SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : recovery version study Bible

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

1 Corinthians 1:2 "To the church of God which in 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."

The issue is really not what Watchman Nee taught, or Witness Lee, or the local churches believe. The real issue is what is the view of the New Testament. What does scripture say, what is the record of the New Testament, and what is the true ground of the church according to it's revelation?

Watcham Nee's burden was the recovery of the New Testemant church according to the New Testament revelation of the church. And the teaching regarding the practical expression of the church is based on the New Testament revealation of the origin of the church and the nature of the church.

According to Paul's view, which is the Spirit's view in the scriptures, the source of the Church is God. The Church is "of God". It's origination is from God, and it's element is God Himself. The church is "of God" as it's Divine source and also "of God" as a Cheese cake is a "cake of cheese." It's element is cheese.

When we see the revealtion of the church in it's essence, origin, and content, then the expression of the church becomes evident.

As Paul says to the Corinthians, the church is "of God" and it is "in Corinth" as to it's localtion.

But as a local church, it is not isolated or exclusive, but is, "with all those who call upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours."

This opening word of Paul in 1 Corinthians lays the foundation and basis for his address concerning the divisions and sects which were emerging in Corinth. Paul opens his epistle with this salutation establishing in typical Pauline compresion of thought and condensed "high revelation" in encapsolated form, the origin of the church, the nature of the church, the extent of the church and the expression of the church.

All that follows is based in this.

It is the ethos of modern Christian throught to simply accept the conditions existing in Christendom as inevitable. That is, the church is divided up into so many denominations, so many sects, based on this or that leader, this or that particular practice or teaching, etc.

Watchman Nee saw by the Spirit's Light the New Testament revealtion of the church as the organism of the Triune God. He saw the church as the Bride of Christ, taken out from Christ of His Nature and substance, being built up with the materials of Christ to be His perfected Bride.

Watchman Nee saw the church as a practical expression of the Body of Christ which is His body by virtue of the Divine life of Christ which indwells Her and animates her.

But, though Watchman Nee had much to say regarding the practical expression, His labor was to produce not a working model or shell, but rather to produce organically the church by the preaching of the cross and Christ as our indwelling Life. In this way the church is built up from the inside out. Not by way of outward constructs, but by way of the growth of the Life of God in those who have believed.

Rather than dealing first with the shell, the espression, one must begin with the inate reality, the very essence of the church, and the origin and the nature of the church. When we have a grasp of this by the Spirit's light, then what we do practically flows from the inner reality.

What we need is to lay aside our concepts, our traditional views and our opinions based on the conditions of today, and come back to the Divine Revelation in His Word, and seek the Spirit's understanding of His heart, His intent, and His eternal Purpose. And from this we enter into an understanding of God's intent for local churches.

1st Corinthians is a book dealing with this very matter. It lays the foundation which is Christ and it asserts in no uncertian terms that divisions and sects are products of the flesh. It states this on the baise of "is Christ divided?" It shows us the Lord's table in which we all partake of the One bread and we are all "one loaf".

The way to deal with all these issues is the way of the Cross, to deal with our natural life, to deal with the things of tradition, culture, and all the things which divide us and to bring us to Chrsit alone as our all sufficient, rich, and overcomming life.

The reveatlion in 1 Corinthians deals specifically and thourally with the whole basis of of denominationism, of sectarianism, and all the things which divide us.

Graftedbranch








 2006/6/27 12:00Profile
mamaluk
Member



Joined: 2006/6/12
Posts: 524


 Re:

Would any one like to help me understand Nee's teachings in regards to the Lord's Supper, in your understanding , not from his writings?

I'm baffled by two Nee followers I recently met.
They said that our emotional love at the Lord's supper is not appropriate, because our emotions for Christ are false, that we are only to conduct the breaking of bread strictly as an act of obedience, any emotional involvement would be considered offensive to HIM ???

mml

 2006/6/27 13:13Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
They said that our emotional love at the Lord's supper is not appropriate, because our emotions for Christ are false, that we are only to conduct the breaking of bread strictly as an act of obedience, any emotional involvement would be considered offensive to HIM ???



This is surely either a misunderstanding or a misreptesentation of Watchman Nee.

Emotion, while not the spirit is the genunie vehichle or organ of expression of the Spirit in our spirit.

Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. Here Mary by the Spirit shows us the functions of both our soul and our spirit.

Our soul is the organ for the expression of our spirit. Our soul (our mind, will, and emotion) is the proper God created vehichle of the expression of the reality of the Spirit in our regenerated spirit.

Emotion alone is not acceptable to God. What is purely of an emotional stirring and has no basis or origin in our spirit has no spiritual value. But in exercising our spirit our emotion is involved and is the organ for expression of our love to Christ.

If we are without emotion we are dead in our soul. The proper function of emotion is to express God who is within our spirit.

Nee emphasised the need to exercise one's spirit at the Lord's table and not just emotion. But we are not to nulify our emotion, but rathe express the feeling of the Spirit in our spirit in our human emotions.

Nee emphasise over and over the need for our soul to be in haromony with our spirit and that we need to have a dellicate sense of the spirit and the more we are in our spirit, the more our emotion will express the delicate feeling of the Spirit.

Graftedbranch

 2006/6/27 19:55Profile
mamaluk
Member



Joined: 2006/6/12
Posts: 524


 Re:

Graftedbranch,

Thanks for clarifying that for me, I thought so too. Godly emotions of believers are never downplayed in the Scripture.

It's just sad to see these brothers' extreme attachment and misunderstanding of Nee's teaching. They idolize him so.

I can only ask the Lord to help them see now.

thanks,mml

 2006/6/27 21:16Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
I'm baffled by two Nee followers I recently met.



I am sure Nee would be greatly distressed at a "Nee follower" as He preached Christ as Lord and himself as a servant for Jesus sake.

But as to those who embrace his ministry and find in it the reality of the New Testament revelation, I will say I have been among them for 5 years and find that the centrality is upon Christ and not Nee or any servant of Christ which is the chareristic of Nee's ministry.

In other words Nee preached and taught the centality of Christ and those who embrace his ministry do the same. What makes his ministry genuine and effective and enriching is his ministry of Christ. Not ministry of himself.

Of course the same can be said for Paul's ministy. Though the New Testament is 90% Pauline, it's centrality is Christ, not Paul. And because Paul was a man who knew the Cross and took it daily to his natural life, He could minister Christ in purity and in the power of the Spirit. So it is with any genuine minister of Christ.

Graftedbranch

 2006/6/30 16:47Profile
y2daddy
Member



Joined: 2003/6/20
Posts: 3


 Re:

I'm a little new to the dance here, but I have had 20 years of experience either in the "local church" (The Church In Elyria, The Church In Cleveland) or just fellowshipping with the saints in these fellowships, so I thought I would add my two cents.

I believe that the believers in the recovery are genuine Christians. Of that I have no doubt in my mind. And I also believe that Witness Lee has some rich portions in some of his writings. Some of the Life Studies are incredible to me. [u]The Economy of God[/u] helped me to understand the Trinity somewhat, if such a mystery can possibly be understood at all.

I've enjoyed the fellowship of the brothers but one thing can't be denied- they are most definitely a denomination. No amount of spin can change the fact that they have a central headquarters (Living Stream Ministry in Anaheim), they used to have a Pope (Witness Lee), and now they have "the blended brothers" (Ron Kangas et al), they only use publications from Living Stream- see [url=http://www.lsm.org/onepublication/]One Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery[/url] for more information on that. That topic alone has led to a split between some of the churches in Ohio; they now don't fellowship with each other whereas before they were very close.

My last meeting was on Christmas Day when I enjoyed the Lord's Table with the Church In Elyria. During the testimony time I heard impassioned speeches about how degraded Christianity was for celebrating Christmas and how the local churches preached a higher truth. That was enough for me and I haven't been back.

I kept a blog for about a year where I wrote about Witness Lee several times. See the following entries:

[url=http://seanmacnair.blogspot.com/2005/12/three-is-magic-number.html]Three Is A Magic Number[/url]
[url=http://seanmacnair.blogspot.com/2006/01/cult-is-cult-of-course-of-course.html]A Cult Is A Cult, Of Course, Of Course[/url]
[url=http://seanmacnair.blogspot.com/2006/01/joy-of-sects.html]The Joy of Sects[/url]

And these entries where I described my disillusionment:
[url=http://seanmacnair.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-i-am-not-now-and-likely-never-will.html]Why I Am Not Now...a member of the Lord's Recovery[/url]
[url=http://seanmacnair.blogspot.com/2006/04/chink-in-armor.html]A Chink In The Armor[/url]

It was the last entry, A Chink In The Armor, where I quoted a troubling passage from the Life Study of Ephesians:

Quote:
"As the only begotten Son, Christ did not have human nature. He only had the divine nature. When He was incarnated, He put on human nature. The thirty-three and a half years of His life on earth were a transitory state. On the one hand, He was still the only begotten Son of God; on the other hand, He had put on human nature. The divine nature within Him was the Son of God but the human nature was not. Therefore, during those thirty-three and a half years, Jesus was quite peculiar. He had the divine nature--that was the Son of God--but He also had on the human nature, and that was not the Son of God. That human nature had not been born of God. According to His divinity, His divine nature, He was the Son of God. But, before His resurrection, He had something that was not born of God-- the human nature. He needed to pass through death and resurrection in order for that human part to be born of God." (pg. 126)



And with that I made my departure. To say that Jesus was only part-Son of God is very troubling to me.

I am sorry for going on and on like this. I have no bitterness towards my brothers there, even though they pretty much dropped me from their list of friends when I left. I love them and will be happy to see them in heaven some day.

Peace,
Sean MacNair

 2006/7/2 19:39Profile
least
Member



Joined: 2006/7/2
Posts: 1


 Re:

I just read through this forum and from the posts, you can easily tell who are in the local church (recovery version), or, Witness Lee's believing church.

May the Lord be merciful to those who are more faithful to man's teaching than to God's word.

 2006/7/2 20:22Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Recovery

Hi Sean,

Welcome to SermonIndex, hope you find much to glean through. Really appreciate your honesty and sharing your experience and concerns here.

Quote:
I am sorry for going on and on like this. I have no bitterness towards my brothers there, even though they pretty much dropped me from their list of friends when I left. I love them and will be happy to see them in heaven some day.


Feel free brother.

I share your sentiments here as well.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/7/2 22:14Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
And with that I made my departure. To say that Jesus was only part-Son of God is very troubling to me.



Genesis 3:16 "And Jehovah God said to the serpent... and I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her Seed: He will bruise you on the head, but you will bruise Him on the heel"

2 Sam. 7:12-14 "When your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, which will come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. It is he who will build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of His kingdom forever. I will be His Father, and He will be My Son..."

Matt. 22:42-43 "Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, 'David's'. He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord... If then David calls Him Lord, how is He his son?"

Revelation 22:16 "...I am the Root, the offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.

"Romans 1:3 Conserning 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 resurretion of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord".

2 John 7: "For many decieves went out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deciever and the antichrist"

THough this concept is forign to many Christians who never thought this through or who have never studied theology on the person of Christ, this is in no way unorthodox.

But as the Eternal Only Begotton Son of God, the Word who was with God and Was God from all eternity, and who "became flesh and dwelt among us, this humanity He put on, or "became" as in John 1 is created humanity.

That is the Lord was born out of the seed of David according to the flesh. His humanity was the "seed of David" (which will come forth from your body) It is the humanity derived from His mother Mary that makes Him human. He was not just materialized in the womb of Mary, but Mary, a decendant of David, was his mother.

THe Lord's humanity was not God, It was not Divine. If His humanity was God, then He would not have been subject to death. But He died on the Cross as a Man. His humanity was not Immutable, unchanging, omnicient, or eternal. HIs humanity did not posses the divine attributes of God but He was weak, He grew, He was limited, He learned, he suffered, He died. His humanity was genuine created humanity. This is the Mystery of Christ, the Eternal Uncreated God united with His very creation, bringing God into man in incarnation.

Christ was indeed the Son of God and did not lay aside any of HIs Divine attributes in becomming man. But in becomming man He added humanity to His divinity. His divine attributes were expressed in His created human virtues. His was real humanity. Real created humanity. He was the union of the uncreated God with Created humanity.

But as created humanity, His humanity passed through death and resurrection to be glorified and uplifted and permeated with the Divine Life. IN HIs resurrection He was designated the Son of God in His humanity and exalted to the right hand of God and recieved honor and glory as a Man.
this glory He "ever had with the Father before the world was" as God (John 17) but as a man he must pass through death and resurrection to be glorified in his humanity.

THis is basic Christian orthodoxy upheld by the Creeds of the ancient church, held by the church Fathers and acknowledged by every orthodox theology in church History, Christ is very God of Very God, but is also the Son of Man and very man of very man. He is the God/Man. He is not only the origin of all things, He is also the "first born of all creation.

He is both Creator and creature. He is God and Man. But now in His Humanity in resurrection He is the First born Son of God from among the Dead and in Him we also are made His many brothers sharing His LIfe.

This is just New Testament. THis is the Bible. This is the Mystery of Christ. The incarnation of the eternal God in humanity. God manifest in the flesh, genuine human created flesh.

In fact, the very test of orthodoxy given to us in 1 John 4:2 is, "every spirit that denies Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist".

There were those who taught that flesh was created and therefore sinful (not sinful because of the fall, but sinful because of being created matter) and Christ was not really in the flesh but only appeared to be human. But John tells us this is the spirit of Antichrist which denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

Christ did not become flesh by transmuting into a physical form. He became flesh by incarnation. Born of a Woman of the Seed of David.

Footnote on 1 John 4:2: "This is the spirit of the errors of the Docetist (or Docetes). This name was derived from the Greek word meaning "to seem, to appear to be". The heretical view of the docetists was theat Jesus Christ was not a real man but simply appeared to be; to them He was merely a phantasm. Docetism was intermixed with Gnosticism, which taught that all matter was essentially evil. Hence, the Docetists taught that since Christ is holy, He could never have had the defilement of human flesh. They taught that His body was not real flesh and blood but was merely a deceptive, transient phantom, and thus that He did not suffer, die, and resurrect. Such a heresy undermines not only the Lord's incarnation but also His redemption and resurrection. Docetism was a characteristic feature of the first antichristian errorists, whom John had in view here and in 2 John 7. The spirit of such errorists is surely not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist."

I am saddened that someone would leave the felloswhip of the saints in the Lord's recovery not because of error but because of one's own concept and a failure to seek the Lord and to research the doctrin to see if it be of God and Like the nobel Bereans "to search the scritpures to see of these things be so".

This is not some strange docrine that Witness Lee came up with. It is the historic, orthodox, biblical doctrine of the two natures of Christ, both human and Divine.

Many Christians just never put 2 and 2 together to realize that to be human is to be created. To be Divine is to Be God. To be Christ is to be both human and Divine with both natures. The One eternaly derived from God, the other derived from Mary, his mother.

We superficially say, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and leave it at that. We fail to realize that He is also the Son of Man. A fact which the scriptures and orthodox theology affirm at every point.

Graftedbranch

 2006/7/4 11:54Profile









 Re:

Regarding this statement: "May the Lord be merciful to those who are more faithful to man's teaching than to God's word" I would like to say something.
As someone who accepts nothing out of man's mouth without confirming it in the Bible I take some offense to that assumption. Where do you get that assumption from? Thorough personal observation, or based on man's word? I have seen many accept man's word in the Christian world without checking it in the Bible- an all too common phrase is, "I'm going to ask my pastor." To the contrary of the statement in question, I have not seen or heard of someone who proved all of his words more throughly in the Bible, and encouraged more heavily those listening to his expositions to get into the Bible themselves and see for themselves what the Bible says, than Witness Lee (and as to whether or not everyone listening to his word did that, the answer is that most did, and do, and to say otherwise is to emphatically focus on a few negative cases, which are inevitable with any sizable group of people). If you can tell me of someone whose speaking is more biblically based and biblically balanced than Witness Lee's (or Watchman Nee's) I will be the first to read that person's books and listen to that person's speaking. I have not found any such person, and all such persons of the past were gladly received, and used as a base upon which to stand, by brothers Nee and Lee- including brothers alive at thier time, to the extent to which those ones spoke with a basis in the word of God.


Secondly, there was some discussion earlier as to whether the teaching and practice of the local church is not just another division. Here is an interesting story from a book titled [i]The Practical Expression of the Church[/i], which is one of the books by Witness Lee that addresses this matter, the title of the book being drawn from a message T. Austin Sparks gave in 1938, and was published in the book [i]The Stewardship of the Mystery[/i], volume two, edition one (volume two of the second edition, which was printed twenty-five years later, is a completey different book, and is the the one that is widely available today). If you are genuinely interested in seeing the biblical basis for the teaching and practice of the local church, you can read this book from which I am quoting for free online at:
www.ministrybooks.org (under the catagory of "Selected Titles by Witness Lee" in the P's, for: Practical Expression of the Church, the)

Here is the quote, which is from the end of chapter twelve:

In 1937 in Chefoo, North China, I was invited to a dinner with some Christian leaders. Nearly all the leaders of the denomonations of that city were there. After a time they said, "Brother Lee, we have heard you say that we all must be one. But the more you speak about oneness, the more you create division." Then I answered, "Brothers, we all know that the believers in Corinth were divided. Some said they were of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Cephas, and some even of Christ. But all were rebuked by the Apostle Paul. In the light of this I would ask you if you think it is right for me to call myself a Presbyterian or a Lutheran or a Baptist?" They replied, "No, we would not ask you to do that." So I said, "What then shall I do? Since you do not ask me to be a Presbyterian, a Lutheran or a Baptist, what shall I do and where shall I go?" They could not answer me. I continued: "Since I love the Lord, I must preach the Gospel, and undoubtedly there will be some who will be saved through my preaching. Since you have said that I should not be in any denomination, should I send those who have been saved through me to a denomination which I cannot join?" Still they could not answer me. Then I boldly said, "So you see, we are forced to take the ground of unity so that we can meet together in a proper way. You say that we cause division, but who is responsible for the divisions? If all of you will promise me to drop all the denomonational names and divisive elements and come together as the local church in the city, I will immediately ask the brothers to close our meeting hall. At this they shook thier heads and said that this would be impossible. So I said very strongly, "Who then is responsible for the divisions?"

A number of Israelites did go back to Jerusalem. Apparently, they increased the number of groups. But actually, they did not bear the responsibility for divisions. It was those who insisted upon remaining in captivity and not obeying the command of the Lord to go back to Jerusalem who were responsible for the divisions among the Lord's people."

 2006/7/14 23:32





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy