurrection is evident in Acts 13:33 "That God has fully fulfilled this promise to us their children in raising up Jesus, as it is also written, in the 2nd Psalm, "You are My Son, this day have I begotton you". "This day" refers to the day of His Resurrection, not His incarnation.It is in resurrection that the New Race is born. Not in incarnation. Christ resurrection was a birth as the "Firstborn from the dead" and we were all "birthed in Him" in His resurrection, not in His incarnation.1 Peter 1:3 says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."In Incarnation Christ was "the only begotton Son of God" who was made flesh. He is the Word made flesh and, "all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being." But in Resurrection He is the First Born Son of God among many brothers (Romans 8:29)To be the only begotton Son of God is to be singular. There is only one. But to be the "First born" implies that there are many to follow. "Except a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it abides alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit"Graftedbranch

Dear Ron,This may be a bad parable, but maybe it will help you understand what it means to say that Jesus was born into the corrupted flesh. (At least, what I gather it means). To say Jesus was born in the same corrupted flesh as his mother Mary, or any of His descendents, does not mean that Jesus had sin or was cursed or anything of the such. Jesus is Holy. Sin is not a result of the flesh. The flesh itself is not sinful. However, it is corrupted or stained by sin. Death is the result of sin, and all flesh has been stained by Death. Animals have never sinned, and yet they die. Imagine that the body is a pair of pants. Adam wore the pants first. Adam, however, did not have a good belt. One day, his pants fell down into the dirt and were stained. The stain became a permanent mark on the pants. There was no way to wash out the stain. The pants were permanently corrupted. After Adam died, his pants were given to his son. The pants were passed down from generation to generation. The stain was always there on every person who wore the pants. All of Adam's sons were bad. They were bad not because of the stained pants, but because they didn't have a good belt. So, not only were they stuck with these stained pants, no one had a good belt. Thier pants would fall down again just like it did on Adam.Until one day, God sent His son to earth with a good belt. Jesus inherited the good belt from God, and the stained pants from Adam. Jesus was good, not because of the stained pants, but because of the good belt. (He was justified by the Spirit.) Jesus lived in stained pants, and died in them as well. Not only did Jesus die, but the stained pants went with Him. When Jesus was resurrected, He was given a new pair of pants.Anyone who believes in Christ may also get a good belt. However, they await resurrection in order to recieve a new pair of pants.In 1 Corithians 15, Paul says we will be given new heavenly bodies. If Jesus would have come to earth in a heavenly body the first time, then He could not have been an offspring of David. Additionally, if Jesus would have come to earth in a heavenly body, then He could not die. Our new heavenly bodies will be immortal. They will not be like the flesh we live in now. We will have eternal life. The flesh we have now is stained with death. Jesus died. And thus, His flesh had to also be stained with death. If not, then how could He die? In love,Blake

Jesus lived in stained pants, and died in them as well. Not only did Jesus die, but the stained pants went with Him. When Jesus was resurrected, He was given a new pair of pants.Brother Blake,This is an interesting analogy but it does not hold up. Christ came in the "likensss of the flesh of sin but without sin." Christ did not ware a stained pair of pants, He inhabited an unstained pair. God made HIm who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the rightousness of God in Him. Christ was without stain and without blemish. He is the spotless Lamb of God. But he did take on our humanity and was fully a man of the old creation, yet without the fallen stain and corruption of the Old creation.Graftedbranch

My understanding is that Jesus of Nazareth was 'shielded' from all Adamic contagion, not by virtue of the absence of the male link but by God's action or simply that the transmission of 'original sin' does not take place in this manner. Older Bible students have often used the idea of 'shielding' as quotedBrother Ron,This is interesting also but it has no substantion in scripture. I suggest that Christ was "shielded" from the taint of Adam's sin and fall by virtue of the fact that He is "born of a woman".In the scripture, the emphasis is on, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death by sin so that death spread to all men for all sinned.And in the first prophecy of Christ in Genesis 3 we are told that "the Seed of the Woman (not the man) would bruise Satan's head".I suggest it is the Virgin Birth which "shielded" Christ from Adam's fallen condition. Not some mysterious "sheilding" in incarnation of which the Scripture is totally silent about. But being "born of a woman" is surely emphasised over and over in scripture.Graftedbranch

brethrenthis is most interesting, i have a question i'd like to ask of you:does Christ being born of the the virgin mary mean in any way that He was shielded from sinning? if so how would He qualify to the the saviour if He also wasn't susceptible to sin? could it be that Christ wasn't exempt from sin, or was no less susceptible to sin than we are but because He sought only to do the will of God that He didn't sin? is sin not doing anything contrary to what God would have us do? or maybe seeking the Father's will was the shield?:-?

But being "born of a woman" is surely emphasised over and over in scriptureI certainly hope so, have yet to hear the counterpart attempting to do so. That cannot possibly have anything to do with this...Think all these extrapolations are going far too far.Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. He was obedient from the start.could it be that Christ wasn't exempt from sin, or was no less susceptible to sin than we are but because He sought only to do the will of God that He didn't sin? is sin not doing anything contrary to what God would have us do? or maybe seeking the Father's will was the shield?Think you are a lot closer here brother.Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Mar 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. Now what kind of a body is it?Is there not a tension in mystery that defies explanation? It begs more questions than answers. It is the same with the ideas of the trinity. It seems little wonder that the awe and wonder has gone out, why that when we have explanations for everything.The incredible thing is that Jesus was tempted in all points, that He had the same possibilities of persuasion as we do and choose "for I do always those things that please him. Including;Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? or simply that the transmission of 'original sin' does not take place in this manner.1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

if so how would He qualify to the the saviour if He also wasn't susceptible to sin?Christ was tempted in all points like as we yet without sin.Christ said, "the Prince of this world comes but He has nothing in me (my paraphrase from memory).The Reason temptation had no hold on Christ was because there was nothing of sin and the fallen nature in Him. Adam before the fall was without sin but he chose to yeild to the temptation. He chose to eat of the tree of the Knolege of good and eveil and fell. The temptations of Christ were external. That is the devil tempted Him, the power of the temptation was in Christ's weakness as a man, not in his having a sinful nature. That is Christ was hungry and weak, and so to "turn stones to bread" could be tempting to satisfy His genuine hunger. His hunger was not sinful. But the temptation was to seek to obtain satisfaction of his genuine Need by stepping outside of His calling and acting as God and not a Man.The Lord Jesus did not have the taint of sin. He was the Spotless Lamb of God and as such he was able to be a satisfactory offering for our sins.Graftedbranch

Brother Mike,I am not sure I follow this.The Scriptures are rich and full and complete. It is not presumption to gain an understaning of thses things. The Spirit is given to, "lead us into all truth".Surely there are mysteries of which we can only speculate. But those things that are revealed belong to us. Those things that are not we must say Amen to though we don't understand.Christ is the Mystery of God and the church is the mystery of Christ. And Paul said that He was appointed to complete the Word of God which is the Revelation of the Mystery hidden from the ages but now has been revealed to us...Christ in us, the hope of Glory.These Mysteries are revealed in His Word and the Spirit is given to us to "unveil these mysteries". Some things remain mysterious. We see through a glass darkly. But many things which some don't consider are revealed and if we seek the Lord and pray through His Word, surely the Spirit will bring us into the revelation and experience of these mysteries.Graftedbranch

brethrenthis is most interesting, i have a question i'd like to ask of you:does Christ being born of the the virgin mary mean in any way that He was shielded from sinning?No more than Adam was 'shielded' from sinning. Originally we were not talking about 'sinning' but the alien dynamic at the centre of fallen humanity called 'Sin'. Christ did not have this; neither did Adam, initially.

No more than Adam was 'shielded' from sinning. Originally we were not talking about 'sinning' but the alien dynamic at the centre of fallen humanity called 'Sin'. Christ did not have this; neither did Adam, initiallyAmen Ron.In fact I like what you said and It sheds some light on it. I suggested the Virgin Birth shielded Christ from the taint of the fallen nature (the alien dynamic at the centre of fallen humanity called 'Sin'). But that does not preclude our Lord's being genuinly tempted. Adam did not have a fallen nature before the fall. Yet he was tempted and fell.Christ did not have Adam's fallen nature but was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin.I suggest too that Christ succeded as a man because He lived by the Life of His Father. And that also if Adam had eaten of the Tree of LIfe he would have had the LIfe of God within him and been able to deal with the enemy's temptation. In otherwords God's provision for Adam's temptation was Himself as the Tree of Life.GraftedbranchGraftedbranch

Why did Jesus' overcome only 3 temptations? The answer is simple, The Apostle John placed these same 3 in context: 1)the lust of the flesh 2) Lust of the eyes 3) Pride of life. These three correspond with the 3 temptations Jesus suffered through. They also hit all areas of our humanity, body soul and spirit, the outer man as well as the inter life of man and that part of man that bridges the two. Jesus gave us a road map to victory and keeping our oneness with God. He was bruised, a man of tears(sorrows), To say that he didn't suffer inwardly is a serious error,Jesus was bruised. These same temptations also correspond with the 3 idols that regularly brought Israel and most of us at times into bondage, Baal, Asheroth, and Molech.No place in Jesus is simply that satan had no foot hold or launching place to tempt Him (Jesus had already overcome temptation in the wilderness), in the same way we are instructed to give no place to the devil, same useage as Jesus' giving no place.

Amen brother dohzman.You hit the nail on the head. I don't think that it is implied that these are the only experiences of temptation Christ suffered. But surely these three are representitive and inclusive of all temptations. Examples of other temptations which the Lord repelled are that Peter suggested the Lord avoid the cross saying, "surely Lord this shall not happen to you" The Lord responded, "Get behind me Satan, you are a stumbling block to me".But surely the three in the wilderness are inclusive of all temptations and also corrospond intrinsically to the temptation of Adam and Eve by the Serpent in the Garden addressing both the body, soul, and spirit.Graftedbranch

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: I am not sure I follow this.Me neither :-) Wrote that under somewhat fatigued circumstances.I guess maybe what I was getting at is how often we can keep peeling back the layers in an attempt to unravel these things that ultimately leaves us at a standstill or to conclusions that are really incomplete.No more than Adam was 'shielded' from sinning. Originally we were not talking about 'sinning' but the alien dynamic at the centre of fallen humanity called 'Sin'. Christ did not have this; neither did Adam, initiallyAmen and apologize for going off track with that.Think I may have been doing my own extrapolating thinking through where this could carry on to. The nature of Jesus as well as the 'nature' of temptation. Maybe it was the idea of "shielding" that threw me there a bit.The temptations of Christ were external. That is the devil tempted Him, the power of the temptation was in Christ's weakness as a man, not in his having a sinful nature. That is Christ was hungry and weak, and so to "turn stones to bread" could be tempting to satisfy His genuine hunger. His hunger was not sinful. But the temptation was to seek to obtain satisfaction of his genuine Need by stepping outside of His calling and acting as God and not a Man.Hmmm, 'external' maybe as 'foreign' to His nature and to His obedience? Maybe the mystery I am partially appealing to is those things which are not spoken in scripture, that only He knew;Heb 5:8 though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; Which things? Those mysteries. I would be in complete agreement with what both of you stated if taken together I guess. The "seed" and the virgin birth I may have confused what you were trying to say with that. "Her seed" would not necessarily have to be anything other than that Mary was blessed beyond all belief to bring forth the Son of God.And in the first prophecy of Christ in Genesis 3 we are told that "the Seed of the Woman (not the man) would bruise Satan's head".My understanding is that Jesus of Nazareth was 'shielded' from all Adamic contagion, not by virtue of the absence of the male link but by God's action or simply that the transmission of 'original sin' does not take place in this manner.The latter part there is the mystery.Maybe I had imagined some sort of mixing from the former "of the woman (not the man)".The "seed" is the Lord. And despite the rather odd stance of the Catholic church regarding Mary... Thinking out loud here... Another great mystery, that Jesus could be nourished in the womb and still be without any 'contagion'.Perhaps best to stop here before I get myself caught up into things I don't understand nor can articulate very well.Christ is the Mystery of God and the church is the mystery of Christ. And Paul said that He was appointed to complete the Word of God which is the Revelation of the Mystery hidden from the ages but now has been revealed to us...Christ in us, the hope of Glory.Would agree with that to a point. What is interesting is that in a lot of ways we go far beyond what even the writers of scripture ever did by way of explanation. Even Paul after such a lengthy discourse expressed;Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. I guess what I fear has happened largely in our modern day by many ways, some from excess intellectual exegesis, some by way of the silliness and modernistic approach ... this televising advertising-ish "Christianity" is a loss of true wonder and appreciation of mystery. That makes God Who He is. That makes Jesus something other than what was expressed in Joh 7:46; "The officers answered, Never man spake like this man." The majesty and Holiness that makes an Isaiah express " Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." Or Peter and the rest when he uttered; "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. (Wonder how well that would go in some of our evangelistic appeals, if we were to lead unbelievers through these sorts of scriptures) All these things that bring forth worship of an exclamatory sort, not that which is worked up or manipulated, but what one cannot help but do.Didn't intend to go off on a tangent here, it's just that this has been a particular concern that keeps popping up. Have had it in mind for quite some time to delve into a word that is rich with meaning and that used to be of a completely different definition than what it usually comes to mean nowadays;"Awful"

Amen brother Mike,I appreciated that post.Here are a couple of scriptures to consider:1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and which have not come up in man's heart; things which God has prepared for those who love Him.vs. 10 "But to us God has revealed them through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God"Ephesians 3:16-19 That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power thorugh His Spirit into the inner man, that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith that you being rooted and grounded in love, may be full of strength to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and hight and depth are, And to know the knowlege surpassing love of Christ..."In these verses we see two things. We see Mysteries and things which "have not come up in the heart of man", and the "knowlege surpassing love of Christ", And we also see that provision has been made for us to "apprehend them" through the Spirit.I think many times we read these verses and stop short of seeing the provision we have for "apprehending" these things.I like the phrase, "Know the knowlege surpassing Love of Christ". It is a seemingly contradicting phrase. But the key to it is it's preceeding verses. That is that we be strengthened with power through His Spirit into our inner man, that we be made strong to Apprehend..."Our need is not so much to engage our intellectual facalties to try to comprehend these things. Our need is to be strengthened by His Spirit into our inner man to be made "strong to apprehend". We need the Spirit's strengthening into our spirit. And in fellowhip and contact with the Lord who makes His home in our hearts through faith, we are made strong to apprehend what is not knowable merely through our intellectual capabilities. Our need is to be in our spirit and to be enjoying the Lord and to be filled with Him and strengthened to apprehend. We need to feed our spirit and call on the Lord and enjoy Him as our indwelling Life and in this way the mysteries in His Word are opened up to us by the enlightening of His Spirit in our spirit.Graftedbranch

bro RonNo more than Adam was 'shielded' from sinning. Originally we were not talking about 'sinning' but the alien dynamic at the centre of fallen humanity called 'Sin'. Christ did not have this; neither did Adam, initially. ooohhhh! got it thanks :)

Dear Graftedbranc,This is an interesting analogy but it does not hold up. Christ came in the "likensss of the flesh of sin but without sin." No where in my analogy did I ever suggest that Jesus was with sin. The flesh is not sinful. The spirit is sinful. Jesus was justified by the Spirit. He was Holy, not because of His fleshly body, but because He had the Holy Spirit living inside of Him. However, his flesh was the same as ours. Jesus was born of a woman and offspring of King David. Do you believe that Jesus was indeed an offspring of King David bearing King David's biology? Or do you believe that Jesus was born with a new heavenly body as we will have upon our resurrection?In love,Blake

Dear crsschk,Mar 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. Notice that before Jesus died, He was transfigured. However, after His death, He ascended into Heaven. In our current flesh, there seems to be a gap or void between the body and the Spirit. We cannot see the Spiritual world or interact with it. However, in our new heavenly bodies, we will be able to ascend into Heaven without having to transfigure.Right now, we have faith in things we cannot see. After we are transformed, we will be able to see. In love,Blake

No where in my analogy did I ever suggest that Jesus was with sin. The flesh is not sinful. The spirit is sinful.Blake,The Lord partook of flesh and blood. It is the same flesh and blood which we all share. It is of the origional creation. He is fully Man. What was absent in Christ is the fallen nature which came in after creation in the fall of Genesis 3. He was free from the taint of sin in his flesh. Romans 7 and 8 speak of four laws.1. The law of God2. The law of good in our mind3. The law of sin in our flesh4. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ JesusThere is a law of sin in our flesh which take us captive when we would obey the law of God which we see as good in our mind.Our flesh is the seat of sin and as fallen creatures we are enslaved to it. And even if we see that the Law of God is good and desirable, we have another law in our members which asserts itself and takes us captive.Only by the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus are we set free (in our experience) from the law of sin and death which is in our members.Our bodies were not created evil. Everything God made he pronounced, 'it is good". But through the fall something was introduced into us through partaking of the Tree of the knowlege of good and evil which infected our flesh and brought the fallen Satanic nature and principle of sin into us and we are by nature under its dominion. Christ was free from this. Christ did not have the law of sin in his flesh and he was not subject to it. Christ was tempted as a man even as Adam was tempted as a man. And Adam's temptation came to him before he was fallen. Adam allowed himself to come under the power of the temptation and he fell. Christ overcame the temptation and redeemed us.If Christ were fallen he would have not only the taint of sin but also the guilt of sin. As it is written in Romans 5, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death by sin so that death spread to all men for that all sinned, even to those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression. GmV (That is the graftedbranch memory version (-: )"That is, death is penal. And all men die. Even babies die. The penalty of sin is death. And if Christ inhereted Adam's sinful nature, He would also have inhereted Adam's guilt and have been subject to death because of it. Christ did not die for His own sin or guilt whether actual or inherited, Christ died because our sins were imputed to Him. He died as the spotless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. "That Holy Thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God"Graftedbranch

sorry, for by absence... been out of town and am off to Germany in a couple of days time. However, I found this encyclopaedia article which might help put the 'recovery' movement into some kind of chronological structure."the local church" movementI am trying to find out why Stepheh Kuang distanced himself from the movement. There is a very comprehensive website run by the apologetics index which has some pretty disturbing stuff on it too.

Here is a comprehensive web site which presents the history of the Lord's recovery over the centuries as well as in the last 70 years.http://www.lordsrecovery.org/history/index.htmlOne thing unique about the Lord's recovery is that there is nothing hidden. (most - it is still being completed but is very comprehensive) Everything, and every book and every teaching and every publication is available to read on line free of charge at:www.lsm.orgThe on line publications are at: http://www.ministrybooks.org/The archives of the radio broadcast "Life study of the Bible by Witness Lee can be accessed and heard at:http://www.lsmradio.com/rad_archives.htmlThere is also available for a small fee a webcast service where recent conferences, Witness Lee message archives and videos can be downloaded at:http://www.lsmwebcast.com/Also a free copy of the Recovery Version New Testament with footnotes is available with no obligation and no one will contact you unless you request it at:http://www.biblesforamerica.org/People can judge for themselves.Graftedbranch

I am trying to find out why Stepheh Kuang distanced himself from the movement. There is a very comprehensive website run by the apologetics index which has some pretty disturbing stuff on it too.Hi Ron,I am deeply disturbed as well. Posted this earlier Warning: The local church and unfortunately the site is apparently experiencing some difficulties at the present moment as all the links are throwing up error messages. In a nutshell there are some voices there that need to be heard, it confirms many of the concerns that I had, that there is a great danger inherent in this whole 'teaching'.Hopefully it will be back up again for others to indeed decide for themselves and hear from some of those who have been in this 'movement' and the ramifications of their experience. It is a very serious matter, one that I pray is not taken lightly.There was some mention there in regards to Stephen Kaung, and being that I cannot quote it exactly, will wait to see if I can pull it up later. Will say this much, he did consider it "the most dangerous sect in the world".Edit: Didn't see your reply there Greg, prior to this...

Actually there are alot of things that are "hidden"! thats why mike started this thread:Brother,I have been a believer for 30 years and graduated from a very good evangelical Bible school (The Evangelical Institute of Greenville, SC www.eigonline.org)I have been meeting with the local church in my city (Atlanta) for 3 years. I have done intensive research and been to 8 trainings and several conferences. I have met with 6 churches in 6 states. I have also had hours and hours of fellowship with leading brothers, discussed all the issues, and have found only good fellowship in Christ and complete liberty in questionings and in discussing any and all issues.I have yet to find anything that is hidden, no hidden agenda, no compulsion, no authoritative control, nothing which is not contained in the books and publications.I submit that those who are opposed to the recovery are in opposition to any teaching of the inner life and the reality of Christ in you, the hope of Glory.I spent 9 months in contact with Jim Moran, the leading opposer of the recovery. For the last 9 months of his life, I was the leading contributer to his web site and the site was basically during this time my posts and his responses to them and other's comments related to our conversations.I had personal contact with him as well until the Lord took Him. I can testify that he had no testimony of the New Birth. His testimony was "I was in the army and decided to take a new direction and so went to Moody Bible School. He said he had no experience to speak of. And He was opposed to every form of experiential Christianity. But HE chose to build his legacy in opposing the recovery and the ministries of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. ANd I might add that I have never seen such twistings of meanings, out of context accusations, false assertions, and blatent lies as on his site.Jim Moran was the major contributor to the web sites which still exist which oppose the Lord's work in His Recovery.He told me personally that his hair was grey as a result of maintaining his site. I told Him that if it were a work in the Spirit and out of Love for Jesus Christ He would be experiencing the peace of Christ. He died at age 45 of a massive heart attackGraftedbranch

Your above submission is actually very "cultish" it is like saying that those that are opposed to the words of Greg Gordon are opposed to Christ. therein calling myself a christ or something to that level. Personally I cannot condone having you post comments such as these and having people reading them and believing them.Brother, I am only speaking here from my own experience and observations. And I am refering to those who are activly opposed, not to those who may have negative concerns. That is legitimate and we should all test all things by the Spirit and the Word of God.IN my research and conversations with "opposers" I have found that they are opposed even to what is taught and preched by Servants of Jesus Christ such as Tozer, Ravenhill and others who teach a genuine experience of Jesus Christ.This is not a "blanket assesment" but rather what I have found in studying what they say.My point with Jim Moran was that He opposed but his opposition was not in the Lord, not in the Spirit and not out of Love for Jesus Christ. In fact he would deny that it is possible in our day to do anything "in the Spirit" and "Love for Jesus Christ" was not something he was familiar with. He had no personal knowlege of Jesus Christ. And He would say so.I don't know what your definition of "cultish" is. But for many it is "anything which is outside the norm of mainstream Christianity. Anything which looks different, or anything which deviates from accepted traditional practices.My point in posting the web sites is that believers should do their research and hear and seek for themselves instead of judging by hearsay.Every work of God has been opposed in every generation from the first century until today. It was true of the Reformation, and every move of God in church history, Lies, accusations, false assertions and rumors have been spread in every case. This is not something new.I say Christians should judge by the Word of God in contact through prayer with the Living Lord Jesus Christ before they assume and judge.Graftedbranch

I submit that those who are opposed to the recovery are in opposition to any teaching of the inner life and the reality of Christ in you, the hope of Glory. This really is just the kind of reaction you often do get from people in the cults. To make this kind of blanket assumption is disgraceful. I have been teaching and preaching these things for over 40 years and my 'opposition' to the 'recovery' has increased daily over the last few weeks!im Moran was the major contributor to the web sites which still exist which oppose the Lord's work in His Recovery.He told me personally that his hair was grey as a result of maintaining his site. I told Him that if it were a work in the Spirit and out of Love for Jesus Christ He would be experiencing the peace of Christ. He died at age 45 of a massive heart attackDo I gather from this that you hold the Watchman Nee view that 'death' is to be 'resisted' and only 'received' as personal choice?Do you have any comments about the 'local church' and its tendency to take the saints to court?

Hi philologos,I see you are trying to find information on this topic. I have a long connection with this movement, so if you (or any others) would like to discuss, I will be quite glad to do so - preferrably by private message.First, I personally doubt that Jim Moran passed away because God had sent down his judgement. I do believe he is a regenerated Christian.Second, however, I do have a problem with the way he presented his materials. He was very bent on labeling the movement as a "cult," as such, much of his materials were presented in a badly biased manner. He very conveniently ignored my emails asking for dialogue or clarification. I would say he was a self-appointed cult-hunter whose obsession was in the LC movement. Unfortunately, I think he misled more than informed others.As for the RcV Bible, I would say this - its translation of the text, while not outstanding, is actually not that bad. Simply compare it with other translations - I am not aware of any places where it is seriously "off". It was done by a committee of brothers within the movement, not just by Witness Lee himself.As for the footnotes, they are done by one single person from his own theological framework. Use the same caution just as you would when you read The Scofield Reference Bible. There are some oddities, but taken on its own, I do not think it should be all that "alarming," on the whole.I do not agree with taking other people to court. But I do have access to some of the materials that were involved (Mindbenders, God-men, etc.) I would say they certainly do paint the movement in a very bad light, but much of the stuff is either distorted or simply not true. I can understand why those publications cause the movement to be concerned. I have even read parts of the book published by Harvest House (now off the market), now still going through court - it more or less rewrote the same material of the earlier books banned by court, did not introduce new material, so its portrait of the movement's teachings is not all that accurate.I think we should take a critical view of the movement, but a lot of the material out there in cyberspace is heavily biased towards either side.

Do I gather from this that you hold the Watchman Nee view that 'death' is to be 'resisted' and only 'received' as personal choice?Brother, From this (which by the way is a misunderstanding of brother Nee's teaching) it seems you are opposed to Watchman Nee's ministry as well. Nee is appreciated and enjoyed by many on this web site. There are threads devoted to His teaching and ministry.I am sure that any of us can find some particular thing taught by Tozer or Ravenhill or T. Austin Sparks which we might object to but to sweep the life, ministry and testimony of Servants of Jesus Christ under a banner of "cult" because of some particular point of contention is not a good practice.Graftedbranch

Do you have any comments about the 'local church' and its tendency to take the saints to court?Brother, Why is it objectionable for people who have been lied about and misrepresented to the public in a public way, who have contacted thier accusers, appealed to them and been ignored over and over, to be brought to the point that the only means of addressing the situation is through the Court system.Paul's prohabition of "brother taking brother to court" is in reference to those in the Church who have been defrauded over money or this or that issue. Paul says. "Is there no one among you who can judge between his brethren? Why not rather be wronged or defrauded." But the public libal of the recovery is not a personal matter but effects all the churches as a whole.To which "high court of the church" is an appeal to be made concering publicly published libal and attacks? To whom can one appeal in the "church" to judge between his brethren.There is a time when one must "appeal to Ceaser' As Paul did. You may disagree with this and are at liberty to do so. But you also should extend the liberty to others to proceed as they feel led by the Lord for the Sake of His interest. If someone published a "mainstream book" called " modern cult leaders and false prophets and included chapters including Leneard Ravenhill, Do you believe that those who appreciate His ministry would remain silent and take no action?Graftedbranch

"It now turns out that since Jim died without a will The Local Church has managed to gain control over Jim's files, computer records and domain names.AmenI don't find it alarming at all. What is alarming is that someone would find it alarming that all the lies and misrepresentation are not allowed to be continually propagated.You know there are laws which protect us here in the US from libal, and public defamation. They are in place for our protection under the constitution. Do you deny those who are believers and also citizens from legetimate means under the law to avail themselves of this protection?Was the purchase of Jim's materials illegal, underhanded or dishonest? No. It is perfectly legal and moral and completly within the rights of anyone. Why are you so for the propagation of lies and disinformation?The reason the genuine "heretical sects" such as the mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses" don't file law suits is because they are truly represented in the books. It can be shown from thier teaching and writings that what is said is accurate.But this is not the case with the recovery and that has been shown in the courts. And that is why those in the recovery have had the boldness to take it before the courts to demonstrate it.Graftedbranch

Greg,See my comments about Jim Moran below.Sam

This really is just the kind of reaction you often do get from people in the cults.Brother,Are you not doing exactly what you are accusing me of? Making blanket assesments and judgements?I am sure that the Catholic Church found everything Martin Luther wrote and said to be "Alarming and disturbing"Graftedbranch

why such control and worry to get a hold of these materials? do they pose that much harm to the local church?Brother,It seems you have bought into the opposition lock, stock and barral. The local churches are not 'afraid of these things" But they do feel the effect of them which is negative and is harmful to the work in the recovery and the testimony of the Churches.I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else who had a ministry and others published negative and untue lies and slanders which affected your testimony and defamed your ministry would not take legetimate steps to alleviate the situation. If a person stood outside your house day afer day and carried signs and yelled out that you were a heretic and a false teacher. And as a result no one came to you and no one would hear you. And suppose you went out to him day after day and sought to reason with him and took your Bible and offered to sit down with him and pray and go over the things asserted and he refused and just kept yelling? Would you not eventually call the police and have him removed? And what if everyone said, "see, he is afraid of those accusations.It is AbsuredGraftedbranch

Personally I cannot condone having you post comments such as these and having people reading them and believing them. Apparently you do not consider this thread an open forum to discuss the pro's and cons of the "Recovery Version" or the local churches. But rather a forum to express concerns and one's own view of the "cultish nature" of the local churches.Apparently anyone who has a positve testimony or experience or view is considered to be "outside the scope of the intent of this thread" and should not be condoned. Yet anyone may freely say anything that is negative and defaming.You can post your negative views and have everyone "read them and believe them" but not on the "other side." Of what are you afraid?Graftedbranch

In my 9 months of corospondance with Jim Moran, even though time after time myself and others demonstrated to him that he had misquoted, misrepresented, and ignored facts, He never once admitted that he was ever wrong on any point. He was hard, determined, closed, and unyielding to even facts and clearly presented truth.To his credit, I pointed this out to him and he responded, "hmmm. this is interesting".I can't see that anyone who is abiding in Christ, filled with the Spirit, and living by the life of Christ is unwilling to admit even once in 9 months in the face of clear evidence, that he may be mistaken on any little point."Blessed are the poor in spirit for thiers is the Kingdom of Heaven."Grafrtedbranch

First, I personally doubt that Jim Moran passed away because God had sent down his judgement. I do believe he is a regenerated Christian.Brother Sam,I cannot presume to speculate of the Lord's reason for taking Him at the time he did. The Lord is soverign.But I can say that he expressed intense stress related to his web site. And he died of a heart attack at age 45. You don't have to be a theologin to know that heart desease is related to stress.But God is Soverign. And the Lord does forebare for a time. And the Lord does take those who are even his if they remain in disobedience or are a hinderence to His work or purposes. (Paul says in 1 cor. concering those who were in disunity and eating of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manor, "For this cause many among you are sick and many have fallen asleep".And concerning one who opposed Paul and his ministry Paul even said at one point, "The Lord reward him according to his works"I have my own opinion but I cannot press it. God knows. It would seem that if God were in his "ministry" and his web site, He would have seen fit to allowed it to continue and be fruitful rather than abruptly terminating it after 6 years.Graftedbranch

This is really running away quite quickly here...Had hoped that this could have been addressed in the other thread but that is only to attempt to keep this somewhat coherent...This really is just the kind of reaction you often do get from people in the cults. To make this kind of blanket assumption is disgraceful. I have been teaching and preaching these things for over 40 years and my 'opposition' to the 'recovery' has increased daily over the last few weeks!Choose this because the last line there is precisely my own concern as well. This did not start off with anything in mind and again as was mentioned in the other thread, if anything the past had shown many of us to be more 'defender's' than detractors.This came about by observance, if one was to go back through the entirety of this posting and re-read it there remains a lot of unanswered questions. There is observations from some that know nothing of this and a reaction that there is something cult-like going on here. Why is that?Why is there concern?At some point the main issues are going to have to be dealt with and not dodged by bringing in periphreal things to sweep them under the carpet.I hope that we all might conduct this in a spirit of prayer and honesty.

Graftedbranch,I respect your freedom to hold your own opinion. I am also glad you recognize that God is sovereign, and that no one can be absolutely certain why one's life is taken away.I do not approve of Jim Moran's so-called "ministry," but I personally do not wish to get into speculation about his sudden death -whether it is coming from the judgement of God or not.I have had wonderful fellowship with folks in this forum for a long period of time: sermonindex, philologos, crsschk, etc.I do not think they fully reject the ministry of Watchman Nee (or even Witness Lee), but I think the way this discussion has been going is led to some unnecessary polarizations.I echo crsschk's call to a spirit of humility.

From this (which by the way is a misunderstanding of brother Nee's teaching) it seems you are opposed to Watchman Nee's ministry as well.Your suppositions are incorrect.

I have my own opinion but I cannot press it. God knows. It would seem that if God were in his "ministry" and his web site, He would have seen fit to allowed it to continue and be fruitful rather than abruptly terminating it after 6 years.How long do you suppose Stephen and James the brother of John were 'allowed' to continue his ministry and be fruitful? This reasoning behind this kind of thinking IS typical of those who assume that their revelation is the 'highest'. It tells me pretty much all I need to know about the spirit which is produced in such circles.

Dear Graftedbranch,I wonder, what do you make of this:A. On the Body of Christ Did union with the Divine nature do away, with all bodily inperfections? The Monophysites were split up into two parties by this question. Catholics hold that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death. Christ hungered (Matthew 4:2), thirsted (John 19:28), was fatigued (John 4:6), suffered pain and death. "We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). "For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Hebrews 2:18). All these bodily weaknesses were not miraculously brought about by Jesus; they were the natural results of the human nature He assumed. To be sure, they might have been impeded and were freely willed by Christ. They were part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the Incarnation. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast fitted to me" (Hebrews 10:5). The Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ. St. Athanasius gives the reason that it were unbecoming that He should heal others who was Himself not healed (P. G., XX, 133). Weaknesses due to old age are common to mankind. Had Christ lived to an old age, He would have suffered such weaknesses just as He suffered the weaknesses that are common to infancy. Death from old age would have come to Jesus, had He not been violently put to death (see St. Augustine, "De Peccat.", II, 29; P. L., XLIV, 180). The reasonableness of these bodily imperfections in Christ is clear from the fact that He assumed human nature so as to satisfy for that nature's sin. Now,to satisfy forthe sin of another is to accept the penalty of that sin. Hence it was fitting that Christ should take upon himself all those penalties of the sin of Adam that are common to man and becoming. or at least not unbecoming to the Hypostatic Union. (See Summa Theologica III:14 for other reasons.) As Christ did not take sickness upon Himself, so other imperfections, such as deformities, which are not common to mankind, were not His. St. Clement of Alexandria (III Paedagogus, c. 1), Tertullian (De Carne Christi, c. ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed. They misinterpreted the words of Isaias: "There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no sightlinesss" etc. (liii, 2). The words refer only to the suffering Christ. Theologians now are unanimous in the view that Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His incarnation, a perfect man (see Stentrup, "Christologia", theses lx, lxi). ---from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIWould Jesus have died from old age if He had not died on the cross? Thanks,Blake

Hi Blake,That is one big IF there. In one sense of course but in the ultimate sense it's impossible being that He came to accomplish dying for the sins of the world according to the 'schedule' God had laid out before the foundations of the world.I think I get the gist of it here but am curious why you brought it up in the middle of this...

This reasoning behind this kind of thinking IS typical of those who assume that their revelation is the 'highest'. Brother, I can testify that in the recovery the attitued of the saints is not that "we are it" but rather, The Lord has a goal and a purpose to obtain His perfected Bride. to have a group of overcommers to conclude this age.But we do not presume to be it but rather, If it is not us the Lord will gain some other group. But in this spirit we give ourselves to the Lord for the fulfillment of His hearts desire. And this I can testify is the power in the Lord's recovery. That is an attidude toward the Lord to gain us wholly for His purpose and to fulfill His hearts desire. We do not presume, we do not claim to be this or that, but rather we have the Vision of the Eternal Purpose of God in the scriptures and we give ourselves to the Lord for the obtaining of His purpose and His hearts desire. If others find this objectionable, then so be it. If others think we are somehow arogant and elitest" they are wrong and misinformed but "so be it".Graftedbranch

I think we should take a critical view of the movement, but a lot of the material out there in cyberspace is heavily biased towards either side.That is very helpful Sam. Would like to make a correction after having this pointed out to me regarding this use of the word 'cult'. While I might think of it in one way as being true by definition, that of following and defending a leader, appealing to him and to his particular teaching, then we would all be a cult to Jesus or I could but wish it more true. But when it is to a man, even if that man is a proponent of the Lord, the issue hit's a snag right there and becomes the distraction and perhaps it is one of the more problematic issues that some of us are trying to develop and challenge, that ground of 'authority'. But as it was pointed out to me, this is likely a poor choice of words due to the excess baggage now attached, that brings to mind the David Koresh's of the world amongst other things outside the pale of Orthodoxy, which is really the main and plain things of scripture.So I have no problem in using something else here, 'sect' perhaps as it does seem very sectarian despite the pleading that it is not and of course it will be difficult to lump this all into one neat little basket under a specific heading.This is obviously a volatile issue and to reiterate the concerns and observations, why this is raising so many red flags.We should take a critical view of the issues at hand. Remember, this was brought here not raised by anyone by happenstance. The origins came about by the appealing to this particular version and to this ministry and to it's leader and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. It is fact and the curiousness is in how this all got started in the first place.GraftedBranc.That you came in here in the first place with a couple of "hand grenades" (your words) to test the waters didn't win you over to your particular slant on things and I am sorry to tote that out again but it is part of the problem. To go on appealing to this ministry in the way that you did with an underlying sentiment that everything else is lacking or falls short whether intentional or not, that is the impression you are leaving. Likewise the concerns that are coming out from this, the people that have been obviously affected are not going to be slighted away with a brush of the hand or by bringing in defense after defense to dilute the issue.Case in point is this fellow you mentioned, I doubt many of us had ever even heard of him, I hadn't and to stretch the imagination as to his demise... It's just ridiculous and besides the point. It is also interesting to hear all this coming out from you at this juncture, that you have been down this path before, it lends a bit of suspicion as to your motives what you are after here or had intended coming in. That may be a complete misunderstanding and I do apologize if I have misread you here.Has it ever occurred to you why it is there is so much particular concern about all the issues surrounding this movement? That not everyone is out to slander or defame or malign, surely that is true and it has been acknowledged that this attempt has been tried here and in one case that person was banned from the site due to his verbosity. Some of us are deeply concerned over these kinds of issues and are not on a witch hunt.Having come out of similar constructs even of a lesser sort it can be a difficult and unnecessary grievance, from the concerns I have read elsewhere that would be putting it lightly.A lot of these where mentioned in the other thread and I fully understand there is a pendulum swing from those that have been affected, it can go too far the other direction and found myself doing just that becoming legalistic and having a penchant for pouncing on every little doctrinal error that I perceived and building an inward hatred and bitterness that was sinful and grievous. The red flags that keep popping up here are the same ones that I could but hope to prevent someone getting caught up in before they start.I really hope we can get at the root issues here. The perception that I have is in the difficulty and subtleness of this teaching, the ambiguous language, sorry but, 'double speak', don't know how else to characterize it and wish I could take the negativity out of that. In fact that it is a 'teaching' in the first place, a self-contained body of work that has that sense of ... exclusivity, opposite of what it says it is. It's hardly a doctrinal issue in one sense but in practice and application. It has an appearance of holding to, according to, exclusive and superior and that to a man no less, despite all the appealing otherwise. And even with the overreaching sentiments of those opposing, is there not something of their concerns, their experiences to be considered? Is not all the controversy itself telling?I do not want to make this say more than is warranted, but it was the louder voices that finally got my attention after I got through the normal expected reactionary defending and began to seriously consider just what it was they were so concerned about.Edit:This came about before seeing your response prior. I am really at a loss here...It would be one thing if this was meant as something somewhat abstract "in the Lords recovery" but that is only one perception and the way which this is constantly couched it is fact no? According to what you have bought into? And when you say 'recovery' you do mean according to Witness Lee do you not? And there is a wonder that some want to use a particular term to express what this all is? I am sorry, I really do not want to be divisive or coming at this with wrong motives, this just keeps appealing back to the same things over and over again, it seems like an endless well without a bottom, the same things repeated over and over again like a mantra.

Dear crsschk,We were having another conversation awhile back, and that conversation seems to have gotten lost admist this conversation. I apologize. I guess I should have just let it be. I agree with you. It is a big "if" and probably a conversation that should be left an "if." There is no point to it. Sorry. I will let it go.In love,Blake

I am deeply grieved over this whole thing. The one healthy thing that may come out of it if we were all a little more honest in our hearts is the amount of sin still present.It is just as much present in one side as the other. The extra lengths taken by both sides, the over emotional extravagances, as much as I might like to think otherwise and try to get to the core of the problem, I fear I have already drifted in attempting to articulate just what it is that is such a burden.It is neither to play nice nor to compromise, nor is it to just leave alone, though that is beginning to become more and more of an option as it seems many are not interested in a resolution but a continuation. It just seems from reading through much of this that the attempts at getting to the core issues are being dislodged by hedging around the edges and going back and forth in an endless circle of pro and con, question begetting question style 'answers', defense after defense and the difficulty is just there, because what is raised is just one more question...With all the honesty I can muster this came about by observance and then investigation or research, not the other way around. I wanted to understand why this was so bothersome not to me personally, I have no reputation other than that of a fool, bumbling around trying to grasp the mysteries of this incredible walk with the Lord. It is not offense but grief, some intangible between the lines thing that kept coming up as this developed. I almost hesitate to bring in scripture at this juncture because the tendencies are to misrepresent the sentiment and then we are off on another grievous matter, that of warring over scripture by scripture and, my God we ought to all be smitten for that. What is going on in our heart of hearts?1Co 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? For just a moment if we could but look at the sentiment and forget the peripheral, the last part of this;why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defraudedNot talking about lawsuits, but the defending. I don't want to build a case study to prove anything but to try and get to the very heart of us. There has always been a paradox in this life of doing things opposite of our natural compulsions, at least from what I can gather. An example, Judas. For however long he was with the Lord, it is apparent that he was a thief and did the Lord not know this?, yet never did he speak a word about it.All the other scriptures we know about going the extra mile, giving what is asked and then some are not necessary to bring up, isn't the great body of teaching in scriptures a matter of the innermost regions of us, our 'hearts,' however you want to construe it, the very place where Gods Word cut's, the marrow, the seat of our very being?How often in our life do we hear, feel, are prompted by the Holy Spirit to not do something that we may have every perceived 'right' to do so and can 'back it up' scripturally? The compulsion to speak or to smite, 'rebuke' with 'grounds' to do so and yet that same prompting is "Don't do it". No explanation, just "Don't." Remember the way and the sentiment from the Lord; "But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." Luk 9:55 I know that is one that I would often appeal to here, but is it not the core, to not take things into our own hands but, and again "... why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?What I noticed as this developed and started looking into just what was so bothersome inwardly was how the case was built up on wrong issues and assumptions. By that I mean it isn't because there is a body of 'dissenters' or what have you that made me say "Aha!" "I agree" and looked for a bandwagon to jump on and get caught up in even more grievous extrapolations, but that on the side of those 'defending' is an idea that unless this was told by the 'opposition' no one would pick up on it on their own and that is just disingenuous or it's my own wrong assumptions. Regardless it was evident on it's own in a constant appealing to 'something' that had it's own definitions in an ambiguous use of language that kept appealing to a body of work, to a statement, that had a sense of "This is it, this is what is happening, this is what the Lord is doing. Period." It doesn't matter how that is explained away, it is how it comes across. And by doing that it places a dividing line whether one likes it or not and there seems to be a subtlety in that with a constant defining and redefining as to just what that 'something' is.It comes across as pretentious not unlike many of a modern day 'prophecy' that either we believe the 'prophet' or if one is caught up in the whole 'vision' and\\or ministry of such a one then you are 'in' and if you disagree, than 'out'. That is a broad generalization and it could be applicable to many a 'ministry' that creates a following. What I just do not get is that IF what some of these believe to be true and 'fact' are so convinced would there not be a settled assurance and peace about the whole thing, a sweet disposition and calmness that would in effect say, "Yes, I do understand your concerns, I can see where this could be misunderstood." A humble understanding spirit that is not accusatory or compulsive, that feels a constant need to defend, to prove.Is this not exactly what the spirit of the Lord Jesus Himself did by ...Phi 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ?Though at His disposal was;Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? More telling it seems it was came just before that very important and key sentiment; "Thinkest thou that I cannot"? and where much of this seems right in line with the defending;Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. And yet here it is that we miss the admonishment and take up swords anyway. We need to repent of this and may the Lord smite it out of our system.If the whole of this is really what it says it is and where other 'movements' in the past have gone, wouldn't there be more of a getting on with business and less time explaining, defending, even ignoring? Isn't this the main issue? That it is inherent that something needs to be defended in the first place and that itself is what is raising the eyebrows, not to mention those voices that have apparently been affected tremendously, is it that they just misunderstood? That the experiences that they have gone through are just an aberration, that all this controversy is based on misunderstanding alone?And yes on the flip side surely there must be something of those that see this differently and could take it as just one more place to glean from amongst many throughout our Christian heritage, just as it is here, where there is much to glean from and that which does not fall into neat little boxes of specific 'doctrine' or denominations etc. My fear is for those that have yet to develop the spiritual life to where there is a discernment of sorts and become bogged down in one teacher, one ministry, one 'exclusive' anything even if that is 'broadly' defined. It is indeed no different to be overly enamored with the saints held up here, we glean from many, we learn from many and find that in this narrow walk as defined by the Lord, His path, there is a great diversity of expression, of worship, of tradition both good and bad. I think it was Spurgeon that said; "No one has a corner on the truth" in this regards and pray that doesn't need it's own explanation.But ultimately the marrow of the matter is always, always, always a matter of the heart.

Firstly, some fair disclosure on my part:#1 I am a former longtime member of the Local Church of Witness Lee.#2 I am the moderator of the board addressing problems with the Local Church movement within Bereans.net apologetic website. This site is experiencing some technical difficulties, which has freed up a little time for me to post here.Facts regarding the English language “Recovery Version” translation published by the Local Church of Witness Lee. (Living Stream Ministry)#1 The English translation was heavily influenced by Witness Lee himself, who had NO formal training in biblical Hebrew or New Testament Greek. #2 The Chinese Recovery Version (whose text was presumably influenced even more by Witness Lee) served as “the universal base” to all other Recovery Version translations (at least with New Testament)#3 As far as it is publicly known, no persons outside the Local Church of Witness Lee were ever brought in to assist, consult and/or review the English translation of the Recovery Version.#4 The commentary within the extensive footnotes in the Recovery Version (which is mostly just Witness Lee’s problematic interpretations) hold undue influence among the general Local Church membership. Members are not encouraged to receive any knowledge or light directly from the biblical text itself, but rather only in conjunction with the teachings of Witness Lee.#5 The original translators of the English Recovery Version (NT) are not properly credited in any of the Recovery Versions published in the recent past. Since these translators are no longer associated with the Living Stream Ministry or the Local Church movement their views regarding the exclusion of their names is not known. Now keeping in mind the things that I have noted above, I would still agree with what Agent001 stated earlier:“As for the RcV Bible, I would say this - its translation of the text, while not outstanding, is actually not that bad. Simply compare it with other translations”.As with ALL matters regarding the Local Church movement, one must take care to always dig a little deeper – and not take ANYTHING that is said or presented at face value.

Welcome UntoHim, so glad to have you here.Hope that you get a chance to explore the site here as well.

Brother Mike,I appreciate your concnern and it was getting out of hand and I was reacting more in my emotions than I would like to have been.My motives for being here are just that I enjoy the truth and enjoy discussing the truths of the Bible. I did not come to promote the "recovery". I care to promote Christ. And I believe I can testify that my favorite word is "Amen". I love to be able to say amen to anyone regarding any aspect of Christ and the truth in the Bible.This meat of what was being discussed in this thread for the longest with my participation has been on aspects of Christ's humanity and what it implies. And I felt it was a profitable discussion. If you notice the post I made in the "corrupted King James" thread, I make no mention of the Recovery Version, but was engaging in the issue of the King James Only view. I am not here to promote any group or any 'movement". I love the Lord Jesus and love to speak of Him and the Reality of His Life within us.A brother came in here and posted a web site which in my opinion is very biased in painting the "recovery" and the ministry of Witness Lee" in a negative light. That is surely his perogative to do so and to express his concerns.My response was to give some web addresses which are the actual teachings and positions of the reco very with the suggestion that people judge for themsleves which I don't beleive is out of place expecially in a thread which is on the "recovery version"My use of the word "handgranade" at least in the spirit in which I used it is in my mind and experience no different from what might be considered Ravenhill's practice of "launching hand granades". That is, I believe he is the king of hand granades." The Lord Jesus when he came into Caperneum (I belieeve) entered the synagog and began to speak. But He threw out a few hand granades and the people drove Him out and sought to throw Him over the cliff.The Lord Jesus was always "throwing hand granades" and that is why they crucified Him. I consider his words, "unless you eat my flesh and drink my Blood, you have no life in yourself" to be quite a "hand granade".When I was in Bible school, we studied spiritual warfare for a year under Joe Carroll's teaching, He was a former Cornel in the Austrailian Army in WWII. Hand Granade is just a term I adopted from that years study of Ephesians and Joshua.But by this I don't mean to be controversial for the sake of contraversy. And we have to be governed by the Spirit in what we have liberty to say.I have enjoyed dialoge on may items in many of the forums here. I do not promote the local churches or Witness Lee. And I only brought it up in the other forum so that I would be in the Light and officially "introduced". I believe as all here do, that we all have liberty to quote something we like or enjoy. And if it finds an "Amen" or an echo in other's spirits then Amen.Graftedbranch

Thanks brother.

When I was saved at age 17, I was not saved in any denomination or 'church group'. A friend had been saved in college and came for the summer and preached Christ to us and myself as well and some of my friends and my brother also were saved. We began to meet together and have bible studies and the relality of Christ and the Spirit was present with us. I soon discovered the books of Watchman Nee and began to read them including his biography by Angus Kinner, "Against the Tide". I was deeply impressed with both his teaching and his life recorded in his biography and had the sense in my spirit that, "here is the genuine article, the real thing".As I read his books, I also began to collect those authors he refered to such as Arther Pink, Jessie Penn Lewis, Pember, Madam Guyon, John Bunyon, and others. This also led me to the Puritans and I devoured them. I became very "reformed" in my theology. The Bible school I attended was very much in line with the emphasis of Nee, Penn Lewis, and others of the Keswick tradition. That is the "deeper life" conventions which were held at Keswick England anually. I became a fond reader of A.W. Tozer, H. C. G. Moule. and others of that strain. After 2 years I could not conclude whether Joe Carroll was Calvinist or Arminian, This is to His credit. He would only say, "Calvin did not die for you".The School emphasised our personal Life in fellowship with Jesus Christ and personal worship of Christ daily, LIfe in the Spirit, and Spiritual Warfare. We spent a year in the book of Romans and also studied cults, revivals, personal work, Old Testament and New Testament surveys, and bible study methods. We also studied basic Greek and the use of the tools to get into the origional text. It was an excellent school, totally Christ centered and there was a reality there which I did not find anywhere else for many years. The School is the Evangelical Institute of Greenville, SC and the web is www.eigonline.org.My difficulty over the years was that in these writeres, my own initial experience of Christ when I was saved, and my experience in school were of such a nature that I became very dissapointed in what I found in the denominations. I always expeceted to fine the depth of teaching and the Reality of Christ and the Spirit but it never happened. I spent many years in Baptist, Christian Missionary Alliance, and Grace Brethren churches.I have to say that the Christian and Missionary Alliance is the best I found as far as teaching and depth and reality which I attribute to the Faithful ministires of both A.B. Simpson and A. W. Tozer. I am sure others might disagree but this is my experience.But, as I (together with my wife) pursued the Lord in the way of personal worship and Bible study and began to experience those things which are the "normal Christian Life" we began to find that in our denomination (Grace Brethren at that time), we either had to be compromised and grieve the Spirit, or if we spoke and testified of the reality of Christ within us, in a faithful way, we were percieved as a threat and were not recieved by the "authorites" though we had good fellowship with other believers there. We either had to "get with the program" or shut up.I found the "program" to be something other than Christ. It was Christ plus this and Christ plus that. But not Christ.Eventually I was reading through a comentary by Handly Moule on Romans and I was impressed by the Spirit with, "They preach Christ for us but not Christ in us". And I was also increassingly concious that the body of Christ is not allowed to function. That is, unless you are ordained and have the credentials and titles, you have no means to minister Christ in the Church. The pastor said, "leave the preaching to me". This disturbed me.The Lord brought my wife and I to the point where we said, "Lord, we are never again going to a denominational Church. I don't know what we will do, we will meet with some believes in our home or something, but we are not going back. And we had the assurance in our spirit that the Lord was in this decision.That day my Wife did a search on the Net for home churches and the local church came up. I did some research on the web. I also found, "Jim Moran's web site and read through it. What I found was that in Jim Moran, I did not sense the Spirit (mind you I had never attended a meeting of the local church nor was I in any way influenced by them). Rather, when I read the posts of those who were in the church and defending the ministry, I saw Christ. IN their attitudes, In their appeals, in ther demeanor, and especially in the points they made. It was Jim's web site that caused me to see the reality of Christ in the local churches.I also went to the LSM web sight and I listened to many of the Life Study broadcasts. I found nothing but "Amen" in my spirit. I had even in the past heard negative things about witness Lee, but I had to admit that what I heard him speak was full of Life, full of truth and I had the Amen of the Spirit in my spirit. It was this that led me to conclude that we would attend a meeting.What I found in the meetings of the local church and the ministry of Witness Lee was the Reality of everything the Lord had taught me in the scritpures, In my personal worship of Christ and what the Spirit had taught me concerning the Spiritual Life, the Cross, the indwelling Christ, and everything I had already come to see in the bible. I embraced the Ministry becuase it was where the Lord had already brought me, I was not brought up by it. I sat in the first meeting and as believer after believe stood up and spoke the "deep things of God' that I had learned over many years I turned to my wife and said, "We have found the Mother Load". This is my experience.I confess along with Tozer, Ravenhill and even Joe Carroll and others, that I have a very low opinion of the state and spiritual condition of the denominational churches (not of the people in them). I happen to be of the opinion that the systems in place are designed to keep people at a certian level of spiritual growth. I say this as one who was the assistant to a Baptist Pastor in teaching the official Southern Baptist "Spiritual Maturity Manuel". Revivals occure on the ground level but they soon become suppressed from the top down. And eventually they dissipate and the self perpetuatiing system takes over. This is a cycle that has been goining on for years.Some may argue that the proper thing to do is to stay there and labor for revival. But I have come to a different view. That is that the Lord's call is to "come out from among them". The Systems will not change. It has never happened since the days of the Reformation or even the RCC. There were many moves of God in renewal and revivial among the Catholic believers but the system has never changed but rather suppressed, and persecuted those who sought renewal. The Reality of Christ in the believers is a threat to the hierarchy and will always be resisted by those in power.This is my conclusion and my experience. It's validity lies in the fact that it is a true testimony. I don't expect everyone to agree with my conclusions nor do I suggest that others are wrong to do otherwise. But I only testify to the Light I have recieved and how I recieved it and the path the Lord has led us in.And one day the Lord will enable me to have a spelling checker which works with Netscape.Graftedbranch

The fact that the leadership of "recovery" has a propensity to take other believers to court. This ITSELF is so blatantly unscriptural as to preclude ANY further discussion from me on the matter.I guess I just have to shake my head on this point. IN the "Christian community the courts are used all the time. Issues are brought before the Supreme court concerning religious liberites and such things all the time by evangelical groups and ministries.It just boggles my mind that Christians do not consider the impact of people publishing lies, slander, and gross misrepresentations of facts and think it somehow unscriptural to address these things in a legal way when all methods and appeals and seeking to discuss and fellowship are ignored and dismissed.And in this it is obvious that a prayerful consideration of Paul's words concerning law suits and their proper application are ignored.Sorry to say, this to me is just a "knee jerk reaction".If one took the time to do the research and find out why and how these events came to be, one might have more insight and understand the issues involved and the ramifications.If one were to do so he would find that the findings of the court are that the accusations were unsupported, without any basis and malicious in intent. And one would say, "how evil it is for people to make such broad, unsupported and false accusations to others who are brothers in Chirst.I will have to say, that one of the formost "opposers" of the Lord's recovery, the Christian Reaearch Institute headed by Hank Hanagraff has met with the leading brothers in the recovery and has retracted all his accusations and on the web site of the Christian Reaserch Institute all negative references to the recovery and the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee have been removed.Graftedbranch

If you quote Ravenhill, Watchman Nee, and others in that vien, they were accussed and maligned and even ridiculed but they took no action, actually yes they did, they took it to God in prayerBrother, I cannot speak for Ravenhill. But for Watchman Nee in China, he did not have the constitution of the United States to appeal to but rather was under a communist regiem which had no provision for the fair and just resolutions of the accusations which were aimed at him and which ultimately resulted in his imprisonment and eventual death.I am not privy to the details of his arrest or the circomstances which surrounded it. But I can say that every attempt was made under that legal system to secure the release of brother Nee.Paul appealed to ceaser. Graftedbranch

I will also add that many books have been published which disagree with Watchman Nee and protray him and Witness Lee in a negative Light. Books such as 'Understanding Watchman Nee" and the local churches have never considered "lawsuits". Anyone is free to express their views and to disagree. However, when a book is published with false accusations, unsupported claims, and malicious intent, it becomes a matter of Libal and defamation.This is the issue at stake. And it has ramifications which affect the ministry and the testimony of the Lord in His work.The laws in our country protect us from such and the use of the legal system is not prohibitied in scripture. Especially when every attempt is made to settle the matter outside of the legal system but is ignored and set aside.I suggest a prayerful consideration of Paul' words in 1 corinthians. To consider its intent, It's context, and its application.I suggest that our use (as believers) of the legal system is a matter of the Lord's leading. And not everyone will agree with us no matter what.It is written. "Who are you to judge the servant of Another, to his own Master a man stands or falls. And stand he will for God is able to make him stand".I can testify that when I began to meet with the saints in the local churches, I had an appreciation for Watchman Nee but I knew little of Witness Lee. But over the last three years, as I have experienced the fruit of his ministry and listened to his messages via tape, I have never encountered a man who was more selfless, more full of Christ, more concecrated to Christ and His Intrest, more broken, than brother Lee. This is just my testimony and others may not see this. But I have had the privalege of sitting under the speaking of some of the "greats" of the Christian life. And I can testify that no decision in the 'recovery" is made without intense prayer, without soul searching, and without a deep concern for the Lord's testimony and His Intrest. Graftedbranch

Guess I will have to work from the top down...Was just musing on this whole aspect and perhaps it might be a good idea to open it up in a seperate thread, bringing in different applications where it comes up in scripture.Think there is likely a bit more to flesh out in all of this.Act 25:11 If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar." As well as the 'defrauding' mentioned earlier, brother against brother and so forth.I suggest a prayerful consideration of Paul' words in 1 corinthians. To consider its intent, It's context, and its application.And similarly the same with the others. Perhaps then we might gain a better understanding as it applies here.

Want to echo Greg's earlier sentiments here as well, thank you GB for shedding more light here from your personal testimony, it makes me almost wonder.. 'Why were you holding out on us?" ;-) Certainly you had shared some parts elsewhere but just want to commend your willingness to open up more of where you are coming from as well as where you have been, it helps to gain a better understanding in such a volatile area as this is or can be...It seems that there is more than one singular approach to how this is in effect working itself out, this ministry. It does seem a bit contradictory in the stated goals, that of being unified and also 'not exclusive'... What am I trying to say? One the one hand it is "But of course" we are still stupid sheep and though it is supposed to be that "They might be One as We are" I can't but help wonder sometimes if that was something stated to humble us all, because we always fall short, either in contentions or by compromise... Something about an unorganized organization that just doesn't work by definition, I don't mean in a sloppy way... I am way too brain tired to go any further with this right now...:-? I do sincerely appreciate the tact you have taken here to go on and work through this brother, it's what I had prayed for, perhaps some unity in disagreement after all.There is still some questions and concerns about those that have been seriously affected that shouldn't be overlooked though, the critical aspect mentioned earlier by Agent001, the same ones that I have been trying to get at for a bit now.What is helpful is when we take the accusatory tone out of everything and try and work at the root things. It is something peculiar to these kinds of settings, that takes some patience and some give and take to accomplish... I became a fond reader of A.W. Tozer, H. C. G. Moule. and others of that strain. After 2 years I could not conclude whether Joe Carroll was Calvinist or Arminian, This is to His credit.You win me over with that one! :-) To his credit indeed, heard it expressed similarly by Keith Daniel (BTW, Listened to any of his messages here? Think you would find him a real blessing) and that brings out the Amen in me.And one day the Lord will enable me to have a spelling checker which works with Netscape.There's the trouble! :-P

It does seem a bit contradictory in the stated goals, that of being unified and also 'not exclusive'... What am I trying to say? One the one hand it is "But of course" we are still stupid sheep and though it is supposed to be that "They might be One as We are" I can't but help wonder sometimes if that was something stated to humble us all, because we always fall short, either in contentions or by compromise...This is indeed one of the most difficult aspects of understanding the "recovery". How can you claim to be demonstrating the oneness of the body of Christ yet you separate yourselves from the others and seem to maintain an attitude of exclusiveness..But lets take it from a different perspective. When we come to Christ who is "The way, the truth and the Life..." We automatically are separated from religions and every other way or method in seeking God. Unbelievers all regard us as Christians to be arrogant and exclusive because we cleave to Christ as "No one comes to the Father but by Me."And as believers, as we go on with the Lord and enter into a fuller relationship with Him and have fuller revelation in the truth, we are automatically separated, at least inwardly from those who don't see what we see. It does not mean that we are not brothers and sisters but each of us has to live unto the Lord according to the Light we recieve or, we may even lose the light.But in practice it is not so much that we determine to separate ourselves and be "exclusive" but we take a possition in the Lord and live according to the Light we have by the Spirit and some will oppose us but others will see Christ in us and seek to know Him in the same way. This is just our experience in our progress with the Lord.When we come to the matter of the church, it opens up a can of worms that few are willing to even consider. There is so much confusion and contention over the matter that most just turn away from it.But when we come to the scriptures and especially the epistles of Paul, Christ and the Church are the central matters in his burden. It is seen in every epistle and the high revealtion of the Church is found in his epistles in a way that is not found in any other (though it is not absent).When we come to this "high revelation" and we gain by the Spirit's enlightment the revelation of the reality of the body of Christ according to Paul's revealtion, we have to admit that this Light is absent from most of the preaching and teaching which exist in today's Christianity. It is just simply ignored and the basic items of salvation by faith in Christ are the central theme in most preaching.But if in our seeking the Lord and our openness to His further Light in His word, we see in the Divine Revelation the Nature of the Church as the body of Christ with all its implications, we are inwardly separated from those who do not see it.Believers who can say, "Go to church' and regard the building in which they meet, "the church' show no revealtion concerning the reality of the church as the body of Christ. "This is the church and this is the steeple, open the door and there's all the people" is the level of light in most believers I believe we all have to admit.But when with the inner revelation of the Spirit in the Word we see that the church is not a building or an orginization but a living orginism which we have heen baptised into by the Spirit, it takes on a new signifigance.From then on we cannot say, "go to church' because it is contrary to the light we have in our spirit. Rather we know that "we are the church". This brings in a separation not outwardly but inwardly and make us in some's opinion "odd". We just cant do that. We know the reality. We have to testify to it and live in light of it.If we take this further which I believe the lord in Watchman Nee led him, to see the Lord's burden in the New Testament to build up the body of Christ as local expressions of the one body, then if we see this, we have to take this ground. We take it not because someone convinced us that this is the right thing to do, but because we see by the Spirit's light in the Bible that this is the reality of the Church. We have to go this way or we are not faithful to the Light we have recieved.As a consequence, those in Christianity who do not share this Vision from the word will oppose and will seek to find a reason that those who take this way are wrong. It is inherent in our nature to do so. If we are not enjoying the Light we will oppose it. It is our nature. some will just ignore it because they are not passionate about their "religion" but others who have givein themsleves to religion will strongly oppose it. This has been the history of both Christ and the church in all the ages.What can we say. we are following the Lord according to the Light we have seen in the Bible. Others may not see this and others will oppose it. But what can we do? To whom else can we go? We are folowing the light we have and acting according to the what we have recieved from the Lord in His word.I am sure this is disturbing to some. But again. what can I say. Graftedbranch

When we come to this "high revelation" and we gain by the Spirit's enlightment the revelation of the reality of the body of Christ according to Paul's revealtion, we have to admit that this Light is absent from most of the preaching and teaching which exist in today's Christianity. It is just simply ignored and the basic items of salvation by faith in Christ are the central theme in most preaching.According to the way you grade the canon of scripture 'the revelation' was missing from most of the early church's Christianity too.This is simply a re-hashing of Darby's hyper-dispensationalism. He taught the 'ruined church' whereas the 'recovery' teaches a 'ruined church everywhere except in the recovery'. There is a phrase in Job which keeps coming to mind...“No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.” (Job 12:2, KJVS)

This is simply a re-hashing of Darby's hyper-dispensationalism. He taught the 'ruined church' whereas the 'recovery' teaches a 'ruined church everywhere except in the recovery'. There is a phrase in Job which keeps coming to mind...Brother, I hold no "hyper dispensational view". I consider the Church as one and the New Testament revealtion is One. But it's revalation was progressive from the time of pentecost till the completion of the New Testament Cannon which ends with the the epistles of John which shortly followed the book of Revelation. This progression is unfolded in the book of Acts.There is only one New Testament Truth and one New Testament Revelalation and it's demarcation is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ and the entering into it's reality is with the outpoured Spirit at Pentacost.But the understanding and revealion of it and all it means and all it implies was incremental and progressive from that time till the completion of the New Testament Scriptures. Graftedbranch

Graftedbranc wrote:If we take this further which I believe the lord in Watchman Nee led him, to see the Lord's burden in the New Testament to build up the body of Christ as local expressions of the one body, then if we see this, we have to take this ground. We take it not because someone convinced us that this is the right thing to do, but because we see by the Spirit's light in the Bible that this is the reality of the Church. We have to go this way or we are not faithful to the Light we have recieved.As a consequence, those in Christianity who do not share this Vision from the word will oppose and will seek to find a reason that those who take this way are wrong. It is inherent in our nature to do so. If we are not enjoying the Light we will oppose it. It is our nature. some will just ignore it because they are not passionate about their "religion" but others who have givein themsleves to religion will strongly oppose it. This has been the history of both Christ and the church in all the ages.What can we say. we are following the Lord according to the Light we have seen in the Bible. Others may not see this and others will oppose it. But what can we do? To whom else can we go? We are folowing the light we have and acting according to the what we have recieved from the Lord in His word.I am sure this is disturbing to some. But again. what can I say. GraftedbranchWow!I used to be a member of a cult once too, (seventh day adventist) so I kind of know the mindset.LC="we are the recovery"SDA= "we are the remnant"LC= Witness LeeSDA= Ellen WhiteSDA= we have the light!LC= no! we have the light!To claim you are not a denomination or a sect when your little group is the very definition of a denomination or sect! You have an organized religion just like anyone else's, with a hierarchy, a set of (rigid)doctrinal beliefs and a set way of holding your meetings. When Witness Lee was alive, your church followed him like catholics follow the pope.Your "light" is just a delusion you won't let goof, because you know the way, and everyone else is hostile because you have the truth. That is what is called ARROGANCE and it is at the heart of all cults. Like I said I know the mindset, it is universal to cults, I will plead with you now to stop rationalizing your position, and pray to God to remove any delusions you hold.

I like this quote of Michael Molinos in His preface to "The Spirital Guide" written in Italy in the 1500s:"There are some Learned Men, who have never read these Matters, and some Spiritual Men that hitherto have hardly relished them and therefore both condemn them, the one out of Ignorance, and the other for want of Experience. Besides, it is certain, that he who hath not the experience of this sweetness, cannot pass a Judgment upon these Mysterious Secrets; nay, rather he'll be Scandalized (as many are) when he hears of the Wonders which the Divine Love is wont to work in Souls, because he finds no such Rarities in his own."Graftedbranch

To claim you are not a denomination or a sect when your little group is the very definition of a denomination or sect! The apostle Paul was commisioned by God and through him God established many churches. He was among them and labored among them preaching and teaching. He also wrote many epistles to them. And when he found within their midst a party spirit saying, "I am of Paul' he severly rebuked them and brought them back to the centrality of Christ.Does this make those churches a "cult"? Are they in the same vein as "Ellen G. White?Do the local churches elevate "Witness Lee or Watchman Nee above the scriptures? Are there any revelations which are embraced or adheared to which are "extra biblical?' The answer is no.Are the local churches legalistic as the 7th day adventist? Do they preach another Christ as the Jehovah's witnesses? Are they heretical in doctrine? The answer to all these is no.If there were a move of God in this age of genuine Christianity and the church LIfe, what would it look like? Would it fit into the concepts of most evangelical Christians? Would it be in the norm of tradition? Are we so spooked by the "boogy men" of the heretical sects that we deem anything which is out of our mind set to be "cultish"?Let's be honest. If there were a genuine move of God and a recovery of New Testament Christianity today even if you don't see the local churches as "it". It would not be received, It would be considered a cult by the mainstream. The mainstream just can't imagine God doing anything outside of or apart from them.Jim Moran said to me, "why would God, with so many fine theological institutions choose to use some unknown Chinese man to bring these things to light? My reply was, " for consider your calling brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many wellborn. but God has chosen the foolish things of the world that He might shame those who are wise. and God has chosen the wealk things of the world that He might shame the things that are strong. And the lowborn things of the world and the despised things God has chosen things which "are not, that He might bring to nought the things which are so that no flesh may boast before God"I have expressed many views in many forums in this web sight. I can testify that my views are the views of the recovery. But I do not base them there but in the scriptures. They are not my views because I am in the recovery or a 'follower of witness Lee" but rather they are my views because I see in the scritpures what the recovery and Brother Lee sees. Not everyone agrees with what I have said, but I ask you, Are they heretical? Do they deny the Person and work of Christ and His work in us? Do they deny the authority of the scritpures? Is there any hint of the denial of the New Birth and regeneration by grace through faith in His Name? Am I legalistic?The answer is no. I suggest the real thing has been going on for the past 70 years through the minisry of Watchman Nee in China, moving to Tiawan and the US and from here to the uttermost parts of the world. Today there are over 3000 local churches worldwide, 300 in the US, 300 in Russia, many in Isreal, and hundreds elsewhere.I am also not suggesting that there is no "genuiness or reality" anywhere else. But I believe it is a genuine work of the Spirit to recover to the church many things that have been lost and neglected by the mainstream.Graftedbranch

To claim you are not a denomination or a sect when your little group is the very definition of a denomination or sect! Brother, The definition of a denomination is a group that denominates itself by adopting a name. That is what "denomination" is. It is to formaly adopt a name which represents your "sect".A sect may or may not be a denomination. You can be a sect but not be a denomination if you don't denominate yourself.To say, " we choose not to denominate oursleves but just meet as believers who are members of the church in our locality which includes every beiever in our locality whether they meet with us or not, certianly does not make us a denomination.The Church in Corinth was not a denomination, nor was it a sect. The Church in Ephesis was not a denomination neither was it a sect. The Church in Thessalonica was not a denomination nor a sect. And each of these churches were established by Paul and Paul labored along with co-workers and wrote epistles to them, But they were neiter a sect of Paul nor a denomination, They were just the church in their city.We are not inherently special people. We are those who see in the "bible that the body of Christ is one and therefore we should not denominate ourselves but just meet as simple believers as the church which is not an orginization but is an orginism not exclusive to us but inclusive of all believers.If others see this as a "denomination" then that is how they see it. But that is not the ground we take.The "recovery" is not a name of any group. It is not "our name". To say we are "in the Lord's recovery" is not to say we have joined any movement or group, but that we are participating by Grace in that which we see that the Lord is doing. It is a descritpion of something the Lord is doing. It is a process the Lord has been engaged in for centuries. Primarily since the reformation. And the recovery today is just in that flow. It is what the Lord is doing in recovering things lost to the church through tradition false teachings, philosopheis, and teachings of men which crept in shortly after the Apostlic age and brought in the "Dark Ages" which lasted nearly 1000 years.And in every age as the Lord worked to restore the lost things, (Justifiecation by faith, Salvation by Grace, Christ as the Head of the Church and no Pope, the Priesthood of all believers, etc) The same accusations, the same resistance from the "mainstream" has sought to villify those who were instumental and to suppress it and to discredit it in an effort to maintain the status quo.This is a fact of church History.Graftedbranch