Local Church Discussions - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

08-22-2011 12:55 PM

OBW

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leomon

I do not know why they have different terminology. One of the reasons OBW said is that it a sense of spiritual superiority that they use those terms. Could be maybe.

Well,

I went to another meeting and well this time was similar and I finally got it out of them.

Jesus became the life giving spirit. Its not Jesus brought the holy spirit. Every time I say that in the meeting they get confused and think I'm talking about three gods.

However I feel as if we are getting into the "details". I mean this is the trinity and it is one god. So one could technically say Jesus is and is not the Holy Spirit. I find that modern day Christianity differentiates the trinity more often.

It is slightly modalist as they drew a diagram for me showing God came down to become Jesus and then became the Holy Spirit which is itself correct. Maybe I'm just getting picky.

However I am not sure if they believe Jesus and the holy spirit have and existed since the beginning I will have to get that from them.

Regardless... another meeting about Jesus being the life giving spirit and mingling with it. This time I read the weekly revival and noticed they regurgitated the notes.

One sharing was awkward, he was saying why do you need a Pastor? Its not in the bible? Whats the point?

I wanted to say... like.. why do you need Witness Lee he is your spiritual leader and "pastor" so I dont see you point. But i held my toungue..

anyways yeah...

The problem with the LRC on this issue is that they are as dogmatic about the One as they claim the rest of Christianity is about the Three. The problem is that the Trinity is Three that are One, or One that is Three. And it is not parlor tricks, nor is it Three gods in a triumvirate.

Some say that the Three are distinctly Three and do not really consider that there is only One God except to assert that there is only One God. Lee and the LRC assert that there is One God, and obliterate the revealed distinctions of the Three yet acknowledge that there are Three.

My biggest problem is trying to insist upon the view of One God when discussing the things that are revealed in terms of the "separate" persons. It shows up no better than in their reading of 1 Corinthians 15:45, which I note someone else has already mentioned. The problem with this verse is that it is not talking about the Trinity, nor about the nature of God. It is talking about the change in the physical body that Jesus had upon resurrection. Paul is trying to answer a question about the kind of body we will receive when we are resurrected. And he eventually gets to the example of Jesus. A normal, human body died, and a spiritual body rose. It was not void of physical attributes, but it was also not limited by the physical. He didn't say much more about it than that. But Lee insisted that the only way to say "spirit" with respect to God was to say "the Holy Spirit," and so rather than say Jesus' physical body became spiritual, Paul was saying that Jesus became the Holy Spirit.

But that doesn't answer the question that the Corinthians had evidently asked. It says something entirely irrelevant. And I doubt Paul said something entirely irrelevant. So he must not have been talking about the Son becoming the Spirit, but about the physical body of Jesus becoming spiritual.

And after all of that, it is true that to go to either extreme — tritheism or modalism — is to miss the full nature of God. But since we cannot understand it so well, we tend to go toward one or the other. Both sides snipe at the other, but since neither is denying the person and work of Christ, and neither is claiming that there are three distinct and separate Gods, I am skeptical about the claims of serious heresy in either.

That does not let Lee and the LRC off the hook. Beyond this muddling up of the Trinity, they also teach a kind of deification of man. This is too much. I can accept that we receive things from God/Christ/the Spirit. But we don't receive deification.

08-22-2011 11:47 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leomon

I do not know why they have different terminology. One of the reasons OBW said is that it a sense of spiritual superiority that they use those terms. Could be maybe...

They say Jesus became the Life Giving Spirit because in John the Lord talked about living waters flowing out of us, and then John said "But this he spoke of the Spirit which was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified".

Then at the end of John, after Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, resurrected, ascended, glorified, and then descended he "breathed into the disciples and said 'receive ye the Holy spirit'".

08-22-2011 11:39 AM

Ohio

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Since "The Body" is the goal and the "local churches" are merely the procedure, why focus and spend time on the "procedure" when we can participate directly in the "goal"?

This saying became a rallying cry for GLA leaders in their quest for independence from the Blended Brotherhood.

08-22-2011 11:01 AM

countmeworthy

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leomon

I do not know why they have different terminology. One of the reasons OBW said is that it a sense of spiritual superiority that they use those terms. Could be maybe.

I also believe this is true. Case in point: The leaders especially WLee never fellowshipped w/people outside the 'Lord's Recovery'. The saints (not in a position of 'authority') did and still do (those that are 'active participants') but by & large, they want to bring them into the LR. That is why they 'fellowship' w/outsiders. If a person in the LR marries someone outside the LR, even if the LR person is not all 'gung ho' rarely does an LR person leave Lee's ministry to be in another's ministry.

Quote:

One sharing was awkward, he was saying why do you need a Pastor? Its not in the bible? Whats the point?

The only reason the person said made this comment is because he/she does not know/read the Bible. He /she is what former LCrs call a 'parrot'. Someone in authority said this so it must be true. Pastors are shepherds. The LR has 'elders' do they not? These 'elders' are their substitute word for 'pastors'.
They had elders when I was around. And I think they still do because they have meeting halls which is another term for church building which they will not use. The 'elders' have the keys to their church buildings, I mean 'meeting halls'. They have a board of directors too and once a year distribute with the congregants their bookkeeping records. Someone has to appoint them as 'elders'. I know they have 'elders' conferences for 'elders' only.

I don't know what the RcV says in their translation but most translations use the word pastors in Ephesians 4:11. One can also find the word pastors in the KJ in Jeremiah.

Quote:

I wanted to say... like.. why do you need Witness Lee he is your spiritual leader and "pastor" so I dont see you point. anyways yeah...

Lee was not their 'pastor'. He was the 'oracle' on the earth 'today'. Their point is they want to be as different from Christianity as Hawaii is from Nevada. But both states are part of the USA.

08-22-2011 10:53 AM

RollingStone

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Yes they use life giving spirit from 1Cor 15:45 in the Recovery version

This was a big hangup when shared with the professors at Lancaster Bible College in Pa, as the King James said The last Adam became a quickening spirit.

I liked the life giving version as I wasn't quite sure what quickening was.
as they both KJ and Recovery say the first man Adam became a living soul
so I felt life giving was better so looked up the greek word there and found

Our Library Lexicons New Testament Greek Lexicon New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James VersionZoopoieo
Zoopoieo

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2227 Original WordWord Originzw/opoievwfrom the same as (2226) and (4160)Transliterated WordTDNT EntryZoopoieo2:874,290Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechdzo-op-oy-eh'-o Verb Definition

to produce alive, begat or bear living young
to cause to live, make alive, give life
1. by spiritual power to arouse and invigorate
2. to restore to life
3. to give increase of life: thus of physical life
4. of the spirit, quickening as respects the spirit, endued with new and greater powers of life
metaph., of seeds quickened into life, i.e. germinating, springing up, growing

King James Word Usage - Total: 12quicken 9, give life 2, make alive 1 KJV Verse Count John2Romans21 Corinthians32 Corinthians1Galatians11 Timothy11 Peter1Total11Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.Bibliography Information
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Zoopoieo". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon". . </SPAN>

< Zoon E >

Both life giving and quickening are used in the definition of Zoopoieo.
It seems to be a big deal though.
Ned

08-22-2011 10:27 AM

Guest2

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

08-20-2011 11:12 AM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kisstheson

Since "The Body" is the goal and the "local churches" are merely the procedure, why focus and spend time on the "procedure" when we can participate directly in the "goal"?

Shucks, why I even have a procedure...

08-20-2011 10:40 AM

kisstheson

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Wow, they really did say that, didn't they...

What does "stand on the shoulders" mean again...it doesn't mean "pick and choose", now, does it?...

Yes, dear brother rayliotta, they really did say that. Sad but true. Very sad. This was a big point in the Memorial Day Conference in 1994 covering "Practical Points Concerning Blending".

As if Living Stream Ministry was not already dominating and interfering too much in the "local churches", the speaking from this conference made things even worse. Activities merely in the sphere of "the local church life" were denigrated in the eyes of the brothers and sisters in favor of "blending" events like regional conferences (where an LSM brothers would speak), regular LSM conferences, and LSM trainings.

For a short time, "Blending" did also emphasize various gatherings where brothers and sisters from multiple localities would gather (usually for a Lord's Table meeting attended by multiple localities), but eventually "Blending" definitely came to focus more and more on events involving LSM, since it is only LSM-sponsored gatherings which were spoken of as "gatherings of The Body". Since "The Body" is the goal and the "local churches" are merely the procedure, why focus and spend time on the "procedure" when we can participate directly in the "goal"?

08-20-2011 10:16 AM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kisstheson

. . . the local churches are merely the procedure; the "Body" is the goal . . .

Wow, they really did say that, didn't they...

What does "stand on the shoulders" mean again...it doesn't mean "pick and choose", now, does it?...

08-20-2011 09:41 AM

kisstheson

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As I remember it, it was part of the "high peak revelation", and came out around the same time as "God became man to make man something-or-other". I guess the idea of "mingling" wasn't strong enough, or confusing enough, so in the mid-nineties it turned out the two beings would be "incorporated", consummating in the NJ...

Oh my dear brother rayliotta! "Incarnation, inclusion, intensification" . . . I am having flashbacks of 1996! Yes, yes . . . 1996 . . . Witness Lee is still alive . . . Titus Chu and Brother Dong in Brazil are not yet "rebels" . . . Steve Isitt is not yet "the man of death" . . . the "rebels" are John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So . . . "high peak" speaking . . . The "Lord's Recovery" has entered a "New Age" with a "New Language" . . . Crystallization Studies . . . PSRP . . . huge emphasis on "Blending" . . . the local churches are merely the procedure; the "Body" is the goal . . . Trainings at the Ball Road facility . . . Vital Groups . . . the NT book of James has been trashed . . .

OK. I am back in the here and now. Your timeline is basically correct, but needs just a few adjustments. The very first mention of the "high peak utterance" (i.e. "God became man . . . etc. etc.) was back in the Life Study of Jeremiah training in 1991. The "high peak utterance" picked up a lot of steam during the 1993 Winter Training on 1 and 2 Samuel. 1994 was "The Year of the High Peak Utterance" complete with banners and training songs and messages full of the "high peak utterance", culminating in the "New Hymn" which was unveiled during the Winter 1994 Training on 1&2 Chronicles/Ezra/Nehemiah/Esther.

The speaking on "incorporation" was a 1996 phenomenon. This was first mentioned by WL in some messages given in Anaheim in April and June 1996 (most of us did not know about those messages at the time). The first widespread mention of "incorporation" occurred during the 1996 Summer Training ("Crystallization Study on the Gospel of John") and then the 1996 Thanksgiving Conference was basically dedicated to the matter of "incorporation". This term came up again many times during the 1996 Winter Training (WL's last training).

08-20-2011 09:06 AM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

You know, it occurs to me that the high peak truths are probably a lot like some Pink Floyd songs, that you never really get until you're, well, you know, they suddenly begin to make sense when you listen to them while, well, let's just say...

Oh, wait, that's what turning to your spirit is for, how could I forget...

08-20-2011 08:59 AM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

No problem. Tell me about the slogan. What was behind it?

08-20-2011 08:35 AM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Did I just open a can of worms?

No problem. Tell me about the slogan. What was behind it?

08-19-2011 02:47 PM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ahhh yes!
Mingling, blending, and incorporation!
Incarnation, inclusion, and intensification!

Did I just open a can of worms?

08-19-2011 01:31 PM

Ohio

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Maybe you weren't around for incorporation?

Ahhh yes!

Mingling, blending, and incorporation!

Incarnation, inclusion, and intensification!

08-19-2011 11:19 AM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Maybe you weren't around for incorporation?

Maybe not. I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify.

What I was referring to is that after the challenges and the law suit, WL et al usually qualified any reference to "mingling" with a statement that the two natures were separate and distinct.

08-19-2011 09:32 AM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. If you look at the context, what I was saying is that there is no logical way to explain how Jesus could be both God and Man. Traditional Christology has not explained it. Witness Lee tried to explain it via the metaphor of "mingling". He retreated from that when he was challenged on it by Christianity. So the only way to accept that Jesus was both God and human is by faith. Typically this is called a leap of faith. But it did not seem like a leap of faith when I entered it. And now I would have to leap out of it to leave it although sometimes, I must admit, it seems like it isn't there.

Maybe you weren't around for incorporation?

08-19-2011 09:16 AM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I protested your post in red above, specifically the statement, "If Jesus is really human, he can't be God." I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. It is at the core of my belief system. Regardless of how much this contradicts all intelligent "rational," it is nevertheless true: Jesus is both God and man. This is a major item of the "common faith."

Isaiah 43:11-12 confirms this. Jehovah the Lord who spoke this is Jesus Christ our Savior. Isaiah and Israel were "witnesses" much the same way as the disciples who walked the earth with Jesus the Lord.

Dear Zeek, in my posts I am really not trying to persuade you to change your beliefs. I am only posting what I know to be the truth of the Bible. I let the readers decide what they choose to believe.

Right. If you look at the context, what I was saying is that there is no logical way to explain how Jesus could be both God and Man. Traditional Christology has not explained it. Witness Lee tried to explain it via the metaphor of "mingling". He retreated from that when he was challenged on it by Christianity. So the only way to accept that Jesus was both God and human is by faith. Typically this is called a leap of faith. But it did not seem like a leap of faith when I entered it. And now I would have to leap out of it to leave it although sometimes, I must admit, it seems like it isn't there.

Incidently, I'm not trying to persuade you either. Just "talking".

08-19-2011 08:32 AM

Ohio

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The issue is that in order to be savior, Jesus had to be both God and a human being. In order to appreciate Christ, I think we need to appreciate that that is impossible to explain. If Jesus is really human, he can't be God. If Jesus is really God, he can't be human. This is the central, essential Christian paradox. It is a mystery. It cannot be explained. So, if we are Christians, this is what we have to take on board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Isaiah 43:11-12
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

08-19-2011 07:44 AM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Is that a scripture, or did God just tell you that? Where does it say that our Redeemer must be God? I thought He only needed sinless blood.

Isaiah 43:11-12
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Quote:

There is a whole lot the Bible tells us about Christ. Plain words, types, figures, prophecies, symbols, stories, etc. Has not God given us enough in His word? Why do you consider the Christ "impossible to explain?" Why not just devote your efforts to what we already have?

As I said, human psychology is not fully understood. How someone could be both God and human is a metaphysical question for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Quote:

This is strictly your opinion. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Things have not changed since He left planet earth.

Which is completely illogical. You have made my point for me quite eloquently.

Quote:

Yes, a mystery which can only be received by faith. I Cor. says, "The wisdom of this world has been made foolish by God, and a soulish man can not receive the things of the Spirit of God, they are foolishness to him." I understand that this is difficult to reconcile, yet it is true. If I have to choose between the words of the Bible and your reasonings, I think I'll go with the former.

Exactly. Here we agree. Christ is solely a matter of faith. The nature of rationality is to seek to resolve discrepancies if possible. There are plausible theories that seek to explain the apparent contradictions. But, we cannot know with certainty in many cases.

08-18-2011 06:05 PM

Ohio

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The issue is that in order to be savior, Jesus had to be both God and a human being.

Is that a scripture, or did God just tell you that? Where does it say that our Redeemer must be God? I thought He only needed sinless blood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

In order to appreciate Christ, I think we need to appreciate that that is impossible to explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

If Jesus is really human, he can't be God.

This is strictly your opinion. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Things have not changed since He left planet earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

This is the central, essential Christian paradox. It is a mystery.

08-18-2011 02:32 PM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

He could see and talk to the "invisible" and then rebuke them. He resurrected from the dead. He could raise the dead. All things came into being thru Him. He could heal men of all infirmities, but He did at times require a little faith in return. (Too bad the home town folks missed out on this!) He gave sight to the blind (first this guy's eyes, then He taught his mind to interpret the images.) He could control the weather. He could walk on water. He could empower others to walk on water. He could forgive sins. He is the Knower of hearts. Jesus knew the future. (He did refer all wisdom to His Father, however, when He decided not to tell us the day of His return.)

And Zeek is worried that Jesus was not omniscient or omnipotent.

Brother Zeek, there are other things and people we should worry about, but not the Lord Jesus.

Superman can do things that no ordinary human can do like run faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall building in a single bound, and see though any substance except lead. But that doesn't make Superman close to omniscient or omnipotent.

All things coming into being through Jesus is in John not in the synoptic gospels. In John Jesus seems to be divine in a way not consistent with the depiction of him in the Synoptic Gospels.

I'm not worried about Jesus. I'm worried about people distorting what the Bible says by reading things in that aren't there. I'm worried about people explaining away difficulties and giving answers for problems we have no answer for. If we don't know something, we are better off recognizing it, and admitting it.

The issue is that in order to be savior, Jesus had to be both God and a human being. In order to appreciate Christ, I think we need to appreciate that that is impossible to explain. If Jesus is really human, he can't be God. If Jesus is really God, he can't be human. This is the central, essential Christian paradox. It is a mystery. It cannot be explained. So, if we are Christians, this is what we have to take on board.

08-18-2011 01:12 PM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus knew the future. (He did refer all wisdom to His Father, however, when He decided not to tell us the day of His return.)

So you mean when he said, No, I don't know, what he really meant was, Yeah, of course I know, I'm just not gonna tell ya, na-nee-na-nee-boo-boo?

08-18-2011 12:44 PM

Ohio

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Brother Zeek, there are other things and people we should worry about, but not the Lord Jesus.

08-18-2011 12:02 PM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

The simplest answer is that Jesus was not omniscient or omnipotent. It’s impossible to imagine an omnipotent, omniscient human being. Beyond that, one must admit that the synoptic Gospels apparently contradict the supposition that Jesus was omnipotent or omniscient. If we wish to legitimize the contradictions we can call them paradoxes. The fact is, as humans we don't understand ourselves well enough to give a complete explanation of what it means to be human. Given that fact, how could we possible explain what it would mean to be human and divine simultaneously? Christology is a failure.

08-18-2011 09:47 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The reading says that Jesus was omniscient and omnipotent...

The omnipotent and omniscient God limited Himself by man's will.

Calibrating the healing is not evidence of not being omnipotent.

Mark 13:32 is interesting. It clearly distinguishes what the Father in the trinity knows from what the Son in the trinity knows. I would certainly like to consider that more before assuming that you could jump to the conclusion that based on that verse Jesus was not omniscient. I understand that by definition it certainly seems that is a fair interpretation. The issue is that the context is that "of the day and hour knows no man" so this verse seems to be very strong warning not to listen to Camping or any other fool, even if he says he has a direct word from Jesus. The context seems that He is saying that under no circumstances will he reveal this day or hour to man. But I will cede that this verse is clearly problematic to anyone saying that Jesus is omniscient.

As to the verses that discuss Jesus humanity: growing in wisdom and learning obedience. According to what I was taught in the LRC by WN and WL, and which is supported by some verses in the NT, it was at Jesus death, resurrection and ascension that man was brought into God and sat down on the right hand of God. WL taught that God went through a process of incarnation, human living, etc. So pointing out that Jesus was not omniscient prior to the ascension actually supports WL's teaching. But, that said, I think these verses do prove that Jesus was not omniscient at that stage of the process.

08-18-2011 08:09 AM

zeek

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

The reading says that Jesus was omniscient and omnipotent. The Synoptic Gospels show that Jesus was not all-powerful, for he had some limitations. Mark tells us in his gospel that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown (ch. 6, vv. 5-6). Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark ch. 8, v. 22-26). Mark’s Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark ch. 13, v. 32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (see also Matthew 24:36). Therefore he could not have been the all-knowing God.
The Gospel of Luke also reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (ch. 2, v. 52). In Hebrews too (ch. 5, v. 8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. If Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that.

08-18-2011 05:50 AM

OBW

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Does this mean you've been allegorized?

Just goes to show that relying on a spell checker but not a re-reading is insufficient.

08-17-2011 10:50 PM

rayliotta

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I must be analyzed on several levels.

Does this mean you've been allegorized?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is literally a concatenation of independent terms, each of which is probably correct (at some level and under the right lexicon).

It is a complex conglomeration of terms designed to elevate the self image of the one(s) using the terminology.

It is jargon designed to baffle and alienate anyone who does not simply nod and shout "Amen!" at hearing/reading it.

It is jargon designed to obfuscate what it is actually saying or divert attention from something else said nearby as you feel obligated to shout "Amen!" because the use of such overtly spiritual-sounding terminology must be noble and above reproach.

I'm sure that other uses can be suggested.

Absolutely, this kind of "vocabulary" is much more about how and why you're saying it, not so much about what you're actually saying. It's not nearly so much about communication to help other people understand, as it is about positioning yourself, and positioning others.

08-17-2011 05:28 PM

countmeworthy

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leomon

I dont mean to turn this into a bashing thread.
But to be honest, they ALWAYS talk about the in-dwelling spirit or some form or kind of dispensing.
But just wondering what you guys think about this,
Thanks,

Leomon,

I totally get the 'in the Spirit' jargon the LSM/LC espouses. Fundamentally, if one searches the scriptures, the teaching is aligned w/the Word of God. The closer our walk with God, His Spirit teaches us to abide in the Word of God and His Spirit opens our eyes to understand the scriptures which are our daily Bread and the Water which quenches our thirst.

This info truly comes from Revelation & experience...not merely by teaching or doctrine via the LC/LSM or otherwise.

That out of the way, based on my observation and my own personal experience, they have stopped teaching Repentance. They have stopped teaching what the bible has to say about sin. They have focused so much if not completely on 'enjoying the Lord' (via Lee's teachings mind you) as if all will be well so long as you 'enjoy' Him. That 'enjoyment' in their eyes has led to their obsession w/of 'dispensing' the spirit.

You are absolutely correct in raising the question:

Quote:

Shouldnt we focus on avoiding sin, obedience, righteousness, Gods love and being in the spirit will be a "result" of those actions?

They don't know how to focus on those matters because ehy have let sin set in so much in their system. The only thing that matters to them is obeying "Lee's" messages and reading the footnotes, sprinkled w/Nee's teachings. So in the end, being 'in the spirit' is all about Lee, his messages, his footnotes, his ministry. Jesus is on the back burner....wayyyyy in the back.

To your question:

Quote:

Oh and.. can anyone explain to be what a all-inclusive processed consummated triune god means...

Imo, to them it simply means calling "O Lord Jeeeesus."

08-17-2011 05:14 PM

OBW

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leomon

Oh and.. can anyone explain to be what a all-inclusive processed consummated triune god means...

I must be analyzed on several levels.

It is literally a concatenation of independent terms, each of which is probably correct (at some level and under the right lexicon).

It is a complex conglomeration of terms designed to elevate the self image of the one(s) using the terminology.

It is jargon designed to baffle and alienate anyone who does not simply nod and shout "Amen!" at hearing/reading it.

It is jargon designed to obfuscate what it is actually saying or divert attention from something else said nearby as you feel obligated to shout "Amen!" because the use of such overtly spiritual-sounding terminology must be noble and above reproach.

I'm sure that other uses can be suggested.

And I am not trying to refute that God is triune. Or that he went through a "process" in being born growing up, preaching, being crucified, resurrecting and ascending to the right hand of the father (although "process" is not the first term that comes to mind because it sounds so clinical). Or that he is not all-inclusive. Or that he is not the "consummate" in every sense of the word.

But the stringing together of such terms is nothing short of baffling. And it is by no means the most elaborate phrase the LRC ever came up with.

08-17-2011 12:19 PM

Guest2

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that some may disagree with me on this,...

Yeah that sort of makes sense. They focus on being in the "spirit" all the time rather then dis-obedience, sin, righteousness. Its being in the "spirit" thats important.

I find being in the "spirit" to be an abstract meaning. I mean sure when I worship God or when I see someone serving God, I feel touched and one could say its an euphoric feeling. Another response is that you just know when your in the spirit. I think its great to be in the presence of Gods spirit and all but being Christian isnt JUST about that.

What about those Christians who says "God hates america" or "God hates fags" (Westboro) they could be "in the spirit" but one person outside of it would say no their not because their spreading hate. But to them they could be "in the spirit". It is a subjective experience right?

Shouldnt we focus on avoiding sin, obedience, righteousness, Gods love and being in the spirit will be a "result" of those actions?

Oh and.. can anyone explain to be what a all-inclusive processed consummated triune god means...

Here is another reading about being in the spirit. Which is like OBW said fine for the most part by itself. ("I think")

08-17-2011 09:26 AM

manna-man

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that some may disagree with me on this,..

Excellent point Mike H.

08-16-2011 10:35 AM

TLFisher

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leomon

A necessity if you want to be in-sync with what your locality is taking at any particular time.
Whether there is a kind of dispensing is an individual matter.

08-16-2011 10:30 AM

OBW

Re: Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

I know that some may disagree with me on this, but while I find nothing particularly bad, or incorrect about the portion you posted, what I do find is one more example of emphasis on mysterious, spiritual things that do not really have any impact on your real life. The story of Jesus telling the disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit (in so many words) helps us understand that we are not without that paraclete as we live this life. But for the LRC (and much of the "inner life" teachers) they mostly ignore real life and focus almost exclusively on spiritual life. Everything revolves around this mystical union. It does everything. It takes care of everything.

Even the understanding of the "paraclete" as simply being the one who does it all for you is an error. Other scripture lays it out much better. We now have an indwelling. And with that indwelling we are capable of actually living the life that was previously commanded but needed sacrifices because it could not be done.

This is what makes so much of Lee's teachings difficult to simply dispense with. A lot of it is, in isolation, quite sound. It is that when viewed together, there is a great lack. There is a disdain for obedience. In fact, they seem proud at times to suggest (in different terms) that disobedience is preferable to obedience as long as you are "in your spirit." And that is just plain wrong. And it is what a diet of almost entirely "spiritual" teachings gives you — an appetite for spirituality but no appetite for righteousness.

08-16-2011 09:50 AM

Guest2

Weekly Revival Reading - Your Opinion?

I dont mean to turn this into a bashing thread.

But to be honest, they ALWAYS talk about the in-dwelling spirit or some form or kind of dispensing.

But just wondering what you guys think about this,

Thanks,