the "Local Church"

[1gr8bldr]

It's been about 8 years ago, when I read about 10 of Nee's books. I chose the smaller one's. He was very "orthodox" in his writings. But no telling whether this group reflects his beliefs. Don't they publish a "Statement of Faith"?

 

[Huntinfool]

The quotes that you supplied are not included on the Atlanta church's website. Since their web site seems to differ with the hard stance of the one who people credit as 'founding' this church, this church might actually differ with his stance.

The church in Atlanta seems to be seeking the 'oneness' in Christ while keeping open arms to all Christians and the adopted church they each claim.

I go along with what formula1 said. Catholicism and denominationalize is a burden we all live with and have been affected by. I applaud their wish to move beyond it.
Good luck to them, but christianity can be cruel. We all know that.

I think you guys are missing what I'm talking about. It's not on the website? That's what we base our understanding of a group on?

 

[JB0704]

That's what we base our understanding of a group on?

I used to always check out a Church's stated values on their website before attending. You can tell a lot about an organization by reading what they have to say on their site.

 

[Huntinfool]

I used to always check out a Church's stated values on their website before attending. You can tell a lot about an organization by reading what they have to say on their site.

...and how'd that work out for ya?


When a church or organization has been consistently accused of being a cult, I tend to do a little more research on the background and facts than just looking at their website.


Read this:

Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer. The Holy Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ's mother was Mary, His father on earth was Joseph, that He was born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, and labored with Joseph as a carpenter. When he turned 30, He began a three-year ministry of teaching, blessing, and healing the people of the Holy Land. He also organized His Church and gave His apostles "power and authority" (Luke 9:1) to assist in His work.

But what do we mean when we say He is the Savior of the world? The Redeemer? Each of these titles point to the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can return to live with our Heavenly Father. Jesus suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, giving each of God’s children the gift of repentance and forgiveness. Only by His mercy and grace can anyone be saved. His subsequent resurrection prepared the way for every person to overcome physical death as well. These events are called the Atonement. In short, Jesus Christ saves us from sin and death. For that, he is very literally our Savior and Redeemer. In the future Jesus Christ will return to reign on earth in peace for a thousand years. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and He will be our Lord forever.

The Mormons have a pretty ok statement about who Christ is on the website....don't ya think? See my point?

 

[JB0704]

...and how'd that work out for ya?

Back then, well, it was basically a tool to "rule out" this one or that one. I guess it did little in helping me find a church, just kept me out of a few.

...The Mormons have a pretty ok statement about who Christ is on the website....don't ya think? See my point?

Point taken.

 

[1gr8bldr]

I used to always check out a Church's stated values on their website before attending. You can tell a lot about an organization by reading what they have to say on their site.

Funny thing, I was searching through, years ago, what different folk believe, The one I saw as most comparable to the bible, on paper, was the Anabaptist. LOL Turned out to be the Quakers

 

[JB0704]

Funny thing, I was searching through, years ago, what different folk believe, The one I saw as most comparable to the bible, on paper, was the Anabaptist. LOL Turned out to be the Quakers

As much as I would like to be accurate, I am not certain I could convert........

 

[Jeffriesw]

Ah....but does it?

He translated his own version of the Bible called "The Recovery". Nothing necessarily added/deleted. But the study notes outnumber the words in the Bible and he and Lee encouraged their followers to essentially read nothing but what they published. That would raise red warning flags all over the place for me right there!

Their Bible is called "The Recovery" because they feel that the RC Church and all Protestant denominations are tools of Satan meant to divide the Body of Christ. In fact, he referred to the RC Church as "the 'hoe' of Babylon" on many occassions.

That right there would make me run as fast as I could

They have their own publishing arm and have spent decades sueing other churches and publishers if they call them a cult.

Almost sounds like the scientologist doesn't it?

Nee is consistently accused of being a Modalist (i.e. the Father became Jesus. Jesus became the HS).

If that is indeed his view, The Church as a whole throughout historicity, has held modalism to be Heresy.


All that said....they try to follow the NT model of "church". They believe that there is only one body and it should not be divided denominationally. They "meet" rather than have services. There is no pastor, just elders and they all sit around and give testimonies and sing songs at the meetings. No sermon. Just whoever is led to share shares.

I believe we are told to Preach the Word and only the Word, not sit around and give our testimonies. The preached Word of the living God is what will change lives, not my Testimony.
What Jesus Christ has done and said is way more important that what I have experienced.


It's a good intention I think. But I'm convinced that it is mis-guided at best and it's focus on "the body" is sort of creepy. They elevate the body to a status that is near God. Several times I heard the phrase "we consecrate ourselves to you AND to the Body". I think that the focus on Lee and Nee and the sort of isolation to their works is dangerous and I'm concerned at their historical attitude toward the RC Church and to other denominations.

Cult? I don't know. I've read a lot. But not enough. I got a strange "vibe" being there and so, if you were going to make me label them, I'd say yes....it's likely very cultish in nature. I do believe that they are trying very hard to follow the NT model and they are (for lack of a better term) "purists" in that regard. I'm just concerned about some of their stuff...that's the best I can put it.

If what you have said is correct, I would have nothing to do with them, nor call them Brother. BUT, I probably ought to read up on them further for myself.