Watchman Nee vs. Witness Lee on The Local Church and other matters

[Churchwork]

1) Did you know Watchman Nee never once used the phrase to describe the universal Church as The Local Church. He would have denounced such practice as heresy if he knew what Witness Lee was doing while Nee was jailed for life. Watchman Nee was against denominationalism: don't say I of Cephas, or I of Apollos, or I of Paul, or I of Christ. No congregationalism, no denominationalism, no non-denominationalism. God's way for the Church is according to Scriptural locality: that is, God has in view the regional Apostles appointing Elders for the whole locality.

Then comes along Witness Lee with what he called The Local Church, with an address and as a legal corporation you can sue others or be sued with, to bring in revenues, evade taxes and purchase various properties and enter into business ventures.

You can use the term like "Biblocality" to describe the fact that Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a locality, but never is there a name The Local Church or even a primary publishing house for the body of Christ which they try to claim as being The Living Stream Ministry which is more than just a publishing house, but is the intricate arm of The Local Church denomination, which I prefer to think of as a modalism cult.

For example, in The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel on page 118, we read Mike Licona saying, "Tertullian confirms that John appointed Polycarp as bishop [Elder] of the church of Smyrna." This is a correct statement. Polycarp was not an Apostle, but was an Elder of a locality. And he wasn't appointed to The Local Church, The Baptist Church, The Roman Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Presbyterian Church, or the Methodist Church. He was appointed to be the head of the locality.

2) Watchman Nee was osas arminian. Witness Lee was a calvinist, believing in total depravity and some of the other points of calvinism TULIP. thebereans.net share this in common with leeists.

3) Of course, you find nothing in Watchman Nee's writings about prayer shouting, desire is hate (comparing the CFP TSM with LSM TSM), modalism, suing for faith, calling oneself God or deification, or the kind of rapture before the Tribulation that Lee taught.

There you have it. A simple and sweet comparison.

Incidentally, the reason why Dana Roberts and G. Richard Fisher write multiple books on Watchman Nee is because they are both calvinists, bipartites, amillennialists and frankly, according to Dave Hunt, not born-again, therefore.

I find it hard to believe a person is saved who thinks we are in the 1000 years now, that their spirit is the soul considering Heb. 4.12, 1 Thess. 5.23, or that they were regenerated which irresistibly caused them to repent, have faith and believe, and a God who wants to save all but doesn't provide enabling grace to to have the opportunity to be saved whosoever is willing. What evil is this?

[Churchwork]

There you go with your "congregationalism" thingy again. Your semantics may work on some people...but need I remind you that english words already have definitions and you can't simply redefine common terminology to suit your side of the argument.
Where have I redefined something? Aren't you the one redefining the Church, since Biblically church is a locality of believers, not a denomination or a congregation?


Whether you like it or not, when you meet with other believers, that is a congregation...but don't worry it is not a sin.
Where did I say meeting with believers is not a congregation or congregating? Try to understand. The local church is defined as a locality of believers not a congregation of believers of a particular meeting place.


Since you are not affiliated with a denomination, then you are a non-denomination...you can't simply use the "I of Christ" passage to define a non-denomination because Paul was not even addressing the issue of doctrinal division that we're seeing with denominations, but rather he was addressing the leadership issues of the local assembly in Corinth.This has nothing to do with non-denominations.
I am a human being who is born-again. I am not a non-denomination and the Bible says don't self-exalt yourself on that basis by saying "I of Christ" which is the same thing as a non-denomination. "I of Apollos" would be a forming not a non-denominational body, but a denominational one. "I of Apollos" has its doctrinal division from "I of Cephas". For a time, Peter was teaching something differently, teaching circumcision which was false. The reason why people chose certain leaders was not for no reason at all but because of differences in doctrine or what they perceived were differences in their understanding. The body of Christ ought not to be divided by doctrine. The only way of division is according to locality (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/whichchurch.htm). Time and again, we see this.


Truth is, most non-denominations have more leader worship than denominations do. Like Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and all those other crazy dudes on TV...Yep, they are all non-denom. yet I bet they are not the "I of Christ" category as you say they are.
There you go comparing non-denominations with denominations, like saying "I of Christ" vs. "I of Apollos". You are sinning, for this is not the operations of the Church, but man. These various men are in the "I of Christ" category because they claim, as you say, the non-denominational status. If their focus was on the locality, they would be humbled and abide in it, instead of going their own way non-denominationally and circumventing the organizing of the Church by the Apostles appointing Elders of a locality.


Once again, you have redefined words such as "congregation" and "non-denomination" to the point of circular reasoning...You are either a denominaiton or you are not. period.
God said don't say "I of Cephas" or "I of Christ". Just because man invents the word denomination which sounds awfully like demonation, that doesn't introduce a new teaching, for it still the same thing as "I of Cephas" and "I of Apollos." Satan has got the wool pooled over your eyes; you think it is something different just because it is a different word. God described the problems in the 7 church periods (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/7churches.htm) in Rev. 2 & 3. "Congregationalism" is also "I of Christ" because it is exalting the congregation over the locality, when the congregation or meeting place should be subject to the Elder of the locality's approval of that meeting place.


Your "biblocality" is just like "local church" with differing doctrines, administration, and leader, but same concept.
Biblocality is not a local church, but is the description of the process by which God commissions Apostles to work regionally to appoint Elders of a locality. You should never call the universal Church by the name The Local Church nor Biblocality. While they might accept the name The Local Church, Biblocality denounces such practice. And you should teach correctly. Biblocality has the administration of the Apostles informally working regionally. Do you have any evidence The Local Church claims to have Apostles or are they afraid to use this terminology? There is no leader to Biblocality like there is an Oracle for The Local Church, for there is no popery in the Church. So quite different!


Wow. then it is you rather than the baptist who is causing division. Sounds like someone has control issues...
God doesn't like false teachings in the Church. There is a certain amount of control yes. Without any control there would be anarchy. What matters is if there is some false teachings in a locality they are contained within instead of spreading to other locales if they were a denomination. They must resolve their problem within and request the presence of an Apostle to set the record straight, because the Apostles are in agreement. Your problem is you do not deal with these problems. But the Apostles do and so do the Elders. You're not in the Work for the Church, but you should at least stop your hostility towards the Workers for the Church whose purpose is to help members of the body of Christ with such problems.


Correction. the way God saves is Christ. you may have your pet doctrines and someone else may have theirs, but nobody cares.
That's the problem, you don't care. God saves by Christ, but there are many false Christs. If you reject the way God saves, then you worship a false Christ. If you don't want to be saved the way God saves, then you are going to Hell. If you minimize the way God saves as a pet doctrine, it's because you are not right before God.


So it's ok for an unbeliever to come amongst your holiness, but calvinists are not welcome? Are they not also a part of the Body of Christ? is that exclusivism I hear?
Where did I say unbelievers can come to break bread? Most Calvinists are not members of the body of Christ because they refuse to be saved God's way. Yes, the Church is exclusive, for we are chosen before the foundations of the world. Why does that offend you?



Ya that's what Lee said too...the problem is that it didn't work for them and it won't work for you guys either...because it's not in the bible. Letters to localities don't translate into a city/church doctrine. Even calvinism has more biblical fidelity than your concept of "biblocality."

I can't speak for Lee, but if that's what he said too and meant it in the exact same sense, then he would be right. But we know he didn't mean it in the same sense, because who are the Apostles in their organization and how can they even be Apostles, since they are false teachers? Furthermore do they call the leaders of the locality, Elders? If not, they are showing a different picture. A quite dramatic one since they identify themselves as The Local Church, when the universal Church has no such description in God's Word, nor even implied. It is changing the meaning of the term, local church which is a locality of believers. Letters to the localities of believers is addressed to the church of this locality and that locality. Whether a letter is sent or not, they still in Acts address these churches when speaking about them. These are not letters to denominations, non-denominations or congregations, but to the whole locality of believers-the local church.

Calvinism has no fidelity, for it is quite evil to say God sends people to Hell without recourse and salvation is irresistibly imposed.

Your issue is not with me, but God's Word which is clearly stated. The Bible gives the simplest guideline concerning the church. It is clear and unconfused. If we read the beginning verses of the epistles, the Acts, and the first chapter of Revelation, we meet such names as “the church which was in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), and “the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev. 1:4), which are the church in Ephesus, the church in Smyrna, the church in Pergamum, the church in Thyatira, the church in Sardis, the church in Philadelphia, and the church in Laodicea (Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). In the Bible the churches are divided, but what makes the division? One and only one rule divides the church. Anyone can see the answer, for it is crystal clear.


I'm dissapointed that you are trying to use this forum to peddle around your own pet doctrines...
To you what is a pet doctrine, the Paul and the other Apostles hold very dear. I share the truth in many places, but know your site is a cult if it bans and censors the truth.


I had hoped we would have some great discussions on the teachings of Lee and Nee, but it is clear that you want us to convert to your "biblocality" and follow your "apostle's" favorite doctrines...much like Lee wanting to convert everyone to his "local church" and follow his pet doctrines.
In all honestly, I believe most leeists are not saved, because I don't worship their modalism god of deifying man. I do not believe most will ever give their lives to Christ, for they will continue to worship the false Christ of modalism, shouting mantra and deification. I do not believe you will repent either of your hostility towards proper ecclesiology. My purpose nonetheless as in other places is to continue to speak the truth, no matter how much that offends you. Being an Apostle, my primary job is to teach proper ecclesiology which is biblocality and deliver the gospel in which God saves those "through...belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 2.13) in Christ.


Remember there is a real enemy out there destroying lives. Don't get confused like LSM and think that other believers are against you.
Realize who that enemy is. It's you, because unless the Church is properly organized, Christ will continue to delay His return. Don't get confused and think that if you are saved I am against you, but rather you simply need to repent of your false teaching. And if you can't repent it may be an indication you were never born-again. Satan loves to operate within Christendom, and he has got you on the matters we are discussing.


Unfortunately, you have nothing else to offer here except more semantics that are very similar to Lee. We can only deal with one exclusive "no name" group at a time. If anyone wants to discuss anything with you then they are free to go over to your site, but in order to stay on topic here, I'm locking this thread and would encourage you not to keep trying to indirectly discuss Lee/Nee just to advertise your own wierd "biblocality" church. Not here.
It is because you don't read the Scriptures closely that you get yourself into trouble. The hardest domino to fall is that of biblocality, because Satan has tricked Christendom for a very long time in leaving the "first love," but if you would just appreciate what God's Word says, not to divide the Church any other way than locality, the problem would be solved in your own heart. There is no biblocality church, but you can address the church as the church of this city or that city. Because the Church operates this way that frustrates you because you can't get your head around it, because it doesn't have another name than the Biblical name. Do you see how your flesh is deceiving you? If a person accepts the Biblical description of the Church and you are still hostile, realize you are the problem. Satan is very threatened by proper ecclesiology, for once the Church has reaches its pinnacle, first rapture according to readiness commences (Matt. 24.42, Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10) "before the throne" (Rev. 7.9).


If your group is the real deal, then God will draw people to your site...No reason for you to go slinking around the internet like a sly fox hiding behind discussions of Witness Lee.
There is no hiding behind discussions of Witness Lee. I am here to speak plainly, Witness Lee was partially right, but he misused it and abused it by making some key errors for the sake of self-aggrandizement, whereas I don't charge for anything and there is no central-hub for biblocality like there for the head offices of The Local Church. Where are the Apostles for this Local Church of Witness Lee? And where are the correct teaching? The reason why his cult took off is because it was enticing with part truth. But within it were part untruths, for there is no one-man Oracle or any Oracles at all, and the regional workers, the Apostles, still exist for today and accepted by the Church. Any Apostles in The Local Church? Let me know. Even if they had such a name, their teaching is false, so that is how you know they are not Apostles. Can't you see Satan will try to copy everything? Even proper ecclesiology.

Pray on this. And stop trying to be a false accuser. That only shows your independency to God. God will judge you for all your sins, and I have listed quite a few of your sins here today haven't I?

[Churchwork]

Okay, I went to the link, and read the debate, but I don't get what the beef is.
Read


But I can tell you that I think Jesus intended for his church to be divided all over the place, as far as the human side goes, but one in Spirit. It's obvious to the eyeballs, and in accounts in the early churches, that God loves diversity. He just does. That's the purpose of brotherly love, to transcend the differences, in the heart ; differences that can never be avoided without developing some kind of totalitarian system. And God is not a dictator, so why should we be?
Jesus does not want a believer to teach something falsely while another believers teaches the truth? Why do you think God wants such division and false teaching? That is Satan's desire, now your desire. Never confuse Satan's doings with God's doings. As we have seen, the Church is only divided one way: church of this place or church of that place, never the church of this doctrine or that person, this denom, that non-denom or this or that congregation. God loves diversity, but not sin, not false teaching. The authority of God is from the Head which is Christ to the body of Christ and proper organizing of the Church. What you are trying to do is be independent of God and that is the sin from the fall of Adam. Satan used the same temptation on Adam that you now cling to so dearly, by accusing God's ecclesiology of being totalitarian. Don't you know God's theocracy is moving towards sinlessness and authority and submission with God and the Lamb and the center of the New City?


For this reason, personally the diversity is fine with me, until it leads to attitudes and behaviors that obviously aren't fruits of the Spirit, like hatefulness, and tribalism.
Diversity is a person having these traits or those traits. One locality emphasizing particular matters particular to them. God loves diversity, not sinful diversity. Tribalism and hatefulness is seen at thebereans.net by banning and censoring anti-Calvinists, for Christians know God does not save that way. Or banning and censoring those who speak of God's proper ecclesiology. Your site is sinning the very sins you speak against. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).


And did I read you right? Do you believe you are an apostle? If so, who made you one?

Harold

Yes, I am an Apostle. God made me an Apostle just as all Apostles before me. Man does not choose Apostles.

[Churchwork]

I believe every posters here including me, in a sense, received revelations from God, but which does not necessarily mean that all the posters here are apostles. I mean getting revelation is not a sufficient condition for being an apostle.

Could you please elaborate on the qualification of an apostle?
Revelations from God only occur if you have the Holy Spirit indwelling. Obviously, non-Christians can't have that kind of revelation.

Yes, it is true if God has chosen one as an Apostle, that is the only requirement, for it is not by appointment or special gift or work. This is what distinguishes being an Apostle from an Evangelist (gift of evangelizing) or Prophet (gift of prophecy) or Teacher (gift of teaching).

Now who is an Apostle? Well to confirm someone is an Apostle when they admit they are Apostles you would hold nothing against them, for you would observe them they are not falsely teaching something like Calvinism or modalism or deification or amillennialism or young earth creationism or adding books to the 66 books of the Bible or other strange such things. Nor would an Apostle be teaching non-biblocality.

For example, Watchman Nee, an OSAS Arminian, was an Apostle. He was correct in acknowledging the 200 Apostles in his day in China.

Witness Lee, a Calvinist, was not even born-again. He was a false Christian, someone the Bible warns against, the unsaved tares trying to look like the saved wheat in his little harlot teaching modalism and deification.

This is why it is a sin for the Calvinists to try to marry these two men.