quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
It is not shocking that Nee's writings would be so threatening to the established church culture. After all, this culture is largely ruled by teachers who reject the validity of contemporary apostolic leadership.


Bless you,
Aaron

---

Contemporary Apostolic Leadership?

Please post where you get this from the Bible.


This sounds very catholic to me.


Also what qualifies a man to be an Apostle according to the Bible KJV.


Acts 1

[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
[21] Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

[23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
[24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
[25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
Hi Aaron!

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:
http://thechristianbbs.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=000396



One is Your Master, Even Christ

By David Henke

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brothers. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for One is your Master, even Christ, But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. Matthew 23:8-12

The confrontations depicted in the gospels between Jesus and the Pharisees were one of escalating tension. Jesus spoke the truth to them openly in the hearing of all. The positive response of the common people disturbed the Pharisees. Their response was to stiffen their resolve to rid themselves of this troublesome Rabbi.

In the end Jesus was crucified for our sins, which was God's plan from the foundation of the World. But that was not the final end of the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees.

The willfulness and unbelief exhibited by this pseudo-righteous sect was characteristic of the Jews at the time as they sought salvation by means other than Jesus. That willful unbelief ultimately led to the destruction of their power and influence when the Roman General Titus sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and scattered the Jews.

This article is written to foster understanding and insight into the potential influences at work when a religious group is set up without the polity needed to constrain our fallen human nature.

Spiritual leaders struggle with the same sinful nature as those who follow. The efforts of leaders to see their church move forward can run into frustrating obstacles which can lead to the temptation to manipulate. A viable accountability structure is a guard to the congregation and to the pastor.

The alternative is to let an abusive situation worsen to the point where it is almost unavoidable that many people will be affected by spiritual abuse. Scripture nowhere countenances such a situation to exist.

The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. (Ezekiel 34:4)

As I write this article I am working with members of a church that is dealing with the results of having allowed unbiblical procedures to rule.

There is a struggle between a controlling and manipulative leadership that has seated itself in "Moses seat" (Matthew 23:2), and a growing group of "dissidents" who are calling for a reformation in the governance of their church. An internet discussion forum has become the means by which people have been able to communicate and begin to sort out truth from error.

Two decades ago another discernment ministry issued a report of their findings about this church. That report said, "In actuality, there are currents within the organization that are quite orthodox and evangelical, and there are other currents that have definite cultic tendencies. The decisive question has always been--which element within the organization will ultimately prevail?"
A Little Background

There is one primary source of the Pharisaical motive to control, the sinful heart of fallen man. However, that motive will play out in one of two ways. First, there may be insecure people in spiritual leadership who compensate for their weakness by trying to be big. Just like the Wizard of Oz who sought to be big by using sound and lights to frighten people into submission. Though Toto found him out, the Wizard tried to remain big by saying, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

A second way control finds its way into a Christian setting is through a false teaching of the biblical doctrine of submission to spiritual leaders. There have been numerous Christian groups that have used "shepherding" as a method of discipleship. This teaching holds that the shepherd should be consulted for all life decisions and failure to do so, or to follow the counsel of the shepherd is the sin of rebellion and a sign of spiritual immaturity.

Another way submission is required is through the teaching of a "chain of command" in one's church and family relationships. It is also called "delegated authority." These terms have been associated with abusive, controlling authority in the Discipleship, Shepherding groups.

This false teaching came into American churches through Watchman Nee and his book Spiritual Authority. Nee says on page 71, "If God dares to entrust His authority to man, then we can dare to obey. Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us. The obedient one needs only to obey. The Lord will not hold us responsible for any mistaken obedience, rather He will hold the delegated authority responsible for his erroneous act." In addition, he states, "We should not be occupied with right or wrong, good or evil; rather should we know who is the authority above us" (page 23).
So, What's Wrong With That?

Watchman Nee learned this concept of delegated authority from the ethics of Confucianism. Confucius taught that parents should always be obeyed, that they were never wrong, but if they were they should still be obeyed. Among Confucianists loyalty is one of the greatest virtues and can lead to the blind loyalty described in Nee's statement.

To bring this concept into Christianity antagonizes one of the most fundamental principles of New Testament Christianity, the Priesthood of all believers. When the veil of the Temple was torn in half God was signifying that we all now have equal access to Him. There is no person who has spiritual authority (power) over us. We are all siblings in Christ and there is no chain of command among siblings.

Authority in the New Testament is of a completely different order. In some settings in our life we experience the kind of leadership that has the power of command. Our jobs are many times an example. But in the church a very different kind of leadership is needed.

The Church is a voluntary association of free people who accept the authority of God but recognize the equality of every believer.

The Church is a voluntary association of free people who accept the authority of God but recognize the equality of every believer. Because God is no respecter of persons, and because we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and because we can come equally before the Throne of Grace, the only valid authority and leadership we can follow is one of servant leadership.

Jesus, the Almighty Creator of the Universe had the valid authority to command and coerce. He instead chose the opposite of power and became the least. He took a washbasin and cloth and washed His disciples feet. The contrast between Who He is and what He did is so great that it should be impossible for anyone to misunderstand.

Nee's "delegated authority" also blatantly violates Jesus' own counsel at Matthew 23:8-12. "Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ." Spiritual leaders have moral authority but they do not have coercive authority. Theirs is a servant leadership. Only the whole congregation acting together has the power to coerce according to Matthew 18.

For example, we are to submit of our own volition to godly leadership (Hebrews 13:17). But, we are to discern the godliness and scriptural validity of that leadership (1 Corinthians 11:1). Also, we must not submit if our conscience or biblical truth are violated. If a leader is leading contrary to truth then we should first consider that "a word to the wise is sufficient." If that is not heeded then we must consider whether the issue is of little or great weight. If it is serious enough then we must confront (1 Timothy 5:19) with witnesses, and if the charge is denied then Matthew 18 says we must take it to the whole church.

It is the congregation as a body that decides such issues. And therein lies the problem in abusive churches. They have short-circuited the Matthew 18 mechanism so the "whole congregation" is prevented from exercising its power. So, the one who brought the accusation is left with the question where does he go from here? How will he get the issue before the whole congregation?

This frustration was expressed by one of the posters on the internet who is trying to bring accountability. He said, "(Our church) will not even deal with a Christian organization. They would have a problem with "ANY" (geez do we get it now, ANY, ANY, ANY!) group dealing with these problems that was Christian and not somehow connected to them. Even from within they don't deal with these issues. There is NONE, not any, nothing, complete void of any polity to create accountability for most of the leaders. When they make mistakes that are abusive nobody has a way of dealing with these abuses. None, nothing, not there. Do we get this now? Nothing, nobody, no place, just a void."

In any healthy Christian church there is a polity that provides for resolution of conflicts, or better yet, prevents conflicts by providing an atmosphere of orderliness and accountability. The first provision is in scripture itself. The second is within the polity, or form of church government, adopted by the church or denomination.

Frequently church bylaws will specify that their business meetings are conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order, or something similar. In this case the New Business portion of the meeting affords the opportunity for bringing up the issue. That usually requires one must be a "member" to have standing in the meeting. But the church described above has no membership outside the handpicked Board members.
Church Polity

In church history there have been three primary systems of church government. They are the Episcopal, the Presbyterian and the Congregational. Other systems have existed but the common denominator with them is they are either dictatorial, meaning no real polity, or heretical, or both.

The Episcopal polity emphasized apostolic succession, the passing of spiritual leadership authority down from the Apostles to bishops, then to succeeding bishops, etc., until today. In this form, which arose from the tradition of the churches in Jerusalem and the surrounding area during the first century, the leading Apostles, Peter, John, and later James, appointed other leaders who had their authority in Apostolic appointment, and so on through history. The local church in this polity is accountable outside the church to the denominational leadership. The major denominations using this polity include the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Anglican/Episcopal churches.

The Presbyterian polity gained a strong following during the period of the Reformation under the influence of John Calvin. It is a sort of middle position between hierarchical and congregational polity. The church using this polity typically will have elders who are selected, or approved, by the congregation and these elders will govern in the daily affairs of the church. There is also an external accountability by the local church to a denominational authority. The main adherents of this polity are, of course, the Presbyterians.

The Congregational polity is very democratic in form. The congregation chooses its ministers, its lay leadership, and also decides more mundane matters as they come before the church. This polity arose from the English Reformation. Churches organized on the Congregational line do not recognize any authority above the level of the local congregation. There is no external authority. There may be associations of local churches organized for their common purposes but they do not have authority over the local congregation. The main adherents of this polity are the Baptists.

...the best polity can be corrupted to serve the purposes of human leaders if those to whom they are accountable fail to hold them to account.

The polity of any of the above churches can function effectively in the hands of godly leaders. On the other hand the best polity can be corrupted to serve the purposes of human leaders if those to whom they are accountable fail to hold them to account. The most important element in any polity is that two-way accountability be built into the system.

In any of the above polities true spiritual authority comes from the moral authority of servant leadership. It wasn't just the words of Jesus spoken publicly against the Pharisees that turned them against Him. It was the stark contrast between the humble servant with great moral authority in comparison to the Pharisees who held positional authority and were arrogant and uncaring for the people. When the people responded to Jesus the Pharisees had to act to silence this exposure of their own hypocrisy.
Fight or Flight

So, if two way accountability is not present in the system, what does a person do? Flight, or leaving the group, is one option. In some cases that is the only option. If a person has been so deeply injured that any effort at correction just reopens the old wound then leaving, at least for a time to heal, is best. The reader may find it unusual but many who have been deeply injured cannot bear to even darken the door of a church again. The burden of their injury is as much as they can bear. Such people need intensive grace and time.

On the other hand some are motivated to act. Anyone who chooses to act must check their motives. Are they vindictive? Are they based upon biblical truth and principles? What are the ethics they will follow in their opposition? In their efforts to expose and correct will they sink to the same low standards to which they object? These questions and many more must be considered as part of the decision to take a stand as a "dissident."

Those loyal to the abusive system will accuse the dissidents of being angry. Anger is a God given emotion. It tells us when something important to us has been trampled. Anger is an initial emotion. If handled biblically it serves a proper purpose. However, mishandled it can become bitterness and lead to cynicism.

Outrage might be a better term to use. Anger occurs when we are injured. Outrage occurs when we see another who is injured. It is selfless. Outrage is the emotion upon which to act when God's Truth and God's people are suffering at the hands of false spiritual authority (Jude 3,4; Galatians 5:1; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; Acts 20:28; 2 Pet. 2:1; Ezek. 33:7-9; 34:1-10.

Christians, all Christians, have the common duty to confront and correct false teaching. False spiritual authority usually rests upon a foundation of false teaching, the power posturing described above. The following scriptures command us to this duty - Romans 16:17-18; cf. 1 Timothy 1:3-4; 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; Titus 1:9; 2:1. It is not a rebellious spirit, gossip, anger, or spreading division to pursue truth and correction. However, in everything our motive must be the same as our Lord, our reconciliation with God and man.
A Matter for Prayer, and Learning

The words of two "dissidents" posting on the Internet discussion board will illustrate the problem of those who suffer in dictatorial systems. I conclude with their words as a reminder that there are "friendly fire casualties" in the Army of God. As soldiers of the Cross we must care for our wounded, not shoot them. Would you pray for correction and reconciliation among these fellow believers?

#1 "What you don't seem to understand is how subtle these kinds of manipulations work on the human mind in systems such as (church name). They break down normal critical thinking skills of the individual; you slowly stop thinking outside the current groupthink. Your own individual views become narrower and narrower, you truly believe you are still independent and a free thinker but you are not. It is subtle and over time, life's many gray areas become simplistic black and white. There is always a simple answer to complex questions."

#2 "I woke one morning during this time and my thought was 'my two decade nightmare is over.' We have belonged to a Christian church that teaches grace but operates like a cult. We slowly stopped thinking rationally, we put into our brains techniques to constantly stop that rational voice from speaking. And yet our spirit deep down knew. I hold Pastor directly responsible for setting up this counterfeit kingdom that has served him well and hurt many. I do not hate him, I am not out to get him, but I will hold him accountable and I am compelled to do something about it.

How can a leader read these posts and not see the scope of the pain caused by allowing this type of illegitimate authority to continue."

---

quote:

---

David Henke Makes Himself Another Master

Of the Watchman Fellowship Expositor or Fellowship, Inc.

David Henke writes "Another way submission is required is through the teaching of a 'chain of command' in one’s church and family relationships. It is also called 'delegated authority.' These terms have been associated with abusive, controlling authority in the Discipleship, Shepherding groups."

No doubt such is abused, but the fact of the matter, there are those with authority, in the household, those of the 4 fold Ministry of the Work for the Church, and there are those we look up to who are helpful in their teaching. For example, Watchman Nee was perhaps the most spiritual Christian writer that ever lived. Another writer I highly respect is Lee Strobel. To simplify, parents are the authority of their children. Watchman Nee used the example of a police officer as being of authority. We even ought to pay our taxes to the authority of the government. What is in view here is that of humility and knowing submission in where true authority is seen. Because of this fact, this is no reason to misread Watchman Nee's intention. Watchman Nee does not use the term "chain of command" for the Bible is not a military chain of command and control center. Rather all things in life have authority and submission. Yet another example, Nee uses the light bulb that needs a lamp, and that lamp needs wire that connects to an outlet for electricity that needs a power supply from the electric company, so on and so forth. This is common sense is it not?

David Henke, further writes, "This false teaching came into American churches through Watchman Nee and his book Spiritual Authority. Nee says on page 71, 'If God dares to entrust His authority to man, then we can dare to obey. Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us. The obedient one needs only to obey. The Lord will not hold us responsible for any mistaken obedience, rather He will hold the delegated authority responsible for his erroneous act.' In addition, he states, 'We should not be occupied with right or wrong, good or evil; rather should we know who is the authority above us' (page 23)."

Therefore, as noted about God's delegated authorities, such is not a false teaching, but the way the universe works and it is God's will in all things. All things have cause and effect. It did not happen as soon as when Watchman wrote Spiritual Authority. Spiritual Authority perfectly reflects God's will as it pertains to authority and submission since the beginning of creation. Another person who horribly misreads Nee in the same way, is Pat Knapp. As you read through the underlying motivation of why these individuals alter Watchman Nee's writings in their misreading bearing false witness, I have found it usually has to do with a couple of things: either they are calvinists (Nee was osas arminian), against Biblical locality, hold the fallen bipartite view of man, or they are historicalists or premillennial onlyists.

This quote on page 71 is answered with the next paragraph when Nee writes "It is therefore clear that no human element is involved in the matter of authority. If our subjection is merely directed to a man the whole meaning of authority is lost. When God instituted His delegated authority He is bound by His honor to maintain that authority. We are each one of us responsible before God in this matter. Let us be careful we make no mistake." In the previous paragraph, Nee writes, "But the Lord makes us representatives plenipotentiary. What confidence He has in us! Can we trust any less when our Lord displays such trust in His delegated authority?" Further Nee adds in the same paragraph mentioned by Henke, "Insubordination, however, is rebellion, and for this the one under authority must answer to God". Now, the point of this whole exercise to to state clearly, as David was obedient to Saul's attacks, and did not try to oust him, David accepted God's authority in Saul. In due time God would bring about a change, a change not by David's strength. To reject delegated authority is an affront to God. David Henke appears to be disobedient and hostile to God's desire to see the harmony of authority and submission in all things, therefore Henke will suffer the consequences of God's wrath through his bearing false witness and misreading intention. Hence, through such bearing false witness, we may conclude Henke is making himself the center of the universe, for what other reason does one misread, but centering upon one's self or personal agenda whatever it may be? That is between Henke and God, whom God will deal with accordingly.

On page 23, the following paragraph, Nee writes, "Since the fall of Adam disorder has prevailed in the universe. Everyone thinks he is able to distinguish good from evil and to judge what is right and wrong. He seems to know better than God. An example of this when you quote someone as Henke did, you do not flip from page 71 to 23 by saying "in addition, he states..." as somehow page 23 follows from page 71. It is out of context. Snippets out of context are man's flesh at work. In the same paragraph, Nee writes, "We are under men's authority as well as having men under our authority. This is our position. Even the Lord Jesus on earth was subject not only to God but also to other's authority. Authority is everywhere. There is authority in the school, authority in the home. The policeman on the street, though perhaps less learned than you, is set up by God as your authority. Whenever a few brothers in Christ come together, immediately a spiritual order falls into place. A Christian worker ought to know who is above him. Some do not know how to obey authorities above them, hence they do not obey. We should not be occupied with....."; as Henke continued the quote of Watchman Nee. When we know authority we know harmony. If we do not know authority, like David Henke does not know authority, what good is to anyone in his organization that he calls The Watchman Expositor or The Watchman Fellowship, Inc. Maybe that is his problem, that he is incorporated into a man's organization, not the Work of the Ministry for the Church not abiding in Biblical locality. Apostolic work does not involve corporations registered with the government. It is not necessary. Such is a man's organization usurping itself and not in the Work.

Henke concludes, "So, What’s Wrong With That? Watchman Nee learned this concept of delegated authority from the ethics of Confucianism. Confucius taught that parents should always be obeyed, that they were never wrong, but if they were they should still be obeyed. Among Confucianists loyalty is one of the greatest virtues and can lead to the blind loyalty described in Nee’s statement."

Watchman Nee did not learn the examples of delegated authority in the Bible from confucianism. Nor does Henke give an example of a proof where Nee brings anything fro Confucianism, so why make the connection by imagination alone? We must conclude then Henke's flesh is hard at work. That is merely the mistake of assumption of Henke, since Watchman Nee gives all the most pertinent examples of authority and submission in the Scriptures that is difficult for the non-humble to accept. You can see directly the authority here was the Word, and Nee was obedient in the Word, submitting to His teaching. Watchman Nee states elsewhere we do not always submit to authorities gone awry.

What Nee is doing is showing examples in the Word of how important it is to come into harmony in the body of Christ, and not misread bearing false witness in a spirit of dissension. Man's eyes looks to how he can retaliate or judge erroneously thinking he is doing good; that is the "good self'. A Christian looks to see how harmony can be maintained in submission, even in spite of some mistakes of those in authority. If people can be more lenient with each other, and resist retaliation and bearing false witness by being more humble by the grace of God, we can set an example for each other so that those in authority can change too. But when you play the false accuser as Satan does as David Henke did, when he said: "can lead to the blind loyalty described in Nee's statement". In Nee's statement, Nee did not say blind loyalty for those being obedient are fully cognizant of the error of the particular authority, just as David was not blindly obedient to Saul either, but at the same time David did not usurp himself over Saul and did wait for the right time to receive the throne, not of his own strength. Do you see how that works? So let us observe authority and from this other things fall into harmony and will reek less havoc and dissensions.

A further proof of David Henke's motivation is where he marries Watchman Nee to Witness Lee of the Local Church by misassociating the Local Church with Watchman Nee as he said "Local Church, The, Watchman Nee, Anaheim, CA" along with the various other false teachings of Witness Lee are somehow connected to Watchman Nee but he does not even try to prove it, but only self-declares that Watchman Nee believes these false teachings also. I have a real problem with todays so called watchman apologists. It appears they are so busying judging others, it is like a disease of judging, not even caring anymore that they bear false witness in so doing, listening to the pleasure of their own never ending rationalizations examining others. I don't like it one bit. Another example of someone like this is Nicholas Stivers of Cephas Ministries.

Make note this false marrying was given also by the staff of the Watchman Fellowship so their entire business is complicit. They are not very good watchmans. Watchman Nee has no association to this Witness Lee cult or the Watchman Fellowship Expositor cult, even though Witness Lee tried to attach himself through altering Watchman Nee's writings. Watchman Nee was osas arminian. Witness Lee was calvinist. Watchman Nee did not believe in a central hub of a Local Church, but believed in the local churches. Observe the various differences between Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Anyway, you can see the underlying motivation of David Henke. It usually has to do with Biblical locality, historicalism (or premillennial onlyism), tripartite man or partial rapture; these spiritual facts, that the flesh can not accept in David Henke.

Bottom line: there is an underlying motivation. Ask the Watchman Fellowship (particularly David Henke) cult if they are calvinists, historicalists, premillennial onlyists, or of the fallen bipartite view, and there you will have your answer.

Troy Brooks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:


Watchman Nee

Born November 4, 1903
Foochow, China

Died May 30, 1972
Anhwei province, China


Watching Out For Watchman Nee

by G. Richard Fisher, of Personal Freedom Outreach


The teachings that developed over Nee's lifetime...are dangerous to Christians seeking clear guidelines to follow. Space allows a listing of only a few of the problems in Nee's teachings:

Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru.

One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real.

Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous.

Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory."

When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee.

---

quote:

---

Watch Out for G. Richard Fisher

G. Richard Fisher tries to be cunning in his flesh, but is nonetheless a dullard, sinning bearing false witness. Do not be surprised by his flesh on a rampage. This is the nature of the fleshly to not accept God's Word that the flesh has been crucified: "having begun with the Spirit...now ending with the flesh" (Gal. 3.3). Because he is lost in his old self, he is sure to lose out on the reward of the millennial kingdom and in fact, may never have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.



Also read G. Richard Fisher Exposed, Again!

Introduction

An article written by G. Richard Fisher tried to paint Watchman Nee in a negative light. Note that the owner and editor, Anton Hein, of apologeticsindex.org, where Richard Fisher's article is found, is a convicted child molester and pedophile court documents reveal, "For the crime of 'LEWD ACT UPON A CHILD' Anton William Hein pleaded no contest in Jul 1994 in San Bernardino County Municipal Court and spent about 6 months in jail filed in July 1994. After his release from Prison, Mr. Hein moved to Holland." Normally, this is fleeing probation; where he began his so-called apologetics work. My immediate question is if according to Anton, his "conscience is clear," then why does he aid and abet in the sin of bearing false witness (see below) with Richard Fisher against Watchman Nee? Anton's and Richard's sins has just popped up elsewhere in a new venue, not really accepted nor actually forgiven at all by God, and this comes out.


Richard Fisher portrayed Watchman Nee as reading only a few books, trying to pin him down. However, Nee had read over 3000 Christian books. Nee's spiritual life was immense and was constantly filled with activity, and he had a genius intelligence as well as an authentic photographic memory with such a beautiful conscience. I don’t like seeing people misrepresented. Here is what I found out . . .


Partial Rapture

Richard describes partial rapture as "assigning carnal believers to a kind of Protestant purgatory". Purgatory is a negative term taken from the Roman Catholic Church that teaches one could still be saved after death or through paying penitence of others, that could reduce their stay in some purgatory. This is an inaccurate representation of what outer darkness is, which has no fire about it in loss of rewards and partial rapture. Outer darkness describes what happens to Christians if they are still not yet delivered from sin, self and supernatural at judgment seat. The common belief is that when you die, you're resurrected and then you go into the millennial kingdom for a 1000 years and then proceed into the New City thereafter. There is no dealing with the aspect of the wheat and the wheat, only the wheat and the tares if that is all people believe, which is called antinomianism. Those who are not included in the 1st resurrection (Rev. 20.4), enter into what is called "outer darkness." It is termed "outer" because it is out of the reward of reigning during the kingdom, and "darkness" because it is out of the light of Christ reigning during the kingdom. Darkness is also the condition of the world at Christ's return, and "outer" is in relation to the air for we shall meet Christ in the air at the last trumpet. Richard tried to suggest that Nee's thoughts on partial rapture were "new insights," but it is common knowledge the foremost work done on the subject was done by Robert Govett (the "Prince of Prophecy" as called by Spurgeon) in the 19th century. Today, however, Watchman Nee has written the most comprehensive and accurate representation of partial rapture in Come, Lord Jesus, King and the Kingdom of Heaven, and Aids to Revelation. I can testify that it is a very rewarding experience understanding partial rapture deeply which is the blessing of Revelation 1.3. Find out more here.


Gnosticism and Mysticism

Richard said that the book, The Spiritual Man, the only book Watchman Nee ever published of size, was a Gnostic writing. In reality, this book is the most spiritual and accurate book to date on the redemptive design, “Biblical Psychology”, and dividing of the spirit, soul and body. The basic tenets of gnosticism are that “the world and our bodies were created by an incompetent lesser God, but we contain a spark of divinity, and Jesus provided us with the knowledge to free it”. Watchman Nee does not believe this, and nothing of the kind is reflected in any of his writings. Because Watchman Nee had genius intelligence, he we wrote very deeply, though without a shred of Gnosticism. Richard falsely misrepresented Watchman Nee for whatever reason. Richard Fisher seems to be taking the proclamations of another, Dana Roberts, as the gospel, who wrote Understanding Watchman Nee. I believe Richard makes this claim because the word, “gnosticism” is thrown around a lot in Christianity the minute someone has intelligence behind their words. So Watchman Nee writes:

[In the second preface of The Spiritual Man] I deeply sense that only one class of people will actually understand this book. My original purpose was to supply the need of many believers; obviously only those who have need will be able to appreciate this book. Such ones will find here a guidebook. Others will look upon these truths as ideals or criticize them as inappropriate. According to the measure of his need shall be the believer’s understanding of what is written here. Unless the reader has personal need he will not find any problem solved through the reading of these pages. This is what the reader must guard against.

The deeper the truth the easier it is to become theoretical. Apart from the working of the Holy Spirit, none can arrive at a deeper truth. Thus some will treat these principles as a sort of ideal. Let us therefore be careful lest we accept the teachings in the book with our mind and deceive ourselves into thinking we have possessed them already. This is most dangerous, for deception which comes from the flesh and the evil spirit shall increase day by day.

I recognize that a work which seeks to uncover the wiles of the enemy shall certainly incur the hostility of the power of darkness and the opposition of many. I have not written with thought of courting the approval of men. This position I consider therefore of no account. I also realize that if God’s children derive help from reading this book they may think more of me than is proper. Let me speak honestly that I am just a man, the weakest of all men. The teachings of these pages reveal the experiences of my weaknesses.

Another term Richard Fisher uses to describe Watchman Nee’s work is “perfectionist theology”. This is Richard’s perception and that of Dana Roberts, perceiving a work of perfection in Watchman Nee’s work, I suppose. The Bible mentions the term, unto “perfection”. It simply means “maturing” in Christ. We should not be offended by this.

Richard Fisher then calls Jessie-Penn Lewis a “mystic”, whom Watchman Nee found the writings of very spiritual. Mysticism is a derogatory term, but if you read War on the Saints, by Jessie-Penn Lewis, you may find that it is the best work to date on spiritual warfare. If a writing is accurate to the Word of God it most certainly will come under attack. Richard makes other strange claims like "Miss M.E. Barber...allowed Nee to read the works of Jessie-Penn Lewis". "Allowed" seems like a strange word to use here since Nee would have read a work with or without the permission of another person. Nee said of Guyon: "Madam Guyon long ago said that everything which befalls us environmentally is permitted by God (although Jessie Penn-Lewis later commented that the French saint has the tendency of falling into the danger of passivity." This obviously indicates that Nee was not in agreement with Madam Guyon's mysticism. Again, Nee has the utmost regard for Jessie-Penn Lewis. Jessie-Penn Lewis was not a mystic in the slightest.


Tongues

Richard said Watchman Nee did not speak today’s tongues but that neither did he disprove of it either. That is an inaccurate portrayal. When you read his book, God’s Work, the impression you get is that he is using conciliatory irony just as Paul did with the carnal Corinthians who had carried over some practices from the ecstasy of mystery religions (of which there were several) around the region of Corinth. Watchman Nee would use terms like “baby talk” and “kindergarden stage” to describe tongues of Pentecostalism. He said “a church which tries to build itself up by the gifts [which according to man's interpretation includes false tongues of Pentecostalism] will end up being a carnal church always, since it is not God's way for the building up of the church except in the nursery stage”. Watchman Nee believed that tongues meant different languages.

This is ironic because Richard said the charismatic movement, fundamentalists and everyone in between have enjoyed his writings, and his spiritual writings and dogmatisms. Dogmatism is a derogatory term. Watchman Nee’s writings reach out to all denominations, but as Nee said he deeply felt he would incur hostility. My take on Watchman Nee is that what is spiritual can be so easily misinterpreted if one is not careful. For example, Richard uses all the popular euphemisms, like dogmatism, mysticism, gnosticism, but has he made the case for these terms and accurately represented Watchman Nee? Nope! People read Nee with automatic hostility and do not read carefully because the flesh wars against the Spirit.

I love being able to see underneath what is really going on.


Employment

Richard writes “He consigned all the property to the church and sought to have the church members as the factory workers." Is it wrong to work in a factory? As I understand it, Watchman Nee inherited the factory, while in transition for a time, hired church members, after which he sold the factory, and used the proceeds for the church. This sounds like an honorable thing, to hire Christians, then dispose of the business and use the proceeds for the church.



Richard Fisher List of Reasons Why Watchman Nee is “Dangerous”

Watch Out for Richard Fisher


1. Methods of Bible Study

Richard babbles, “Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics." Watchman Nee did outline methods of Bible study that goes into great detail in the book, Ye Search the Scriptures, Part 2 “The Methods of Bible Study." This whole book is a study of how to study the Scriptures. Evangelical hermeneutics are revealed throughout.


2. Spiritual Authority

Richard babbles, “In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru." I have read this book and have responded to another misreading of this same book floating around the internet by Pat Knapp. I was careful before reading this book looking for any possible mistakes of cited by Richard Fisher or Pat Knapp, which unsurprisingly, I could not find any of the claims they were making. Their statements are flatly disproved. Watchman Nee never made himself to be a guru or unquestioned authority. That is not the meaning of authority and submission. If anything is wrong in this book, Spiritual Authority let that man cast the first stone, because I can’t find anything wrong with it. It is basically just common sense.


3. Bible Importance

Richard babbles, “One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, 'Words alone cannot be considered God's Word.' In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the reality behind it,' using what he calls 'Holy Spirit memory' and 'presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words' will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real”.

Understand what Nee is saying about our outward memory and the Holy Spirit memory. "Words alone cannot be considered as God’s word. There must be the reality behind them" (p. 209 pdf, CFP). "Let us understand that the coming forth of words alone is not enough; the spirit must also come out, and when it does it will do so together with feeling" (p. 221 pdf). In other words, people speak forth, but their hearts need to be touched also.

The Bible was the most important thing to Nee for it was the Word of God, and he dissected it better than anyone I know. Nee is correct that words alone by themselves are not the end all to be all of things. A fair statement! Nee was not incoherent, nor mystical nor philosophical. He was so incredibly precise that his words are such a joy. He had an incredibly deep working of the Holy Spirit in his life. When Watchman Nee used the term Holy Spirit memory, he cited verses to identify the meaning of what he was trying to get across. What he has said about the Holy Spirit memory makes sense both objectively and subjectively in experience. The reality behind words is more important than words for words sakes, certainly. There is a memory activity that we can forget of the Holy Spirit in our inner man that is important to maintain otherwise we are susceptible to falling back towards the flesh. Experientially I can not deny this in my life either. It seems like plain old common sense to me. I have a poor memory so I should know.


4. Emotion

Richard babbles “Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210 that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous”.

Nee does not overemphasis emotions. If you understand Nee’s writings you know that He believes the Holy Spirit always starts from the spirit’s inner man, not the outer man like the emotion of the soul. Emotion is an outlet, expression of feelings. Who wants to listen to a minister without emotion? Nose in scripture does stand for feelings and its delicacy (see below). Nee does not say at all on page 210 that the Holy Spirit rides only on emotion as Richard says. On page 210 (CFP) he says “we use emotion to move people as our spirit is released” and “going forth of the word is powerful only when it is coupled with a corresponding emotion” and “out from the feelings” and “trying to move men with only our emotion is mere performance, resulting in a dead ministry”. This is the complete opposite of what Richard Fisher accused Nee of. Incredible. I find that this critique of Nee is really flawed since nowhere does Nee state the Holy Spirit rides only on emotion. My assessment is that if someone can be this horrible and reading another’s words, then it is either purposefully done with intent or just plain ignorance and misreading.

Nee is also correct that the Holy Spirit flows through the channel of emotion. I already know what he means by this and what he is thinking because I read The Spiritual Man several times which you could say is the foundational book for the redemptive design of all his writings. What he is saying is that the Spirit will use emotion by communicating what is of the spirit to the emotion of the soul. No emotion at all is ineffective, and excessive emotion is also undesirable. For all occasions there are boundaries of what is healthy emotionally.

Nee writes on page 208 of Ministry of God’s Word about the nose from Song of Songs in the Bible. He says “We humans beings have a will, but the will of man is rather rugged. So have we a mind, which, though more refined than the will, is nevertheless quite rugged too. But the emotion which we possess is most delicate part of us. We may ruthlessly make a decision with our will, we may carefully think over a matter, but we touch the tenderest spot when something touches our feeling. Accordingly, in the Old Testament, especially in the Song of Songs, the Spirit of God employs fragrance or savor to express the tender feeling of a man, for it can only be smelled with the nose. Smelling is a most delicate act. It represents man’s tender feeling. “Nose” in the Scriptures stands for feeling. Man’s feeling is most delicate, though it may or may not be useful.”

See, Sgs. 7.8, Gen. 8.21. These are truly sweet things that touch our emotion. Smell is so delicate just like our delicate emotion. Let us keep that which is delicate in a delicate state, and perhaps this is God’s message after all. It is should be spiritually preserved. Nose has several meanings, and this is one of them. Referring to Nee’s book, Song of Songs, you will see another aspect of the which is that of discernment.


5. Using Terms Precisely

Richard babbles, “Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving 'revelations' in his 'Holy Spirit memory' and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a 'Holy Spirit memory.'"”

Nee uses terms extremely precisely. I don’t know anyone who is more precise in their words than Watchman Nee. Really. This is not metaphysical stuff but exactly how the Holy Spirit works in our spirit. And I understand all of it so well with a little effort maybe Richard could too. Richard says Nee is “impossible to understand”. I understood it. But I know my flesh can't understand it, nor will Richard's.

Nee writes, regarding Holy Spirit memory (citing a verse to prove it) on pages 196-197 (CFP) of The Ministry of God's Word,

"You have to support the spoken word with the inner word. Due to the inadequacy of memory, however, you often fail to have the supply ready. The longer you speak, the farther you drift away from the inward word. After you finish delivering the sermon you find your inner word remains untouched. You came with a burden, yet you return with the same burden. You have not been able to discharge it. This is a great suffering to you. Perhaps you say, 'I will write it down in my notebook; then I will remember.' This may or may not help, for an unusual thing happens: as you read your notes you recognize every word of them, but you cannot recall the thing behind the words. How totally inadequate is your memory. If what you have is mere doctrine or teaching you are well able to deliver it. The more doctrinal it is, the easier you remember. But it is not easy to recall revelation. In attempting to communicate your inward revelation you must come to realize that you cannot remember what you have just seen. The words you may remember, yet the thing itself is forgotten. Our problem on the platform is that we forget the thing we have seen. We may say many words, yet none communicates the thing we see. The ministry suffers loss. How necessary it is to have memory."

"The memory we need is of two kinds: the outward memory and the Holy Spirit memory. A minister of the word needs both. The outward memory points to the memory of the outward man, that which is produced in a man’s brain. It occupies a very important place in testifying the word of God. The Holy Spirit memory is what the Lord Jesus mentions in John 14.26: 'But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.' This is the Holy Spirit memory, for it is the Holy Spirit who brings things to your remembrance, not you yourself."

What Nee is speaking about is revelation and memory in that revelation, both on our side and the side of the Holy Spirit.

Is it so hard to accept that in our spirit resides the Holy Spirit whereby God enters the window of our conscience and communicates His mind to us. When this happens is this not where revelation takes place through the function of intuition in our inner man? And when that message works in us, it does so in a form of our “still small voice” (scriptural term - project for everyone - find the verse in Exodus "still small voice" using the NKJV). But, we can easily lose that communication within or become forgetful in our spirit (as matters of the world weigh on us), so what does the Holy Spirit do for us then? For one thing, the Holy Spirit has a memory for us of revelation we have received. As we go about our daily lives we can access what we have received in the Spirit of the Lord by this memory in our inner man. It is really quite elementary.


Conclusion

Richard’s final babble, “When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee." There is no evidence of the connection claimed by Richard Fisher, nor does he even try to give any, through self-declaration. Watchman Nee is not responsible either, for the mistakes of men, their misreading, and their bearing false witness; therefore, such blaming ought to be passed back to where it came from.

I think Richard is making many claims without connection in his own ego and imagination, lacking a spirit of discernment. Watchman Nee was a powerful writer, one of the best. I put his writings in the top 1% of all Christian writers, easily. I have read over 100 different writers and this is the conclusion I have come in comparing. You must make your own decision. As noted above about Pat Knapp's experience in cults, they love to use the book, Spiritual Authority and misuse the truths therein. The reason for this is based on the unspiritual using attempting to use the spiritual (see the 5th bullet point). The same is true of the leaders of the above mentioned cults. But if anyone spends the time to really read Spiritual Authority, one begins to realize it is a powerful, even authoritative work on the subject of authority and submission.

Richard was not able to make a connection to his claims, because all Richard did was read from someone else (Dana Roberts) who also did a shoddy work of reading Watchman Nee (even marry him to others). Richard admitted having troubles understanding Watchman Nee. I believe that in essence is the problem, that Richard Fisher is without the Holy Spirit. Since man can not understand and can’t see the light, often his recourse is to blame. This has been a work of blaming and bearing false witness of another, and I hope I have done some justice here so that we keep a watch out for Richard Fisher's wiles. Last time I spoke with him, he said he would prepare a follow-up. It has been two years since then (2002), and nothing has been forthcoming. He is dishonest.

In conclusion it can be stated that since Watchman Nee has not been identified as stating something to be untrue, then we can conclude what is going on here is that of the false accuser on the attack for one or more reasons: spiritual jealousy, inability to understand, misreading, mistaken assumption, one-upmanship or trying to defend something in one's own flesh, an untruth. Let us not assume what Richard Fisher is holding onto in his heart, but whatever it is, we know it is of the flesh; either sin, natural (self) or a supernatural hold on him. Experimentally, what runs contrary to what one believes, one often attacks. Therefore, Richard attacks partial rapture, Biblical locality, OSAS Arminianism, triparite man, and authority and submission in all things.

If Watchman Nee had said something wrong, I would agree with Richard Fisher in a heart beat, but I have found Richard Fisher full of sin in bearing false witness. I pray this sets the record straight. I will do this for any person who has be been born false witness of. You can accuse me of thinking, "Nee's writings as the key to spirituality". I recognize the depth in Watchman Nee's writings which answer some of the deepest questions we can ask in just about the best way possible that I know of according to the Scriptures. I consider my defense of no account, since my guiding principle in life is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. To date, I have found no writer as deep as Watchman Nee apart from the Word of God. I believe what is happening is people are not respecters of truth, but prefer their own truth, which I have outlined from beginning to end where such mistakes occur in reading Watchman Nee, which you can examine for yourself.


Praise the Lord for this discernment!

Amen.

Troy Brooks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/n01.html
G. Richard Fisher —

The senior researcher/writer for The Quarterly Journal. Dick is a member of PFO’s Board of Directors. He has served as pastor of Laurelton Park Baptist Church in Bricktown, New Jersey, since 1968, where he lives with his wife.

Some may be surprised to discover that the great Watchman Nee was unsound in his teachings. Strange doctrines about the church, the soul and the spirit, revelation, authority and even the person of Christ were all part and parcel of Watchman Nee's teaching. He even taught that Christ was not 'essentially Lord' but only became Lord after the cross. Many weird and wonderful ideas were promoted by Watchman Nee which he imbibed from various questionable sources over the years. G. Richard Fisher carefully documents all he documents from original sources.

---

G. Richard Fisher has been found a FALSE WITNESS!

Proverbs 17:12
Let a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
It is not shocking that Nee's writings would be so threatening to the established church culture. After all, this culture is largely ruled by teachers who reject the validity of contemporary apostolic leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:Here is one of my favorite books by Nee, The Normal Christian Life, in its entirety:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/nee/nchrlife/nclcont.htm

---

Thanks!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:Bless you,
Aaron

---

Thank you!
God bless you too precious Saint!

THANK YOU for the opportunity to post a response to accusations levelled against this man, our brother in Christ and a faithful servant of the Allmighty!!!

Revelation 12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm
 

---

Posted by Mizpa (Member # 7253) on :
 
FALSE WITNESS vs FALSE TEACHER

who do you think has the greater condemnation?

Let us go to This False Witness and ask him since he is still here to be talked to.

http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.staff
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:
This sounds very catholic to me.

---

quote:

---

cath·o·lic

• 1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

• 2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.

• 3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic

Every born again believer is catholic WildB.
Not every believer is ROMAN Catholic, however..
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mizpa:
FALSE WITNESS vs FALSE TEACHER

who do you think has the greater condemnation?

Let us go to This False Witness and ask him since he is still here to be talked to.

http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.staff

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mizpa:
FALSE WITNESS vs FALSE TEACHER

who do you think has the greater condemnation?

Let us go to This False Witness and ask him since he is still here to be talked to.

http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.staff

---

There are adequate rebukes levelled against each and every one of these accusations here -->

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm

And Nee's works, should you take the TIME to explore yourself by the Grace of God here -->

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mizpa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mizpa:
FALSE WITNESS vs FALSE TEACHER

who do you think has the greater condemnation?

Let us go to This False Witness and ask him since he is still here to be talked to.

http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.staff

---

There are adequate rebukes levelled against each and every one of these accusations here -->

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm

And Nee's works, should you take the TIME to explore yourself by the Grace of God here -->

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

---

It all seams even to me, with the exemption that you have not contacted http://www.watchman.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.staff

To see for yourself, our self. From the source.


So far I'm 60/40 against following a man as it matters to my eternal salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:


[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mizpa:
So far I'm 60/40 against following a man as it matters to my eternal salvation.

---

John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Jude 1:24-25
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

As the Lord gives you time Mizpa, dilligently and with the Spirit of Grace in Christ Jesus, search out the Scriptures, seek the Lord, and trust that He will lead you in the path that you may go.

Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

He will keep His promise.

Matthew 10:31
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=10&version=9
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

quote:

---

Such reasoning, I think, arose as an answer to the Roman heresy as the fathers of the reformation attempted to disarm the Roman Catholic beast at the foundational level. Yet, in their haste to condemn the Pope and his ilk they neglected the counsel of the Spirit and spun off, themselves, into poor doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
Are there any here who want to know why these qualifications were given in Acts and why Paul, who did not meet these requirements, was indeed still an apostle?

Aaron

---

That would be wonderful Aaron, thank you!!!
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
The self-righteous elect themselves to be "Watchmen," as though you should 'follow them'. Others are "Watchmen" in the sense that Paul was. For he said even himself:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." Yet in the very same epistle he was correcting lay people about "Being puffed up for one over another," even calling them carnal! Contradiction? No! So, doesn't it make you think? The conclusion here, of what Paul is saying when he says to "be followers of me," is that he means to do as he does, by believing as he does. Sounds the same as above where I said, the self-righteous elect themselves to be watchmen. But the difference is, Paul is really saying to go straight to the source. He is not requesting, commanding or demanding that anyone follow him personally, for he does not "Lord himself" over them. So if they are following him, they are following his example. If they are following his example, they are, quite simply, one-on-one with Jesus, with no mediator inbetween. That is the way to follow Paul. That is the way to go directly to the throne of grace, and to the one Himself.
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
Hebrews 4:16
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

quote:

---

FALSE WITNESS vs FALSE TEACHER

who do you think has the greater condemnation?

Let us go to This False Witness and ask him since he is still here to be talked to.

---

Mizpah, iz that a real question? Personally, there are people with whom I identify which indicate the camp I am in. One of those is Watchman Nee. Another of those is Paul. I discern Watchman Nee to be in the same camp as Paul. But another whose writings I cherish, who is in the same camp as these two (and who writes simply, and directly) is Charles Trumbull, who authored "Victory in Christ." Trumbull, who was published by "Christian Literature Crusade," as was Watchman Nee, also was a teacher at, and founder of, "Americas Keswick Convention," which is mentioned in John Woodwards publications.

"The Life that Wins" can be read at these sites:

http://www.heraldofhiscoming.com/Past%20Issues/2006/January/the_life_that_wins.htm

http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/Books/VictoryInCHRISTbyCharlesGTrumbull/tabid/187/Default.aspx

http://www.path2prayer.com/article.php?id=56

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Jehovah/The-Life-That-Wins.html

http://www.txbobsc.com/life/cgt_vic/vic2.html

http://www.walkit.org/MediaContent/Other/The-Life-That-Wins.pdf

http://siefkerbiblestudies.com/the_life_that_wins.htm


"Perils of the Victorious Life" can be read at:

http://www.path2prayer.com/article.php?id=371

http://www.txbobsc.com/life/cgt_vic/vic7.html

...and others!

If you are looking, I am in this camp! Amen!!!
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
Perils of the Victorious life is significantly decent to me because it details what can happen to a believer who has entered this life, "Which is Christ,' by faith. It is a compilation of years of living therein wherein Trumbull illustrated things that one can take for granted which are not of God.

Together with "The Key to Everything," these were the guiding documents which the Lord miraculously placed into my hand when I began this journey, i.e. discovering the revelation. "Perils" had a humbling, or moderating influence, in that it caused me to consider the source of what for this moment I will call, impulses (that is, vs. leadings) which really equals scripturally the, "Trying of the Spirits, whether they are of God." It keeps one level headed about their daily life, and what to expect from God. It is about the safe outworking of the revelation, to keep one from being a "Super Spiritual kook," which would be beyond the will of God, etc.
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 
I'll come back tonight and add some more. Now, my wife and I are getting ready for a date. *gasp*

Be back soon.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
I'll come back tonight and add some more. Now, my wife and I are getting ready for a date. *gasp*

Be back soon.

Aaron

---

A DATE!!!!
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:
I hate cults.

---

So do I WildB, in Christ, of course. Anyone or anything that leads us away from following Jesus is MORE than dangerous!

quote:

---

Leeism
Outer darkness and extinction in the eternal fires of hell.

One important thing to remember for all readers here, whether a believer in Christ or not, is that according to Witness Lee, y'all are going to hell.

On this point and many others Witness Lee's religion is just like any other cult. Take the Jehovah's Witnesses for example. The practical consequence of their god-talk is that everyone, including most Jehovah's Witnesses, is damned. The Watchtower Society, the JWs' vatican, teaches that only 144,000 will actually be saved. Now after more than 100 years of existence, the JWs have grown so that their number, living and dead, is what, in the millions? These millions of JWs (and everyone else for that matter) face everlasting extinction of their souls.

---

quote:

---

Paulism
IMO, you can blame Paul for all of what we call Christianity.

I don't recall any indications in the NT that Christ wanted people to worship him. I don't recall Christ being misogynistic. It's Paul who put Christianity up to these things.

Indeed, it isn't Christianity at all: what's currently practiced is Paulism. And it's a death cult.

Christ was about life and love. Paul is about death and hate.

---

quote:

---

Jas.1

[25] But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

---

quote:

---

G. Richard Fisher has been found a FALSE WITNESS!

---

G. Richard Fisher is the senior researcher and writer for Personal Freedom Outreach's newsletter publication, The Quarterly Journal. He has served as pastor of Laurelton Park Baptist Church in Bricktown, N.J., for over three decades. Dick is also a member of PFO's Board of Directors, is the co-author of The Confusing World of Benny Hinn , and is a frequent guest on radio broadcasts nationwide.

Troy Brooks says Rev. Fisher is a false witness. Other than his 'Biblocality' website, where he is pro-Nee and writes against Rev. Fisher and others, who IS Troy Brooks? And are there other people who have written that Rev. Fisher is a false witness?
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
I do not appreciate the condescending attitude that EITHER of those posts are written in, niether G. Richard Fisher nor Troy Brooks.

But facts are facts.
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 
Hi folks,

Had a nice time with the Mrs. Unfortunately it's late so I'll add more tomorrow after our church meeting.

Bless you all and good night!
Aaron
 

---

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:
I do not appreciate the condescending attitude that EITHER of those posts are written in, niether G. Richard Fisher nor Troy Brooks.

But facts are facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:


[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

---

If we were to use only this scripture Paul would not qualify to be an apostle. The ones who don't understand will attempt all sorts of rational gymnastics in an attempt to get Paul to "fit" these standards. They'll conclude that his experience on the road to Damascus somehow compensated for the fact that he was neither 1) with Jesus from the time of His baptism or 2) with the group that witnessed Our Lord's ascension.

Such reasoning, I think, arose as an answer to the Roman heresy as the fathers of the reformation attempted to disarm the Roman Catholic beast at the foundational level. Yet, in their haste to condemn the Pope and his ilk they neglected the counsel of the Spirit and spun off, themselves, into poor doctrine.

Are there any here who want to know why these qualifications were given in Acts and why Paul, who did not meet these requirements, was indeed still an apostle?

Aaron

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carmela:
Personally, I think it's a waste of my precious time with Jesus to be disputing about other people. As I stated before, I will keep my focus on things from above, Jesus, and not worry about gossiping over other ministries/people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carmela:
Personally, I think it's a waste of my precious time with Jesus to be disputing about other people. As I stated before, I will keep my focus on things from above, Jesus, and not worry about gossiping over other ministries/people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:


[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

---

If we were to use only this scripture Paul would not qualify to be an apostle. The ones who don't understand will attempt all sorts of rational gymnastics in an attempt to get Paul to "fit" these standards. They'll conclude that his experience on the road to Damascus somehow compensated for the fact that he was neither 1) with Jesus from the time of His baptism or 2) with the group that witnessed Our Lord's ascension.

Such reasoning, I think, arose as an answer to the Roman heresy as the fathers of the reformation attempted to disarm the Roman Catholic beast at the foundational level. Yet, in their haste to condemn the Pope and his ilk they neglected the counsel of the Spirit and spun off, themselves, into poor doctrine.

Are there any here who want to know why these qualifications were given in Acts and why Paul, who did not meet these requirements, was indeed still an apostle?

Aaron

---

Those requirements Peter states in Acts are the requirements of MEN and NOT of Yahweh.

There is no place in Scripture that backs up what Peter states as of Elohim - In fact how did Peter determine who would be the next Apostle?

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

How did Messiah choose the apostles?


It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (Luk 6:12-13)

What was Yahshua's command to Peter and the others?

"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luk 24:49)

That word stay - is also tarry, wait, to sit.

They were to wait until they received The Holy Spirit - but Peter was a man of action and couldn't just wait.
He disobeyed and performed a work of the flesh.

Paul didn't meet Peter's requirements to be an apostle - but he met Elohim's, which is the ONLY requirements that count.

It wasn't Peter's place to choose Apostles - it is Yahweh's place only as He did with Paul.

there is a great lesson to be learned in what Peter misdid - don't step out according to the flesh when Yahweh has us in a place of waiting.

---

quote:

---

There is no place in Scripture that backs up what Peter states as of Elohim - In fact how did Peter determine who would be the next Apostle?

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Aaron

quote:

---

There is no place in Scripture that backs up what Peter states as of Elohim - In fact how did Peter determine who would be the next Apostle?

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

---

Acts 1:24 - 26 (NLT)

Then they all prayed , “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.

---

quote:

---

What Happened to LSM-LC-Lee?

HAVE We FETTERED & IMPRISONED
The SPIRIT of REVIVAL?
by T. Austin Sparks

From the latter days of the Apostles till now, the history of Christianity is a history of prisons. This history is not of literal or material prisons, though there have been not a few of these. It is a history of prisons, which are the result of man's long established habit of bringing the Spirit into bondage.

How many times has the Spirit broken loose and moved in a new and free way only to have that way brought under man's control and crystallized into another form, creed, organization, denomination, sect, order, community, or the like! The invariable result has been that the Spirit's free movement and life has been cramped or even killed by the prison of the framework into which He has been drawn or forced.

Have I Fettered the Spirit's Fire with Religious Tradition?

Every time we seek to express something divine in word or form, we at once limit it. When that expression or form becomes the established and recognized formula, we have, in effect, put fetters on the Spirit. God gives a vision, and every God-given vision has unlimited potential and possibilities. But all too soon the vision is laid hold of by men who never received it by the Spirit. Then the grapes of Eschol turn to raisins in their hands. So very many of the living fruits of the heavenly country have suffered in this way and become dried, shrunken, and unctionless shadows of their early glory.

Successors, sponsors, or adherents build an earthly organization on a living movement of the Spirit, born with fire in the heart of some prophet. They imprison the vision in a tradition. A message becomes a creed; a heavenly vision becomes an earthly institution; a movement of the Spirit becomes a work, which must be kept going by the steam of human energy and maintained by man's resourcefulness.

Any real (or seeming) departure or diversion from the recognized and traditional order of creed or practice will sooner or later become heresy, to be violently suspected, repressed, and cast out. What was, at its beginning, a spiritual energy-producing a living organism, expressing something that God really wanted and to which He gave birth has too often become something which the next generation has to sustain and struggle hard at to keep going. The thing has developed a self-interest, and it will go hard with anyone or anything interfering or seeming to interfere with it. The Spirit has become the prisoner of the institution or system, and as a result the people become limited spiritually.

How Did I Get Where I Am?

Why is all this so true, resulting in strain, divisions, jealousies, rivalries, and often deception? If there is any remedy, what is it? The answer is to be found in an honest and fundamental question: Why am I where I am? Did I enter into something objectively? Was it something already formed, presented to me with an appeal, an argument, a need? Was it real at all? Or did the Spirit open the eyes of my heart and give me a heavenly vision, which on one side made me cry, "Woe is me," and on the other, "Here am I"? Was it a life-crisis? Did I take up a teaching, a complexion of truth, a work, an enterprise? Was I at the very source of life? Was it a definite and overpowering apprehending from heaven? Is my position that of a relationship to something from which I can resign? In a word, is my imprisonment that of a system or order of an outward kind? Or am I the bond-slave of the Spirit?

The Apostle Paul, in particular, shows that the former bondage or imprisonment can even be what he calls "the letter." In this sense, the Bible can be death ("the letter killeth"-2 Cor. 3:6). Not that we can have the Spirit and the life without the Word, but it can most certainly be the other way around. For we can definitely have the Word without the Spirit and the life.

What Will it Cost Me to Move Forward?

It is seriously important that everything, including us be kept continuously in touch with the original source of life. Succession and continuation is not ecclesiastical, traditional, or of human choice and decision. Continuation is certainly not policy, nor expediency, nor fear. Continuation is anointing-the anointed eye, ear, hand, and foot. It is a fire in the bones, not the obligations of a profession, association, or idea.

The Spirit must have initiated our course and position. All along the way the Spirit must be referred to and deferred to. In anything in which the Spirit may have His liberties limited, the Spirit will be a rebel. And if He is in us, He will make us to rebel against unspiritual restrictions. This does not for a moment mean that all rebellion and the bid for what is called liberty is of the Spirit. It just means that in the realm of nature we are broken people, robbed of a power to fight for our own conceptions.

So it becomes simply an issue of imprisonment either to the Spirit or to something else. It must be at the greatest cost, and because the Spirit has done a deep and drastic thing in us, "Here am I; I can do no other. So help me God."

Reference used: A Witness and a Testimony by T. Austin Sparks

---

quote:

---

Leeist Letter addressed to Troy Brooks:

Dear brother,
As you have stated in you email, I would also like to ask you something: Please stop sending us all these emails of yours, because it just fills our inboxes with redundant emails. What we are talking here about is the economy of God, and not our thinking. God wants us to be the new creation, not how we think that there will be in the new city....and so on. Please go before the Lord and repent, and then consider your ways. The Lord wants to gain our beings and deal with them so that we are no longer our own and do not speak from our own thoughts, but speak from the spirit of our mind, our mind being mingled with our spirit.
We are happy to have you as our brother, if you have the same life and the same Spirit as we, but the fact remains:
The Lord is with our spirit, and is spreading in us. Let us not undermine Him by our thoughts, but come to the Word and enjoy Him there until we are saturated with His thinking. And this is not redundant, but....
But we still know in part, and we do not promote ourselves nor any organization, but the Christ we enjoy, which is our portion.
In you email there was no Christ: there was the restless mind that tried to influence us to think the same way as you. We still expect to receive more insight, because the Lord is much more than we can think or comprehend.

I speak in my name, and so, please, if you do have some growth of Christ that you want to bring as a portion for us to enjoy, just come. If not, do labor on the good land. The email can be used to try to influence others, but it can also be used to bring others into God and share our enjoyment of His person with others.

The Lord be with your spirit, brother!
Stefan

quote:

---

My Response - You are not a God-man. It is redundant to believe a lie. I am careful not to send redundant information. You are not talking about the economy of God but your own thinking. There are groups around the world that have their own thinking. God wants you in the new creation and to know God's foreknowledge knows how many will be in the new creation, for you to know approximately, that is why God has given you the size of the new city and letting you know it is a narrow path, not a wide path (we will reach the new city since that is what Abraham was looking for) like a little harlot such as Leeism of which there are many. You need to repent before the Lord and seek His deliverance to deliver you from the unsaved man Witness Lee who possesses you with the same evil spirit that resided in him. An example of such false nomenclature that shows you are no longer your own but that of Witness Lee is your statement "but speak from the spirit of our mind, our mind being mingled with our spirit". This proves there is something wrong with your nomenclature and thus your spirit since you do not speak from the spirit of your mind since your mind is of your soul not of your spirit. It is like saying your spirit is your soul. It is not. That is wrong. And similarly we do not mingle our spirit and soul in confusion. That is part of the mingling confusion of Leeism. You need to read Watchman Nee's The Spiritual Man again but not from Living Stream Ministry. That is where the lie starts in Leeism. Lee knew this. It was necessary for Lee to break from the true dividing of spirit, soul and body (Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23) and replace it with shouting and screaming violently and mingling just like Pentecostals do with their false Babel tower within. I can not accept you as a brother because you do not have the same life and the same Spirit of the Holy Spirit. In order for God to save you God has Christians such as myself rebuke these false beliefs in your life. I have not quarantined you, since that is a Leeist false nomenclature, having a prideful flavor. What I have done is cast you out the church in order that you may yet be saved. If you walk away from Leeism this will show me you have the same Spirit, but not beforehand. Promoting yourself and suing for yourself or the company you represent (LSM) and saying you are not is double speak duplicity. The Lord recognizes this duplicity and says He does not know you. I am not trying to influence you as one would sue another nor do I care to push you for salvation, since all God has asked me to do for you and the LSM people, is to give you the free-choice to come to Christ, and the truth of your mistaken assumptions. Nor am I restless, but the Lord gave me this email for you and about 300 Leeists because the Holy Spirit has led me to do it. Accept this wonderful free gift of discernment. Hath an ear to hear because God does want to save you. Your response is restless and an attempt at influence of me into the Leeists system. It is so clear. Often we are reflection of that which we accuse others of, and so this is but your condition reflected back onto you in your own restlessness, and frustration and attempt at influence. Come to Christ, really, not for pretended faith in shouting. But John 6.47. You are accepted into the body of Christ as a true believer, yet to overcome though, when you walk away from Leeism. I know this is hard for you to understand, but when you walk away from Leeism it is saying you are not willing to believe in the world systems of Christendom and the false outward churches like LSM-LC. It shows your faith in Christ if you can walk away from Leeism. Often this is how God will give a believer eternal life. For that very act itself of walking away will give you eternal life because it shows you really do believe according to John 6.47. I will pray for you for this movement of Christ to enter into your spirit and you willingness (non-calvinistically) to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior as He really is. For you this is a Pascal's Wager. Such is the love of Jesus Christ.

Praise the Lord! Amen!

Troy Brooks

---

---

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/LeeistLetters.htm

Well, it's good to see Troy Brooks is not stuck in the cult of Leeism..
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
U´rim and Thummim
“lights and perfections”

Into the breastplate of the high priest were placed “the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron’s heart when he goes in before the Lord” (Exodus 28:30). These formed the medium through which the high priest ascertained the will of Jehovah in regard to any important matter affecting the theocracy (Numbers 27:21). Even such early writers as Josephus, Philo, and the rabbis do not furnish any precise information as to what the Urim and Thummim really were. On every side we meet confessions of ignorance.

But do you agree that it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ we pray to Him for - there is no power in these objects in and of themselves?

---

quote:

---

In the early Latter Day Saint movement, seer stones were used as method of divination and played a significant role in its history and theology. Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, owned several seer stones from his earlier career as a "money digger."[1] Other early Mormons such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer and Jacob Whitmer also owned seer stones.[2] Seer stones are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and in other Latter Day Saint scriptures. James Strang, who claimed to be Joseph Smith's designated successor, also unearthed what he said were ancient metal plates and translated them using seer stones.

Seer Stones and the Urim and Thummim

Main article: Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints)

In translating the Book of Mormon from the Golden Plates, Smith said he used "Interpreters", a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles, which he later referred to as the "Urim and Thummim." In 1823 Smith said that an angel told him of the existence of Golden Plates, along with which would be found "two stones in silver bows" fastened to a breastplate, which the angel called the Urim and Thummim and which he said God had prepared for translating the plates.[9] (His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described them as crystal-like: "two smooth three-cornered diamonds.")[10] Smith and his early Mormon contemporaries seem to have used the terms "seer stone" and "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably. Although Smith always referred to the Book of Mormon "interpreters" as the Urim and Thummim, he may or may not have intended to make a distinction between that device and the seer stones that he used in scrying.[11]

In 1827 Smith was revisited by the angel who revealed the location of these objects buried in a hillside. After translating the Book of Mormon Smith returned the plates and the Urim and Thummim to the angel, whom he identified as the resurrected Moroni. Joseph Smith reportedly told Orson Pratt that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was an inexperienced translator, but that as he grew in experience he no longer needed such assistance.[12]

---

quote:

---

there is no power in these objects in and of themselves?

---

Except for a FALSE divination now that Christ is raised..

Ezekiel 14:1-11
Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?
Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him; That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD.

1 Corinthians 14:22
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Shall we all go about to search for these Urim and Thurimin, so that we may know the will of the Lord now?!!?

Ezekiel 12:11
Say, I am your sign: like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them: they shall remove and go into captivity.
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by WildB:
[qb]

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

How did Messiah choose the apostles?

---

Originally quoted post by me!

I have always thought of it as you do wparr, or whomever said this. Carol has a point worth thinking about. I do not know how to appropiate this though, except to think still, that the Apostles did not act out of the Spirit's 'leading', but out of 'works'; that is, self determination. I still cling to the notion that God knew that a replacement would be needed, and God knew that Paul would be on the Damascus road. And Paul was in God's timing.

quote:

---

concerning woolb
[QUOTE] Of coarse your right about disputing and gossiping over other ministries/people.

But that is not what is happening here.

Exposing False Teaching helps the saved soul from missing the mark and the other lost souls from eternal damnation.

---

---

• Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:


[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

---

If we were to use only this scripture Paul would not qualify to be an apostle. The ones who don't understand will attempt all sorts of rational gymnastics in an attempt to get Paul to "fit" these standards. They'll conclude that his experience on the road to Damascus somehow compensated for the fact that he was neither 1) with Jesus from the time of His baptism or 2) with the group that witnessed Our Lord's ascension.

Such reasoning, I think, arose as an answer to the Roman heresy as the fathers of the reformation attempted to disarm the Roman Catholic beast at the foundational level. Yet, in their haste to condemn the Pope and his ilk they neglected the counsel of the Spirit and spun off, themselves, into poor doctrine.

Are there any here who want to know why these qualifications were given in Acts and why Paul, who did not meet these requirements, was indeed still an apostle?

Aaron

---

Those requirements Peter states in Acts are the requirements of MEN and NOT of Yahweh.

There is no place in Scripture that backs up what Peter states as of Elohim - In fact how did Peter determine who would be the next Apostle?

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

How did Messiah choose the apostles?


It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (Luk 6:12-13)

What was Yahshua's command to Peter and the others?

"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luk 24:49)

That word stay - is also tarry, wait, to sit.

They were to wait until they received The Holy Spirit - but Peter was a man of action and couldn't just wait.
He disobeyed and performed a work of the flesh.

Paul didn't meet Peter's requirements to be an apostle - but he met Elohim's, which is the ONLY requirements that count.

It wasn't Peter's place to choose Apostles - it is Yahweh's place only as He did with Paul.

there is a great lesson to be learned in what Peter misdid - don't step out according to the flesh when Yahweh has us in a place of waiting.

---

Sorry, but you are not RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word.

Why did you gloss over the fulfilling of the SCRIPTURE that PETER GOT HIS AUTHORITY FROM?

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Please prayerfully study more before posting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
U´rim and Thummim
“lights and perfections”

Into the breastplate of the high priest were placed “the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron’s heart when he goes in before the Lord” (Exodus 28:30). These formed the medium through which the high priest ascertained the will of Jehovah in regard to any important matter affecting the theocracy (Numbers 27:21). Even such early writers as Josephus, Philo, and the rabbis do not furnish any precise information as to what the Urim and Thummim really were. On every side we meet confessions of ignorance.

But do you agree that it is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ we pray to Him for - there is no power in these objects in and of themselves?

---

The Urrim and Thurimin are stones of black and white to enquire of Jehovah between good and evil, having NOTHING to do with the HOLY!

They determine only the way the ISRAELITES walked while under the Law of God and while NOT indwelt with His Holy Spirit.

Peter was leaning on the LAW instead of Christ.

Matthew 16:1
The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

Luke 11:16
And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.

url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints) -->

quote:

---

In the early Latter Day Saint movement, seer stones were used as method of divination and played a significant role in its history and theology. Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, owned several seer stones from his earlier career as a "money digger."[1] Other early Mormons such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer and Jacob Whitmer also owned seer stones.[2] Seer stones are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and in other Latter Day Saint scriptures. James Strang, who claimed to be Joseph Smith's designated successor, also unearthed what he said were ancient metal plates and translated them using seer stones.

Seer Stones and the Urim and Thummim

Main article: Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints)

In translating the Book of Mormon from the Golden Plates, Smith said he used "Interpreters", a pair of crystals joined in the form of a large pair of spectacles, which he later referred to as the "Urim and Thummim." In 1823 Smith said that an angel told him of the existence of Golden Plates, along with which would be found "two stones in silver bows" fastened to a breastplate, which the angel called the Urim and Thummim and which he said God had prepared for translating the plates.[9] (His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described them as crystal-like: "two smooth three-cornered diamonds.")[10] Smith and his early Mormon contemporaries seem to have used the terms "seer stone" and "Urim and Thummim" interchangeably. Although Smith always referred to the Book of Mormon "interpreters" as the Urim and Thummim, he may or may not have intended to make a distinction between that device and the seer stones that he used in scrying.[11]

In 1827 Smith was revisited by the angel who revealed the location of these objects buried in a hillside. After translating the Book of Mormon Smith returned the plates and the Urim and Thummim to the angel, whom he identified as the resurrected Moroni. Joseph Smith reportedly told Orson Pratt that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was an inexperienced translator, but that as he grew in experience he no longer needed such assistance.[12]

---

quote:

---

there is no power in these objects in and of themselves?

---

Except for a FALSE divination now that Christ is raised..

Ezekiel 14:1-11
Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?
Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him; That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD.

1 Corinthians 14:22
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Shall we all go about to search for these Urim and Thurimin, so that we may know the will of the Lord now?!!?

Ezekiel 12:11
Say, I am your sign: like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them: they shall remove and go into captivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:


[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

---

If we were to use only this scripture Paul would not qualify to be an apostle. The ones who don't understand will attempt all sorts of rational gymnastics in an attempt to get Paul to "fit" these standards. They'll conclude that his experience on the road to Damascus somehow compensated for the fact that he was neither 1) with Jesus from the time of His baptism or 2) with the group that witnessed Our Lord's ascension.

Such reasoning, I think, arose as an answer to the Roman heresy as the fathers of the reformation attempted to disarm the Roman Catholic beast at the foundational level. Yet, in their haste to condemn the Pope and his ilk they neglected the counsel of the Spirit and spun off, themselves, into poor doctrine.

Are there any here who want to know why these qualifications were given in Acts and why Paul, who did not meet these requirements, was indeed still an apostle?

Aaron

---

Those requirements Peter states in Acts are the requirements of MEN and NOT of Yahweh.

There is no place in Scripture that backs up what Peter states as of Elohim - In fact how did Peter determine who would be the next Apostle?

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

How did Messiah choose the apostles?


It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (Luk 6:12-13)

What was Yahshua's command to Peter and the others?

"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luk 24:49)

That word stay - is also tarry, wait, to sit.

They were to wait until they received The Holy Spirit - but Peter was a man of action and couldn't just wait.
He disobeyed and performed a work of the flesh.

Paul didn't meet Peter's requirements to be an apostle - but he met Elohim's, which is the ONLY requirements that count.

It wasn't Peter's place to choose Apostles - it is Yahweh's place only as He did with Paul.

there is a great lesson to be learned in what Peter misdid - don't step out according to the flesh when Yahweh has us in a place of waiting.

---

Sorry, but you are not RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word.

Why did you gloss over the fulfilling of the SCRIPTURE that PETER GOT HIS AUTHORITY FROM?

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Please prayerfully study more before posting.

---

Same back at you: Please prayerfully study more before posting.

Peter did it in HIS timing, according to the flesh, not in Yahweh's timing.

It was Yahweh's task to pick HIS apostles.

And still the "requirements" for being an apostles was of man-made rules and NOT Scripture.

Casting lots was also NOT the way we should be operating now - but by Yahweh's Holy Spirit.
Just because Peter said a prayer before casting lots doesn't mean Yahweh was in the answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by WildB:
[qb]

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. (Act 1:26)

This was a work of the flesh

How did Messiah choose the apostles?

---

Originally quoted post by me!

I have always thought of it as you do wparr, or whomever said this. Carol has a point worth thinking about. I do not know how to appropiate this though, except to think still, that the Apostles did not act out of the Spirit's 'leading', but out of 'works'; that is, self determination. I still cling to the notion that God knew that a replacement would be needed, and God knew that Paul would be on the Damascus road. And Paul was in God's timing.

quote:

---

concerning woolb
[QUOTE] Of coarse your right about disputing and gossiping over other ministries/people.

But that is not what is happening here.

Exposing False Teaching helps the saved soul from missing the mark and the other lost souls from eternal damnation.

---

---

Somehow it just seems wrong, these people who want to ferret out so called 'false teachers'. Even if they are false teachers, what do we have to do with them? People who choose to follow them have chosen their way. It is to be noted that it is very unusual to convert someone from following another's way, and I think it is much more appropiate to simply 'expound' on the truth and let the listeners decide!!! Because the Spirit will guide the 'true heart' into all truth.

There is something unhealthy and wrong about labeling others in the ministry whom we disagree with. And really! If it comes down to who are the tares, the ones who feel compelled to scream and shout over others, that this one, or that other is a fake, seem to be lacking something essential that comes from relationship. Evidently they don't have anything positive to dwell on and feel that they must disregard others to validate themselves. So also, they may be completely devoid of the Baptism of Love, which really is not optional (See 1cor13). However, if one doesn't believe in it, how will they receive?

God didn't and isn't raising up critics! He didn't say, "Go ye into all the world and "Criticize" who ye think is wrong about the gospel." HE said:

• Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Critics can only 'criticize' out of self-righteousness, which is meaningless. Rightousness which is of the Lord is not "Jealous; envious; boastful; proud; haughty;selfish, or rude! (Living Bible)so here we have that 'filter thing' again. For if one wants to know if thee are ministering of the Spirit, he or she can easily see by this list if it is the Spirit, or the flesh by using it as a filter. So if one wanted a test to see who is wheat, and who is the tare, a pretty good determination can be made by discovering if they criticize others to make themselves, or their point known. For God doesn't need those carrying the big stick to make His point for Him. He just doesn't need them. They perhaps are like the Apostle who was chosen by lot, rather than by the moving of the Spirit. So when someone disagrees with another, it should be tempered.

---

quote:

---

Act 1:21,22 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."

---

quote:

---

Act 2:5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

---

quote:

---

Act 2:7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?
Act 2:8 "And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

---

quote:

---

Act 2:12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?"
Act 2:13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine."

---

quote:

---

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.

---

So Peter + the eleven (including Mathias) makes 12 witnesses to what Peter is about to preach.

The Lord knew the accusation would come and He knew who would level the accusation against the apostles: Jews. So, He prepared before the Spirit fell for the 12th man to already be selected and numbered among the 12. Our Lord left no room for the mockers to wiggle: the testimony of Peter was established by 12 credible witnesses. And all who were in earshot of Peter were about to receive an awful accusation against them: that they had, in fact, killed the Son of God.

And we all know how that turned out.

Now, there is more. There are other apostles in scripture besides the 12 Apostles of the Lamb and Paul. Perhaps I’ll add some more later.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :
 
Concerning Watchman Nee, here is something interesting from Troy Brooks's website.

How to Read Watchman Nee Properly!

1) Watchman Nee's writings were translated by Stephen Kaung into fifty-five books at Christian Fellowship Publishers from mostly Nee's magazines, plus a study guide for The Spiritual Man called Journeying Towards The Spiritual and a book for prayer, Powerful According to God. There are also three books by Kaung which are excellent. I have found these two writers, as well Jessie Penn-Lewis to be the most memorable and effective for my life. I can not even say a single thing against them in the writings themselves for their work seems perfect. This is really the only authentic and trustworthy source for Nee's writings . I have no affiliation with them. I just love deeper spiritual truths; when accepted, grace enters to produce the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Reading the Bible along with the most spiritual of Christian writers is profitable for we are not an island unto ourselves. We need two or three in agreement, and so shall it be in heaven.

2) Watchman Nee was also translated by Angus Kinnear into 5 books from Nee's magazines, plus a study guide for The Normal Christian Life and a biography, Against the Tide, at Christian Literature Crusade. At CLC are two other translations: David Smith translated Song of Songs, and Sure Foundation translated Release of the Spirit. I have found Angus Kinnear mistaken on a few occasions in his biography and the footnotes to his translations which is why I recommend just the white covers only!

3) Read only the white covers first. Later, read Kinnear's translations, then venture into other views and translations if you wish, and you will see them for what they are. This course of action is most profitable in this order. It may not seem apparent now, but years down the road these instructions will be appreciated in that it is better to start with reading that which is most spiritual, trustworthy, and accurate first.

It is better to never read Nee at all than to start reading from the false translations and false views. That will totally mess you up.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm
 

---

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :
 
"Certainly they should have waited until the Holy Spirit fell upon them, THEN they could have more accurately picked the right person, right?Certainly they should have waited until the Holy Spirit fell upon them, THEN they could have more accurately picked the right person, right?"

Nope. For the Bible clearly states,

John.20

[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:


So they already had received the Holy Ghost. It was at Pentecost that the were FILLED.


Acts.2

1. [4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost;


Please prayerfully study the Bible before posting again.
 

---

Posted by wparr (Member # 891) on :
 
"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49)
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:
"Certainly they should have waited until the Holy Spirit fell upon them, THEN they could have more accurately picked the right person, right?Certainly they should have waited until the Holy Spirit fell upon them, THEN they could have more accurately picked the right person, right?"

Nope. For the Bible clearly states,

John.20

[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:


So they already had received the Holy Ghost. It was at Pentecost that the were FILLED.


Acts.2

1. [4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost;


Please prayerfully study the Bible before posting again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Zeena

Concerning Watchman Nee, here is something interesting from Troy Brooks's website.

How to Read Watchman Nee Properly!

1) Watchman Nee's writings were translated by Stephen Kaung into fifty-five books at Christian Fellowship Publishers from mostly Nee's magazines, plus a study guide for The Spiritual Man called Journeying Towards The Spiritual and a book for prayer, Powerful According to God. There are also three books by Kaung which are excellent. I have found these two writers, as well Jessie Penn-Lewis to be the most memorable and effective for my life. I can not even say a single thing against them in the writings themselves for their work seems perfect. This is really the only authentic and trustworthy source for Nee's writings . I have no affiliation with them. I just love deeper spiritual truths; when accepted, grace enters to produce the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Reading the Bible along with the most spiritual of Christian writers is profitable for we are not an island unto ourselves. We need two or three in agreement, and so shall it be in heaven.

2) Watchman Nee was also translated by Angus Kinnear into 5 books from Nee's magazines, plus a study guide for The Normal Christian Life and a biography, Against the Tide, at Christian Literature Crusade. At CLC are two other translations: David Smith translated Song of Songs, and Sure Foundation translated Release of the Spirit. I have found Angus Kinnear mistaken on a few occasions in his biography and the footnotes to his translations which is why I recommend just the white covers only!

3) Read only the white covers first. Later, read Kinnear's translations, then venture into other views and translations if you wish, and you will see them for what they are. This course of action is most profitable in this order. It may not seem apparent now, but years down the road these instructions will be appreciated in that it is better to start with reading that which is most spiritual, trustworthy, and accurate first.

It is better to never read Nee at all than to start reading from the false translations and false views. That will totally mess you up.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

I am also glad that Troy Brooks is not a Leeist.

---

Yes, there are false books purportedly written by him [Nee] which he did not write. And twistings and false renderings of what he did. Only the truth would that devil come against, yes?

And Aaron..

Acts 1 is BEFORE the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, therefore they had NO CHOICE but to rely on the Law of God.

Though I do not say it MUST be so, it sure does seem like it..

And even though we [DO, each and every one of us] walk after our flesh or submit to the law of sin and death at times, I honestly believe that God ALLOWS it for HIS purpose, HIS Glory.

He will finish what He has started.
He alone will recieve the Glory.
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
They were indwelt by The Spirit, but not filled then, yes?
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:
[QUOTE]And Aaron..

Acts 1 is BEFORE the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, therefore they had NO CHOICE but to rely on the Law of God.

---

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

The scriptures certainly record that Peter could receive revelation from God prior to Pentecost: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven."

To summarize: selecting the 12th man prior to the outpouring was to confirm the truth of Peter's sermon.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
8x10 glossing over photos: Alices Restaurant!!! "You can get anything you want at Alices restaurant (excepting Alice). Arlo Guthrie


Did God honor the drawing of lots? After all, these were His chosen (and honored) Apostles. If so, Paul is the thirteenth Apostle. If not, he completes the twelve. But as I recall there are twelve tribes, and twelve Apostles, and so on. Twelve a here; twelve a there; here a twelve, therre a twelve; everwhere a twelve twelve (144)


eek1 : .. .. .. .. .. ..
 

---

Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on :
 
Casting Lots?

Acts 1:26 (NLT)
Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.

The Twelve were oriented toward the “twelve tribes of Israel”. Paul was the great apostle to the Gentiles.

The eleven apostles, together with many other disciples, were gathered in the upper room after the ascension. At Simon Peter’s suggestion the decision was made to replace Judas, who had forfeited his office by his betrayal of Jesus. Unfortunately, the group of disciples contained not one but two qualified candidates, Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas. A decision has to be made. They pray. Someone brings out some dice. The dice are thrown and Matthias wins. He is from then on counted as an apostle, one chosen and sent by the Lord. This scenario is difficult for two reasons. First, if this procedure was of God, why isn’t church business conducted in this way now? Second, if this method is not to be used now, how could it have been legitimate then? Did Matthias really become the twelfth apostle, or was this the first major postascension failure of the church, a use of worldly methods?

The Eleven certainly had a legitimate concern. Jesus had promised that the Twelve would “sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk 22:30). The situation that confronts them in Acts 1:26 is that now, as they await the inauguration of the mission to the world (Luke explains Pentecost more as empowering for mission than as the beginning of the church), there is a vacant spot. The issue was not that Judas had died. James son of Zebedee would also die, but he would not be replaced (Acts 12:2). The apostles believed in the resurrection of the dead, so in their eyes James was still available to take his place on his throne. Instead, the issue with Judas was that by betraying Jesus he had forfeited his place.

Some have suggested that Paul was God’s choice as a replacement and that the decision here was premature. That can hardly be the case. First, one qualification was that the person had been with Jesus during his whole earthly ministry (Acts 1:21-22). While many disciples other than the Twelve often followed Jesus, Paul was certainly not one of them. Second, the Twelve were oriented toward the “twelve tribes of Israel”; that is, their focus was and remained the Jewish-Christian mission. Paul was the great apostle to the Gentiles. Third, in his letters Paul never groups himself with the Twelve but rather maintains the uniqueness of his own apostleship (for example, 1 Cor 15:8-9; Gal 1:12, 15). Finally, Paul knows several other apostles, such as James (Gal 1:19) and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7). Thus, while all of the Twelve were apostles, not all apostles belonged to the Twelve. The Eleven correctly realized that unique qualifications were needed to fill that twelfth spot.

Throughout the Old Testament the lot was the normal means of discerning the divine will when a prophet was not available. It was the means of decision on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:8) and was how the land had been divided (Josh 18:10). Centuries later, when the returning exiles wanted to know God’s mind, they still used it (Neh 10:34; 11:1). More important than the historical examples are the instructions of Proverbs, which were understood as divine teaching. How could harmony be preserved when there were two contenders? “Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart” (Prov 18:18). Could the dice really give God’s answer? “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov 16:33). In other words, since the decision in Acts was not automatic (two men were fully qualified), those gathered in the upper room had every reason in terms of both biblical precedent and biblical teaching to believe that God would make his will known through the lot. There was nothing incorrect in their procedure.

Why, then, is this the last time that we read about the early church using dice? In the next chapter, with the gathering fully organized (all twelve apostles in place), the Holy Spirit falls. The Spirit was also the Spirit of prophecy, whose departure from Israel had left them with only dice as a means through which God might communicate his will. But now in the wake of the coming of Jesus the Spirit is back, not resting only on a few prophets, but on the whole people of God. Many of them received the gift of prophecy. From this point on Acts records prophetic words that explain decisions (for example, “the Spirit told me,” Acts 11:12), indicate people chosen for special roles (Acts 13:2) and apparently lead to consensus (Acts 15:28). In the church empowered by the Spirit, God speaks through that Spirit. It is therefore no wonder that in such a context the lot and similar indirect means of discerning the divine will (such as seeking omens from God like Gideon’s fleece) were relegated to history. We who live in a church still filled with that Spirit can continue to be thankful that due to our direct connection with God we no longer have to copy the means that were necessary for the first ten days of the church after Jesus left.

(Hard Sayings of the Bible)
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
This book by Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life saved my Christian life. I was a cranky, miserable Christian trying to suppress my sins which came to easily to me.

But when I read Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Life, it saved my life. In it I discovered that God had crucified my old man (actually God had crucified all what belonged to the first Adam as worthless).

And from that day on I stopped trying to help God with my worthless old man, and I became a happy Christian when I discovered that God does not want my bad parts, but God does not want my good parts either. My ENTIRE old man has been condemned.

John 6:63
It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I {Jesus} speak to you, they are Spirit and they are life.

I will forever be grateful to Jesus Christ thru Watchman Nee, by the Holy Spirit, for that wonderful explanation of the book of Romans, which saved my Christian life FOR A SECOND TIME when it needed much saving from MYSELF.

love, Eden
 

---

Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eden:
This book by Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life saved my Christian life. I was a cranky, miserable Christian trying to suppress my sins which came to easily to me.

But when I read Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Life, it saved my life. In it I discovered that God had crucified my old man (actually God had crucified all what belonged to the first Adam as worthless).

And from that day on I stopped trying to help God with my worthless old man, and I became a happy Christian when I discovered that God does not want my bad parts, but God does not want my good parts either. My ENTIRE old man has been condemned.

John 6:63
It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I {Jesus} speak to you, they are Spirit and they are life.

I will forever be grateful to Jesus Christ thru Watchman Nee, by the Holy Spirit, for that wonderful explanation of the book of Romans, which saved my Christian life FOR A SECOND TIME when it needed much saving from MYSELF.

love, Eden

---

The Spiritual Man
CFP, Vo. 1, Part 3 THE SOUL Ch. 1
by Watchman Nee


A Christian enters a decidedly hazardous period of his life upon coming to know the truth of co-death and experiencing something of freedom from sin. If at this juncture he receives good instruction and permits the Holy Spirit to apply the cross to himself in a deeper way, he eventually will reach spiritual maturity. But if the believer is content to view his experience of victorious life over sin as the apogee of attainment and forbids the cross to contravene his soul life then he will abide in the soulical realm and mistake his soulical experience for a spiritual one. In spite of the fact his old man was dealt with, the believer’s soul life remains untouched by the cross. The will, mind and emotion will therefore continue to function without any check; and the result: his experience is confined to the realm of the soul .

It must be emphasized that to be delivered from the power of sin merely means to have our body liberated. (Of course our perfect redemption which also includes the deliverance from the presence of sin lies in the future). Not yet dealt with is the life of the soul upon which we lean. If we consider victory over sin as life on the highest plateau then we are most foolish. We are accepting the “annulling” or “withering” of the body as life supreme but ignoring the fact that over and above the body of sin stands the natural soul which requires as much dealing as does the body. A believer’s spiritual odyssey is bound to be shallow if he only knows the body unemployed (wonderful as that may be) but fails to experience the soul life denied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
Did God honor the drawing of lots?

---

quote:

---

Carol Swenson wrote:
...Some have suggested that Paul was God’s choice as a replacement and that the decision here was premature. That can hardly be the case. First, one qualification was that the person had been with Jesus during his whole earthly ministry (Acts 1:21-22)...
...(Hard Sayings of the Bible)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
8x10 glossing over photos: Alices Restaurant!!! "You can get anything you want at Alices restaurant (excepting Alice). Arlo Guthrie


Did God honor the drawing of lots? After all, these were His chosen (and honored) Apostles. If so, Paul is the thirteenth Apostle. If not, he completes the twelve. But as I recall there are twelve tribes, and twelve Apostles, and so on. Twelve a here; twelve a there; here a twelve, therre a twelve; everwhere a twelve twelve (144)


eek1 : .. .. .. .. .. ..

---

quote:

---

Rev 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names* of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

---

quote:

---

1Th 1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,...

---

quote:

---

1Th 1:2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers,
1Th 1:3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father,
1Th 1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
1Th 1:5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.
1Th 1:6 And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit,

---

quote:

---

1Th 2:1 For you yourselves know, brethren, that our coming to you was not in vain.
1Th 2:2 But even after we had suffered before and were spitefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we were bold in our God to speak to you the gospel of God in much conflict.
1Th 2:3 For our exhortation did not come from error or uncleanness, nor was it in deceit.
1Th 2:4 But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts.
1Th 2:5 For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness--God is witness.

---

quote:

---

1Th 2:6 Nor did we (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy) seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy) might have made demands as apostles of Christ.
1Th 2:7 But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy:

quote:

---

Carol Swenson wrote:
...Some have suggested that Paul was God’s choice as a replacement and that the decision here was premature. That can hardly be the case. First, one qualification was that the person had been with Jesus during his whole earthly ministry (Acts 1:21-22)...
...(Hard Sayings of the Bible)...

---

So, what is being taught in the book Hard Sayings of the Bible is that Paul was wrong when he claimed to be an apostle? That when he claimed, in 1Corinthians, that he had seen the Lord as evidence of his apostleship, he had fallen short of the true standard of apostleship? Who are the authors of Hard Sayings of the Bible? Just wondering. It's not that I want to call them out or anything. I just think that they have spoken wrongly, on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy:

quote:

---

Carol Swenson wrote:
...Some have suggested that Paul was God’s choice as a replacement and that the decision here was premature. That can hardly be the case. First, one qualification was that the person had been with Jesus during his whole earthly ministry (Acts 1:21-22)...
...(Hard Sayings of the Bible)...

---

So, what is being taught in the book Hard Sayings of the Bible is that Paul was wrong when he claimed to be an apostle? That when he claimed, in 1Corinthians, that he had seen the Lord as evidence of his apostleship, he had fallen short of the true standard of apostleship? Who are the authors of Hard Sayings of the Bible? Just wondering. It's not that I want to call them out or anything. I just think that they have spoken wrongly, on this one.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't know anything about Watchman Nee. However, I do know that, if he is calling himself a modern day apostle (saint, in the KJV), he is comparable to the Catholic Church, the Watchtower Society and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These organizations have made extra-biblical claims under the premise that they have apostolic authority. However, there is a biblical test for anyone claiming to be a modern day apostle that these three organizations fail, as I'm sure Watchman Nee does.

---

---

quote:

---

zeeeeee!

quote:

---

Yes He did. For He is the One who instituted that method.

---

---

quote:

---

bettylouise

quote:

---

There are many who want to diminish the works done by Paul, today.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betty Louise:
I still believe Paul was called by God to be an Apostle.
betty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:
And Aaron..

Acts 1 is BEFORE the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, therefore they had NO CHOICE but to rely on the Law of God.

---

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

The scriptures certainly record that Peter could receive revelation from God prior to Pentecost: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven."

---

• to fill

• to be fulfilled, to be filled

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
To summarize: selecting the 12th man prior to the outpouring was to confirm the truth of Peter's sermon.

Aaron

---

And indeed, Peters Sermon was truth and always will be truth! Peter had a regenerated spirit when he spoke those words he spoke from his new spirit that he recieved after being indwelt by the Holy Spirit [which he recieved when Jesus breathed on him, and them].

1 Corinthians 6:17
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

He and the rest of the Apostles were quickened that day and were made holy.

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Peter, a student of the Law of Israel, now made new by Jesus, said this;

Acts1:16
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

This Scripture Peter mentioned is the Law of God.

It is obvious he was looking after the Law of God [with his regenerate [see nature] in determining to do the will of God, yes?

Romans 7:22-25 & Romans 8:1-4
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 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: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Yet, the infilling of the Holy Spirit comes with prayer and desire for Him, having our minds renewed by Him. Which the Apostles continued in until they were united in faith, for indeed, they became of one accord with one another, praise God!

That's about it for me, I do not wish for there to be ANY separation in our fellowship in the Holy Spirit my brother. If you do not agree, it is definately not a faith shaking, earth shattering doctrine on which to cause division.

Yet, do feel free to post a reply as the Lord Wills

I MUST say, I've REALLY enjoyed this time of study with you all! God has shed more light, and I am thankful!
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
Concerning Watchman Nee, here is something interesting from Troy Brooks's website.

How to Read Watchman Nee Properly!

1) Watchman Nee's writings were translated by Stephen Kaung into fifty-five books at Christian Fellowship Publishers from mostly Nee's magazines, plus a study guide for The Spiritual Man called Journeying Towards The Spiritual and a book for prayer, Powerful According to God. There are also three books by Kaung which are excellent. I have found these two writers, as well Jessie Penn-Lewis to be the most memorable and effective for my life. I can not even say a single thing against them in the writings themselves for their work seems perfect. This is really the only authentic and trustworthy source for Nee's writings . I have no affiliation with them. I just love deeper spiritual truths; when accepted, grace enters to produce the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Reading the Bible along with the most spiritual of Christian writers is profitable for we are not an island unto ourselves. We need two or three in agreement, and so shall it be in heaven.

2) Watchman Nee was also translated by Angus Kinnear into 5 books from Nee's magazines, plus a study guide for The Normal Christian Life and a biography, Against the Tide, at Christian Literature Crusade. At CLC are two other translations: David Smith translated Song of Songs, and Sure Foundation translated Release of the Spirit. I have found Angus Kinnear mistaken on a few occasions in his biography and the footnotes to his translations which is why I recommend just the white covers only!

3) Read only the white covers first. Later, read Kinnear's translations, then venture into other views and translations if you wish, and you will see them for what they are. This course of action is most profitable in this order. It may not seem apparent now, but years down the road these instructions will be appreciated in that it is better to start with reading that which is most spiritual, trustworthy, and accurate first.

It is better to never read Nee at all than to start reading from the false translations and false views. That will totally mess you up.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WildB:
More deception.

---

Is there some Scriptural evidence I've missed?

If so, PLEASE feel free to point out my error!
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy:
(a) Test One: You must be free from bondage to sin (saved, born again).

---

quote:

---

Nee:
"There began to dawn on him the secret of Christianity that is summarized in the words: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.' Now as he learned to trust God hourly for his very life, he came to a new place of rest in Him."

---

quote:

---

(b) Test Two: You have to have seen the Lord with your own eyes, whether in a vision (as was the case with Paul) or physically.

---

Barnabus saw the Lord Living through the Apostle Paul

quote:

---

Personal witness of Nee:
'I discovered,' he says, 'that Paul was a man, and the very sort of man I knew.

---

Now, obviously he's not saying he physically laid eyes on Paul, but I would surmise it to say that he too witnessed the Life of Jesus within Paul, just as Barnabus.

quote:

---

(c) Test Three: You have to be an evangelist and church planter, actively traveling and spreading the gospel for Jesus Christ.

---

Nee planted a whole slew of church's, praise God!

Even better, his writings are indeed equipped to build up the body of individual members. Informing them of who they are and who Christ Jesus is in and through them!

quote:

---

(d) Test Four: The Lord must have used you for signs, wonders and miracles, to His glory.

---

If you must, then this thread is itself a sign, for we seem to have gotten quite off track of it's original purpose and indeed have come to study and understand the Scripture through it! PRAISE GOD!

Also, above your head is the wonderful witness of brother Eden, in that he gives Glory to God for Nee, as do I

Romans 14:16
Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:

This Scripture Peter mentioned is the Law of God.

---

I think I know what you're saying. I'm just not sure where and why it came into in the discussion.

The way I see it: just as Jesus spoke the words God gave Him when being tempted by Satan, Peter spoke the words God gave him in the matter of choosing the 12th apostle. Both men received revelation from God; revelation that required spiritual sight not academic study.

Bless you sis,
Aaron

P.S. On the matter of indwelling (as a witness that we are God's children) and filling (for power) of the Spirit: they are in fact, two separate issues and they occurred at two different times for the apostles. Granted this is the Cliff's Notes version but it'll do for 11:38 at night. <- *me, yawning
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
1 Corinthians 6:17
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Yea, but....

That does not mean that Peter was infallable. It doesn't mean that Peter obeyed the Spirit. For just because one is 'one spirit' with the Lord doesn't mean that he automatically yields to, and ministers Christ. So just because he chose to cast lots doesn't mean God was glorified. The natural man, that old wiley man (who will not admit he is alive) can override God at any, or even every second. In other words, one can "Walk in the flesh," and manifest the deeds of the flesh, meaning the old nature of sin. Therefore if Jesus didn't cast lots, then Peter simply sinned by taking initiative apart from the leading of the Spirit.

Rom 6:16 know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

It is Jesus, or it isyou. So if Peter was not moved by the Spirit, he was moved by the flesh, the 'old man'.

When Jesus says, "Be ye perfect," one has to yield to it. He cannot just take license to say that he is expressing God. That would make one 'infallible'. That means that one could not be wrong when assuming that he or she is led by the Spirit to 'do' something. Even John Woodward warned about this.

quote:

---

It is obvious he was looking after the Law of God [with his regenerate [see nature] in determining to do the will of God, yes?

---

quote:

---

"And that, as Aaron said, we never heard about the lots apostle again is most likely the evidence that we seek. And never has anything been said that is more important concerning infallibly claiming the will of God (apart from the salvation message).

---

quote:

---

Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.

---

quote:

---

Act 6:2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.

---

quote:

---

1Cr 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Cr 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
1Cr 15:5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

---

quote:

---

1Cr 15:6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

---

quote:

---

1Cr 15:8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wparr:
There is no place in Scripture that backs up what Peter states as of Elohim - In fact how did Peter determine who would be the next Apostle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aaron:
The way I see it: just as Jesus spoke the words God gave Him when being tempted by Satan, Peter spoke the words God gave him in the matter of choosing the 12th apostle. Both men received revelation from God; revelation that required spiritual sight not academic study.

---

Yes, Peter received the Word of God as given in the OT as of God, which it is.

Peter was humbly submitted to the Word of God in Scripture, as he was a new creature in Christ.

Not yet being infilled, but holy in the Lord nonetheless.
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

quote:

---

Ah mistated! It was late! So, sorry Aaron

quote:

---

And that, as Aaron said, we never heard about the lots apostle again is most likely the evidence that we seek. And never has anything been said that is more important concerning infallibly claiming the will of God (apart from the salvation message).

---

---

Nevertheless, some will express Christ, solely, nearly around the clock. Others will not express Christ except on occasion, that, if they are fortunate, even though they have known the Lord and are saved. (It is the condition of the believer that 'warranted' the epistles to guide us.) This is because some will 'obey' unto life, through faith. Others, though well meaning, will not be able, because they misinterpret what HE gives them to know. And they will argue about it, all the while missing the door.

One is Holy as they are yielded to the Lord only. They are not so otherwise. There are two fountains. One is the water of life. The other is mud. The faith of the Cross cuts off the fountain of mud. But it is not automatic. There is participation, which is rewarded. But finding the faith of the Cross is not accomplished in most. Therefore, the fountain of flesh is dominant. These are called 'carnal'. (While some think they can be carnal and call themselves Holy.)

We know that others will not drink of muddy well water. But the muddy wells, rather than repent unto clean clear water, justify the muddy water, trying to make us believe (according to Romans) that it is sin in them that muddies up the water, and not them. Therefore they simply cannot help that it is there. Scripture means nothing to them; only the passages that they 'agree' with. But Jesus does not mean for them to dispense 'muddy' water.

The faith of the Cross cuts off the mudflow,and manifests Jesus. So who do you minister: self, or Christ? What a fair question to ask one's self.

One is not Holy, unless he or she abides in Holiness. This will be the crystal well. If one abides not in Holiness, they are not automatically Holy, and they are blinded by their own mud.
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeena:
Aaron, I said all that I did because wparr had come against the Apostleship of Peter;

---

Ah. I see that now. Thanks for the clarification.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by Aaron (Member # 3761) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:
So who do you minister: self, or Christ? What a fair question to ask one's self.

---

Yes, a fair question indeed.

Aaron
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
One is Holy as they are yielded to the Lord only.

---

quote:

---

Therefore it is not one is Holy as they yeild to Jesus for Life. One is Holy because He is Holy and we've received His Life.

---

How do you know that?

Could it be by 'faith'?

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

"Oh ye of little faith!"

One yields to Christ by faith. That means that they believe what they hear. But one, even though a believer is not necessarily yielded to Christ, by faith. Yielded! For:

"Whatsoever is 'not' of faith is sin." (Rom 14:23)

And are you not making a mistake? Do you not act as though there is 'no' participation? Or do you not rather participate by faith? Do you 'assume' that this is a gift that you receive anyway, perhaps even in spite of yourself? Evidently you do participate by faith, because you 'believe' that you are saved. Or do you 'assume' this to be so by simple self-election, without any participation of faith involved. To assume is a kind of faith. ALbeit, it is a perverted faith, not an humble faith, but one worthy of a tare. It is not a surrendering faith, but taking for granted.

1 Cor 4:7 "What do you have that you did not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why do you glory as if thou didst not receive it?"

But did you receive it without faith?
2 Cor 5:7 "For we walk by 'faith', not by sight".

If we walk by faith, we receive by faith. If we abide in Him it will be by faith. If we are Holy, it can only only be by faith. If anything comes from God, it will be by faith. So if He says something, and we believe it, then by faith, we have it - because we do not have it otherwise. Else He would not have died on the cross, for HE would not have needed to, since we were 'already' saved, and faith would not be necessary.

Romans 12:1 "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, "Holy" and acceptable unto God."

We 'present' by faith. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, or taking forgranted. We are not 'Holy' automatically or this would not have needed to be said. There is an act, or action involved.

1 Tim 2:8 "lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting."

Doubting is not Holy. Therefore if we doubt.... where did holiness go?

1 Thes 4:7 "For God hath not called us to uncleanness, but unto Holiness."

If He has called us to Holiness, does it not mean that we can be unholy? And is unholiness by faith, or by the lack of it?:?? For verse 6 says, "That no man go beyond and defraud his brother." This shows lack of faith, and fruit that is not Christ. Therefore if it is not Christ - guess who! And since Jesus said: "If you gather not with me, you scatter abroad." (Mat 12:30) Therefore if you gather not with Him, you have participated with satan. That is not holy.

"To whomever ye yield yourselves servants to obey [Christian believer] Rom 6:16 his servants are ye whom you obey, whether of sin unto death, or 'obedienced' unto righteousness."

Yield? You mean, an act of my will is involved, and it is not automatica?????? ???

James 4:5 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

But no, to znah, we are Holy. EOD

James chapter 4, "Ye lust and have not. Ye kill and desire to have but cannot attain." That is not Holy. That is yielding to error.

James 1:15 "But when lust has conceived it bringethforth sin, and sin, when it is finished bringeth forth death."

But we are not dead! We are alive to God,, no? !Not if we yield to error! If we yield to error, we die. We step out of Jesus' protection. That means that we are alive to death, and dead to God, our choice. And that means that the old man, to whom Paul said "I die daily," doesn't die, but resurrects from the grave. So so much for his being 'dead'. Dead men do not interfere with Holiness. And since holiness can be interfered with, he is not dead so long as it is interfered with. Therefore we are holy by faith. But we are dead by faith, and iack of it means we are not dead. We are alive to sin. The old man is alive to sin, unless he is under the Cross by faith.
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
I say this affecionately, but you are a kook. You have gone beyond the will of God.
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
Perhaps you will hear from Norman Grubb?

quote:

---

True Discipleship

By Norman Grubb


We have no right to divide Christians into two categories the saved and the sanctified, the average and the ardent, the believer and the follower. Jesus did not, nor did Paul. Jesus simply presented those who thronged Him with one standard, that was all: for conduct, the Sermon on the Mount; for cost, “whosoever he be that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple”.

Paul made no distinction between the justified and the sanctified. Having said in Romans 5 that the justified by faith have peace with God, He said to the same believers in the next chapter, “Know ye not, that so many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death....likewise reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin ... yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” C. T. Studd, the founder of the Worldwide Evangelization Crusade, always preached that same full gospel to the rawest primitive Africans turning to Christ, and demanded the highest from the newest.

How can it be otherwise? What is the gospel but the entry of Deity into redeemed humanity. Christ beginning to live His own life in a purified heart; and Christ lives a self-giving life, and nothing else. We don’t therefore believe that there is real evidence of a new birth, unless it is seen in the new life. The center has changed from self-interest to Christ-interest, and that means to world-interest.

I accepted Christ as a young man of nineteen. I did not know much, certainly nothing of the kind of thing I am now saying. But I im­mediately knew that a basic change of heart and outlook had taken place. There was Someone I had begun to love more than myself! What we love we talk of. “What fills the heart wags the tongue”, as C. T. Studd said, and I couldn’t help telling my college friends of this new reality in my life. “If that is Christianity,” one, who is now a bishop, said to me, “then I have never had it”. Exactly. It was different, though put crudely and ignorantly.

I had lots of battles to fight and adjustments to make. I argued and resisted when the holy Ghost put His finger on things, but in the end I always gave in. Of course I did; a greater thing I had taken over and compelled me.

I didn’t even know about Christ living in me, so I tried plenty to live by my own strength. In that sense I had to come to a crisis, when I received by faith the fact of being crucified with Christ and Him living in me (Galatians 2:20), and received the witness in my heart. But that was in reality no new thing; it was a deeper discovery of the One already there!

Then all these years, as lie led, I followed, and when He took me in ways of self-abandonment, I went with him. And that is all discipleship is! Then what about those church members, who maybe appear to us to be so lethargic—the “once-ers” on Sunday and that is about all; no missionary vision; no zeal to witness or for the prayer meeting? We must be careful about judging others; our zeal so greatly outruns our love. We are better channels of God’s grace by hopefully loving and believing that He is at work in them as He is in us, and that what He seeks He finds. But one thing we can and must do is preach “the whole counsel of God”. If we hew to the line in presenting Jesus as the One who lives His life of holiness, sacrifice, love, zeal to win others, missionary responsibility in us as the good news of free grace (Christ for us, Christ in us, Christ through us) from the first day a person is saved; if we uphold this inevitable consequence of Jesus in us, both in ourselves and our fellow believers; if our church fellowship is taught to see this in the scriptures as the normal Christian life, and the possibility of this being so in each of us because it is not we that live like this, but Christ in us; then that kind of gospel will surely be explosive as in New Testament days. The flesh will hate it, the Spirit will line up with it. Churches that line up may well have revolution before they have revival—which may be the healthiest thing.

Of course all who are called “sell all”. How can they do less for Him who did that for them, and who is now in them living that same standard of life through them? Of course they will lose their lives and find them over again in the lives redeemed through them. Those “lost lives” may mean thirty glorious years in the kitchen, at a printing press, at an office desk, or in the toil and heat of a tropical land. The way God takes them on this “selling all” road is His business.

Thank God there are many thousands in church fellowships and house groups in our land, in whom a self-giving, sacrificing, world-loving Savior lives and functions; and it is from them that the young men and women come, constrained by love that has utterly conquered them, who make up a Crusade like this, and many other such dedicated groups.

Let many more come, for there is endless room in endless needy areas of the world; while others of you equally live out Christ’s life in your home environments, yet you too share in the battle in distant lands by prayer and sacrifice. And where there are laggards—those we are tempted to judge because of coldness of heart and nominal church membership —let us love them and seek to sit where they sit, and understand and enter into what is damming up the free flow of the love of God through them. So often we shall find that it is a wrong concept of the gospel, and often we preach­ers are responsible. People think they have to be holy, zealous, victorious, alive with love to God and man; and because they are not (and never will be!) they have given up and sunk down to just a sort of passive adherence to religion. They have to be retaught that holiness, victorious living, zeal, love for God and man — everything — is merely part of God’s free gift, when He gave us Jesus, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification and (final) redemption”. Judgment demands, love gives. Let us give ourselves in love to such and they will learn the givingness of God.

Is there not a cross, a stripping in discipleship? Yes, but as God does the stripping, He puts glory into the hurt — and that makes all the difference. “The glory of the cross”. As C. T. Studd said: “Paul loved the music of the cross”. “Who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross”. Come on now, let us step right into the full implication of the gospel, Christ eternally living His own life in us and by us, and His life is forever self-giving for others. What a gospel, that we self­lovers can be changed into the image of the Self-giver by the simple means of daring to accept the fact that He is and will be just Himself in us!

---

Source --> http://www.normangrubb.com/Articles/TrueDiscipleship.htm

Do you see how this message was tailored Michael?
Just for you [and YOU, whoever you are!]?

God Loves you THAT much!
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
"holiness, victorious living, zeal, love for God and man — everything — is merely part of God’s free gift, when He gave us Jesus, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification and (final) redemption”

"What a gospel, that we self­lovers can be changed into the image of the Self-giver by the simple means of daring to accept the fact that He is and will be just Himself in us!"

WOW!
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
It is also merely a matter of imputation. Jesus was made sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of Jesus.

It is not that Jesus was made sin, but that the penalty of sin was now imputed to Jesus. Likewise, it is not that we are now made righteous, but that righteousness is imputed to us, no matter "how much" righteousness we manage to achieve in this life.

When all is said and done, no one can attain to the glory and righteousness that Jesus had and it will still be an imputation.

To "impute" means to "put into someone else's ledger". Jesus received the penalty of sin, and I receive the righteousness that Jesus had, no matter how good or how awful I turn out to be at "becoming somewhat more righteous" in this lifetime as a believer.

In the end, the righteousness that I can achieve, with the help of the Holy Spirit, will still fall far short of the glory that Jesus had, so in the end, it will still all be an imputation of righteousness.

love, Eden
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

quote:

---

It is not that Jesus was made sin, but that the penalty of sin was now imputed to Jesus. Likewise, it is not that we are now made righteous, but that righteousness is imputed to us, no matter "how much" righteousness we manage to achieve in this life.

---

• Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

• Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

• 2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Here again, if we think of righteousness as a quality, then we think of it as something we 'acheive'. But to acheive, implies our 'working' to acheive. But we don't 'work' to acheive. We believe, to acheive.



 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
Ephesians 1:18-19a
I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe.
 

---

Posted by Zeena (Member # 7223) on :
 
Looks like all this talk of universialism really got us off track HERE huh!
 

---

Posted by wparr (Member # 891) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Harrison:

quote:

---

It is not that Jesus was made sin, but that the penalty of sin was now imputed to Jesus. Likewise, it is not that we are now made righteous, but that righteousness is imputed to us, no matter "how much" righteousness we manage to achieve in this life.

---

If we change the word 'righteousness' to Jesus, then we have the understanding. For Jesus is righteousness. So, is Jesus imputed to you? This goes beyond 'putting something on your ledger'. Jesus doesn't write something on a tablet (wherever it is kept). He writes on our heart. He writes "Jesus." Amen!!! Therefore, righteousness is 'imputed' to us if Jesus is written on the heart!!!! Righteousness is not a quality. It is a person, without which we are 'dead' in unrighteousness by being 'alive' to self.

• Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

• Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

• 2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Here again, if we think of righteousness as a quality, then we think of it as something we 'acheive'. But to acheive, implies our 'working' to acheive. But we don't 'work' to acheive. We believe, to acheive.

---