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
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
"A central proposition of Witness Lee's foundation is an eschatology"
"Witness Lee's position is an extreme form of dispensationalism."

I would never conclude such things based on one quote from one book, but maybe that's just me.



Nor me, I have had a copy of the RcV for many years, and am pretty familiar with the author's thought patterns.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/6/16 4:12Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
This cuts off the current generation from all its forebears. What may have been permissible to them is now no longer so. Whenever I hear this kind of language I inevitably remember Job's sarcastic remark 'no doubt ye are the people, and wisdom will die with you'. I do not commend his sarcasm but I understand his position.



Surely Lee has a form of eschatology as we all do. But to suggest that the concept of "recovery" is based on eschatology is not accurate except as Revelation chapters 1-3 regarding the letters to the churches is conserned. And this is based in Watchman Nee's exposition as contained in "The Orthodoxy of the Church".

The concept of recovery is based on the principles of recovery as particularly seen in Ezra and Nehamia regarding the restoration of Isreal to the land and the rebuilding of the temple which is God's dwelling place.

That the temple is a type first of Christ and then of the body of Christ in the New Testament is clear in the New Testament as the Lord refered to his own body as the temple ("tear down this temple and in three days I will raise it up"). This typology is not peculiar to Lee or the local churches.

And the fact of recovery is seen throughout church History. AS the brother pointed out, recovery is a regaining of what was lost, neglected, set aside, replaced, or degraded. And that is simply what is found in the Bible. What was in the beginning and was lost and degraded into the dark ages.

But what I am percieving here is that it is believed that somehow Lee and the local churches believe they are somehow a fulfillment of some prophetic eschatological view which is not the case at all.

The only prophetic statement which it is believed is being fulfilled is "upon this rock I will build My church" and the Lord's prayer that his believers "may be perfected into one..that the world may know that thou has sent Me" in John 17.

And it is believed that the Lord will have this for His return whether it be from us or from some other group of believers, and we give ourselves to the Lord for His Purpose and believe He is faithful to do as He has promised with us if we are faithful to Him. We are in fact consciouse that He is doing this as we grow in HIm and experience the reality of the body of Christ.

IN other words, according to the Bible, the Lord is building His church, perfecting His Bride, and producing overcommers to end the age and to usher in His return. That we are at the end of this age is nothing peculiar to the recovery. But the relization that we are is due to the Lord's recovery of much dispensational and prophetic truth through the Brethren in the last 2 centuries.

The very fact that any Christian today holds any form of pre-mellinialism, belief in rapture, the restoration of Isreal to Palistine, end time prophecies, etc. is the product of the Vision of the Age in the 19th century. That is the light given to the Brethren. What you enjoy today is the product of the Recovery in both the reformation and the subsequent generations.

We simply believe God did not stop with the Brothers, but has continued on through the inner Life teachers, the Keswick teachers, and began a particular work in China with Watchman Nee in recovering much conserning Christ and the church and has continued on till today.

As to the Recovery's ties to past generations both pre reformation and post reformation, an overview can be found at:

http://www.lordsrecovery.org/history/index.html

Graftedbranch









 2006/6/16 9:39Profile









 Re:

I have had the recovery version for years as well, and from what I have read (and I've read in it alot), a central proposition of Witness Lee's foundation is God's economy, a word translated from the Greek word oikonomia. It has nothing to do with money. See 1 Timothy 1:4 for an example, and the note on the word economy.
You can read it online at
online.recoveryversion.org

or get a hard copy at
www.biblesforamerica.com

 2006/6/16 9:45
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

I would also add that Watchman Nee in "the Orthodoxy of the church" contended that the 7 churhes in Revelation represent distinct periods in church History.

The first 3 run consecutivly while the last 4 continue to run concurently. This is based in the fact that only in the Last 4 does the Lord mention His comming.

According to Nee's view, Thyatira refers to the Roman Catholic church (the church in Apostacy), Sardis to the protestant church (the church in reformation), Philidelphia (the church in recovery) to first the Brethren in the 19th century and then the current recovery, and Laodicia (the recovered church in degradation)to the degraded brethren who finally divided and became ingrown and self absorbed, (you say 'I am wealthy and have become rich and have need of nothing).

It is believed that what the Lord is recovering today is the continuation of "Philedelphia" or," the church of brotherly love". A continuation of what the Lord recovered through the Brethren of the 19th century.

If you see that "recovery" does not refer to an orginization or movement within Christiandom, but rather just, "what the Lord is recovering" then you see that recovery intrinsically is not about this or that group or orginization, but rather it is about believers as members of the body of Christ, by the Spirit's unveiling, seeing from the scriptures those things being recovered and acting and meeting on this basis, then it ceases to be an issue of this or that group or Christian leader vs another, but rather just the expression of what the Lord Himself as the Head of the Church is accomplishing based in the revelaton in the Bible and His intention to build His church, perfect His Bride, produce the overcommers (Rev 1-3) and conclude the age.

In other words, the recovery is not an orginization you join, a movement you get involved with, a church you join, but rather it is the reality of the body of Christ that you see from the scriptures by the Spirit's light and the way you take as a believer in living according to this light.

In other words, Like those in Ezra's time, the Lord stirred up the spirits of many (not all) to return to Jerusalem and rebuild God's dwelling place on the proper ground with the proper materials. This is the Lord's recovery.

In other words, when you see the Purpose of God in the Bible, you embrace it, when you see the ground of the church and the oneness of the body of Christ, you take that ground, when you find others meeting on this ground, you fellowship with them, when you find the "ministry of the age" which embraces and ministers the New Testament ministry inclusive of these things, you enjoy it.

Ephesians 2:20-22 "Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone; In whom all the building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; In whom you also are being built up together into a dwelling place of God in spirit".

Graftedbranch



 2006/6/16 10:13Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
That's wonderful, but it's still defending and a disregard for those who have had some pretty terrible experiences. Perhaps it's the followers ...



I believe if we went through church history and even the early church we could find decenters and those who had bad experiences. Many have left Christianity all together because of this or that experience. Some have become budist and Hindus. Does this nulify Christ or Christianity?

But becasue a few have had issues, does it nulify the 10s of thousands, even millions today who actually enjoy this ministry and who meet as local churches?

Are there not over 3000 local churches worldwide? And are there not at least 2 million believers in Mainland China today who embrace the ministries of Nee and Lee?

Can a case be built from the experiences of a few who had offenses, that nulify the testimony of thousands, the record of all the teaching in the publications which are available to all, the accounts, the histories, etc.

THis seems to be a bit lopsided don't you think?

I am not sure why "defending" is inappropriate. If alagations are made should they not be supported by more than just a reference to others who hold a similar opinion? And if anyone here were to state or publish alagations or negative things conserning Tozer, Sparks, Ravenhill, or any others, is it not met with defense by those who appreciate their ministries?

If one were to reference an "anti Tozer" or Anti Ravenhill site, what whoud the response be? And who cannot testify to anguish and torment from the writings of such as Finney, etc. Unstable souls who misread or misunderstand and have bad experiences. Some have enen sued ministers such as John McArther Jr. For preaching againt sin, etc and causing someone to commit suicide.

As Paul said conserning his ministry "to some a fragrence of life unto Life, to others of death unto death". Does the response and effect on individuals validate or invalidate the reality? Or can it be a testimony to the condition of the one offended by it? Will we discredit Peter because of the death of Annanias and Saphira?

I was in a large meeting one time following a conference and the saints were standing and testifying and there was a great sense of the Spirit's leading and Presence. One woman stood up who had come in off the street and began to speak. She did not make a lot of sense but she was encouraged. But then she began to speak of Mary Magdalene and sex (things from the Davince Code) and odd ball things that were inappropriate to the meeting and contrary to genuine faith and was politely asked to sit down. She sat with an offended look on her face and finally got up and in a huff left the meeting never to return.

I am sure she did not have a good experience and felt humiliated. It was no one's intention to humiliate her but even as she was speaking all the Saints began to call on the Lord in one accord spontaniously. Sometimes these people will get offended and go off and write a book in their bitterness. When the book is analized it is in reality, "how my feelings got hurt and now I want to retaliate".

The bible school I attended (not affiliated with Witness Lee or the local churches) was an excellent school in the line of Tozer, and other inner life teachers. There was one who came to school there and became a sunday school teacher in the church there on campus.

But it was discoverd by the faculty he was teaching contrary things and undermining the ministry at the school and he was removed from teaching.

This one went off and published a book in bitterness against the school, misrepresented the teaching and got hold of a database of all the contributers of the ministry and Bible School and sent his book to them charging the school with heresy. A reading of his book showed unsupported claimes, misrepresentations, misquotes, and bitter feelings.

Yet it had its effect and the school suffered greatly because of it. One man's bitterness can wreck a ministry.

This happens.

Graftedbranch





 2006/6/16 12:06Profile
crsschk
Member



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

 Re: Another angle

GB, Matt ...

Even after the last comment recognized the possible ways that could be interpreted, one of which it could be said by 'both sides' if you will. (Re: [i]the followers[/i])

I would agree it is lopsided in the easy dismisal, the lack of any consideration whatsoever other than a sense of pragmatism;

Quote:
Can a case be built from the experiences of a few who had offenses, that nulify the testimony of thousands, the record of all the teaching in the publications which are available to all, the accounts, the histories, etc.



Is all the questioning without warrant?

Quote:
Are there not over 3000 local churches worldwide? And are there not at least 2 million believers in Mainland China today who embrace the ministries of Nee and Lee?



Now hold on just a second ... "Which" "local" churches are you describing? The "local" but not "local" churches that no one seems to understand except those adherring to the "local ground" teaching? I am not trying to be uncharitable here brothers, nor do I harbor any bitterness whatsoever...

There is something somewhat intangible that is difficult to get around here with all this. I am afraid that Ron's illustration is correct, it gives off that air whether one likes it or not. It is not a '[i]take or leave it[/i]' but '[i]protect and defend it to the hilt[/i]' and that I just do not understand.

One of the problems with using a Tozer or a Ravenhill by way of comparisson is that neither had a 'language' that was transfered by way of adherance to a teaching. To be honest it seems that even GB has backed out much of the catch words that are used since the days of first inceptions here. I am not presuming upon your intentions nor implying anything, just an observation.

Quote:
I am not sure why "defending" is inappropriate. If alagations are made should they not be supported by more than just a reference to others who hold a similar opinion? And if anyone here were to state or publish alagations or negative things conserning Tozer, Sparks, Ravenhill, or any others, is it not met with defense by those who appreciate their ministries?



Not of a mind that it is 'inappropriate', just disproportionate, it's constant and unbending to hear anything but it's own mantra ... sorry. Again the difference in those mentioned is that the voices of discent are only conspicous by their abscence.

It seems by and large there is a matter of control hovering over this whole thing.

For others, a great deal of this is a rehashing of previously covered ground:

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=8066&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go] "recovery version" of the bible[/url]

Brothers, I still have no animosity whatsoever.
Just the same concerns.

[i]Edit* Coming back to this later on today feel I owe an apology here to both Matt and GB as to anyone else happening upon this. Recognizing something that is questioning my own motives in reply here... A level of pride laced through that ruins any otherwise genuine concern that I might have had.[/i]


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/6/16 16:00Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
Now hold on just a second ... "Which" "local" churches are you describing? The "local" but not "local" churches that no one seems to understand except those adherring to the "local ground" teaching? I am not trying to be uncharitable here brothers, nor do I harbor any bitterness whatsoever...



I am speaking of the local churches resultant from the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and who today utilize the ministry of Living Stream. Those who would consider themselves as in the Lord's recovery and who meet as local churches as "the Church in ..."

The lable "the local churches' or "local church movement" is one assigned by others. Those who meet as "local churches" use the term in its biblical sense. That is, believers who meet simply as the church in a given locality. Use of Living Stream ministry materials is a volentary choice and no one is not regarded as a genuine "local church' if they choose not to, but as they are the fruit of this ministry, and don't despise the spicket from which the water flows, most do.

There are over 3000 such world wide. Over 300 in the US, and 11 Full time training centers in the following contries:

Anaheim, USA (1989)
Bangkok, Thailand
Hamilton, New Zealand (1993)
Jakarta, Indonesia (1995)
London, England (1997)
Malabon, Philippines (1986)
Malaysia (2000)
Mexico City, Mexico (2001)
Moscow, Russia (1992)
Seoul, Korea (1996)
Taipei, Taiwan (1986)

Following Watchman Nee's imprisonment and sending Witness Lee to Taipei, under Lee's ministry the church in Taipei grew in 5 years from 400 to over 15,000. Today the church in Taipei includes over 70,000.

Since 1962 over 300 churches have been established in the United States and altogether over 3000 world wide including Russia, Isreal, England, Dublin, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Fiji, New Zeland, Austrialia, Eastern Europe, South Africa, and many African cities, The Phillipenes, and on and on.

The present recovery was born and nutrured in China, sent to Tiawan with the communist persecution, brought to the US in 1962, and from here has gone out to the uttermost parts of the earth.

In Russia there are over 200 local churches in the recovery and many sprang up spontaniously just by comming into contact with and reading the ministry materials and began to meet and after 1 or 2 years contacted the ministry seeking fellowship with other churches.

The recovery is not a small and isolated thing.

GraftedBranch






 2006/6/17 11:40Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

I am not overly familar with the teachings of Witness Lee. Personally, I'm not sure I could stomach them after the distaste I had from Watchman Nee, and my brief encounter with the "local church" in Charlotte.

Outside of their ultra-dispensationalist tendencies, the local churches seem rather orthdox to all major historic Christian doctrines, such as the infallibility of Scripture, the incarnation, the atonement, the trinity, etc.

However, in my opinion what makes the local churches "heretical" is the schismatic nature of their sect and the frank hero worship that occurs. Paul spoke of the hero worship that went on in Corinth. Some saying they were of Paul, some of Cephas, some of Apollos, yet others saying they were of Christ.

Now, interestingly enough, I get this insight from Watchman Nee in one of the books he wrote, on how Christians were even being devisive in saying, "I am of Christ!" So, to put this in modern perspective, some say they are of the Baptist, others the Presbyterians, others are Methodist. Then comes the local churches that shame all modern denominations and say "We are of Christ!"

And this is what the local churches do in saying they are the only true church in any geographic location. Watchman Nee spoke on this in one book, saying tha Christians ought not to divide over doctrine and such. Yet at the same time, he refused to interact with other denominations in China saying the only issue worth dividing over is meeting under the headship of Christ. And since none of the denominations meet under the headship of Christ, he therefore could not co-labor with them in areas concerning the gospel.

Or in otherwords, he decided others were of Paul, others of Cephas, others of Apollos, but the local churches were "of Christ!" Therefore, he created schism in the body of Christ by writing off the legitimacy of other churches whom he did not as being "of Christ" and under his headship.

And while I agree that the modern denominational system, espeically of the episcopal form, has in essence shut out Christ from being the head of the church when it comes to practical matters of church life, this still doesn't mean we cannot labor together for the sake of the kingdom. But Nee determined that the local churches could not be co-laborers with those in modern day denominationalism.

What I think Nee failed to realize that in essence he was creating his own denomination by teaching and practicing such things, and falling into the same trap of the Corinthians. If he was truly recognizing Christ as head of the church universal and local, he would have found that indeed, because Christ IS such, regardless of modern day portestant popes, that he could have fellowship and co-labor with those in other denominations.

And because of such, it is no surprise that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee seem to get an unhealthy amount of devotion. A close friend of mine went to a "local church" meeting once, not quite knowing what they were, and phoned me up afterwards to tell me of her experience. She was shocked how much literature of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee these people just had laying around everywhere. She was shocked how the conversations of the people centered very much around Nee and Lee. Their books were frequently consulted throughout the meeting, and the people really tried to push Nee & Lee on to her, as if she needed to experience some sort of conversion by their teachings.

I have no problem with deep admiration and respect for various preachers. I am a big fan of John Wesley and Leonard Ravenhill. However, as much as I respect these men, I also have some disagreements with them over some issues. Frankly, they were wrong on some things. And so were Nee and Lee. Nee has some very insightful comments, but, ultimately is wrong on some things. Sometimes though, it seems the local churches would never really say that Nee and Lee were flat out wrong on some issues.

If it weren't for the fact that Nee clearly changed his doctrine some over time, I'd say the local churches would have canonized their works as inspired Scripture. Without a doubt though, some seem to unofficially exalt their teachings to such a level. And as much as denominations have tended to center around various superstar type preachers, I can't think of too many that seem to have gone as far as the local churches.

Just my personal and humble opinion...


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/6/17 12:51Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

This I believe is an honest view and I think expresses valid conserns.

But when you boil it down, what it comes to is basically a disagreement over the view of the ground of the church and "too much Nee and Lee".

What this poster misses expecially with respect to Paul and the Corinthians, is that his solution to the "I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ is solved by Paul by the ground of the oneness of all believers in Christ.

The difficulty with the "I am of Christ' sect in Corinth is that they did not include the rest in their position. They were exclusive. "I am of Christ" not "we are all of Christ". This is the difference. And the local churches do not say, "we are of Christ and you are not, but rather, we are all of Christ and therefore lets meet on this basis.

The ground of the church Paul establishes in the 1st Chapter is just this"

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."

IN His first verses he extablishes the ground of the church. It is "of God" as to its source, and In Corinth as to it's location. And it consist of "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus", This is the makeup of the church, and they are "along with All who call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every place. This is the Universal aspect of the Church.

In this one verse is the solution to the divisions in Corinth (and the divisions in today's Christianity), the ground of the Church, the nature of the church, the Sorce of the Church, and the universal and all inclusive asprct of the Church.

The dificulty with the divisions in Christianity is that everyone acknowleges they are unscriptural, but God forbid that anyone should actually believe that there is a way back to the oneness in the beginning and a way for the Lord to have the oneness He prayed for in John 17. That they be perfected into one that the world might know that thou has sent Me (showing oneness is not just mystical but also practical).

It is true that no one can go in an tear down all the divisions. No one can make anyone be in one accord. No one can do anything to correct the situation.

What then can we do? We can simply take the right, the biblical, the scriptural position of the church and stand there. If other's follow, amen. If not, then that is between them and their Lord.

But having seen the onenesss of the body of Christ, having seen that divisions are unscriptural and deny this oneness, what can we do? We cannot any longer meet as a Baptist, as a Presbeterian, as a Methodist. We cannot meet on the ground of this or that division, method, preacher, etc. We will meet simply as the church. And we recognize that every believer in our locality is a member af the body of Christ and therefore a member of the church in our locality whether they see it, choose to meet with us or not.

Somenone has to be the file leader and take the ground of the church. Someone, some believers must return to Jerusalem and rebuild God's dwelling place on the proper ground. If they don't, if they remain in Babylon which is division and confusion, it will not be built. It just won't happen.

Paul's solution to those who said, "we are of Christ" was not to go and join one of the other groups who said, "I am of Paul or I am of Appollos. That was not his solution.

He did not say, "just go along with the rest so as not to be divisive".

No, rather He brought them back to the reality. He brought them back to the true nature of the Church as the One body of the One Christ in the One Spirit. Did Paul die for you?

Paul's answer was to write from the position of the ground of the church (vs 1:2) and to bring them back to Christ, to show the all inclusive nature of the church and to bring them back to the oneness of all believers in Christ.

And this is what the Lord's recovery is and the position it takes. The true solution to the divisions in Christianity is the Spirit's unveiling of the reality of the body of Christ and the oneness of all believers and the Spirit's conviction to take this position and to stand in it.

With revelation comes the entry into the expreience. When we see the reality of the body of Christ, when we see the One Body, one Spirit, One lord Jesus , one baptism, One faith, One God and Father who is over all, through all and in all, we can take no other position, We cannot labor with those who seek to build up divisions, rather we can only labor with those who seek to build up the body of Christ on the ground of the oneness of all believers.

Paul's answer which is the whole epistle to the Coirinthians was to remind them of the oneness of the body of Christ, to show them the futility and dishonering of the Lord to be divided, to unveil the nature of the Lord's table as the Body of Christ of which they all share. Paul's solution was the Truth, the Reality, reminding them and insturcting them as to the true nature of the church, our organic union with Christ, the Spirit as the uniting One in all believers. This was Paul's solution to the divisions and it is the Recovery's solution to the divisions which exists today.

We cannot undivide all the other Christians, but we can come out of division to the proper ground and position. We can just stand in the right spot. We can stand as the church in our city and include all believers as members as that one church. A church we did not create. A church we did not form, But a church which is made up of those born of the Spirit of God, regenerated in Christ's resurrection and partakers of His Divine Nature. We just stand as the local expression of the One body of Christ and ivite all other believers to take that ground with us because it belongs to them.



Graftedbranch

 2006/6/17 16:31Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Grafted,

Quote:

The difficulty with the "I am of Christ' sect in Corinth is that they did not include the rest in their position. They were exclusive. "I am of Christ" not "we are all of Christ". This is the difference.



Indeed. However, this is exactly what I see Watchman Nee teaching in the local churches. His movement has become a denomination of "I am of Christ" and excluding others who are saying "I am Methodist" or "I am Baptist."

Quote:

In this one verse is the solution to the divisions in Corinth (and the divisions in today's Christianity), the ground of the Church, the nature of the church, the Sorce of the Church, and the universal and all inclusive asprct of the Church.



Amen.

Quote:

Paul's solution to those who said, "we are of Christ" was not to go and join one of the other groups who said, "I am of Paul or I am of Appollos. That was not his solution.

He did not say, "just go along with the rest so as not to be divisive".

No, rather He brought them back to the reality. He brought them back to the true nature of the Church as the One body of the One Christ in the One Spirit. Did Paul die for you?



But Paul's solution of the exclusive "we are of Christ" group was not to continue in their exclusiveness. Rather he would say later of the sects that were forming in regard to even the Lord's Supper:

1 Cor 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

"Those who are approved..." mingled amongst even the gathered sects. Those who are approved become evident "among" you. Those who are approved recognize that the REALITY of the unity of believers grounded in Christ transcends any divisions that men might erect, rather those other divisions recognize it or not.

Such is my personal case. Currently I fellowship at a Church of God (Cleveland, TN), which embraces an unbiblical episcopal form of church government. I don't agree with everything the denomination teaches or does. I don't agree with everything the pastor/elders teach or do. In fact, I have very strong disagreements on some issues.

However, at the same time I recognize the life of Christ flowing through so many in the congregation, as they bear fruit reflecting that divine life, especially in our elders who are elders indeed. And sensing the witness of the Spirit with them, and seeing Christ operate in their lives, I partake of their lives in Christ. And in Christ, I minister alongside of them for the sake of the kingdom of God.

The same goes with them in regard to me. Because I spend a lot of time with our churches pastor, I bounce a lot of ideas off him that I believe to be Scriptural, though he doens't always agree. And he knows that I officially disagree, and on some matters very strongly, with not only him but also the rest of the denomination.

Take for instance the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Our denomination believes that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a subsequent event in the life of a believer whereby one is empowered for witnessing, and that the initial physical evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is speaking in unknown tongues. For the most part, I agree with this thought. However, I do not insist that a person who is baptized with the Spirit must speak in tongues. Indeed, I believe that somebody baptized in the Spirit may not speak in tongues at all.

Yet in spite of this major difference (in the eyes of our denomination it is major that is), my pastor has no problem with supporting the ministry God has given me. For he says he sees the hand of God very strongly in my personal life as well as ministry, and believes that God has indeed called me into the ministry and equipped me with the gifts for it.

But then there is a problem with this. Though my pastor supports me very strongly, and though we labor side by side in building up the saints and ministering to the lost, the denomination we are part of will probably never officially recognize me with any sort of credentials in ministry because of my doctrinal disagreements. They are known to have made exceptions in the past, but those are very rare. Indeed, perhaps they will one day confer upon me a ministry license. But chances are slim (not that I really need one as it is).

But to me this is sad. It is sad because though my local church that I attend fully recognizes me as a saved born again Spirit-filled Christian, they are likely going to insert a wedge between myself and the rest of the denomination, by limiting what I'm "allowed" to do amongst "their" churches. It's sad they will probably refuse to ultimately acknowledge across their network of churches what Christ has made a reality concerning me in heaven.

Not that I care to seek such titles and letters and such. Those things mean little to me. I am what I am by the grace of God, no matter what they might say. In the eyes of Christ I am what He alone has made me. To me it is sad, not because in the long run they might officially reject my ministry, but because they are robbing themselves of the fulness of God's blessings. Yet, I labor amongst them anyway.

In all this, I recognize Christ as head. In all this, I recognize the Spirit as the source of unity. In all this I recognize love forms the bond of peace between us all. Such unity is not acheived through secterian division, even in the name "of Christ."

As it stands, most of the "layity" don't really care if they are part of the denomination we are part of. Personally, I have found most in denominational churches today don't really care about the denomination all that much. About the only ones who care about it are those who have licenses from them!

Quote:

When we see the reality of the body of Christ



The only problem is that many people simply do not in anyway have a revelation on truths concerning things such as the local church and the headship of Jesus Christ. All they are going to see is another sect amongst many claiming to be the real church of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

We cannot labor with those who seek to build up divisions,



But in doing such, you are actually laboring with them in creating divisions. And this is the beef I personally have with Nee in this doctrine. To me, such is extremely short-sightedness.

To do such is to deny the reality of Christ in them, and the ministries He has given them. It would be like my denomination not giving me a license because of some of my doctrinal stances, nevermind that Christ is evident within my personal life and works through me with the power of the Spirit. If I see Christ alive in another person, and working through them, I as their united brother in Christ want to labor with them in the gospel, regardless of what name tag they might wear.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/6/18 0:30Profile





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