Robert Fraud, i.e. Robert Burgess

 

3 items are as follows: (1) partial rapture, (2) osas arminianism, and (3) Biblical locality

 

Dear Troy,

On subject # 1 I don’t believe in a physical ‘Rapture’ or ‘Catching up’ of the church, I believe the overcomers will experience a ‘Catching up (Harpazo – Gk 746)’ much as Paul experienced a ‘Catching up (Harpazo)’ to the 3rd heaven (See 2 Cor 12:2). This corresponds to the third feast of the Lord called the ‘Feast of Tabernacles,’ even as our basic salvation experience corresponds to the first of these three feasts, Passover.

On the second subject (I’m not really sure where you stand), I don’t believe in what some term ‘Free Will’ when it comes to the unsaved man, he is not 'free' until the ‘Truth Makes him free (See Jn 8:32),' for when we were servants of sin we were certainly not 'free,' except from Righteousness (Free to serve the devil).

On the third point there are several things I don’t agree with; first of all that an Apostle has no jurisdiction over a local church.. If Paul, for instance could not exercise control over a local church then what would it have been had he come with a ‘Rod’ as he said to the Corinthian church (See 1 Cor 4:21)? I believe in order for Paul to have exercised unlawful authority over the church at Corinth would have disqualified him as an Apostle, if he had no authority as a ‘Father figure’ to the church there, then for him to have even suggested such a thing as this would have been completely out of order.

The idea that the local churches belong to the area instead of to the Lord seems to be a very confusing one, we are not members of the local church only, but members of Christ Himself. I have heard Witness Lee attribute this revelation of the ‘Ground’ of the local Church to Watchman Nee (in 1934), but as far as I know there is no hard evidence to verify that Watchman Nee was the one who first started preaching this, except for a few questionable manuscripts that suddenly materialized among the ‘Local Churches’ (the followers of Witness Lee) a few years after Watchman Nee was imprisoned and no longer able to communicate with the rest of the church in order to either confirm or deny the authenticity of such ‘Writings.’

Perhaps there are some others who would like to express their feelings/viewpoints on these things.

Your Brother in Christ Jesus,

Robert

 

From Troy:

As per subject #1, you have mistakenly assumed that partial rapture is a "physical rapture", but partial rapture does not convey physical since having newly clothed spiritual bodies are not physical bodies. Since Paul did not receive a newly clothed spiritual body, and we know this because he had yet to die and first rapture had not commenced to be raptured alive, then what Paul experienced was in the spirit, not in the body (Paul admits he did not know if it was in the body). Paul had a 3rd heaven experience, but he had not entered 3rd heaven with a resurrected body that comes at 1 Thess. 4.15-17 (the "last trumpet" - 1 Cor. 15.50-52), or sooner if he is martyred according to the 5th seal, in which he would then be raptured at first rapture. You should note your coyness in that you have not indicated whether you are a pretribber, posttribber or a historicalist. This is not done in good faith.

You can see the odd claim here clearly you make against partial rapture, which more than anything else shows you don't understand partial rapture, lacking that revelation in your spirit.

"Before the throne" in Rev. 7.9 is really above and it is in heaven, and the heavenly portion of the millennial kingdom, even before heaven and earth come together in the new city and the new earth. The fact of the correspondence to types in the OT does not circumvent the issue of 2 Thess. 2.1-9 in which we will meet Christ in the air at the last trumpet after the Antichrist (see v.1 and "air" in 1 Thess. 4.17). Watchman Nee (CFP), writes "Rapture is the same as the word 'receive' found in John 14.1-3. It does not signify the idea of 'climbing up' to heaven but of the Lord receiving us to heaven. [You are aware therefore, you disagree with Watchman Nee, as your choice to do so. Watchman Nee was osas arminian not a calvinist such as yourself or Witness Lee that you mentioned.] Hence rapture is a specific term used to denote His receiving us at His soon return". We shall be received "to the throne" at first rapture (Rev. 7.9, 3.10; Luke 21.36) according to readiness, watchfulness and keeping the word of His patience, or we will meet Christ in the air as a matter of completion (1 Thess. 4.15-17, 1 Cor. 15.50-52, Rev. 11.15); for both those "taken" and "left" are saved in Matt. 24.37,40-41.

On the second item, you ought to know where I stand since I already said osas arminian, even though you said you did not understand my position after giving it to you. You have misused John 8.32 to misnomer what "free-will" obviously means. Free-will simply means you are made in the image of God, having the right to choose Christ. You may not be in the truth of John 8.32 to be truly free, but you nonetheless have been given grace (first faith right), that is, the right to choose God's redemption, and thus receive His gift of eternal life. What we retain even though we are fallen is that of being made in the image of God, and therein exists the right to choose God's redemption and then that condition being fulfilled, God graces with His life. Otherwise, you exist under zombiism, or what some have called "stacking the deck" or premaking men for salvation and predesigned others just for hell. This is evil, and it is your belief, which you are covering up in your forum. Though you are fallen, you are not totally deprave, because God's image (that is our being made in His image) is never totally deprave. Amen to that! Praise the Lord for Gen. 1.26.

On the third subject, you have added to your misunderstanding by saying that an "Apostle has no jurisdiction over a local church" is a wrong idea. Your mistaken assumption here is that an Apostle could also be an elder to have such jurisdiction, though that is not normally the case in delegating responsibility, but the function of Apostle is not that of eldership. The informal apostles must have nothing against him, and certainly no control over a locality. This is abuse that we have today in demon(or, nom)ational systems, and is not seen in the Scriptures anywhere. In 1 Cor. 4.21 Paul writes, "I am not writing these things to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children". The key word here being WARN. Paul is warning, not making the ultimate decision that is reserved for the locality itself to come together on. Paul leaves and comes back again, constantly emploring them at Corinth, but again, it is not his decision to make as the locality is responsible unto itself. Again, you disagree with Watchman Nee as you suggested you did not. More importantly you disagree with God's Word, not just on partial rapture, or osas arminian, but Biblical locality too. What use are you to God then? http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/bodyofchrist.htm  (see Church and the Work).

Reprimanding by a spiritual rod in no way implies in 1 Cor. 14.21 that of making the final decision. The locality still has that responsibility with its elders, evangelists, prophets and teachers, and all who are in that local church. Though Christ will come to reign with an IRON rod in the millennium, the rod in 1 Cor. 14.21 is a spiritual one. The result in the Corinthian church is that they will be as spiritual or unspiritual as they decide together in God's grace working through them in cooperation. Yet, under locality, whatever error they hold onto and whatever they still contend with Paul about, their error will be contained to their locality, and not spread to other localities as would occur under what you propose. These localities are miniatures of the new city. It is a foretaste of the millennium and the millennium prepares the way for the new city. It is all quite a gradual process.

Saying that Paul would be unlawful giving advice to a locality is to destroy the very Work of the apostles and informal apostles today, who do not take ownership of a locality but are rather, seen moving from one locality to the next as advice givers and even being judgmental as the case may be when error remains unresolved: this is quite Biblical and according to God's good pleasure and His laws for the Church. It would be like having an absentee landlord, if it was ultimately Paul's decision in the locality, lording over like Denominatial heads do in their upper control rooms, but praise the Lord those who are in the Work who delegate the responsibility, are not absentees, for there is someone who is given the office of elders from the apostles to manage church affairs and the many meeting places. Hence, not a lowsy absentee landlord, but apostles who have assigned responsibility to take care of each locality. Man's flesh wants to extend beyond a locality, but God knows man too well, that He provides for localities to minimize such risks. Even so, man today has forsaken God's first love of Biblical locality in the Ephesus church age. When this comes about again, so too will the return of Christ as this is a stepping board to the millennial kingdom in like manner where we see the Scripture referring to overcomers who receive the reward of reigning over 10,5,3 cities: such as the 5 wise virgins.

Another mistaken assumption you make is that "churches belong to the area instead of the Lord" as if the localities themselves don't belong to the Lord also. Your words are deceitful. How is it that we are to fellowship if we do not do so locally as was achieved in the first century when you had the church of Ephesus in the churches of Asia Minor or the church of Jerusalem in the churches of Judea; as today the church of Fresno is in the churches of California: all according to already established governmental boundaries, not decided by the elders. What is lacking is elders per these localities that will eventually replace dozens of denominations in a city.

How clear this word of God is! Praise the Lord!

How confusing if you had multiple overlapping denominations with endless contraditions. Yet this is your teaching, even still, and I understand why you would be embarrassed to reveal this to members of your forum of what you really believe.

It is a false teaching to say "we are not members of the local church only, but members of Christ Himself" as you say, since we are members of the body of Christ in the universal church just as much as we are members of one of another in fellowship, locally also.

As per the cult leader Witness Lee (who was unregenerated), he is right in that local ground is a fact for local assembly since we are not playing pretend and do so in person; except that, Witness Lee created a central hub for his operations of lsm/lc not to mention his other false teachings of modalism and suing for faith and violent screaming sessions.

You obviously are not aware of Watchman Nee's writings at Christian Fellowship Publishers (that expose Witness Lee's translations or fabrications of Nee - http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm ) for if you were then you would realize the 3 volume work on The Church and the Work (as well as throughout the 55 books) fully establishes Biblical locality (i.e. of the little flock) irrrespective of the Local Church cult of Witness Lee who molested Watchman Nee's writings. The little flock reject the Local Church. Did you not know this?
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

I have no reason to believe you are a spiritual Christian as you have not said anything right at all. I will not say that you are not born-again, for even a calvinist, exceeder of Biblical locality, and non-partial rapturist, could be saved; though will not receive the rewards of the millennial kingdom. This is very disturbing for it is not just the sin of bearing false witness, but it is also false doctrines along with your hidden concealment techniques, certainly not an open book for the Lord. Who can correct you? Fortunately I have arrived on the scene to help you, but you may not accept it. That is your free-will. Nonetheless, it is prudent to set you straight anway.

Love,

Troy

[Robert's other posts]

From Troy:

It would be inappropriate to apply Matt. 18.15-17 to a forum since these verses speak of in-person disputes whereas my thread was regarding discussion of Scripture. A forum owner is not special to not be accountable in open discussion.

We see the problem here, in your rules, "do not revile the gods" (to contend with Robert in rule #6) as if the owner/moderator makes himself out to be a god in rule #6. Additionally, Robert, claims to be a "ruler of thy people", but would you say authority in the Work of the Church goes to one who has so much error? as has been shown. though, concealed, that is, so you can't see it, at least most can't.

How vital for these kinds of questions to be asked of those who claim themselves authority. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/needtoagree.htm

I do not take offense of why the discussion was removed from most eyes, since such behavior is in keeping with trying to conceal several false teachings. Such is the way of the world.

You should not be so quick to hide posts that are most directly helpful with your deliverance. I did not react as did you so quickly in moving posts, but I was moved by the Holy Spirit to share with you these things. To have a front page of blow-uppers and non-blowuppers would necessarily mean that the post that is now hidden, should remain on the immediate level not the hidden level, for you have blown up with many things as shown in the hidden pages.

May these words be of significant help to you. Unfortunately no one knows what is being said, even those who are not allowed to read the posts that don't sign up to the forum itself even.

Certainly not an open book for the Lord! Too many games!

Troy

p.s. this is a reminder if I ever have to deal with this person again; this person also believes in "dimensions of truth": relativism.