Originally Posted by Igzy

Like any analogy you have to take it with a grain of salt. I simply used it to point out that the Spirit does not eliminate our natural gifts, he empowers them to be used by God. As Evangelical has rightly pointed out, if we try to use our natural gifts without the Spirit to do something for God, it will usually end badly. "Without me you can do nothing."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The heart is the spirit (conscience) plus the soul (mind, emotions, will). Just using Lee/Nee definition here. Anyway I see your point, and that God uses/enhances natural abilities by the Spirit rather than squashes them and replaces them with spiritual ones.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I said hearts, not spirits. The Spirit/spirit are one. That's a given. What God is doing beyond that is changing our mind, emotion, will, i.e. heart to be like him.

The Bible talks about growth, but the only clarification it gives of growth is that we will be "like" Christ. What does that mean? Most teachers interpret it that we will be like him in what we love, what we hate and the actions we take because of those. We will be like Jesus was.

Yes, there is likely more to our growth than just our heart being aligned to God. The problem is we really don't know what that is. The Holy Spirit is doing something in us that we really can't define. But the net result is just what I said, or implied. We become like Jesus in disposition. Our hearts become in sync with God's.

Lee tried to define it in terms of our metabolic makeup--life, nature, mingling, etc. His natural vs. spiritual doctrines were part of this. But most of that stuff was speculation. He jumped to a lot of conclusions.

The idea that God can't or doesn't want to use people with great natural abilities just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. God made us and he wants to use every one of us. The problem is people who are quite gifted tend to be self-reliant and proud. So the problem isn't their gift, but their attitude. Yes, spiritual people are reliant on God, but that doesn't mean they don't use their natural gifts.

Focusing on dealing with natural abilities is to me a misaiming. God's dealing with us is always a matter of dealing with our hearts. If our hearts our right we need not worry about whether our abilities are natural or not. We just use what God gave us in obedience. Why make it more complicated than that?

You think Lee ever really doubted his natural ability? Naturally he was a strong, stubborn, demanding and persuasive leader. He used that to the end, to the hilt.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is a simplistic and short-sighted conclusion. If God doesn't want us to use our natural gifts then why does he give them to us? Obviously we all need the Spirit, but that doesn't mean the Spirit does not mesh with our natural gifts and use them to his glory.

Guess what? You cannot help but use your natural gifts to serve God. Can you think? That's a natural gift. Can you feel? That's a natural gift. Can you read? That's a natural gift. Can you walk and talk? Natural gifts. In fact, you whole human being is a natural gift.

Remember the glove/hand analogy? Our natural gifts are the glove and the Spirit is the hand. The hand animates the glove, it doesn't eliminate it.

Originally Posted by OBW

I always liked he hand-glove analogy.

But this time it seems to miss the point. I think it is more about the Spirit directing, not simply being everything except for what is seen. (If a hand is in a glove, only the glove is seen though the hand does it all.)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we are capable, then God does not need to give us His Spirit or spiritual gifts. The fact that God gives us the Spirit is evidence enough that we are NOT capable, regardless of how much natural ability we may have.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That it is more than "our heart being more aligned with God's", is indicated by this verse:

1 Cor 6:17 "But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him".

It does not say, "he who is joined to the Lord remains two spirits that look like each other", or "two spirits that are aligned".

I am not saying you are wrong about Lee's emphasis, just that the Bible does imply a reliance upon God.

I think that no one including Lee has a right to tell others how they should use their gifts. If they want to seek guidance and counsel from others that is fine, but it is a personal matter between them and the Lord. And who are we to deny someone to use their gifts in God's service, regardless of whether we think they are capable or not?
How does one know if their giftings are natural or spiritual? I would say spiritual giftings are those not naturally acquired. The spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible (healing, prophesy, etc) have little to do with things that humans are normally capable of doing (playing musical instruments, arranging chairs, preparing food).

Originally Posted by HERn

No matter how capable a Lord's servant may be he/she must have the Spirit's power.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we are capable, then God does not need to give us His Spirit or spiritual gifts. The fact that God gives us the Spirit is evidence enough that we are NOT capable, regardless of how much natural ability we may have.

Originally Posted by HERn

Your premise is specious at best. David was very accomplished at killing predators that threatened the flock, Saul was a serious scholar and was good enough at oratory to convince the chief priests to allow him to arrest followers of the way, after his conversion and submission to Jesus his natural capabilities were captured and used by the Lord. Jacob was hardly a mommas boy; he led his family through many difficulties and dangers. I heard Ron Kangas say that WL had the capacity to govern a nation, he was that smart. If WL was a humble servant of God why did he push so many business ventures on the saints? If he was God's Oracle why would he promote his sons to abuse the saints. His son abused sisters in the ministry office. He submitted to no one, he allowed no peers, he was deceived by Satan and used by Satan to deceive. The Spirit's focus is on Christ, the Father's focus is on Christ, the blended brother's and elders focus is on THE MINISTRY. Christ is not the ministry.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think this approach builds character and I see nothing wrong with it, and it may even have spiritual value. It is good to be outside of our "comfort zone" sometimes.

There is a general principle in the Bible that God uses those who are not capable. Because He does not want us to do things in our strength but His strength. Because He wants the glory. If we do things we are good at or like to do, would we really give Him the glory?

1 Cor 1:27 "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world that He might shame the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world that He might shame the strong;"

Moses was not a good speaker, David was not a warrior yet killed Goliath, Jacob was a home body and mommy's boy, there are many examples.

Those who have natural strength and ability (Saul, Esau etc) have generally not been chosen by God to do great things for Him, or they have been, but made a mess of it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think this approach builds character and I see nothing wrong with it, and it may even have spiritual value. It is good to be outside of our "comfort zone" sometimes.

There is a general principle in the Bible that God uses those who are not capable. Because He does not want us to do things in our strength but His strength. Because He wants the glory. If we do things we are good at or like to do, would we really give Him the glory?

1 Cor 1:27 "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world that He might shame the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world that He might shame the strong;"

Moses was not a good speaker, David was not a warrior yet killed Goliath, Jacob was a home body and mommy's boy, there are many examples.

Those who have natural strength and ability (Saul, Esau etc) have generally not been chosen by God to do great things for Him, or they have been, but made a mess of it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with this ... for the most part. To me "natural ability" has everything to do with His creation of us individually and His sovereignty in our lives, arranging our families and environments. I believe that God made us as we are for a reason.

Your second statement was occasionally taken to extremes in the LC, e.g. you don't know anything about children so you should be put you in charge of the children's service, so that you must rely upon God's gifts and power and not your own "natural abilities." That's stupid.

I don't think that God's gifts and power vary that much "from the particular skills or talents we have that we were born with," to use your words. If one gets saved at a young age, these talents might not be manifested yet, but that does not mean they were not there.

For example, I was not gifted with any musical talent, neither naturally or spiritually. Right after I was saved, a well-meaning brother sitting next to me in one of my first meetings kindly took me aside, looked me in the eyes, and asked if I was "tone deaf." His "loving" question took me weeks to get over, but eventually with practice and grace I improved, and no longer stand out like an audio "sore thumb." All of God's "great gifts and power" have brought me to the point where I can now sing with others. Barely.

On the other hand, I am like the guru of home remodeling, basically been that way since I was born. I'm an engineer who has had rentals, flipped homes, and remodeled every home I ever lived in. There's not too much I don't know or can't do, so I was always responsible for the meeting halls. Every time one of the saints was buying a home, they asked me to come along to give my opinion. That didn't mean that I did everything without God, by my self, or without His grace, but serving in that capacity was to me a joy, something I liked doing. In Lee's scheme of things, "spiritual" service should not be something we like or enjoy. I disagree.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Everything God creates is good. The issue isn't a natural gift or talent. The issue is the state of the heart of the person with the talent. If the person is subject to God, God can easily use the talent. If not, it's a lot harder.

But Lee, with his "natural constitution" doctrine, put the emphasis on the talent itself, as if it somehow needed to be "dealt with." This kept everyone wondering whether their gifts had been dealt with and so made everyone hesitate to use them.

This was just another aspect of Lee's overall misconceptions about spiritual growth. He made it more about some mysterious metaphysical condition of being rather than simply our heart being more aligned with God's.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree with this ... for the most part. To me "natural ability" has everything to do with His creation of us individually and His sovereignty in our lives, arranging our families and environments. I believe that God made us as we are for a reason.

Your second statement was occasionally taken to extremes in the LC, e.g. you don't know anything about children so you should be put you in charge of the children's service, so that you must rely upon God's gifts and power and not your own "natural abilities." That's stupid.

I don't think that God's gifts and power vary that much "from the particular skills or talents we have that we were born with," to use your words. If one gets saved at a young age, these talents might not be manifested yet, but that does not mean they were not there.

For example, I was not gifted with any musical talent, neither naturally or spiritually. Right after I was saved, a well-meaning brother sitting next to me in one of my first meetings kindly took me aside, looked me in the eyes, and asked if I was "tone deaf." His "loving" question took me weeks to get over, but eventually with practice and grace I improved, and no longer stand out like an audio "sore thumb." All of God's "great gifts and power" have brought me to the point where I can now sing with others. Barely.

On the other hand, I am like the guru of home remodeling, basically been that way since I was born. I'm an engineer who has had rentals, flipped homes, and remodeled every home I ever lived in. There's not too much I don't know or can't do, so I was always responsible for the meeting halls. Every time one of the saints was buying a home, they asked me to come along to give my opinion. That didn't mean that I did everything without God, by my self, or without His grace, but serving in that capacity was to me a joy, something I liked doing. In Lee's scheme of things, "spiritual" service should not be something we like or enjoy. I disagree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I see "natural ability" as the particular skills or talents we have that we were born with or learned. We should remember that God made us this way for a reason.

I believe in spiritual service it is important to rely upon God's gifts and power and not our own "natural abilities".

Originally Posted by Igzy

In general we all need to rely on God and not anything else. That's Christ-Following 101. There is no need to go into this whole pseudo-spiritual analysis about the "natural ability" being fallen and needing to be "broken." Whether we rely on our natural ability, our money, our reputation or for that matter the weather, we all need to learn to rely on God first. No need to make it more complicated than that.

Another reason Lee ran this "natural ability" riff was it was a favorite way of his to discount others. If he ministered, it was according to God's grace. But if someone else did it better, then Lee was not above suggesting that the other person was actually just in his "natural ability." He loved to criticize gifted saints and tell them that their natural ability needed to be dealt with. He made us all suspicious of anyone with a gift. And forget it if your gift was musical or artistic. Everyone knew those were totally "natural" and should probably not even be utilized. No one was supposed to stand out, even if God gave them a stand-out gift. After all, what does God know?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I see "natural ability" as the particular skills or talents we have that we were born with or learned. I believe in spiritual service it is important to rely upon God's gifts and power and not our own "natural abilities". 2 Cor 4:7 "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." Lee's use of the term "natural ability" may have included the sense of "self-reliance". As he often does, he compounds English words with extra meanings that an English speaker may not relate to, or uses the wrong word entirely.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But I cannot see anything in the ministry material that would necessarily lead one to conclude that "natural is evil".

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, and in response to our friend Evangelical who seems pretty reasonable, with Lee the devil was always in the details of the actual fruit his teaching produced.

For example, Lee took the reasonable truism that we should love each other equally and distorted it into the unreasonable falsity that we should not have any friends or special relationships. Thus if you were personally closer to a certain brother Lee would condemn that as "natural affection," as "honey." (He would pronounce "honey" in a way that made the "h" sound like he was clearing his throat.)

That of course is a hyper-spiritual teaching that the Bible doesn't hold us to. Like I said, its hoo-hah. But this kind of thing was useful to Lee in that by cutting us off from personal relationships he made us that much more dependent on our relationship with his ministry and his ideals to meet our emotional needs.

"The natural" to Lee was a kind of "flesh lite." It would be a tough sell to say flatly that having a friend was a work of the flesh. But bring in this fuzzy, softer threat of "the natural" and you've got a way to condemn just about any seemingly normal human behavior (having friends, having fun, taking vacations, heck even having personal likes and dislikes) as being contrary to the Spirit. And that's exactly what he did.

Guess what? Nowhere does the Bible condemn the natural or say it is something negative.

Did you even hear Lee teach in person? I did, many times. I know what he said, I know how we were expected to receive it, I know how it was applied and I know how it screwed people up.

Originally Posted by aron

For example, this culture apparently requires strong central leadership, or society ostensibly dissolves into primordial chaos. So it used the cover of an open and pluralistic society in the West to gain a foothold, then began to promulgate a completely unpluralistic and unscriptural idea of One Wise Master Builder, One Trumpet, One Apostle per age (which evidently stopped when Lee passed, as no one could fill the Great Man's shoes), and so forth. All of this with the barest of scriptural grounds, but unquestionable cultural basis. So we all went with fallen human culture. Guanxi uber alles.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The disciples left their earthly relationships for the sake of the kingdom.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee taught that "honey" in the (Leviticus chap 2) offerings represented our natural friendships and relationships, and was strictly forbidden by God because it spoils our offering. I assume he got that horrible allegorical interpretation from the exclusive Brethren. Honey is spoken of positively every where else in scripture.

During the recent GLA quarantines, LSM wrote pathetic articles (posted at afaithfulword.com) warning all their members about having natural relationships, and that they could not be "neutral" in the matter.

I never heard Lee speak well of friendships, not even with your spouse.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Exactly how does that contradict Luke 18:29? The disciples left their earthly relationships for the sake of the kingdom.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Exactly how does that contradict Luke 18:29? The disciples left their earthly relationships for the sake of the kingdom.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee taught that "honey" in the (Leviticus chap 2) offerings represented our natural friendships and relationships, and was strictly forbidden by God because it spoils our offering. I assume he got that horrible allegorical interpretation from the exclusive Brethren. Honey is spoken of positively every where else in scripture.

During the recent GLA quarantines, LSM wrote pathetic articles (posted at afaithfulword.com) warning all their members about having natural relationships, and that they could not be "neutral" in the matter.

I never heard Lee speak well of friendships, not even with your spouse.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's hard for me to reconcile my experiences and knowledge of the teaching with yours, mostly because what you are saying seems very much unlike Lee's teaching.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee taught that "honey" in the (Leviticus chap 2) offerings represented our natural friendships and relationships, and was strictly forbidden by God because it spoils our offering. I assume he got that horrible allegorical interpretation from the exclusive Brethren. Honey is spoken of positively every where else in scripture.

During the recent GLA quarantines, LSM wrote pathetic articles (posted at afaithfulword.com) warning all their members about having natural relationships, and that they could not be "neutral" in the matter.

I never heard Lee speak well of friendships, not even with your spouse.

Originally Posted by Freedom

So when the serpent came to tempt Eve, it wasn't really a dilemma of "two trees." It was choosing whether or not to obey God. That was the issue. What the Tree of Knowledge actually represented is mostly irrelevant in this context, because God never told Adam why he shouldn't eat of it. He just said don't do it. Of course, we understand why God didn't want them to eat it, but that isn't as important as the fact that He said don't do it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As for natural affections or friendships being disdained, I know that he had a warped view of friendships, based upon the view that brotherly relationships are higher or more spiritual (and therefore a believer does not or should not have 'friends', as such, all are brethren in Christ). Did he mean we should not have friends (at all)? I did not get this, because in some of his writings he talks about the importance of friendships. But I have heard some say this, which makes me think they did not understand him.

Originally Posted by DistantStar

They are implying that the Good is evil.

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I didn't get this while I was there and I do not get it now. Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is precisely that. Knowledge of Good and Evil.

While I was in that denomination they would always put the emphasis on the fact that the tree (which is bad [in their eyes]) was not only of the knowledge of evil, but of the knowledge of Good as well.

They are implying that the Good is evil. And that just does not make any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem is the term "natural man." It implies that even some things that are quite natural by the way God created us should be denied because they are "not Christ."

This is making the good the enemy of the better. It isn't, and the Bible never says it is. The only time the good is the enemy of the better is when the good is contrary to the better. But your doctrine says that it always is contrary. That's simply false. There have been plenty of times when someone shared a humorous story, it was completely natural for me to laugh at it and the Spirit had no problem with it. The same goes for a multitude of normal human responses that Lee's natural man teaching makes us suspicious of, including, as in the sad story, helping one's wife with dishes when she needs help.

God gave us a human nature to help direct us. The idea that the Spirit replaces all the instincts of our good human nature is silly. We still have our human nature and we still follow it, instinctively. It's only when the fallen side of our human nature sidetracks us that the Spirit bothers us with the "uh-uh" within. Whether you admit it or not, most of the time we take our cues from our human nature, with the tutoring of the Spirit. But our human nature is not replaced completely by the Spirit. It just doesn't work that way.

We should always walk in the Spirit. There is no need to nit pick the "natural man." Just walk in the Spirit and be obedient. Don't go around being worried that your love is "natural" or your affection is "natural" or your sense of humor is "natural." Doing so is not Biblical. The Bible never asks us to do it. It's hyper-spiritual hoo-hah.

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee taught that natural things were bad. Everything that he could not tie to "the spirit" or "the Spirit" were rejected. Natural affections, or friendships were disdained. Rejected as not of the spirit.

To the Christian, life is of the spirit and of the Spirit. It is not put in the "spiritual" silo or the "worldly" silo based on some arbitrary analysis of whether you are "in spirit" or "not in spirit." And there are no parts of life that are not "in spirit" (or "in the Spirit") for the Christian. There is no need to check your temperature to determine whether God would have you be righteous today. There is no requirement to have a feeling before you do justice or be righteous.

No. Lee did not reject the bodily nature of Jesus. But too much of his theology was based in the false dichotomy of the Gnostics. There is a status of being "in spirit" that is easily turned on and off and only when it is on are you properly Christian (not the way he said it, but effectively so). There is a false dichotomy of the spiritual and the secular or physical.

But in the theology of Jesus, it is the nature of the believer that the whole of life becomes spiritual. It is all either undertaken by a follower or by someone not following. That is the defining difference. Not some artificial "in spirit."

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I didn't get this while I was there and I do not get it now. Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is precisely that. Knowledge of Good and Evil.

While I was in that denomination they would always put the emphasis on the fact that the tree (which is bad [in their eyes]) was not only of the knowledge of evil, but of the knowledge of Good as well.

They are implying that the Good is evil. And that just does not make any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there was any matter that was drummed into us the most in the local churches it is this matter of tree of knowledge of good/evil versus tree of life.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can show you plenty of verses which talk about living in the Spirit and not relying upon our own strength. By saying you don't need Christ's love, you are basically saying that you are capable in your self, in your own strength, to love your family and don't need God's help.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's a true story. Back in the early days of the church in Austin, an elder came home from a meeting. His wife had stayed home because she was sick. She was washing the dishes. He went upstairs to their bedroom and didn't help her. Later, when their marriage fell apart she asked him, "Why didn't you help me with the dishes that night I was sick?" He replied, "I didn't want to act in my natural love."

Really? Are you kidding me? Your wife is sick and you are suspicious of your instinct to help her with the dishes? That's the kind of fruit this "natural man" nonsense produces.

By the way, the couple divorced.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find many of you do not have a clear idea of what Witness Lee meant by "natural".

This is strange because you are supposed to be former members or maybe you forgot.

If there was any matter that was drummed into us the most in the local churches it is this matter of tree of knowledge of good/evil versus tree of life.

Witness Lee did not teach that the natural man is bad or natural man is good. He taught that the natural man must be nailed to the cross, so Christ can live out of us. Tree of life versus Tree of knowledge.

This is saying nothing different to the New Testament which speaks of being crucified with Christ, and walking/living in the Spirit.

Jesus said to "deny ourself" and take up our cross. This is the same meaning. Deny ourself means deny our natural capacity and natural strength, it is of no use in God's kingdom.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Technically this idea was not invented by Lee, it is prevalent in Christianity. If we want to pinpoint its origins, it probably comes from Calvinism, the idea that man in himself is unable to do anything, only by God's grace and enabling. Where God's service is concerned there si biblical support - Ephesians 3:7 shows that Paul ministered not according to his natural ability but the gift of God. Likewise, Peter did not minister effectively until he received the gift of the Spirit at pentecost.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hellow. Gnosticism teaches "physical is bad". They also did not the physical nature of Christ. Lee did not teach that. Lee taught that the natural man (that is, the old creation) without the Spirit is bad. In other words, the old "Adamic" creation is negative, the new creation in Christ is positive. This is quite basic teaching from the Bible, I learnt it not from Witness Lee, but from my denominational church.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible never says that if we are in the spirit we are not using our natural capacities. And the Bible never says if we are using our natural capacities we are not in the spirit. It's just a false dichotomy. It's an invention of Lee.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What does it mean "in the Spirit"? It means "not in yourself", it means not in your natural capacity. That should be evidence enough that God wants more than just our natural love. Yet you claim there is nothing in the Bible about that. It's obvious - Spirit = "not natural". Natural = "not Spirit".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus no where said "walk in the Spirit" either, but that's why we have the rest of the New Testament.

How do we obey Christ? Using our natural strength? No, by the Spirit. Colossians 1:8 mentions "love in the Spirit". Even the denominations know our own strength is of no avail.

Originally Posted by HERn

According to Lee and Company there is no right or wrong, and there is no good or bad; there's just in the spirit or out of the spirit. Listen to yourself..."if we love our family without Christ's love... it is vain..." Can you show me anywhere in the bible where Christ or His Apostles state loving your family without Christ's love is vain? When you write "vain" do you mean of no use to the little children who are the recipients of this "vain" love, or the dear wife who finds strength to continue being a mother from the "vain" love of her husband.

I don't give a rodent's posterior (Hope this passes the "sister-censor"!) what Witness Lee means, about anything! It is a release from prison to be "free from Lee". I dropped off the "key Lee and got myself free", you can do the same and become a normal human being who loves Christ as well as people. Sorry for blowing a gasket here, but the implications of what you believe are frightening to me.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have to say that the whole idea that natural things are bad and only the "spiritual" is good sounds like Gnosticism to me. I don't care that Lee spoke against Gnosticism. That may have been more of a way to hide the very Gnosticism in his teachings.

But the whole idea that the natural created order is simply fallen and to be rejected and only those things that are spiritual or "in spirit," "in the spirit," or "in the Spirit" are to be acceptable is, at its core, Gnosticism. May not take on all the tenets of pure Gnosticism, but that is effectively what it is.

As someone else has already pointed out, when the statements against homosexuality are based on the fact that they are contrary to "natural affection" then it is must be fundamentally true that "natural affections" are very "in" and therefore acceptable, not rejected.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus also commands us to love our enemies and our neighbors as our self. He told us plainly, "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luke 6.27-28)

Now where did Jesus say that loving your enemies "is of no avail if it is Christ-less, and without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish?"

Your post is exactly what Lee taught me for decades. I have seen it bear much rotten fruit. This teaching of Lee is not scriptural. Hence, I have attempted to completely discard it, and love as Jesus commanded us.

Paul told Timothy that in the last days "men will be without natural affection." (II Tim 3.3) I saw far too much of this in the LC's, jut as Paul predicted.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash. The Bible never teaches this. There is nothing in the Bible that says natural love is bad, in fact it says that not having natural affection for one's blood kin is a sign of corruption (2 Tim 3:3).

The Bible says we are to love. If we are loving incorrectly, the God will correct us. But it's flat out a false teaching to say we need to go around constantly checking whether we are loving with "Christ's love" (as defined by Lee) or not. We are to walk in the Spirit, we are to love. Don't complicate it with Lee's nonsense. Lee wanted to alienate people from their families and friends. That's why he trashed "natural" love. He just sought to redefine love in a way that best suited his purpose. Don't fall for it.

Okay, that's the annoyed summary. Here's more. If only "Christ" is valid, then it doesn't matter if a worldly person is a humanitarian or a serial killer if he doesn't have Christ. Now I agree he needs to accept Christ as his Savior. But the idea that God doesn't look at the latter type as more offensive to Him than the former is simply crazy. The Bible is full of commands on how to behave. We are to obey those commands, and a person who's life is more in line with those is bound to be more pleasing to God than someone who is evil incarnate.

Lee's teaching is an extreme and warped one which, like many of his teachings, was intended to invalidate everything but what he approved. Thus common in the LCM are the chidings of "Brother, that's not Christ," about whatever behavior the speaker wants to slap down. It's manipulative hogwash.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

Originally Posted by HERn

I don't give a rodent's posterior (Hope this passes the "sister-censor"!) what Witness Lee means, about anything! It is a release from prison to be "free from Lee". I dropped off the "key Lee and got myself free", you can do the same and become a normal human being who loves Christ as well as people. Sorry for blowing a gasket here, but the implications of what you believe are frightening to me.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

Originally Posted by bearbear

Lee's teaching on natural love and affection is unscriptural.

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural.

Originally Posted by love4truth

Ha! My LC friend just told me I have too many opinions. I figured I would get such an answer from one who believes only Witness Lee speaks forth from God and all others are vain opinions.

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

Originally Posted by jeff of jesus grace

Let me know the meaning here - that is , what do you want to know love4truth? What I mean is, I don't understand if you want to know what the Bible says, or what lee was teaching . (realizing lee was wrong?)

Originally Posted by love4truth

....Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?