Local Church Discussions  

Go Back   Local Church Discussions > Introductions and Testimonies > Now's good - byHismercy

Introductions and Testimonies Please tell everybody something about yourself. Tell us a little. Tell us a lot. Its up to you!

Thread: Now's good - byHismercy Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Random Question
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
09-25-2018 10:49 PM
Weighingin
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ View Post
Yes, it's been toned down quite a bit in recent years, but the longer you go back the sort of behavior aron described was quite common in TLR's California churches. Dick Taylor had a fierce karate chop and shouts! And now he's blended, and toned down quite a bit thank God
Around 1982, I was looking at tapes and realized that in the testimonies,,there was a lot of empty shouting, hand waving, etc. These were before the turmoil in 1978. After that, those who remained seem to become more sober. One factor was there was sadness in seeing many leave. Also, I felt troubled at that time that I had lacked discernment. I believe others may have also felt this way.
09-25-2018 10:29 PM
Weighingin
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
The key thing is not the outward manifestation per se but the cause of that - is it emotional or is it spiritual? Even Jesus jumped up and down with joy on occasion. And for prophets in the Old Testament it was customary to strip naked and their behavior was bizarre.

However in Pentecostalism it is noticeably caused by the drumming rhythms and beats (similar to African tribal frenzy) and the expectation for God to "work a miracle" and the Spirit to "come down". Somehow their experiences are correlated with the quality of the music and sound effects, that without them they would not be able to produce those experiences. In fact Pentecostals are unable to produce these experiences without some kind of worship music playing in the background. This shows that they seek to touch their emotions to gain the Spirit. It's all about creating the "atmosphere". In the local churches the piano players can be more of a distraction to the atmosphere than anything else - there is really little comparison. "Stop playing honky tonk when I'm trying to touch the Spirit".

In contrast a spiritual person can access the Spirit of God through prayer or God's Word, and experience positive emotions, any time, regardless of outward circumstances. This can result in ecstatic behavior but like the Old Testament prophets comes through activity of the Spirit alone and not external stimuli.

To be clear, I don't believe there's a problem with using emotions to touch the Spirit, but the number of Kundalini videos on youtube makes me think it is dangerous if taken too far.
Hi Evangelical
Where are the references to prophets stripping naked and acting strangely? If someone was to do that in front of me, I'd be outta there! Thank you.
05-05-2018 02:27 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese View Post
Awesome-Karate chops! Man I missed out.

!
You should have seen those awesome Karate chops while fast-forwarding thru the videos.
05-04-2018 10:24 PM
JJ
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Yes, it's been toned down quite a bit in recent years, but the longer you go back the sort of behavior aron described was quite common in TLR's California churches. Dick Taylor had a fierce karate chop and shouts! And now he's blended, and toned down quite a bit thank God
05-04-2018 08:13 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.
Yikes Aron.

That bears very little resemblance to what a have observed in multiple localities over forty years. Then or now. PRC or elsewhere.

If I had experienced anything close to that description I would have been the driver of your getaway car!

Drake
05-03-2018 06:39 PM
leastofthese
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
My experience is 20 years ago so maybe it's changed, but back then your loyalty to the program, aka "being in spirit" could be assessed by: a) volume; b) sing-song cadence; c) repeating ministry verbatim; and d) rocking back and forth, head rolling, first pumps and karate chops, and hopping up and down. What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.
Awesome-Karate chops! Man I missed out.

They still practiced pray reading which the brothers demonstrate their connectedness to Witness Lee by the volume of their voice (tongue-cheek). All a dog and pony show to show off for the LSM gang - this according to one Full Timer on the inside. All bark, no Spirit, all talk, no walk. Sad man, sad place. The Pharisees would be jealous. Guy’s like my FT friend tried to shine light, change the culture of Home meetings, but most in the “Church Life” don’t want it. They’re comfortable in the bubble. But there is so much more!
05-03-2018 03:43 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dumbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

And the videos I saw smuggled out of the PRC are even more damning when I consider what role that shouting slogans for hours had in producing ISIS-level craziness. Talk about an emotional frenzy. . . it was pretty clear on the video tape that they were suppressing the mind.

Again, go to the Acts 15 conference for comparison. Did the person who shouted slogans the loudest prevail? No, they had what most of us would call a discussion

The key thing is not the outward manifestation per se but the cause of that - is it emotional or is it spiritual? Even Jesus jumped up and down with joy on occasion. And for prophets in the Old Testament it was customary to strip naked and their behavior was bizarre.

However in Pentecostalism it is noticeably caused by the drumming rhythms and beats (similar to African tribal frenzy) and the expectation for God to "work a miracle" and the Spirit to "come down". Somehow their experiences are correlated with the quality of the music and sound effects, that without them they would not be able to produce those experiences. In fact Pentecostals are unable to produce these experiences without some kind of worship music playing in the background. This shows that they seek to touch their emotions to gain the Spirit. It's all about creating the "atmosphere". In the local churches the piano players can be more of a distraction to the atmosphere than anything else - there is really little comparison. "Stop playing honky tonk when I'm trying to touch the Spirit".

In contrast a spiritual person can access the Spirit of God through prayer or God's Word, and experience positive emotions, any time, regardless of outward circumstances. This can result in ecstatic behavior but like the Old Testament prophets comes through activity of the Spirit alone and not external stimuli.

To be clear, I don't believe there's a problem with using emotions to touch the Spirit, but the number of Kundalini videos on youtube makes me think it is dangerous if taken too far.
05-03-2018 08:55 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese View Post
I heard frequent condemnation of Pentecostals (much like what Evangelical was sharing) and, in that, didn't see arm waiving or jumping during my year visiting with the LSM ministry churches (and attending the December "training") in 2015-16. .
My experience is 20 years ago so maybe it's changed, but back then your loyalty to the program, aka "being in spirit" could be assessed by: a) volume; b) sing-song cadence; c) repeating ministry verbatim; and d) rocking back and forth, head rolling, first pumps and karate chops, and hopping up and down. What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.
05-03-2018 05:44 AM
leastofthese
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dubbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."
Aron I agree with most of what you're saying, but I have to jump in because I agree with Drake on a point - I love when that happens! I heard frequent condemnation of Pentecostals (much like what Evangelical was sharing) and, in that, didn't see arm waiving or jumping during my year visiting with the LSM ministry churches (and attending the December "training") in 2015-16.

I remember discussing speaking in tongues in one home meeting. I personally don't speak in tongues and have never attended a church that promoted it specifically as a practice (so no need to lash out at me Evangelical) but these people so blindly follow Lee that they mark all people who speak in tongues as crazy Pentecostals - they didn't even know any individuals who spoke in tongues to make this judgement (at least most of them). I shared my experience and it was met with silence from the older brothers and sisters in the room - this wasn't part of their morning revival so they didn't have much to contribute. Experiencing the Lord through His Word and His Body is so much sweeter than parroting what some dead dude with a questionable Christian Leadership says.

This is a perfect example of the toxic culture in the LSM churches and why brothers and sisters need to be warned - even today - of WHO they are following and WHAT this ministry really is. This ministry is not the Lord's work to build His one true church, Witness lee was not the great Christian leader of a dispensation. All praise to God that this is not our truth.
05-03-2018 04:26 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dubbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."
Going to Anaheim was literally a "Trip" for most of us from Ohio.

What began for me initially as a focused time to study God's word morphed into shout-reading Lee's footnotes in the Trainings. It was publicly proclaimed that PSRP separated us from poor, poor Christianity. They were right. The more the better. There's nothing about PSRP that even included God's word. Reading banners to start the Trainings was the least of it.

And talk about a charismatic frenzy. Whoever started that practice of praying in small groups during the meetings? Thousands shouting over others in order to hear themselves. At times I felt like crawling into a hole to preserve sanity. Thank God for ear plugs!
05-03-2018 02:46 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.
I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dumbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

And the videos I saw smuggled out of the PRC are even more damning when I consider what role that shouting slogans for hours had in producing ISIS-level craziness. Talk about an emotional frenzy. . . it was pretty clear on the video tape that they were suppressing the mind.

Again, go to the Acts 15 conference for comparison. Did the person who shouted slogans the loudest prevail? No, they had what most of us would call a discussion
05-02-2018 07:27 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.
The reason Lee uses the language "get out of.. " is because he relates it to Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4, describing the three stages of getting out of Egypt, journeying through the wilderness, and getting into the good land. That is all documented in his book "The Kingdom". But people here fail to see that connection and the reason why Lee used the terminology "get out of the mind". Rather than consider the stated and obvious reasons why Lee would use that terminology, they prefer to jump to their own conclusions and blame Lee for teaching Eastern mysticism.

We get out of our mind (flesh/natural) by setting our mind (neutral) on the Spirit. That's what Lee taught. I think Lee used the same word mind with different connotations - one is negative, the other is neutral.

To express this more fully we could say:

We get out of our mind set on the flesh, by setting our mind on the Spirit.

Equivalently, we could say

"We get out of our mind set on the flesh and into a mind set on the Spirit by setting our mind on the Spirit."

More specifically, to break "mind" down into the three parts of will, thoughts and emotions:

"We get out of our natural thoughts and emotions and into spiritual thoughts and emotions by setting our thoughts and emotions on the Spirit."

It is important to note that here the will is used to set the mind on the Spirit, and this results in getting out of our mind set on the flesh. Setting the mind on the Spirit is the focus.

I don't see Lee ever teaching "get out of your mind" for the sake of getting out of the mind, as Eastern religions or drug users might. He always qualifies that with the goal of getting into the Spirit.

At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.
05-02-2018 02:08 PM
aron
Re: Normal christian church life or cultural christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
the Acts 15 conference . . . under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.
In the Acts 15 conference there were 'senior members' like Peter and James. But it doesn't seem that they dominated the discussion, only that they concluded it.

Apparently multiple parties got to speak in Acts 15, and give differing views, then Peter and James got to conclude and vocalize group consensus. In the Little Flock/Local Church model, only the deputy God got to speak, and everyone else had to say, "Amen". Do you see the difference? In the Nee/Lee church model only one person got to speak and the rest had to echo. In the LC if anyone tried actual discussion they were told to "get out of your mind". If they persisted in attempting discussion, they were branded rebels, traitors to the cause and expelled.

And if their 'oracle' made logical errors, like in one place saying that the psalmist portrayed Christ through violent expressions ("this shows Christ defeating Satan") and elsewhere calling the same views "natural" or "fallen", or if the RecV footnote in one place said that the psalmist was blessed and rewarded for his fealty as Christ typified (e.g., Psalm 16, notably cited on Pentecost) while elsewhere footnotes panned the same views because "we all know that nobody can please God" (e.g., Psalm 15, Psalms 17-19), we simply had to say, "Amen", because the oracle had spoken. End of discussion. (or, better put, no discussion). "Get into your spirit, brother!"

Or if their deputy God erred and put his "unspiritual" progeny over the churches, to run roughshod over them, too bad. No commentary allowed, nor discussion. One must "take the cross" or some other pseudo-spiritual phraseology.

These kinds of experiences better fit a "cultural Christianity from the orient" model than the actual experiences shown in the NT.

The LC posits an 'expressed truth' or 'recovered truth' dominating each segment of the narrative, and one protagonist as its prime mover. In Acts 15, for example, Peter is perhaps the mover of the "gentiles can come in the church without restrictions" idea, acquiesced by James.

But we should stress that this idea only arrived at after open group discussion. The idea of one dominant oracular vessel holding one 'truth' per age doesn't fit the NT text nor church history. Only Jesus has such a place in the gospel narrative; none else. Those believe in the resurrection of Jesus find themselves in an assemblage of peers, of fellows, of mutuality, of "considering others as greater than oneself". Only Jesus is the Master.
05-02-2018 06:37 AM
aron
Re: Normal christian church life or cultural christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.
In addition to the "much discussion" in v 7 (NIV), look at the decisionmaking process alluded to in verse 22:

"Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men. . ."

It doesn't say that one super-apostle decided something, but that a group of peers decided something together. I've told this story before, but it bears repeating: one of my elders tried to give a conference on one of Witness Lee's books. He was shut down by Anaheim. "Re-speak the latest conference".

Collective decision-making was foreign to this culture. It was top-down fiat.

I spent several years immersed in the LC, and learned first-hand their zeal, their dedication to their cause. But the cause for me is to tell the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the forgiveness and eternal life available in his name. The Little Flock/Local Church gave me "truths" like: one apostle per age (an indefensible joke); one church per city (not true if ekklesia means a 'meeting' like the NT shows [see e.g., Acts 19:41]); the "intensified Christ for the degraded church" (doubtful if there were seven lamps of fire already burning before the ark in Moses' vision - "see that you build all things according to the vision given you on the holy mountain"); and "God's economy" (the only time Jesus spoke on 'oikonomeia' it was typically translated stewardship [Luke 16:2], as in 'responsibility', not 'dispensing').
05-02-2018 06:18 AM
Ohio
Re: Normal christian church life or cultural christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.
Great post here aron putting history in fresh perspective.

I and others completely bought into this "virgin soil" stuff presented by Lee by concluding that perhaps a different culture -- the one from China -- was somehow a "spiritual" culture because it was foreign to our own here in America. Besides Lee told us so. It took a couple decades for this foreign culture paradigm to get exposed by its bad fruit to us native Americans. So its no wonder that the LC's have become so "yellow" over the years.

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.
05-02-2018 02:56 AM
aron
Normal christian church life or cultural christianity?

The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.
05-01-2018 06:42 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.
Amen! I think some LCers have forgotten this after speaking too much "getting out of the mind and be in the spirit". That kind of "life" became a blackhole leading everything to "be in the spirit" but nothing comes out of it, not the love that God wants - And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.

Paul pointed out clearly in Phi 1:9-10 the importance of knowledge and discernment which are matters related to the mind.

9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in full knowledge and all discernment,
10 So that you may approve by testing the things which differ and are more excellent, that you may be pure and without offense unto the day of Christ,
05-01-2018 06:21 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
You got it backwards my friend. If you find the atmosphere here toxic, it is only because of the subject matter that is discussed - the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee - is extremely toxic.

For many former members, the atmosphere in the Local Church became toxic in several ways. For some it became spiritually toxic. For others it became psychologically toxic. For some, especially for a number of women/sisters, it even became physically toxic. For some poor souls, they have experienced catastrophic damage in all of these areas.

One of the reasons this forum was initiated was to give these precious, yet broken and damaged, brothers and sisters a voice. As one of these broken and damaged ones, I realize that our "voice" sometimes expresses itself in a way that some may take as the expression of a "bitter" or "complaining" spirit. All I could tell anyone offended or concerned about this is that they might want to consider what kind of toxic atmosphere we came out of. Also, they may want to take into account the concerns that many of us have for those precious brothers and sisters that remain in that toxic atmosphere.
-
UntoHim,

I appreciate this response from you. I recognize the difficulty and have said many times that under the same circumstances I do not know how it would have affected me.

However, no matter how a person may have been impacted, it does not entitle them to behave anyway they like in this forum. They cannot run roughshod over others. That is the issue here. One poster in this forum knowingly and willfully accused another of doing something that he knew was not true. Rather than seek to correct his accusation after repeated objections he doubles down and twists the accusation into something else. That creates an environment where rational conversation is out the door. That is toxic. If you think it was toxic in the local churches then everything should be done to set the example here. I hear this moral equivalency argument in here quite often. It reads as an excuse for vengeance and casting off all restraint. Current members then become the object of anger and bitterness.

I am not advocating holding hands and singing kumbaya. I am advocating to disagree on the facts or present ones own view without misrepresenting another brothers viewpoint and then insist on the misrepresentation post after post. It is especially disturbing to me when the misrepresentation is masked with Gods Word. No lover of a God should use His words to mask falsehood and contention.

But look, it’s your forum. If you do not think Drake or others have a place here then I will leave. However, if I stay I will not allow Ohio to define what I believe or redefine what I said.

Thanks
Drake
05-01-2018 05:55 PM
least
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...
Rom 8:6
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.
Hi byHismercy
The past few hours I've been thinking "are the mind and the spirit mutually exclusive?" I've not thought of it this way until E's post (the post you quoted), even tho for years I have been hearing and reading " get out of your mind, get into your spirit." Or " don't use your mind, use your spirit." Or "don't be in your mind, be in the spirit."

The same bible verse came to mind: For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

There are other verses I'm considering, eg. spirit of the mind, renewing of the mind, ...
-
05-01-2018 04:55 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."
When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.
05-01-2018 09:57 AM
UntoHim
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
You are engaging in the button pushing that has created a toxic environment.
You got it backwards my friend. If you find the atmosphere here toxic, it is only because of the subject matter that is discussed - the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee - is extremely toxic.

For many former members, the atmosphere in the Local Church became toxic in several ways. For some it became spiritually toxic. For others it became psychologically toxic. For some, especially for a number of women/sisters, it even became physically toxic. For some poor souls, they have experienced catastrophic damage in all of these areas.

One of the reasons this forum was initiated was to give these precious, yet broken and damaged, brothers and sisters a voice. As one of these broken and damaged ones, I realize that our "voice" sometimes expresses itself in a way that some may take as the expression of a "bitter" or "complaining" spirit. All I could tell anyone offended or concerned about this is that they might want to consider what kind of toxic atmosphere we came out of. Also, they may want to take into account the concerns that many of us have for those precious brothers and sisters that remain in that toxic atmosphere.
-
05-01-2018 09:41 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I wonder if one day the Lord will show us all the fallacies we've committed in our minds as we've posted here. As long as we didn't type them out we should be ok, right?
How about all the fallacies our minds engaged while in the LCM?

And a little humor at times can be helpful!

It's good to get feedback from others. While in the LCM, there was active "encouragement" to accept only the viewpoints from our leaders, which in my case was both WL and TC.

For example, when I entered the LC back in the 70's, Jimmy Carter had just become President. Some of the brothers around me were happy because JC professed to be a Christian. TC on the other hand seemed to hate JC and would publicly mock him calling him "Peanuts" because he was a peanut farmer.

It's amazing how our own views are shaped by others without us even realizing it, or forming our own views. (Please -- no response to politics, it was just an example.)
05-01-2018 09:19 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Funny. Too funny.
I wonder if one day the Lord will show us all the fallacies we've committed in our minds as we've posted here. As long as we didn't type them out we should be ok, right?
05-01-2018 09:06 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
How does Satan's free will prevent Christ from casting him out?
How does our free will prevent God from stopping our own sinning?
05-01-2018 06:27 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Hey! Ad hominem attack! Plus, I detect bitterness and anger . . .

The good news is, I don't detect any thwarted ambitions in your post.
Funny. Too funny.
05-01-2018 06:25 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
There you go again! Changing the subject and the context to suit you.

I have long said that you are complicit in the coverup of Philip's sins by your extended relationship with LSM.

You distort this into demanding to see a post where you said so yourself on this forum. Obviously you would not do that. Nobody in their right mind would. "You have the right to remain silent ... "
No. You are reframing your accusation.

You said I defended Philip Lee. Stop twisting the argument. You were specific so be specific in your proof. I don’t need to remain silent. I have been clear. You know that. You are engaging in the button pushing that has created a toxic environment.

Drake
05-01-2018 06:17 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?
And WL used his fallen human mind, not his spirit. Look at any Lee ministry passage - "This means that" and "this proves that". Why can't someone else say, "No that doesn't prove that"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.
Hey! Ad hominem attack! Plus, I detect bitterness and anger. . .

The good news is, I don't detect any thwarted ambitions in your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."
But why the getting out of your mind was repeatedly stressed? (Other than to prevent the listeners to think). Did John write "I was out of my mind, and into my spirit on the Lord's day" in Revelation chapter 1? Whence the Lee formulation other than to suppress (competitive) thought in the listeners? Why was Lee alone capable of thought in the LC?
05-01-2018 05:56 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I'm demonstrating why it's important to get out of our mind and into the spirit. Foolishness comes from the mind, so turn to the spirit is the way.
If that was so important, would it not be found in scripture some where? Anywhere?
05-01-2018 05:55 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Provide the quote where I defended Philip Lee.

You can’t. It doesn’t exist. You know that else you would have plastered it all over already.

Now you are trying to change the argument to some convoluted “accomplice to a crime”..

One quote defending Philip Lee. Let’s see it. No more delays. Post it now.

Drake
There you go again! Changing the subject and the context to suit you.

I have long said that you are complicit in the coverup of Philip's sins by your extended relationship with LSM.

You distort this into demanding to see a post where you said so yourself on this forum. Obviously you would not do that. Nobody in their right mind would. "You have the right to remain silent ... "
05-01-2018 05:49 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Didn't Drake teach you what Ad Hominem attacks are?
I'm demonstrating why it's important to get out of our mind and into the spirit. Foolishness comes from the mind, so turn to the spirit is the way.
05-01-2018 05:49 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.
Didn't Drake teach you what Ad Hominem attacks are?
05-01-2018 05:45 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
You put out spiritual terms like "gaining Christ" and "walking in spirit" then dismiss cultural imperialism with a flippant remark. I can just see them all, coming in the door, to "gain your Christ".

Yes, it's uncomfortable, often, to try to think. We live in a confusing swirl of inputs, and our responses are often not as stable as we'd wish. But there it is. It's preferable to having Big Brother do our thinking for us.

The goal is clarity - to dwell in the light. That involves the mind as well as the heart.
You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.
05-01-2018 05:45 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?
As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."
05-01-2018 04:59 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?
Why can't we on this forum call out to those at LSM, "come out of her My people"?

Those who remain in bondage to LSM are remaining in Babylon.
05-01-2018 04:48 AM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?
Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?
05-01-2018 03:06 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Witness Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witness Lee
I must pass on a warning to you not to remain in your mind. When you exercise your mind, you go back to Babylon; you are not in chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation. Instead, you are in chapters 17 and 18; you are in Babylon. The call from the Lord in Revelation 18:4 is to come out of Babylon—“Come out of her, My people.” This means to come out of your mind. When you get out of your mind, you are out of Babylon. When you get into your spirit, you are in the New Jerusalem enjoying the riches of Christ.
If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?
05-01-2018 02:56 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
the crab cakes and pot stickers are both culturally derived and divine.
You put out spiritual terms like "gaining Christ" and "walking in spirit" then dismiss cultural imperialism with a flippant remark. I can just see them all, coming in the door, to "gain your Christ".

Yes, it's uncomfortable, often, to try to think. We live in a confusing swirl of inputs, and our responses are often not as stable as we'd wish. But there it is. It's preferable to having Big Brother do our thinking for us.

The goal is clarity - to dwell in the light. That involves the mind as well as the heart.
05-01-2018 02:40 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
You missed my point. Free will is the right.
How does Satan's free will prevent Christ from casting him out?
04-30-2018 08:05 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Drake, you have defended Philip Lee. Do you understand what it means to be an accomplice to a crime?
Provide the quote where I defended Philip Lee.

You can’t. It doesn’t exist. You know that else you would have plastered it all over already.

Now you are trying to change the argument to some convoluted “accomplice to a crime”..

One quote defending Philip Lee. Let’s see it.No more delays. Post it now.

Drake
04-30-2018 07:45 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Sorry Ohio, no changing the argument. You accused me of defending Philip Lee. It doesn’t matter whether you think his sin was great or small. You said I defended him.
Drake, you have defended Philip Lee. Do you understand what it means to be an accomplice to a crime?
04-30-2018 07:43 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Rights are either moral or legal - the definition of a right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

Satan having a "right to be there" implies he was entitled to oppress Peter.

Isn't that like saying a thief has the right to be in your home? A thief has the ability to enter your home, but he does not have the right. Satan had the ability to affect Peter, but he did not have the right.
You missed my point. Free will is the right.
04-30-2018 07:35 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I didn't say anything about it being "legal". We have the right through free will to commit sin but that doesn't make sinning "right".
Rights are either moral or legal - the definition of a right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

Satan having a "right to be there" implies he was entitled to oppress Peter.

Isn't that like saying a thief has the right to be in your home? A thief has the ability to enter your home, but he does not have the right. Satan had the ability to affect Peter, but he did not have the right.
04-30-2018 06:58 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
The idea of satan having "legal rights" is really unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Satan is a usurper, he takes what he wants by force, he steals, attacks, and overcomes. Satan does not obey the law. He does not do anything legally.

Imagine, if a thief comes into your home, because you left the door unlocked, and the law then gives her a "legal right" to be there because you left the door unlocked. That's what this doctrine of "legal rights for Satan" is like. It not only does not make sense according to any laws of the land, it is not supported by the Bible.
I didn't say anything about it being "legal". We have the right through free will to commit sin but that doesn't make sinning "right".
04-30-2018 06:45 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Probably for the same reason Christ didn't cast him out of the wilderness. Satan had the right to be there as well as having the right to fleetingly operate through a Peter not yet regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
The idea of satan having "legal rights" is really unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Satan is a usurper, he takes what he wants by force, he steals, attacks, and overcomes. Satan does not obey the law. He does not do anything legally.

Imagine, if a thief comes into your home, because you left the door unlocked, and the law then gives her a "legal right" to be there because you left the door unlocked. That's what this doctrine of "legal rights for Satan" is like. It not only does not make sense according to any laws of the land, it is not supported by the Bible.
04-30-2018 06:07 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Dear Drake, you are imagining things, which is kind of crazy since for 40+ years you have supported a ministry which made its fortune bashing the rest of Christianity. You got a persecution complex or something?

Sorry Drake, but Philip's sin is actually minor to me. By all accounts Lee's boys were not even saved. Apparently they never even met with the church.

The bigger sin was the way his Dad and the Blendeds have long covered for his sins, and then smeared the reputations of all those whose only "crime" was to protect God's people from his many abuses.

And you have long been complicit with that.
Sorry Ohio, no changing the argument. You accused me of defending Philip Lee. It doesn’t matter whether you think his sin was great or small. You said I defended him.

Cite one example. Else you know what to do.

Drake
04-30-2018 05:58 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ZNP>But it seems to me instead of accusing Ohio of an ad hominem attack all you need to do is say I completely repudiate the sinful abuse of PL on the saints, but I am not willing to condemn LSM over this because ...”

I’ve done just that but feel no need to repeat it every time Ohio launches an ad hominem attack. He knows. No need to defend his button pushing. Your support will only encourage him to continue his angry and bitter personal attacks fostering the toxic atmosphere in this forum.

A good example of what the sister described.

Drake
Dear Drake, you are imagining things, which is kind of crazy since for 40+ years you have supported a ministry which made its fortune bashing the rest of Christianity. You got a persecution complex or something?

Sorry Drake, but Philip's sin is actually minor to me. By all accounts Lee's boys were not even saved. Apparently they never even met with the church.

The bigger sin was the way his Dad and the Blendeds have long covered for his sins, and then smeared the reputations of all those whose only "crime" was to protect God's people from his many abuses.

And you have long been complicit with that.
04-30-2018 05:09 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

ZNP>But it seems to me instead of accusing Ohio of an ad hominem attack all you need to do is say I completely repudiate the sinful abuse of PL on the saints, but I am not willing to condemn LSM over this because ...”

I’ve done just that but feel no need to repeat it every time Ohio launches an ad hominem attack. He knows. No need to defend his button pushing. Your support will only encourage him to continue his angry and bitter personal attacks fostering the toxic atmosphere in this forum.

A good example of what the sister described.

Drake
04-30-2018 05:04 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Drake, I see you have knowledge of informal fallacies however your application of that knowledge is all wrong.

Informal fallacies are commited in the context of a formal debate.

We're all just regular people here on the forum having a discussion and sharing our personal views. There are no formal debates going on here.

When Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" was he committing a fallacy? No, he was speaking the truth.

Please don't make people here feel guilty for expressing their emotions and make it as if they're being stupid for doing so. Let the Lord sort it all out.

/rant off
Hi Jo S,

A fallacy in argument applies not just to formal debates. They are repeated here too.

Drake
04-30-2018 04:20 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If Peter was afflicted by Satan or a demon, why did Christ not just cast him out?
Probably for the same reason Christ didn't cast him out of the wilderness. Satan had the right to be there as well as having the right to fleetingly operate through a Peter not yet regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
04-30-2018 03:49 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Forgive me for being so blunt but you make it sound as if Christ suffered from PTSD. Disillusioned from his experience in the wilderness had a flashback and snapped at Peter mistaking him for Satan.

I think Christ knew exactly who he was speaking to.
You may be right. However, Christ was prone to angry outbursts when distressed, or hungry, for example, the fig tree...and the money changers in the temple. Not PTSD as such but normal human behavior. If Peter was afflicted by Satan or a demon, why did Christ not just cast him out?
04-30-2018 03:46 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I consider that an accurate appraisal of the idea of Satan in the Bible, and supported by the majority of Christian scholarship.

I believe that Peter's concern for Christ's welfare reminded him of Satan's temptations in the wilderness offering him physical comforts.
Forgive me for being so blunt but you make it sound as if Christ suffered from PTSD. Disillusioned from his experience in the wilderness, he had a flashback and snapped at Peter mistaking him for Satan.

I think Christ knew exactly who he was speaking to.
04-30-2018 03:42 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
The LC version of "good order in the church" is not divine - it is culturally-derived.
Can't it be both?

For example, the crab cakes and pot stickers are both culturally derived and divine.
04-30-2018 03:40 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Not even a single "I" in that entire post Bless your heart, Evangelical.
Lord Jesus bless you too Jo S!
04-30-2018 03:35 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
When Jesus said "Get behind me Satan" to Peter He explained why He said this: "for you mind not the things of God but of Man".

Minding the things of man is also referred to us in Matthew when the Lord tells us not to take care over the things we wear or the things we eat.

In Hebrews we are told that all these people have been kept in bondage through "fear of death". So then this pervasive fear could be the way in which the "spirit of disobedience" is able to have a big influence on the world.

Therefore I think it is unsupportable based on the NT to ascribe every reference of "Satan" to being equivalent to Lucifer. Obviously, the fallen angels are "adversaries" to the Lord, and the serpent in Genesis could now be the "great dragon" in Revelation.

But if we narrow our view to "Satan" being "Lucifer" then we are easy to be deceived by anything, whether thought or deed, that opposes the will of God.
I consider that an accurate appraisal of the idea of Satan in the Bible, and supported by the majority of Christian scholarship.

I believe that Peter's concern for Christ's welfare reminded him of Satan's temptations in the wilderness offering him physical comforts.
04-30-2018 03:32 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Nope. The full saying is

"get out of your mind and into your spirit". You left off the last part "get into your spirit".

It comes from:

Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

It also comes from the Scripture where it talks about living and walking in the Spirit.

The focus is always about getting into the Spirit, not "out of the mind". In Eastern religions, it is different, their goal is to get out of their mind to escape reality, pain, suffering etc. Our goal is to enter into the reality of Christ by getting into the Spirit. Big difference.



There is little support for "Satan himself operating through Peter". This view makes Peter, a genuine believer basically into another Judas!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.
It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans.


http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-23.htm





There is a big difference between the Eastern religion "empty the mind" in silent meditation. Clearly if we are functioning in the meetings (singing, speaking, talking, moving) our mind cannot be empty.

Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

You should review Lee's teachings before posting, it would save you some embarrassment as you appear to be an opinionated person without much facts to support what you write.
Not even a single "I" in that entire post Bless your heart, Evangelical.
04-30-2018 03:19 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I understand now where the LC's teaching that thinking is bad originated from. It comes from a twisted interpretation of Matthew 16:23.
Nope. The full saying is

"get out of your mind and into your spirit". You left off the last part "get into your spirit".

It comes from:

Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

It also comes from the Scripture where it talks about living and walking in the Spirit.

The focus is always about getting into the Spirit, not "out of the mind". In Eastern religions, it is different, their goal is to get out of their mind to escape reality, pain, suffering etc. Our goal is to enter into the reality of Christ by getting into the Spirit. Big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning rather than Satan himself operating through Peter. This view essentially makes "human reason" satanic thus rendering thought evil.
There is little support for "Satan himself operating through Peter". This view makes Peter, a genuine believer basically into another Judas!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.
It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans.


http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-23.htm



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?

Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.
There is a big difference between the Eastern religion "empty the mind" in silent meditation. Clearly if we are functioning in the meetings (singing, speaking, talking, moving) our mind cannot be empty.

Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".
04-30-2018 02:38 PM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Let me restate my point: suppose I was a Bible expositor and over the course of 20-odd years I gave several thousand speeches in front of hundreds of people at a time. And never in al those years did anyone ever say, "Brother Aron, maybe your logic is off, here." Not once.

Now, do you think that this is an environment conducive to the exercise of human thought, or one that rather suppresses thought? I'd say, clearly the latter.

Contrast that to Ravi Zacharias who actually welcomes independent human thought.

The LC version of "good order in the church" is not divine - it is culturally-derived.
04-30-2018 02:13 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Jo S, I can't tell if you are a brother or sister by your name, but if a brother then perhaps she suddenly realized that she needed "distance" from a brother. I can't second guess her thoughts.

Let me tell you my own experience. After 15 years in the program, I concluded that the only person totally safe to trust was Witness Lee. I had seen and heard enough by then not to trust any man completely, but was always taught in so many words that Witness Lee was the only completely faithful Christian on the whole earth today. I was not alone in that conclusion.

Now what does that tell you?
I probably should've been more clear. Things weren't like what I described until after I left the fold. That's why I found her reaction so strange. I thought maybe it had something to do with how LC'er are taught to act toward outsiders in the trainings they attend.
04-30-2018 01:57 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
You guys would know better but it seemed to me like she suddenly recognized I was no longer a part of the program and instantly put this guard up. It's like her natural inclination was to be warm and you know...human but training kicked in to suppress all of that.... Weird and quite frankly sad.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts on that.
Jo S, I can't tell if you are a brother or sister by your name, but if a brother then perhaps she suddenly realized that she needed "distance" from a brother. I can't second guess her thoughts.

Let me tell you my own experience. After 15 years in the program, I concluded that the only person totally safe to trust was Witness Lee. I had seen and heard enough by then not to trust any man completely, but was always taught in so many words that Witness Lee was the only completely faithful Christian on the whole earth today. I was not alone in that conclusion.

Now what does that tell you?
04-30-2018 01:41 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
The reason I disagree with Ohio is because I was in LSM and so were many other saints. We had no idea what was going on in Anaheim even though we drove there with deliveries and even though one of the sisters abused by PL was sent to Houston where I was.
Thanks, ZNP, and let me add to your post.

Regarding the quarantines during the "New Way" of the late 80's, my own excuse is ignorance. I know nothing! Because of Titus Chu's loyalties to Witness Lee, the facts of these events were not known or available to me or the brothers around me. He may bear liability, but I have none. In a vacuum of facts, I trusted the leaders around me, who trusted TC, who trusted WL over John Ingalls and many other brothers.

Drake, however, often testifies of his friendships with senior people at LSM. He has been active in the LC's since the mid-70's. He knows many of these Blended people personally. He also bears responsibility for what he was a partner to.
04-30-2018 01:15 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
But part of what makes this forum so toxic are comments just like that . The reason is simple. Ohio is engaging in button pushing. He picks this emotional issue, a clear failing, and then makes a false allegation that I defend the sin. The reason he cannot find one single example of my defending Philip Lee is because there are none. But he knew that when he said it. His objective was to attack and distract. He delights in the practice. His comments indicate anger and bitterness. That is why this forum has become toxic and why that sister left.
Those with a bad temper always blame the other person for "pushing their button."

What makes this forum so valuable is that it gets to the heart of the matter. It strikes the axe at the root. Drake supports a publisher named LSM which foments division around the globe, which brings churches under their legalistic bondage, which has long hidden a corrupt management, and which attacks those who would speak their conscience and shine a light on their unrighteous practices.

True to form, Drake then attacks me for bringing up these facts as so-called "ad hominems," claiming that I cause this forum to be toxic, chasing away current LC members, and accusing him of defending the sins of the former manager of LSM. While I never directly claimed that he defended Philip Lee's many sins, where was he when Philip laid waste many beloved brothers and sisters? How can he condone his silence? By claiming to be "one" with the brothers? By professing ignorance? Remember that, "Inaction in the face of injustice makes a person morally guilty of the injustice."

But here is what the Apostle says (2Cor 6) about actions like his:
  • What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?
  • What fellowship has light with darkness?
  • What harmony has Christ with Belial?
  • What par has a believer with an unbeliever?
  • What agreement has the temple of God with idols?
Paul also says in 2 Tim 2.19, "Let everyone that names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness."
04-30-2018 01:06 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
No. Not a bit
You asked for one.

I gave you one from today. Fresh off the press.

But part of what makes this forum so toxic are comments just like that . The reason is simple. Ohio is engaging in button pushing. He picks this emotional issue, a clear failing, and then makes a false allegation that I defend the sin. The reason he cannot find one single example of my defending Philip Lee is because there are none. But he knew that when he said it. His objective was to attack and distract. He delights in the practice. His comments indicate anger and bitterness. That is why this forum has become toxic and why that sister left.

A few months ago you, I believe, asked why more current members do not frequent this forum. There is your answer. I believe more current members would come to discuss but for those antics.

Drake
I agree with you that some on this forum see you as being a spokesman for LSM. I don't have enough evidence to make that judgement. You do defend LSM, and Ohio feels that since Philip Lee was the President defending one is defending the other. I don't agree with that, but Ohio has the right to express his opinion without it being called an ad hominem attack.

As for the forum "becoming toxic" I don't think that is fair. If you are going to get down and dirty discussing some ugly nasty business you should expect to get a little mud on you.

I don't know enough about your testimony, but I do know that I for one feel some responsibility. I was very active member of the church, and of LSM for years. I preached the gospel to hundreds, maybe even thousands of people and brought many people into the Local church. I only met Philip once and immediately had the sense that this was a lascivious man. This despite knowing he was WL's son, President of LSM, and in charge of other brothers I did respect like Ray Graver and Benson Phillips.

But it seems to me instead of accusing Ohio of an ad hominem attack all you need to do is say I completely repudiate the sinful abuse of PL on the saints, but I am not willing to condemn LSM over this because ...

(of course you need to fill in the ...)

The reason I disagree with Ohio is because I was in LSM and so were many other saints. We had no idea what was going on in Anaheim even though we drove there with deliveries and even though one of the sisters abused by PL was sent to Houston where I was.

However, for those who did know what was going on I feel they all fell far short of the glory of God when it came to dealing with this, and for some of them I'd go so far as to say they sinned. After studying this issue for awhile I would say that WL sinned in numerous ways, RK & KR sinned in writing the whitewash, EM, and the other puppet elders who replaced JI, etal sinned in pleasing man and protecting a predator. I would say their actions speak louder than any words in despising the little ones abused by PL.
04-30-2018 01:02 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

..................
04-30-2018 11:09 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post

......moral equivalency..............

.......ad hominem.........

.......non-sequitur.........
Drake, I see you have knowledge of informal fallacies however your application of that knowledge is all wrong.

Informal fallacies are commited in the context of a formal debate.

We're all just regular people here on the forum having a discussion and sharing our personal views. There are no formal debates going on here.

When Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" was he committing a fallacy? No, he was speaking the truth.

Please don't make people here feel guilty for expressing their emotions and make it as if they're being stupid for doing so. Let the Lord sort it all out.

/rant off
04-30-2018 10:50 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
That's pretty weak, Mr. Drake, even for you.

Since the vicious ad hominem attacks go on "day in and day out" it shouldn't be so hard, now should it?
-
No. Not a bit
You asked for one.

I gave you one from today. Fresh off the press.

But part of what makes this forum so toxic are comments just like that . The reason is simple. Ohio is engaging in button pushing. He picks this emotional issue, a clear failing, and then makes a false allegation that I defend the sin. The reason he cannot find one single example of my defending Philip Lee is because there are none. But he knew that when he said it. His objective was to attack and distract. He delights in the practice. His comments indicate anger and bitterness. That is why this forum has become toxic and why that sister left.

A few months ago you, I believe, asked why more current members do not frequent this forum. There is your answer. I believe more current members would come to discuss but for those antics.

Drake
04-30-2018 10:49 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Ohio,

Your vicious ad hominem attack of charging me with defending Philip Lee is a real time example of the anger and bitterness that creates the toxic atmosphere that caused that sister to leave.

I’m still waiting for one example, one I tell you, where I ever supported Philip Lee.

Drake
That's all you got? You just lost your case.

Take a break, count to ten, and we'll talk more later.
04-30-2018 10:45 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Christ said to "deny yourself", meaning your evil desires but not to "deny thought". There's a difference. The point isn't to stop thinking but to align our thoughts with the Lord's. Paul speaks about holding every thought captive and making it obedient unto Christ and that those that are born of God's spirit are given a new mind, the mind of Christ. If you empty your mind, you're emptying yourself of Christ. When that happens, believe me, something/someone else will fill that void. Think about Luke 11:25.
Jo S, have you also witnessed Lee's awful exposition of natural affection in action? Lee taught that this "natural" affection damaged believers by "spoiling their offering," imagining that honey in the Old Testament was a type of brotherly love.

Yet Apostle Paul prophecies in II Tim 3.1-5 that Christians in the last days will be "without natural affection." Many of these descriptors have long been evident in those who were LSM's more ardent zealots.
04-30-2018 10:34 AM
UntoHim
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

That's pretty weak, Mr. Drake, even for you.

Since the vicious ad hominem attacks go on "day in and day out" it shouldn't be so hard, now should it?
-
04-30-2018 10:34 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
There's no there-there in pointing out your faux-rage, and since Philip Lee ran LSM for many years, your defense of LSM is a defense of Philip's bad behaviors.
Ohio,

Your vicious ad hominem attack of charging me with defending Philip Lee is a real time example of the anger and bitterness that creates the toxic atmosphere that caused that sister to leave.

I’m still waiting for one example, one I tell you, where I everr supported Philip Lee.

Drake
04-30-2018 10:33 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
I think there is an "altered state" that comes in when you "empty" thus. It's not entirely foreign to the Christian experience; however in the hands of Lee et al it's main function seems to have been to make you brain-dead and keep you that way.
I feel for you guys coming out of the LC. I understand what you're taking about Aron. I have had first hand experience of the strange unison between the members of this church.

Christ said to "deny yourself", meaning your evil desires but not to "deny thought". There's a difference. The point isn't to stop thinking but to align our thoughts with the Lord's. Paul speaks about holding every thought captive and making it obedient unto Christ and that those that are born of God's spirit are given a new mind, the mind of Christ. If you empty your mind, you're emptying yourself of Christ. When that happens, believe me, something/someone else will fill that void. Think about Luke 11:25.
04-30-2018 10:29 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
There's no there-there in pointing out your faux-rage, and since Philip Lee ran LSM for many years, your defense of LSM is a defense of Philip's bad behaviors.

Focus Drake, please Focus.
04-30-2018 10:18 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim View Post
Name the vicious ad hominem attack. NAME ONE. POST THE QUOTE.
FOCUS, DRAKE, FOCUS!
-
I’ll open with this.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...6&postcount=90
04-30-2018 10:14 AM
UntoHim
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
There are many notable bullies in this forum who day in and day out launch vicious ad hominem attacks on current members in the local churches in and out of this forum.
Name the vicious ad hominem attack. NAME ONE. POST THE QUOTE.
FOCUS, DRAKE, FOCUS!
-
04-30-2018 10:11 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
So if she says we're "bitter and angry" you agree. If she says that we had "thwarted ambitions" you agree. But if I say that Lee was "bitter and angry" then that's a personal attack? If we say Lee was voracious for the parishioner's money that's an unfounded personal assault?

Why the double standards?

Have you ever read The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion? If you want to see ad hominem attacks, they're there. But I never once saw Lee called to task in the LC for his characterisations of others.
She is referring to the anger and bitterness served up in this forum day in and day out. You don’t see that? Or are you arguing for moral equivalency?

Drake
04-30-2018 10:05 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Don't forget about the thousands in the Midwest and Brazil who have suffered LSM's rampant abuses, lawsuits, and divisions.
Focus Ohio.

Focus.
04-30-2018 10:03 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Your, and a dozen others in this forum, anecdotal experience, what is best described as oppressive and nutty, does not match mine or hundreds of thousands of others in the Lords Recovery.

I accept that.
Don't forget about the thousands in the Midwest and Brazil who have suffered LSM's rampant abuses, lawsuits, and divisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

A bully will always attack the weakest, smallest, least able to defend themselves. Ignoring their testimony, dismissing their testimony, this is how predators are able to operate.
One of my first conclusions, when departing from the LC, was that "this program changes beloved brothers into bullies." I saw this on every level.
04-30-2018 09:54 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Apparently that is why that sister left. The anger and bitterness created an environment that was too toxic.
So if she says we're "bitter and angry" you agree. If she says that we had "thwarted ambitions" you agree. But if I say that Lee was "bitter and angry" then that's a personal attack? If we say Lee was voracious for the parishioner's money that's an unfounded personal assault?

Why the double standards?

Have you ever read The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion? If you want to see ad hominem attacks, they're there. But I never once saw Lee called to task in the LC for his characterisations of others.
04-30-2018 09:50 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning . .

My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?
This was a ploy to get us afraid to think. When Peter made a mistake, he was using "human reasoning", or as Lee often put it, "natural thinking" or "fallen human concepts". Yet with Lee (and Nee) we were supposed to take it as "God's oracle". Lee was free to question anyone, including the writers of the scripture (Peter, James, Jude, various OT prophets). But God forbid anyone should question Lee!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.
I think there is an "altered state" that comes in when you "empty" thus. It's not entirely foreign to the Christian experience; however in the hands of Lee et al it's main function seems to have been to make you brain-dead and keep you that way.

I've repeatedly raised the example of the questionable assertions made in RecV footnotes, which ostensibly were run verbally past thousands of attendees at various meetings and conferences. In one place the psalmist is dipping his feet in his enemy's blood - this is "Christ defeating Satan". In other places, such violent and/or adversarial sentiments are strongly criticized as not Christian. In the OT, yet! But Samuel hacked Agag to bits and that was okay...?

Or, in one place (e.g., Psalm 16) the psalmist says that he's pleased God and God will protect him/save him/reward him. Lee says this is Jesus Christ. Elsewhere (e.g., Psalm 15, Psalm 17-19) the same sentiments are panned as "natural" and "vain concepts" and so forth.

My question is, did not one person dare to think for themselves, here? To challenge what was being put in front of them? To question any of this? No, all the hundreds of testimonies after these messages were about how wonderful they were, bringing "Christ" to us. As far as I know, nobody ever challenged Lee publicly on any of his thousands of public messages, even when they had such contradictory assertions, or departed from apostolic precedent.

Everything was designed to keep one in a state of non-thought. Only Lee could think. Just be "positive". Be "one". Even when the messages make no sense.
04-30-2018 09:26 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

A bully will always attack the weakest, smallest, least able to defend themselves. Ignoring their testimony, dismissing their testimony, this is how predators are able to operate.
I agree! There are many notable bullies in this forum who day in and day out launch vicious ad hominem attacks on current members in the local churches in and out of this forum.

Apparently that is why that sister left. The anger and bitterness created an environment that was too toxic.

Drake
04-30-2018 08:22 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Most of the rest of us have witnessed this. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was the song. Don't think, it will only confuse you.
I understand now where the LC's teaching that thinking is bad originated from. It comes from a twisted interpretation of Matthew 16:23.

Below Evangelical gave the interpretation;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
It was Peter's own human reasoning "the things of men" that was an adversary to Christ, so Christ called him satan.
So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning rather than Satan himself operating through Peter. This view essentially makes "human reason" satanic thus rendering thought evil.

My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?

Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.
04-30-2018 07:34 AM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Your, and a dozen others in this forum, anecdotal experience, what is best described as oppressive and nutty, does not match mine or hundreds of thousands of others in the Lords Recovery.

I accept that.
10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

A bully will always attack the weakest, smallest, least able to defend themselves. Ignoring their testimony, dismissing their testimony, this is how predators are able to operate.
04-30-2018 06:44 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Most of the rest of us have witnessed this. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was the song. Don't think, it will only confuse you.
Witness Lee said he did all the "cooking" (assembling doctrine). All we had to do was "eat" (brainlessly imbibe his doctrine).
Not sure what patch of the LC you were in. Your anecdotal experience doesn't match most of the testimonies I've seen.
Your, and a dozen others in this forum, anecdotal experience, what is best described as oppressive and nutty, does not match mine or hundreds of thousands of others in the Lords Recovery.

I accept that.
04-30-2018 06:19 AM
aron
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
I never experienced anything resembling what you describe.

Drake
Most of the rest of us have witnessed this. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was the song. Don't think, it will only confuse you.

Witness Lee said he did all the "cooking" (assembling doctrine). All we had to do was "eat" (brainlessly imbibe his doctrine).

Not sure what patch of the LC you were in. Your anecdotal experience doesn't match most of the testimonies I've seen.
04-30-2018 05:42 AM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

When Jesus said "Get behind me Satan" to Peter He explained why He said this: "for you mind not the things of God but of Man".

Minding the things of man is also referred to us in Matthew when the Lord tells us not to take care over the things we wear or the things we eat.

In Hebrews we are told that all these people have been kept in bondage through "fear of death". So then this pervasive fear could be the way in which the "spirit of disobedience" is able to have a big influence on the world.

Therefore I think it is unsupportable based on the NT to ascribe every reference of "Satan" to being equivalent to Lucifer. Obviously, the fallen angels are "adversaries" to the Lord, and the serpent in Genesis could now be the "great dragon" in Revelation.

But if we narrow our view to "Satan" being "Lucifer" then we are easy to be deceived by anything, whether thought or deed, that opposes the will of God.
04-30-2018 05:03 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

How can this thread "Now's Good" by byHismercy be "good" by continually discussing the devil, I mean "Ha Satan," or is is Lucifer?
04-29-2018 08:14 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Can you count how many "I"s are in that post? I think you try a little too hard to justify yourself before others. Luke 16:25 comes to mind.

You asked me why I presented arguments for both sides of the debate. I gave my answer. I agree with Lucifer being Satan. I disagree with you poorly interpreting Isaiah 14 to "prove" it. Just as we probably agree that the sky is blue, but if you told me the sky is blue "and space aliens prove it", I would disagree with that. (5 I's now, and counting).

You said
"Even if you just look at the language in Isaiah 14, it's clear to me who he's really taking about.". Well it's not clear to me, and it's not clear to all of those bible commentaries I presented either. If it's so clear, why aren't any of the bible commentaries agreeing with your view?

I fail to see the connection between the number of times a person uses "I" in a post and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This does not seem like something a rational person would write. From now on, perhaps Evangelical should write in the third person.
04-29-2018 08:06 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
"Ha" may not point to a specific name but it does point to a single specific person. The term Satan was never applied "generically" in scripture to multiple different entities. It always pointed to one specific person, the devil. Scripture doesn't give us the God given name to the fallen angel known as Satan or Beezlebub but a few extra biblical sources do make mention of Satan's angelic name. I can't speak to the validity of those sources however.
"the satan" can refer to an individual such as Satan but it does not have to refer to the fallen archangel. It can refer to an angel, a person, or any adversarial thing. This is why it is a generic term. See the Wikipedia article I quoted previously.

Also, consider that Christians often use the term satan in a generic way, just as Christ did when he told Peter to "get behind me satan". Jesus obviously did not mean that Peter was Satan, or even that Satan had entered Peter just as Satan entered Judas. It was Peter's own human reasoning "the things of men" that was an adversary to Christ, so Christ called him satan.
04-29-2018 08:01 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
"Ha" may not point to a specific name but it does point to a single specific person. The term Satan was never applied "generically" in scripture to multiple different entities. It always pointed to one specific person, the devil. Scripture doesn't give us the God given name to the fallen angel known as Satan or Beezlebub but a few extra biblical sources do make mention of Satan's angelic name. I can't speak to the validity of those sources however.

Factually incorrect.

Wikipedia (with supporting scholarly references) says this:

The original Hebrew term satan is a generic noun meaning "accuser" or "adversary",[4][5] which is used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to ordinary human adversaries,[6][5] as well as a specific supernatural entity.[6][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
04-29-2018 07:07 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Can you count how many "I"s are in that post? I think you try a little too hard to justify yourself before others. Luke 16:25 comes to mind.
Hi Jo S,

I appreciate your joining the forum, your inquiries, and the fresh thoughtful approach you are bringing. I have benefited and believe others will as well if they haven't already. The exchange between you and Evangelical is helping me to understand the subject from different perspectives.... so thanks for that.

That is why I was surprised at the non-sequitur above. That has nothing to do with the subject. Evangelical's use of the personal pronoun "I" may be because you used "you" so he felt the need to clarify with "I"... or perhaps he just communicates from a personal perspective, or perhaps time will show that he uses "I" at the same average as everyone else.

I really don't know.

Anyway, please keep sharing on the topic and not get distracted with the irrelevant.

thanks
Drake
04-29-2018 06:35 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
That was beyond kind, Drake. Thank you. Forgive me for responding with vitreol earlier. I don't want to cause offense in the body...
It alright InHismercy. No offense taken and there was no malice of forethought on my part.

An unfortunate artifact of forums like these is that we have to go to great lengths to avoid being misunderstood because we lack the usual audio signals and visual indicators that come with face to face conversation. Something said face to face can be interpreted very differently using text only. Knowing this deficiency I try to keep it in mind when conversing with forum members but fail often anyway. But, when I read your response to my illustration I knew I had failed miserably.

Anyway, its always a good time to become familiar with Gods Word and that is very admirable. And though I will offer a different point of view than most posters most of the time for obvious reasons, and even when you find me challenging posts I am defending or clarifying the truth in God’s Word the best that I know. However, I am still learning and He never ceases to amaze me in His faithfulness to reward His true seekers as I know He will with you too.

Grace and peace,
Drake
04-29-2018 06:28 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
See my post to ZNP. When there are two alternatives (yes or no) there are always 4 possibilities. You have only considered the "yes or no" possibility. The truth I believe is a third. I am not trying to polarize the discussion one way or the other, but show the third alternative....

Can you count how many "I"s are in that post? I think you try a little too hard to justify yourself before others. Luke 16:25 comes to mind.
04-29-2018 06:15 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Not quite correct.

A "the" article makes satan a generic descriptive term. In Hebrew a "the" article before a word never denotes a personal name.

In the English translation, they changed "the satan" to "Satan" and so makes it appear to refer to a person when in fact it means generically, "the adversary".

"Ha" may not point to a specific name but it does point to a single specific person. The term Satan was never applied "generically" in scripture to multiple different entities. It always pointed to one specific person, the devil. Scripture doesn't give us the God given name to the fallen angel known as Satan or Beezlebub but a few extra biblical sources do make mention of Satan's angelic name. I can't speak to the validity of those sources however.
04-29-2018 06:00 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
You were arguing with a point you mutual agree on with byHismercy for the sake of conflict it seems. And now you're posting links that argue a side of the debate that you say you don't even agree with. Why?
See my post to ZNP. When there are two alternatives (yes or no) there are always 4 possibilities. You have only considered the "yes or no" possibility. The truth I believe is a third. I am not trying to polarize the discussion one way or the other, but show the third alternative.

I used it as an example to show how byHismercy's method of biblical interpretation needs consideration. They stated a few times that they only believe what is written in the Bible, which is well and good. But in reality, all Christians don't believe exactly what is "only written" in the Bible. We all view the bible through the lens of our own opinion or the opinion of others. The sooner we realize that the better. With two different opinions there are four possibilities.

To be clear - I agree that Lucifer is Satan - our opinions agree. I disagree that Isaiah 14 or the Bible factually proves it. I disagree with your method of biblical interpretation. I would use Isaiah 14 to support my opinion. I don't use Isaiah 14 to claim something as fact which is not actually there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Not only does the bible not say "sin is Satan in the flesh" it doesn't even remotely allude to such a thing. At least with Lucifer being Satan, you can compare OT and NT terminology and confidently affirm this as being fact. Even if you just look at the language in Isaiah 14, it's clear to me who he's really taking about. Men don't fall from heaven...
You said that we can "confidently affirm this as being fact".

I think we need to review the difference between an opinion and a fact. Most people don't know the difference.

Isaiah 14:4 says "king of Babylon" - that's a biblical fact. I can read it, you can read it. We can both agree that it says and refers to king of Babylon. So, it's a fact. It is also a fact that the verses which follow all refer to the king of Babylon.

To make this clear, see Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-12.htm
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!—The word for Lucifer is, literally, the shining one, the planet Venus, the morning star, the son of the dawn, as the symbol of the Babylonian power, which was so closely identified with astrolatry. “Lucifer” etymologically gives the same meaning, and is used by Latin poets (Tibull. i., 10, 62) for Venus, as an equivalent for the phôsphoros of the Greeks. The use of the word, however, in mediæval Latin as a name of Satan, whose fall was supposed to be shadowed forth in this and the following verse, makes its selection here singularly unfortunate. Few English readers realise the fact that it is the king of Babylon, and not the devil, who is addressed as Lucifer. While this has been the history of the Latin word, its Greek and English equivalents have risen to a higher place, and the “morning star” has become a name of the Christ (Revelation 22:16).

Now, "Lucifer is Satan" - that's your opinion. The bible doesn't say it, and we can agree upon it only if we both hold the same opinion.

And "fall from heaven" is surely figurative. How can men fall from heaven? How can angels fall if they have wings and aren't even subject to the laws of gravity? Is heaven even "up"? As Ellicott's Commentary shows, the king of Babylon falling from heaven, is likened to the planet Venus falling from the sky.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
As for your point about Jews viewing Satan as a servant of God. I really hope you don't believe that personally.

Jesus was a Jew. In fact he was more Jewish than most, wouldn't you agree? What was his view of Satan? Servant of God or adversary of God? That should be an easy one.

Jews don't view Satan as a servant of God, you may think Jews view Satan as a servant of God.

To me, by even thinking this it shows me there is a much darker underlying work going on here anti-semetic in nature. I look at Job and see an all powerful God that won't let any one of his people be harmed unless he allows it. Satan here is a slave, not a servant.
Really? Everything I read about Judaism presented Satan as a servant of God:

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/...view-of-satan/
There isn’t a single verse in the entire Tanach that states that Satan ever created evil or ever disobeyed a command from God. Satan is an obedient servant of God in the Tanach who serves the role of man’s accuser in God’s court.

The Jewish view of Satan is quite different to the Christian's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
And I didn't say "scholars" all agree, I said "Christian scholars". It's mostly secular and gnostic types that argue Isaiah 14 doesn't point to Satan. I'd suggest looking into the author of the article you linked to, Bert Thompson, before using him as a source.

I think Bert Thompson is a Christian. Isn't he the creationist that defends Christianity from atheism?

Anyway, I can prove that what you say about Christian scholars is incorrect. If you see all the bible commentaries here, they all say Lucifer is not Satan (or is the King of Babylon):

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/14-12.htm
04-29-2018 05:40 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
InHismercy,>”

InHismercy,

We are all students . I cannot think of a quality more admirable, for a Christian, than to want to become more familiar with God‘s word. Except perhaps to love the Lord which you already do first and foremost.

Drake
That was beyond kind, Drake. Thank you. Forgive me for responding with vitreol earlier. I don't want to cause offense in the body...
04-29-2018 05:33 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Satan is translated from the Hebrew "Ha Satan". "Ha" meaning "the" and "Satan" meaning "adversary".

So Satan doesn't refer to a adversary but the adversary which leads me to believe it's pointing to a specific person.
Not quite correct.

A "the" article makes satan a generic descriptive term. In Hebrew a "the" article before a word never denotes a personal name.

In the English translation, they changed "the satan" to "Satan" and so makes it appear to refer to a person when in fact it means generically, "the adversary".
04-29-2018 05:29 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Which brings us back to one of my unanswered questions. Is the term "Satan" generic for an adversary, or specific for one specific adversary, or both? How can we know?
It's really both.

Generic in the Old Testament:

Whenever God raised up someone or something to be used as an adversary, that someone or thing became a satan. Numbers 22:32 , 1 Kings 11:14 and the book of Job for example. Both good and evil was attributed to God in the old testament mindset.

Personal in the New Testament:

Jesus revealed the true God and showed that God did not want to destroy but to save and heal. From this point on, Satan became a personal entity seeking to destroy God's saving and healing work.
04-29-2018 05:20 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Which brings us back to one of my unanswered questions. Is the term "Satan" generic for an adversary, or specific for one specific adversary, or both? How can we know?

Satan is translated from the Hebrew "Ha Satan". "Ha" meaning "the" and "Satan" meaning "adversary".

So Satan doesn't refer to a adversary but the adversary which leads me to believe it's pointing to a specific person.
04-29-2018 05:13 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
To make clear, I was not arguing about whether Satan was Lucifer or not. I was making the point that just as the Bible does not say explicitly "sin is Satan in the flesh", neither does it say "Satan is Lucifer".

Satan in general is a tricky thing to discuss from the old testament Bible because the Jews don't believe in Satan the same as the Christians. They believe that Satan is more of a servant of God doing His will, and the Hebrew bible reflects that. For example, in Job, God and Satan get together in heaven to have a chat about what to do with Job. This presents Satan more as a servant of God used to test Job.




The word Lucifer appears only once in the whole bible in Isaiah 14:12.

Isaiah 14:4 shows who the name Lucifer is talking about:

"you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ..."

Scholars do not unanimously agree. This apologetics site explains why Satan is not Lucifer.

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.asp...1&article=1091
,
You were arguing with a point you mutual agree on with byHismercy for the sake of conflict it seems. And now you're posting links that argue a side of the debate that you say you don't even agree with. Why?

Not only does the bible not say "sin is Satan in the flesh" it doesn't even remotely allude to such a thing. At least with Lucifer being Satan, you can compare OT and NT terminology and confidently affirm this as being fact. Even if you just look at the language in Isaiah 14, it's clear to me who he's really taking about. Men don't fall from heaven...

As for your point about Jews viewing Satan as a servant of God. I really hope you don't believe that personally.

Jesus was a Jew. In fact he was more Jewish than most, wouldn't you agree? What was his view of Satan? Servant of God or adversary of God? That should be an easy one.

Jews don't view Satan as a servant of God, you may think Jews view Satan as a servant of God.

To me, by even thinking this it shows me there is a much darker underlying work going on here anti-semetic in nature. I look at Job and see an all powerful God that won't let any one of his people be harmed unless he allows it. Satan here is a slave, not a servant.

And I didn't say "scholars" all agree, I said "Christian scholars". It's mostly secular and gnostic types that argue Isaiah 14 doesn't point to Satan. I'd suggest looking into the author of the article you linked to, Bert Thompson, before using him as a source.
04-29-2018 04:55 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Aron>”I agree with the above. An irony of the LC (there are many) is that they forbid in others what they celebrate in Mssrs Nee and Lee, viz, the right to think, to inquire, to question, and to make determinations for oneself. LC troops are whipped into an emotional froth by incessant shouting and repetitive chanting then are told if they try to think it will ruin everything. Big Brother has done all their thinking for them.”

Aron,

If my experience were half what you describe above I would have left a long time ago. Apparently from your description the locality you were in was really oppressive and nutty. I never experienced anything resembling what you describe.

Drake
04-29-2018 04:47 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
To make clear, I was not arguing about whether Satan was Lucifer or not. I was making the point that just as the Bible does not say explicitly "sin is Satan in the flesh", neither does it say "Satan is Lucifer". Both ideas are only implied from various verses throughout the Bible, but both ideas mostly come from church history.The idea of sin is Satan in the flesh comes from the early church. So does the idea of Lucifer being Satan.

Satan in general is a tricky thing to discuss from the old testament Bible because the Jews don't believe in Satan the same as the Christians. They believe that Satan is more of a servant of God doing His will, and the Hebrew bible reflects that. For example, in Job, God and Satan get together in heaven to have a chat about what to do with Job. This presents Satan more as a servant of God used to test Job.




The word Lucifer appears only once in the whole bible in Isaiah 14:12.

Isaiah 14:4 shows who the name Lucifer is talking about:

"you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ..."

Scholars do not unanimously agree. This apologetics site explains why Satan is not Lucifer.

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.asp...1&article=1091


Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.



It is interesting that this disagreement over whether Lucifer is Satan or not has even influenced the bible translations.

As mentioned in the quote by Burton Coffman above, the ASV removed the reference to Lucifer which was in the KJV and others:

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm

American Standard Version
How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!

King James 2000 Bible
How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how are you cut down to the ground, who did weaken the nations!
Which brings us back to one of my unanswered questions. Is the term "Satan" generic for an adversary, or specific for one specific adversary, or both? How can we know?
04-29-2018 03:58 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Ok, then why even waste the time to argue with byHismercy if you're in agreement on that point? Whatever happened to chivaly?

To make clear, I was not arguing about whether Satan was Lucifer or not. I was making the point that just as the Bible does not say explicitly "sin is Satan in the flesh", neither does it say "Satan is Lucifer". Both ideas are only implied from various verses throughout the Bible, but both ideas mostly come from church history.The idea of sin is Satan in the flesh comes from the early church. So does the idea of Lucifer being Satan.

Satan in general is a tricky thing to discuss from the old testament Bible because the Jews don't believe in Satan the same as the Christians. They believe that Satan is more of a servant of God doing His will, and the Hebrew bible reflects that. For example, in Job, God and Satan get together in heaven to have a chat about what to do with Job. This presents Satan more as a servant of God used to test Job.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
BTW, I don't understand how you get to any other result other that Lucifer = Satan by looking at scripture. I mean, if you say you can't use the bible alone what else do you personally use to reach that conclusion? And what references have scholars used if not the bible alone to pretty much unanimously agree on these being the same person?
The word Lucifer appears only once in the whole bible in Isaiah 14:12.

Isaiah 14:4 shows who the name Lucifer is talking about:

"you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ..."

Scholars do not unanimously agree. This apologetics site explains why Satan is not Lucifer.

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.asp...1&article=1091


Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.



It is interesting that this disagreement over whether Lucifer is Satan or not has even influenced the bible translations.

As mentioned in the quote by Burton Coffman above, the ASV removed the reference to Lucifer which was in the KJV and others:

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm

American Standard Version
How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!

King James 2000 Bible
How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how are you cut down to the ground, who did weaken the nations!
04-29-2018 10:34 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
Back to my initial point, though- the danger is if we love our ideas more than the brothers and sisters of the faith. The faith is simple - did God raise Jesus from the dead on the third day, yes or no? This was clearly the central issue of the NT corpus and for me it remains that. If you ever want a chilling account of perpheral ideas running roughshod over actual human beings, look at the 4th century. In my view, whatever was left of "christianity" as a unified representation of Jesus Christ dissolved completely. Riots, murders, angry and bitter polemics. . . Heart-breaking stuff to read.

That's why I made the sarcastic remark about Mary being the Mother of God - don't implicitly trust your own logic. Let it be tried by the group. (When I say 'you' I'm being general).
I do understand your point, but I'll take it even further and say that everything hinges on your relationship with Christ and not necessarily just with other Christians. Christ's two commandments are equally important but there is an order. Love the Lord your God comes first and then love your neighbor.

What I've seen within the LC was a strong sense of community. There were affectional bonds between the people there yet somehow Christ was lacking. For myself personally, that wasn't enough. I always felt drained after meetings and never refreshed.

To me I couldn't help but feel that it was more about loving your neighbor, or in the case of the LC, loving your fellow members. Now I see that this unity didn't stem so much from Christ as it did in an idea of inclusivity, whether that was Lee's or Chu's.

If anything pride in our own understanding can seperate us from the Lord especially if it's not in alignment with the truth. And if that relationship suffers all other suffer along with it. You can let a group try your logic but even a group can be wrong, you already know this. Be convicted within yourself, seek revelation and God will give it to you. In Christ, we do have the ability to know truth absolutely contrary to what the world will tell you in that everything is relative and subjective opinion. That's a lie.
04-29-2018 04:47 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

InHismercy,>” I really appreciate that, JoS...I am willing to look into scripture and learn about this relationship. I confess (with hands covering my face) I have never thought about this matter nor done the reading to be informed...I always just assumed Lucifer was Satan. I had what some people call a dynamic salvation....it was awesome to me, meeting Jesus...my point is, I love His word and believe it to the uttermost, every letter, but I am guilty of not being a student of the old testament. I want to become a true student of Gods word. Ok, now I expect Drake is gonna let me have it. Be nice, Drake.

InHismercy,

We are all students . I cannot think of a quality more admirable, for a Christian, than to want to become more familiar with God‘s word. Except perhaps to love the Lord which you already do first and foremost.

Drake
04-29-2018 02:12 AM
aron
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
It seems that a lack of confidence in one's own thinking is what gets most LC'ers in trouble. . . It's not actually the use of your own critical thought that causes divisions. It's not the end all be all, God's word is, but it can help to guard you.

Perhaps Lee's logic did cause divisiveness but if his followers had not given validity to his thoughts then it would have had the power and effect that it had.

My point is, don't be afraid to use logic to understand or defend scripture but it has to be your own. It may help at the very least act as a buffer to protect you from following those that have great confidence in themselves and their own flawed logic. The only danger is solely relying on one's own understanding and letting that seperate you from the one that will never lead you astray.

If I have confidence in myself, it's not really me that I have confidence in but the one who is in me. Needless to say it's a strong foundational relationship with Christ, first and foremost, that will ultimately keep you out of harms way.
I agree with the above. An irony of the LC (there are many) is that they forbid in others what they celebrate in Mssrs Nee and Lee, viz, the right to think, to inquire, to question, and to make determinations for oneself. LC troops are whipped into an emotional froth by incessant shouting and repetitive chanting then are told if they try to think it will ruin everything. Big Brother has done all their thinking for them.

Paul said, "Whenever you come together, each one has . . . an interpretation". In the LC there is only one interpretation, which came from Lee. Offering alternatives is labeled independence, or divisiveness, or ambition, or rebellion against God's deputy authority.

When the disciples came together there was "much discussion" in coming to group consensus of God's will. The story in Acts 15 uses this phrase repeatedly. The LC fears this kind of open discussion as evidence of instability, and prefers the tight, top-down control that their oriental heritage considers normative.

Back to my initial point, though- the danger is if we love our ideas more than the brothers and sisters of the faith. The faith is simple - did God raise Jesus from the dead on the third day, yes or no? This was clearly the central issue of the NT corpus and for me it remains that. If you ever want a chilling account of perpheral ideas running roughshod over actual human beings, look at the 4th century. In my view, whatever was left of "christianity" as a unified representation of Jesus Christ dissolved completely. Riots, murders, angry and bitter polemics. . . Heart-breaking stuff to read.

That's why I made the sarcastic remark about Mary being the Mother of God - don't implicitly trust your own logic. Let it be tried by the group. (When I say 'you' I'm being general).
04-29-2018 12:12 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
I really appreciate that, JoS...I am willing to look into scripture and learn about this relationship. I confess (with hands covering my face) I have never thought about this matter nor done the reading to be informed...I always just assumed Lucifer was Satan. I had what some people call a dynamic salvation....it was awesome to me, meeting Jesus...my point is, I love His word and believe it to the uttermost, every letter, but I am guilty of not being a student of the old testament. I want to become a true student of Gods word. Ok, now I expect Drake is gonna let me have it. Be nice, Drake.

Brothers, where can I begin reading on this matter?
It's true that there's nothing explicitly stated in scripture that Lucifer (or "morning star") = Satan but the concensus within Christianity is that this is the case by comparing terminology from Old Testament verses with one's in the New Testament.

The first occurence of the word Lucifer (or Hebrew "Helel") occurres in Isaiah 14:12 when speaking about the Babylonian King;


“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”


Some argue this title of "Lucifer" applies specifically to the King of Babylon while others argue that it is a parable alluding to Satan's fall since men don't fall from heaven. The argument is since the Babylonian King suffered the similar fate at Satan so Isaiah was comparing his fall from earthly power to Satan's fall from heaven using the King as metaphor by speaking "through" his circumstance to point back to Satan since he was the first power in heaven to fall from grace.

You could compare this approach to something like Matthew 16:23 when Jesus spoke through Peter to Satan and said, “Get behind me, Satan!".

Then there are verses like Luke 10:18 which point back to Isaiah 14:12 and perhaps a few more that I can't recall right this moment. but that's a good place to start. Read those passages for yourself and see what you come up with.
04-28-2018 11:16 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Ok, then why even waste the time to argue with byHismercy if you're in agreement on that point? Whatever happened to chivaly?

BTW, I don't understand how you get to any other result other that Lucifer = Satan by looking at scripture. I mean, if you say you can't use the bible alone what else do you personally use to reach that conclusion? And what references have scholars used if not the bible alone to pretty much unanimously agree on these being the same person?
I really appreciate that, JoS...I am willing to look into scripture and learn about this relationship. I confess (with hands covering my face) I have never thought about this matter nor done the reading to be informed...I always just assumed Lucifer was Satan. I had what some people call a dynamic salvation....it was awesome to me, meeting Jesus...my point is, I love His word and believe it to the uttermost, every letter, but I am guilty of not being a student of the old testament. I want to become a true student of Gods word. Ok, now I expect Drake is gonna let me have it. Be nice, Drake.

Brothers, where can I begin reading on this matter? https://bible.org/article/lucifer-de...n-translations

I found this article, linked above, that looks very interesting and certainly shows how there might be some confusion. I will have to literally diagram this in order to understand it better....

In the meantime, I just wanted to encourage all with this.....Venus, the planet called the 'morning star', I recently learned, spins the opposite direction of all the other planets in our system....which gave me cause to worship God! I never learned this in my Lutheran or public schools....but from my childrens' Christian textbooks. Scientists don't have any explanation....
04-28-2018 11:02 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Yes, but it's hard for me to use the Bible alone to prove that for someone who doesn't see the implied relationship between Lucifer and Satan.
Ok, then why even waste the time to argue with byHismercy if you're in agreement on that point? Whatever happened to chivaly?

BTW, I don't understand how you get to any other result other that Lucifer = Satan by looking at scripture. I mean, if you say you can't use the bible alone what else do you personally use to reach that conclusion? And what references have scholars used if not the bible alone to pretty much unanimously agree on these being the same person?
04-28-2018 10:45 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Your link seems say archon is a person. Also, the actual word in Eph 2:2 is ἄρχοντα (archonta). According to wikidictionary, this is singular form of άρχοντας (archontas) and the meaning is:
1 overlord, nobleman, ruler
2 magistrate
3 rich man, magnate

Anyway, my point is that you or Evangelical (I don't recall who) seems to use the singular "spirit" in Eph 2:2b to prove that Satan is the person operating in flesh. But from some translations, this spirit is under another ruler. So doesn't look like the spirit is Satan.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

The Greek does not allow "the spirit" to refer to Satan, "the prince" himself, but to "the powers of the air" of which he is prince. The powers of the air are the embodiment of that evil "spirit" which is the ruling principle of unbelievers, especially the heathen (Ac 26:18), as opposed to the spirit of the children of God (Lu 4:33).

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/2-2.htm
04-28-2018 10:36 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Do you personally believe Lucifer fell and became Satan?
Yes, but it's hard for me to use the Bible alone to prove that for someone who doesn't see the implied relationship between Lucifer and Satan.
04-28-2018 10:14 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB,

I just Googled archon. Came up with this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon

Most stuff is available online.

I provided my explanation to ZNP. I’m willing to discuss any disagreement you have with that. Please quote me on your points of disagreement and offer your alternative point of view.

Thanks
Drake
Your link seems say archon is a person. Also, the actual word in Eph 2:2 is ἄρχοντα (archonta). According to wikidictionary, this is singular form of άρχοντας (archontas) and the meaning is:
1 overlord, nobleman, ruler
2 magistrate
3 rich man, magnate

Anyway, my point is that you or Evangelical (I don't recall who) seems to use the singular "spirit" in Eph 2:2b to prove that Satan is the person operating in flesh. But from some translations, this spirit is under another ruler. So doesn't look like the spirit is Satan.
04-28-2018 09:53 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
I don't know much about Greek and don't think I can contribute on what is the true meaning of archon.

Why not discuss this alternative view? Whether a ruler or an office of power (frankly, I could not find this meaning from online Greek dictionary), if you think the spirit is Satan, then he as a person is under the authority of another person/office?
ALB,

I just Googled archon. Came up with this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon

Most stuff is available online.

I provided my explanation to ZNP. I’m willing to discuss any disagreement you have with that. Please quote me on your points of disagreement and offer your alternative point of view.

Thanks
Drake
04-28-2018 09:37 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Hi ALB,

I believe Jo S explained it well from the Greek. As a continuation of the conversation I suggest picking it up from that point (agree, disagree, offer an alternative explanation, etc.).

Thanks
Drake
I don't know much about Greek and don't think I can contribute on what is the true meaning of archon.

Why not discuss this alternative view? Whether a ruler or an office of power (frankly, I could not find this meaning from online Greek dictionary), if you think the spirit is Satan, then he as a person is under the authority of another person/office?
04-28-2018 09:34 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
How do you view more literal tranlation from Greek such as NASB?

in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

And in NET:
in which you formerly lived according to this world's present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience,

Who is the prince/ruler of the spirit?
Hi ALB,

I believe Jo S explained it well from the Greek. As a continuation of the conversation I suggest picking it up from that point (agree, disagree, offer an alternative explanation, etc.).

Thanks
Drake
04-28-2018 09:16 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Spot on.

Drake
How do you view more literal tranlation from Greek such as NASB?

in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

And in NET:
in which you formerly lived according to this world's present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience,

Who is the prince/ruler of the spirit? If the "spirit" is the person of Satan, then who is his ruler?
04-28-2018 06:54 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
The word there in Greek is "archon". It does translate to "ruler" but not as we understand it today. The word ruler as we typical view it would be assumed singular, as in "a ruler" or one person in power, but in Greek archon or ruler pointed to an office of power. So in Eph 2:2, Paul is pointing to a body of powers of the air meaning the spirit of all fallen angels and demons, not just Satan himself. So it does not point to a singular person indwelling in the sons of disobedience if that's the argument they're trying to make.
Spot on.

Drake
04-28-2018 01:52 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
ByHisMercy, here we have another example of why Romans 16.17 is needed -- even here on this forum. Drake has become a seasoned wordsmith -- no different from the lawyers and scribes in Jerusalem which regularly opposed the Lord Jesus -- twisting and manipulating your own words against you. He needs to be "marked" for his actions.

I have witnessed this deception coming out of LSM my entire adult life, yet it took an actual quarantine in Midwest LC's I once lived in, before my eyes were opened to their abuses. Then I began to realize that it is LSM who is most guilty of what they accuse the rest of the church of. (See Paul's rebuke in Romans 2.1)
It is very ironic, Ohio, that the unrighteous dividing of the saints by the Lee church is what caused me to flee from it, and my desire to see there is actually one body of Christ...this is what Drake accuses me of, oh wait, he didn't? Rom. 2:30...inventors of evil things.

My stance, and my argument in support of it, will never be enough...perhaps there is no high peak revelation, no crystallization of....my speaking is not intelligent enough, informed enough, coherent enough, cohesive enough for Drake. But the truth is, I am here for the fellowship of those who have left the LC and its' unrighteous practices, and can see through the deception. Thank you Ohio and all the rest of you who cannot tolerate the wickedness...you are why I am here. And I believe the Lord Jesus will use this forum to lead His people away from the lies of WL and the LC. Psalms 113:3....from the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the Lord is to be praised. My 9 year old gave me this verse today.
04-28-2018 11:38 AM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
"But, I will never be able to get past the fact that Gods word NEVER tells us "sin is Satan in virtual personification in our flesh." ~ byHismercy

God's word never tells us that Satan is Lucifer... so I hope you are consistent in your beliefs by only believing what God's word actually says, literally, factually, absolutely, and not entertaining ANY opinions of man including the often-held opinion that Satan is Lucifer.
Hi Evangelical,
I've never studied Gods word searching for the relationship or lack thereof between Satan and Lucifer.
However, whatever the Lord spoke into His eternal word can be taken to the bank. I would need to search scripture to have a conversation with you on this matter.

I only know that, from lots of experience watching loved ones get deceived, that to dispute the Lords word leads one down a dark and confusing path.

For example, my mom....she is a professing christian....who argues Gods word on the matter of receiving the Holy Spirit, praying unceasingly, and the whole book of Hebrews....same person who wouldn't stop chanting the Devils number....and who manifested a demon before my eyes when I asked her to stop...same "christian" who cannot speak the name of the Lord Jesus, nor pray with me.

God has put many such people in my life and I have become really familiar with spiritual warfare. Deviating from Gods word never takes people to the truth.

Incidentally, that same spirit that twists my words into lies, and then denies doing such...I know that spirit. That particular tool Drake employed was just like having a conversation with my poor mom....a lost soul.

I pray God has mercy on us all...
04-28-2018 11:13 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
If you read my history here on this site, I'm nothing if not opinionated. But I also strongly feel that we've been given a ministry of reconciliation, and was just making a general point of that. Our thoughts ultimately should serve the reconciliation, and should not lift us beyond the rest.

As I get older I become more acutely aware of how little I know. Lee, on the other hand, seems to have hardened with age. He once told us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 years! What spirit was at work there?

Anyway, perhaps my point didn't need to be made. I just like to periodically remind myself.
Fair enough. Do you have a testimony here online? If so, I will try to find it.

Anyway, I suppose the point I was trying to make was that it seems that a lack of confidence in one's own thinking is what gets most LC'ers in trouble. Now that's just from my observations both reading testimonies and from personally knowing many current LC'ers. It's not actually the use of your own critical thought that causes divisions. It's not the end all be all, God's word is, but it can help to guard you.

Perhaps Lee's logic did cause divisiveness but if his followers had not given validity to his thoughts then it would have had the power and effect that it had.

My point is, don't be afraid to use logic to understand or defend scripture but it has to be your own. It may help at the very least act as a buffer to protect you from following those that have great confidence in themselves and their own flawed logic. The only danger is solely relying on one's own understanding and letting that seperate you from the one that will never lead you astray.

If I have confidence in myself, it's not really me that I have confidence in but the one who is in me. Needless to say it's a strong foundational relationship with Christ, first and foremost, that will ultimately keep you out of harms way.
04-28-2018 10:51 AM
aron
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I highly doubt critical thought was ever the dividing factor between groups of professing Christians.
If you read my history here on this site, I'm nothing if not opinionated. But I also strongly feel that we've been given a ministry of reconciliation, and was just making a general point of that. Our thoughts ultimately should serve the reconciliation, and should not lift us beyond the rest.

As I get older I become more acutely aware of how little I know. Lee, on the other hand, seems to have hardened with age. He once told us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 years! What spirit was at work there?

Anyway, perhaps my point didn't need to be made. I just like to periodically remind myself.
04-28-2018 10:30 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
You and Evangelical seem quite rely on Eph 2:2 to support your point. Suggest you to check different translations and you will not be so sure about "the spirit operating in the sons of disobedience" being the "ruler".

The word there in Greek is "archon". It does translate to "ruler" but not as we understand it today. The word ruler as we typical view it would be assumed singular, as in "a ruler" or one person in power, but in Greek archon or ruler pointed to an office of power. So in Eph 2:2, Paul is pointing to a body of powers of the air meaning the spirit of all fallen angels and demons, not just Satan himself. So it does not point to a singular person indwelling in the sons of disobedience if that's the argument they're trying to make.
04-28-2018 10:17 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Whether Satan "enters" Judas as a Spirit, or whether the Spirit of disobedience was "operating within" Judas, what is the difference? I don't really know if that distinction is defined in the Bible.
LSMers constantly attempt to take every discussion down some rabbit hole just to prove they know something more than we do. Meanwhile they miss the chief point of the story -- Judas, a close friend of Jesus, betrayed Him, sending Him to the death of the cross. For this to occur, yes, Satan was used to enter into Judas.

Here is the Father's exceedingly painful arrangement for His Son with Judas, fulfilling a prophetic experience of King David:
For it was not an enemy who insulted me, Then I could have borne it:
Neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; Then I would have hid myself from him.
But it was you, a man whom I treated as my equal— my personal confidant, my close friend!
With whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship in the house of God, as we walked about among the worshipers. -- Psalm 55.12-14
As for my best friend, the one in whom I trusted, the one who ate my bread, has turned against me. -- Psalm 41.9

The Apostle Paul got the point though. He was not sidetracked by petty discussions. Rather he pointed us to the result -- the New Covenant.
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” -- I C. 11.23
04-28-2018 09:21 AM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ZNP,

Before we go to the crucifixion let’s stay with this point.

According to Ephesians 2:2 the spirit operating in the sons of disobedience is the authority of the air, the aggregate evil power (the ruler (Satan) and his minions) as defined in Ephesians 6:12. That is the distinction between the actual Satan “Satanas” entering a Judas (Luke 22:3) and the spirit “pneuma” that operates in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2).

Drake
You and Evangelical seem quite rely on Eph 2:2 to support your point. Suggest you to check different translations and you will not be so sure about "the spirit operating in the sons of disobedience" being the "ruler".
04-28-2018 08:46 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
God's word never tells us that Satan is Lucifer... so I hope you are consistent in your beliefs by only believing what God's word actually says, literally, factually, absolutely, and not entertaining ANY opinions of man including the often-held opinion that Satan is Lucifer.
Do you personally believe Lucifer fell and became Satan?
04-28-2018 08:11 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
There are many verses in the NT that discuss identifying and dealing with the false prophet. Judas is a type of the false prophet that will come at the end of the age. Having him as part of the gospel story helps the believers. Now it is easy to see that you can be in the midst of God's move on Earth and even so, one of the twelve is a false prophet.

Whether Satan "enters" Judas as a Spirit, or whether the Spirit of disobedience was "operating within" Judas, what is the difference? I don't really know if that distinction is defined in the Bible.

Now this goes back to one of the other questions I asked. When Judas hanged himself I think we would all agree that was not Satan being crucified on the cross. So if Satan is in Judas, but not in Jesus, why was Satan crucified (or judged) on the cross?
ZNP,

Before we go to the crucifixion let’s stay with this point.

According to Ephesians 2:2 the spirit operating in the sons of disobedience is the authority of the air, the aggregate evil power (the ruler (Satan) and his minions) as defined in Ephesians 6:12. That is the distinction between the actual Satan “Satanas” entering a Judas (Luke 22:3) and the spirit “pneuma” that operates in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2).

Drake
04-28-2018 07:42 AM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Well. I see what you are saying ZNP to a large extent but not completely. On this last point above Luke 22:3 says “Satan entered into Judas” that is, Satanas, the adversary of Christ and God, eiserchomai into Judas. In the same way that Jesus eiserchomai the temple in Matthew 21:12.

Also, though we may learn from the incident I don’t really think we have to “deal with Judas”. You probably mean metaphorically yet I miss the point of the metaphor.

Drake
There are many verses in the NT that discuss identifying and dealing with the false prophet. Judas is a type of the false prophet that will come at the end of the age. Having him as part of the gospel story helps the believers. Now it is easy to see that you can be in the midst of God's move on Earth and even so, one of the twelve is a false prophet.

Whether Satan "enters" Judas as a Spirit, or whether the Spirit of disobedience was "operating within" Judas, what is the difference? I don't really know if that distinction is defined in the Bible.

Now this goes back to one of the other questions I asked. When Judas hanged himself I think we would all agree that was not Satan being crucified on the cross. So if Satan is in Judas, but not in Jesus, why was Satan crucified (or judged) on the cross?
04-28-2018 07:34 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Saying that Satan entered Judas is not said in a vacuum. Prior to this Jesus said that "one of you is a devil" and that He chose him.

Judas was a devil prior to this moment. He was a liar, and a deceiver. Being omniscient is not the same thing as being a puppet master. Being with Jesus for 3 years, witnessing his ministry, doing works of power in His name, did not change Judas. He never knew the Lord even though the Lord knew him.

It is contrary to God being omnipotent that he needed Judas for His plan of salvation. Instead, I would say that we needed Judas. We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, so we need the Lord to expose Judas and show us how to deal with Judas.

As to Satan entering into Judas I would align that with Paul's word about the Spirit of disobedience operating in the world.
Well. I see what you are saying ZNP to a large extent but not completely. On this last point above Luke 22:3 says “Satan entered into Judas” that is, Satanas, the adversary of Christ and God, eiserchomai into Judas. In the same way that Jesus eiserchomai the temple in Matthew 21:12.

Also, though we may learn from the incident I don’t really think we have to “deal with Judas”. You probably mean metaphorically yet I miss the point of the metaphor.

Drake
04-28-2018 06:58 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Drake, you are lying on me...quite one with Satan there, are you? I NEVER said what you accuse me of....such visciousness is so rare in a regenerated believer...you are putting lying false words in my mouth to prove a point about my argument being invalid? Just so we are clear....you just made these things up as an example of error....not to wound me, right?

You are a liar, and you did change my mind about your personal allegiance to Satan. So you win. Happy now? I am convinced Satan is your father. Consider yourself marked.
InHismercy,

Wound you? Heavens no. No desire to do that.

Please don’t take offense. I said right up front it would be an illustration of an opinion but not an argument. Like for iike. Method for method. End to end. An opinion based on statements you made, applying those words to scripture, and making charges against believers as a call to action to shun them. Anyone can do that .... as you did. And so did I.

I did not make your actual characterization up... “dung”, “flush it down”. I did not pick a verse out of thin air, it was your selection, ... and your call to action was to divide Christians from a ministry and a group of believers where they currently are. Essentially to follow you out. That was the illustrating part. Nevertheless, one could, without much effort, form a similar opinion about you and what you think just based on your short time here. When I read your posts I see those elements present else I would not have used them to illustrate. . However, you will object that my op-ed was a lie and that you never meant those things that way. Okay, but an opinion is just that, an opinion, and difficult to argue against unless it is outrageous or ridiculous.

That is why I challenged you to make a compelling argument. Ohio made an argument about the Romans verse but it was mostly anecdotal. More often than not that is the best we achieve here. Opinions and anecdotal arguments. Not always but mostly. Scriptural arguments based on actual teachings are rare. Post #188 is a another example of opinion not argument formulated in the same pattern as my illustration.

But please, don’t take offense. With you, I was demonstrating the difference between an opinion and an argument using your owns terminology and methods.

Drake
04-28-2018 04:53 AM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Well, please explain. I’m all ears.

Drake
Saying that Satan entered Judas is not said in a vacuum. Prior to this Jesus said that "one of you is a devil" and that He chose him.

Judas was a devil prior to this moment. He was a liar, and a deceiver. Being omniscient is not the same thing as being a puppet master. Being with Jesus for 3 years, witnessing his ministry, doing works of power in His name, did not change Judas. He never knew the Lord even though the Lord knew him.

It is contrary to God being omnipotent that he needed Judas for His plan of salvation. Instead, I would say that we needed Judas. We are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, so we need the Lord to expose Judas and show us how to deal with Judas.

As to Satan entering into Judas I would align that with Paul's word about the Spirit of disobedience operating in the world.
04-28-2018 04:28 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

"But, I will never be able to get past the fact that Gods word NEVER tells us "sin is Satan in virtual personification in our flesh." ~ byHismercy

God's word never tells us that Satan is Lucifer... so I hope you are consistent in your beliefs by only believing what God's word actually says, literally, factually, absolutely, and not entertaining ANY opinions of man including the often-held opinion that Satan is Lucifer.
04-28-2018 01:20 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Drake, you are lying on me...quite one with Satan there, are you? I NEVER said what you accuse me of....such visciousness is so rare in a regenerated believer...you are putting lying false words in my mouth to prove a point about my argument being invalid? Just so we are clear....you just made these things up as an example of error....not to wound me, right?

You are a liar, and you did change my mind about your personal allegiance to Satan. So you win. Happy now? I am convinced Satan is your father. Consider yourself marked.
ByHisMercy, here we have another example of why Romans 16.17 is needed -- even here on this forum. Drake has become a seasoned wordsmith -- no different from the lawyers and scribes in Jerusalem which regularly opposed the Lord Jesus -- twisting and manipulating your own words against you. He needs to be "marked" for his actions.

I have witnessed this deception coming out of LSM my entire adult life, yet it took an actual quarantine in Midwest LC's I once lived in, before my eyes were opened to their abuses. Then I began to realize that it is LSM who is most guilty of what they accuse the rest of the church of. (See Paul's rebuke in Romans 2.1)
04-27-2018 11:11 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Also, I just want to say here, that the Bible is the living and operative word of God in those of us who believe! Th Holy Spirit is witnessed by my spirit, and I am equipped to take Gods word in and be taught, corrected, instructed in righteous...Gods word is sufficient for us because Jesus is the Living word of God....

The LC is clouds without water and clanging symbol...erroneous doctrine without the love of God....I think anyone who reads this conversation is going to be able to see right through them...and I hope some may be spared their own journey into, then invariably back out of, this church of Witness Lee.

Saints, praise Jesus...darkness cannot be where the light of God is.
04-27-2018 10:50 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
InHismercy,

You have an opinion that you mistakenly believe is supported by scripture.

Anyone can do that. Allow me to illustrate by following your example.
———————-
Rom.16:17
Now I urge you brethren ( the Lord is addressing His followers)

Mark those who cause divisions (inHismercy divides over our experience of Christ facilitated through a ministry of life and she calls for those who have grown closer to the Lord thereby to treat that ministry as dung)

And hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned( contradictions to Gods word abound in InHismercy’s doctrine, claiming erroneously that the Lord cast Satan out of people while denying in the same breath the clear teaching of Paul concerning the Satanic nature of sin in the flesh. Furthermore, she enthusiastically engages in ridiculing christians who embrace the scriptural call for all Christians to be one with each other, and instead she promotes unholy divisions among Christians by demanding they take their experience of Christ and “flush it down” inappropriately invoking the image of a toilet whereby the contents are the precious experiences of Christ)

And turn away from them. (And for those reasons I do and so should any genuine believer who desires purity of thought concerning the things of our Lord)

——————-

That is an opinion based on things you said but the points haven’t been presented as a compelling argument. That is what I mean by anyone can do that.

Thanks
Drake
Drake, you are lying on me...quite one with Satan there, are you? I NEVER said what you accuse me of....such visciousness is so rare in a regenerated believer...you are putting lying false words in my mouth to prove a point about my argument being invalid? Just so we are clear....you just made these things up as an example of error....not to wound me, right?

You are a liar, and you did change my mind about your personal allegiance to Satan. So you win. Happy now? I am convinced Satan is your father. Consider yourself marked.
04-27-2018 09:18 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Can you show us sin without a person?
I can show you darkness apart from a person.

Genesis 1:3

"God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness"

Notice God does not call darkness "good", but only light.

"For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 Cor 6:14

Darkness was there before Lucifer partook of it.

Darkness is lawlessness.
04-27-2018 08:46 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I meant to post this earlier on the topic of sin and Satan but forgot I had left it open in my browser.

I remember someone asked for a biblical definition of sin. Here it is in 1 John 3:4;

"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."


We can see John labels sin more in the sense of it being a law because it's something that can be "practiced". Any lawyers out there should understand this.

What then is a law? A law is a set of principles.

Satan is lawless (2 Thess 2:9) but he is not lawlessness itself just as a police officer isn't the law itself but one who enforces the law.

In otherwords, Satan is a principality and not a set of principles. So to say Satan is sin, whether in or outside of a person, is error.

I've got to say, from an outsider's perspective, Lee's teachings have strong gnostic qualities to them.
A problem for this view is that it treats sin as something which exists independently of a person. Can you show us sin without a person? I would say that sin is lawlessness because lawlessness comes from Satan who is lawless. We could shorten this to say "lawlessness is Satan".
04-27-2018 08:40 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Evangelical, earlier in this same thread same thread you said you believed if Witness Lee taught Satan indwelt us, he was wrong. You also declared to not believe Satan was omnipresent. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Did you position reverse because you know you cannot dispute WL doctrine...and remain in good standing with the LC?

Follow Gods word and be set free, brother.
You are correct regarding my position. I don't believe Satan is omnipresent. However I was pointing out that in the minds of many Christians, it is as if he is omnipresent. I don't really see the difference between Lee's view of Satan (as sin) indwelling the flesh and that held by the majority of Christians that Satan is around every corner or attacking them every day. Both views could be considered as giving Satan a kind of omnipresence. If we address Lee's doctrine shouldn't we also teach Christians that Satan cannot possibly attack all of them who claim to be attacked by Satan?
04-27-2018 08:25 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Ok, I'll try.

Rom.16:17
Now I urge you brethren ( the Lord is addressing His followers)

Mark those who cause divisions (the Local Church divides over our willingness to receive Lees erroneous teaching, or not, or ones ability to be sold out for Lees error)

And hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned( contradictions to Gods word abounds in Lee doctrine, and LC practice of shunning christians outside the bounds of scripturally supported divisions)

And turn away from them. (I do.)
InHismercy,

You have an opinion that you mistakenly believe is supported by scripture.

Anyone can do that. Allow me to illustrate by following your example.
———————-
Rom.16:17
Now I urge you brethren ( the Lord is addressing His followers)

Mark those who cause divisions (inHismercy divides over our experience of Christ facilitated through a ministry of life and she calls for those who have grown closer to the Lord thereby to treat that ministry as dung)

And hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned( contradictions to Gods word abound in InHismercy’s doctrine, claiming erroneously that the Lord cast Satan out of people while denying in the same breath the clear teaching of Paul concerning the Satanic nature of sin in the flesh. Furthermore, she enthusiastically engages in ridiculing christians who embrace the scriptural call for all Christians to be one with each other, and instead she promotes unholy divisions among Christians by demanding they take their experience of Christ and “flush it down” inappropriately invoking the image of a toilet whereby the contents are the precious experiences of Christ)

And turn away from them. (And for those reasons I do and so should any genuine believer who desires purity of thought concerning the things of our Lord)

——————-

That is an opinion based on things you said but the points haven’t been presented as a compelling argument. That is what I mean by anyone can do that.

Thanks
Drake
04-27-2018 07:40 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
The fact that the 4th-century church split apart after having just these sorts of conversations shows me a danger here. We are unfortunately too smart by half.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God, right?

Do you see my point? Our logic can lead us into perilous waters.

What happens today is that we can know what Witness Lee or Calvin thought of such things, or what we think, or even what Augustine thought. But we don't know what Jesus thought, as we have no contemporary systematic breakdown of his thought-world. We can at best only approximate it. We do know that he believed he would go to Jerusalem, and be ill-treated, and killed, and on the third day rise (Mark 9:31).

And we know that we believe. We should not let our thought-worlds drive us apart. Lee was a master at this. "Divide and conquer" should have been the motto emblazoned at LSM. Pretty much all of his teachings were levers, designed to pry us apart. Just look at the fruit and you should recognize the tree.

Aron, you can surely know the thoughts of Christ. Those that are born of him are given his mind (1 Cor 2:16).

I highly doubt critical thought was ever the dividing factor between groups of professing Christians. Quite the opposite it seems concerning the LC, atleast from what I understand with my limited experience. I say that because I've read Lee had taught that thinking was bad and to just be in the spirit. Well, in my view, if you don't exercise your own logical faculties someone else will supply the logic for you. And if you've received the wrong spirit, it really doesn't help you to be "in the spirit" anyway at that point.

I don't understand why division is viewed only in a bad light in today's society. It reminds me of a saying by Adrian Rogers;

“It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills.”

I can understand that those of you that have escaped the control of the LC are hesitant toward any type of debating that can potentially end up causing division. You've all been through a traumatic experience so I can understand wanting to stay away from anything that can rehash old wounds. I saw this very same fear within my friends that are still in the LC.

What I can say is, avoiding discussion and debate is not the way. We are to test all things within ourselves and other's that we choose to fellowship with. As a matter of fact Christ applauded the church in Ephesius on exposing false converts;

"I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false" (Rev. 2)

IMHO, the most important doctrine to have a firm grasp on is the nature of the Lord God and of his Christ because there are many different gospels being preached and many different Christs being taught as well. Paul says that those that accept a false gospel or a false Christ receive a different spirit. (2 Cor 11:4). That's why it's so important to test all things to make sure we are firmly in the faith.
04-27-2018 07:34 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese View Post
All ears? You have all you need from the words of Lee, you’re ears are deaf to anything else.
LofT,

Do you have anything to contribute to the actual topic?

Or is your contribution merely personal insults? If you are going to insult at least add something substantive to the topic! If you understand ZNPs point then contribute by clarifying it.

Drake
04-27-2018 07:24 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by leastofthese View Post
All ears? You have all you need from the words of Lee, you’re ears are deaf to anything else.
And a hearty Amen to that!
04-27-2018 07:21 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Ohio, what do you think the Lord meant for us when you read Rom 16:17...Now I urge you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them.

I see the LC here...I would like others counsel here...this is a serious word from the Lord...( not LC counsel, please)
Let's look at this verse in pieces:
  • Now I urge you, brethren: This no doubt is a timeless exhortation from Paul for all responsible brothers in all congregations
  • Mark those: This is not the best translation here. Others say "take note, watch, consider, keep an eye on." LSM as a book publisher has used this verse to publicly excommunicate certain ministers, but I consider this the work of overseers/elders in each congregation, rather than some ruling body. LSM's extreme measures of publicly "marking" others often return to Levitical practices rather than God's love. Had their "victims" not been more spiritual and godly men, they would have filed civil lawsuits for libel and slander against LSM.
  • Cause divisions: LSM's record of making divisions is unparalleled, except for perhaps the Exclusive Brethren after whom they model themselves. None of these quarantined brothers ever made a division, rather they were only faithful to the Lord and His word to speak out against abuses from LSM.
  • Cause hindrances: Or "occasions of stumbling." Just consider how many have been stumbled by LSM during every storm in their history? Read the Intro section on this forum.
  • Contrary to the apostles' teachings: The Midwest quarantines had nothing to do with the Bible, which is the Apostles' teaching. LSM quarantined them for teaching differently than Witness Lee. Imagine that! LSM condemned them for using contemporary Christian music in their young people's worship services. For shame!
  • Turn away from them: This forum helps those who desire to depart from them.
04-27-2018 07:14 PM
leastofthese
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Well, please explain. I’m all ears.

Drake
All ears? You have all you need from the words of Lee, you’re ears are deaf to anything else.
04-27-2018 06:14 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
It seems unrighteous, are you sure you don't want to rethink that? If the Lord is the one who instigated the crucifixion then it doesn't expose man having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it exposes man is simply a puppet of the Lord.

Second, you haven't answered the other part of that. We have a promise that no one can take us out of the Lord's hand. So then, what was it that Judas did that in turn caused the Lord to allow Satan to enter into him?

Surely WL has answered this.
Well, please explain. I’m all ears.

Drake
04-27-2018 05:07 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
To instigate the series of practical events that led to the Lords accomplishing salvation on the cross.

Why do you ask?

Drake
It seems unrighteous, are you sure you don't want to rethink that? If the Lord is the one who instigated the crucifixion then it doesn't expose man having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it exposes man is simply a puppet of the Lord.

Second, you haven't answered the other part of that. We have a promise that no one can take us out of the Lord's hand. So then, what was it that Judas did that in turn caused the Lord to allow Satan to enter into him?

Surely WL has answered this.
04-27-2018 04:41 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Anyone can say that about anyone else they disagree with. It doesn’t rise to the level of a weak argument. It’s a fallacy in argument. To prove it applies you would need to argue on the substance. Have a go.

Drake
Ok, I'll try.

Rom.16:17
Now I urge you brethren ( the Lord is addressing His followers)

Mark those who cause divisions (the Local Church divides over our willingness to receive Lees erroneous teaching, or not, or ones ability to be sold out for Lees error)

And hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned( contradictions to Gods word abounds in Lee doctrine, and LC practice of shunning christians outside the bounds of scripturally supported divisions)

And turn away from them. (I do.)
04-27-2018 04:28 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

And to add to this discussion...

Rom 14:23...for whatever does not proceed from FAITH is sin.

1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin.

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him as righteousness.

From these verses, I see that sin is absence of faith.
04-27-2018 04:06 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good - byHismercy

I meant to post this earlier on the topic of sin and Satan but forgot I had left it open in my browser.

I remember someone asked for a biblical definition of sin. Here it is in 1 John 3:4;

"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."


We can see John labels sin more in the sense of it being a law because it's something that can be "practiced". Any lawyers out there should understand this.

What then is a law? A law is a set of principles.

Satan is lawless (2 Thess 2:9) but he is not lawlessness itself just as a police officer isn't the law itself but one who enforces the law.

In otherwords, Satan is a principality and not a set of principles. So to say Satan is sin, whether in or outside of a person, is error.

I've got to say, from an outsider's perspective, Lee's teachings have strong gnostic qualities to them.
04-27-2018 03:35 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Why did the Lord permit Satan to enter Judas?
To instigate the series of practical events that led to the Lords accomplishing salvation on the cross.

Why do you ask?

Drake
04-27-2018 03:30 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Hi ZNP,

I started but gave up on the barrage of questions. It’s easier for me to interact in conversation.

Pick the one or two most important to you and then you can roll the questions out as we go along.

Thanks
Drake
Why did the Lord permit Satan to enter Judas?
04-27-2018 03:28 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Ohio, what do you think the Lord meant for us when you read Rom 16:17...Now I urge you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them.

I see the LC here...I would like others counsel here...this is a serious word from the Lord...( not LC counsel, please)
Anyone can say that about anyone else they disagree with. It doesn’t rise to the level of a weak argument. It’s a fallacy in argument. To prove it applies you would need to argue on the substance. Have a go.

Drake
04-27-2018 03:22 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
byHismercy, did Jesus cast Satan himself out of someone? Are you maybe referring to the women in the synogogue bound by Satan for 18 years? If so it reads as if Jesus freed her from the bonds of Satan, bonds being sin, but I don't take that she was possessed by Satan himself if that's the story you are referring to.
Hi JoS, I was referring to the account in Matt. 8...but I was mistaken. Jesus cast demons( plural), not Satan, out of the two fierce ones,and let the devils go into the herd of swine. The Lord also cast demons out of many who were brought to Him in Capernaum. Sorry
04-27-2018 03:21 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
Drake, since you are clear about what WL taught can you answer these questions?

1. Do you believe the use of "Satan" to refer to the person of Lucifer, or generically to an adversary of the Lord, or would you interpret it differently depending on the context?

2. Was Satan crucified on the cross? If so, how since he didn't indwell Jesus flesh?

3. Judas is a type of the false prophet, not the antichrist. Why is it that Satan enters Judas here, but the antichrist at the end of the age?

4. You have quoted numerous verses concerning the personification of sin, equating it with an evil indwelling presence (though apparently not Satan). What is the difference between that personified sin and "the sin nature"?

5. In Matthew 8 the demons could not enter into the swine without the Lord's permission. Can we also assume that Satan could not enter into Judas without the Lord's permission?

6. If you agree that Satan entered Judas with the Lord's permission, can you explain what a person would do that would result in the Lord permitting Satan to enter them?
Hi ZNP,

I started but gave up on the barrage of questions. It’s easier for me to interact in conversation.

Pick the one or two most important to you and then you can roll the questions out as we go along.

Also, when applicable state your view so I understand the background of the question and don’t assume where you are coming from.

Thanks
Drake
04-27-2018 03:04 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I think that multitudes of Christians claiming attacks from Satan around the world every day, gives him omnipresence. Where does Scripture say that Satan can attack multitudes of believers around the world every day?
Evangelical, earlier in this same thread same thread you said you believed if Witness Lee taught Satan indwelt us, he was wrong. You also declared to not believe Satan was omnipresent. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Did you position reverse because you know you cannot dispute WL doctrine...and remain in good standing with the LC?

Follow Gods word and be set free, brother.
04-27-2018 02:56 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Drake, I know that Satan can possess an individual because we see Him enter Judas and the Lord cast him out of another, yes?

What I don't believe is his ability to indwell all persons in their flesh, because that gives him omniprescence. Only our God has that quality.
I think that multitudes of Christians claiming attacks from Satan around the world every day, gives him omnipresence. Even though you say he is not omnipresent, most Christians surely act as if he is. Where does Scripture say that Satan can attack multitudes of believers around the world every day?
04-27-2018 02:54 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
You have become nothing more than a shill for LSM.

And these quotes in your post are just dishonest. What about the ones which both a little brother and I posted the other day. I'll provide some of Lee's quotes below since your memory appears to be shot:[INDENT][I][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]"The body is something satanic and devilish because Satan dwells in this body. All the lusts are in this corrupted body, which is called the flesh. The Word reveals that the lust is “the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). The flesh is the corrupted body full of lusts and indwelt by Satan. Now you see that the fall of man was not just a matter of man committing something against God but of man receiving Satan into his body. Satan, from the time of the fall, dwells in man. This is what happened when man partook of the second tree.

We must apply the cross to our soul because Satan dwells in our flesh and seeks to control our soul. [B]Our soul has been saturated with Satan himself. Our mind, will, emotion, self, soul-life, and relationship with the world have been saturated and permeated with Satan.



Sin itself, according to the Bible's revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him...One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you…Sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.”
Ohio, what do you think the Lord meant for us when you read Rom 16:17...Now I urge you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them.

I see the LC here...I would like others counsel here...this is a serious word from the Lord...( not LC counsel, please)
04-27-2018 02:35 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB

Sure. I’ll even color it a little.

I believe Satan indwells our flesh in the virtual personified form of sin. The book of Romans makes it very clear that sin is and behaves like a person not a non sentient force like gravity. I do not believe that the archangel Lucifer indwells our flesh but do believe that he entered Judas and will do so again with AntiChrist. I also believe that we have inherited the sin nature from Adam’s fall and that nature is depicted as serpentine in the incident of the brass serpent. Unlike every other man, the Lord Jesus did not have the serpentine nature in dwelling His flesh, only the form as a man so He is the brass serpent. I believe Peter was expressing the mind of Satan to resist the way of the cross as part of the sin nature within him.

There is no difference between what I believe and what brother Lee taught.

Drake
Drake, since you are clear about what WL taught can you answer these questions?

1. Do you believe the use of "Satan" to refer to the person of Lucifer, or generically to an adversary of the Lord, or would you interpret it differently depending on the context?

2. Was Satan crucified on the cross? If so, how since he didn't indwell Jesus flesh?

3. Judas is a type of the false prophet, not the antichrist. Why is it that Satan enters Judas here, but the antichrist at the end of the age?

4. You have quoted numerous verses concerning the personification of sin, equating it with an evil indwelling presence (though apparently not Satan). What is the difference between that personified sin and "the sin nature"?

5. In Matthew 8 the demons could not enter into the swine without the Lord's permission. Can we also assume that Satan could not enter into Judas without the Lord's permission?

6. If you agree that Satan entered Judas with the Lord's permission, can you explain what a person would do that would result in the Lord permitting Satan to enter them?
04-27-2018 02:08 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
The fact that the 4th-century church split apart after having just these sorts of conversations shows me a danger here. We are unfortunately too smart by half.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God, right?

Do you see my point? Our logic can lead us into perilous waters.

What happens today is that we can know what Witness Lee or Calvin thought of such things, or what we think, or even what Augustine thought. But we don't know what Jesus thought, as we have no contemporary systematic breakdown of his thought-world. We can at best only approximate it. We do know that he believed he would go to Jerusalem, and be ill-treated, and killed, and on the third day rise (Mark 9:31).

And we know that we believe. We should not let our thought-worlds drive us apart. Lee was a master at this. "Divide and conquer" should have been the motto emblazoned at LSM. Pretty much all of his teachings were levers, designed to pry us apart. Just look at the fruit and you should recognize the tree.
Aron, this morning the Lord gave me Rom 16:17...Now I urge you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and hindrances contrary to the doctrine which you learned and turn away from them.

Of course I recognize the Lee doctrine to match the divisive and contrary doctrine here, warned against in Gods word. The LC practice of shunning those who do not receive Lees doctrine seem to be exposed here in Gods word. What do you think, brother?
04-27-2018 01:58 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
As for me, I do not buy this kind of teaching. That is pretty weird stuff. I would not even waste time arguing against it. It is simply that there is not a shred of Scripture to support this contention. Unconverted sinners are clearly voluntarily under Satan's sway, but that does not mean that Satan is Sin or that he indwells believers.
I agree. Creepy and unfounded doctrine of Lees' invention.
04-27-2018 03:00 AM
aron
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Your statement of belief states that God (who is spirit) became a human being (Jesus) and then Jesus turned back into a spirit after resurrection. This sounds more modalistic rather than trinitarian or perhaps a hybrid of some kind. Haven't yet given it too much thought.
The fact that the 4th-century church split apart after having just these sorts of conversations shows me a danger here. We are unfortunately too smart by half.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God, right?

Do you see my point? Our logic can lead us into perilous waters.

What happens today is that we can know what Witness Lee or Calvin thought of such things, or what we think, or even what Augustine thought. But we don't know what Jesus thought, as we have no contemporary systematic breakdown of his thought-world. We can at best only approximate it. We do know that he believed he would go to Jerusalem, and be ill-treated, and killed, and on the third day rise (Mark 9:31).

And we know that we believe. We should not let our thought-worlds drive us apart. Lee was a master at this. "Divide and conquer" should have been the motto emblazoned at LSM. Pretty much all of his teachings were levers, designed to pry us apart. Just look at the fruit and you should recognize the tree.
04-27-2018 02:22 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Drake, I know that Satan can possess an individual because we see Him enter Judas and the Lord cast him out of another, yes?

What I don't believe is his ability to indwell all persons in their flesh, because that gives him omniprescence. Only our God has that quality.
Right.

That’s ok. Wanted to understand what you believed. Just to close the loop many in this forum subscribe to Nigel Tomes’ viewpoint that Satan entering Judas was a rare if not one time event.

That matters neither here or there.

Drake
04-27-2018 02:11 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Ok so just to be clear, the LC believes that Jesus Christ is in a resurrected and glorified body right now in heaven?
Yes. Of course.
04-26-2018 10:41 PM
Kevin
Re: Now's good

As for me, I do not buy this kind of teaching. That is pretty weird stuff. I would not even waste time arguing against it. It is simply that there is not a shred of Scripture to support this contention. Unconverted sinners are clearly voluntarily under Satan's sway, but that does not mean that Satan is Sin or that he indwells believers.
04-26-2018 10:30 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
and the Lord cast him out of another, yes?
byHismercy, did Jesus cast Satan himself out of someone? Are you maybe referring to the women in the synogogue bound by Satan for 18 years? If so it reads as if Jesus freed her from the bonds of Satan, bonds being sin, but I don't take that she was possessed by Satan himself if that's the story you are referring to.
04-26-2018 10:12 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
inHismercy,

Please explain how Satan dwells in some people as stated above.

Thanks
Drake
Drake, I know that Satan can possess an individual because we see Him enter Judas and the Lord cast him out of another, yes?

What I don't believe is his ability to indwell all persons in their flesh, because that gives him omniprescence. Only our God has that quality.
04-26-2018 10:05 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post

There is a man in the glory with a resurrected glorified body.

Ok so just to be clear, the LC believes that Jesus Christ is in a resurrected and glorified body right now in heaven?
04-26-2018 09:55 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
It is trinitarian except for this statement:

"The local churches believe that Jesus Christ, after being buried for three days, resurrected from the dead physically and spiritually and that, in resurrection, He has become the life-giving Spirit to impart Himself into us as our life and our everything"

So do you believe that, in Heaven, Jesus is a spirit? If so, then you are implying that Jesus lost all of his physical attributes and essentially changed modes after resurrection. I don't believe Orthodoxy teaches this point. It seems modalist in nature. That's why I say it seems like maybe a hybrid of both.
Jo,

Please review Evangelicals explanation of modalism to better understand what it is.

There is a man in the glory with a resurrected glorified body. The last Adam became a life giving spirit and it is the spirit of the resurrected and glorified Jesus who regenerates our spirit when we believe into Him.

That is not modalism or a hybrid.

Research these matters according to the scriptures and draw your own conclusions. You have to rightly divide the scriptures and see it for yourself under His shining.

Drake
04-26-2018 09:27 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Read it again.

The Father, Son, and Spirit co-existed from eternity to eternity.

That is the most orthodox Trinity point of view.

Drake

It is trinitarian except for this statement:

"The local churches believe that Jesus Christ, after being buried for three days, resurrected from the dead physically and spiritually and that, in resurrection, He has become the life-giving Spirit to impart Himself into us as our life and our everything"

So do you believe that, in Heaven, Jesus is a spirit? If so, then you are implying that Jesus lost all of his physical attributes and essentially changed modes after resurrection. I don't believe Orthodoxy teaches this point. It seems modalist in nature. That's why I say it seems like maybe a hybrid of both.
04-26-2018 09:26 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
You believe God, who is spirit, became a human being (Jesus) and then Jesus turned back into a spirit after resurrection. This sounds more modalistic rather than trinitarian or perhaps a hybrid of some kind. Haven't yet given it too much thought.

Modalism does not believe in eternal coexistence which is that all three persons exist at the same time, from eternity. That's the key difference and in fact the only real difference between modalism and Trinitarianism - modalism does not believe that Christ existed before he was born.

Trinitarians do believe that God became a man, Jesus Christ, just as modalists do, but the difference is the eternal coexistence.
04-26-2018 09:13 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
You believe God, who is spirit, became a human being (Jesus) and then Jesus turned back into a spirit after resurrection. This sounds more modalistic rather than trinitarian or perhaps a hybrid of some kind. Haven't yet given it too much thought.
Read it again.

The Father, Son, and Spirit co-existed from eternity to eternity.

That is the most orthodox Trinity point of view.

Drake
04-26-2018 09:09 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
How did you get that from the statement of belief?

Please explain.

Drake
Your statement of belief states that God (who is spirit) became a human being (Jesus) and then Jesus turned back into a spirit after resurrection. This sounds more modalistic rather than trinitarian or perhaps a hybrid of some kind. Haven't yet given it too much thought.
04-26-2018 09:04 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Ok, thank you for that. So it appears you are modalist rather than trinitarian, correct?
How did you get that from the statement of belief?

“The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).

Please explain.

Drake
04-26-2018 08:59 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
One thing comes to mind is....Jesus was faithful to cast out demons and Satan when he encountered poor souls afflicted by their possession.
inHismercy,

Please explain how Satan dwells in some people as stated above.

Thanks
Drake
04-26-2018 08:56 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
[Sorry. Off topic] Have to say I am really disappointed. Not long ago you said everyone here is having scriptural conversation. Then Evangelical and you started establishing/discounting credibility based on what PhD degree someone has.

Following your pattern of speech, can I say "WL has no degree in anything. Maybe he is really great at nothing" ?

Then I wrote:

"An informed opinion is more worthy than an uninformed one."

To which Drake agreed. Witness Lee's opinion was obviously informed, as he wrote extensively on many subjects, even though he did not attend theological school, he was obviously informed through self-learning.

But I realize that folks on here don't appreciate quotes from academia, or perhaps don't know the difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one. Informed opinions come about through learning and this is what academia is for.
04-26-2018 08:51 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Jo S,

The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).


Full statement here: https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/our-beliefs/

Drake
Ok, thank you for that. So it appears you are modalist rather than trinitarian, correct?
04-26-2018 08:50 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi Drake,
Your question posed makes for a very logical proof to your stance. But, I will never be able to get past the fact that Gods word NEVER tells us "sin is Satan in virtual personification in our flesh."

Only Witness Lee. And Lees word is not higher than Gods divine revelation in His word, in fact, it is dung. You should flush it down.
In all sincerity,
byHismercy
The Bible never says that Lucifer is Satan, either.

Question: "Is Lucifer Satan? Does the fall of Lucifer describe Satan?"

Answer: There is no verse in the Bible that says, “Lucifer is Satan,” but an examination of several passages reveals that Lucifer can be none other than Satan.


https://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifer-Satan.html
04-26-2018 08:41 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
Just curious. Is there anyone here that rejects the Trinity doctrine? And is the LC as a whole primarily Trinitarian? Sorry to get off topic.
Jo S,

The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).


Full statement here: https://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/our-beliefs/

Drake
04-26-2018 08:00 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
The Bible doesn’t explicitly say everything. For instance, it doesn’t explicitly use terms Trinity or Triune to express the Godhead. Nevertheless, the fact is there.

Just curious. Is there anyone here that rejects the Trinity doctrine? And is the LC as a whole primarily Trinitarian? Sorry to get off topic.
04-26-2018 07:54 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
byHismercy

The Bible doesn’t explicitly say everything. For instance, it doesn’t explicitly use terms Trinity or Triune to express the Godhead. Nevertheless, the fact is there. We examine all the scripture and using our limited understanding we articulate what we see of the divine things in the language we understand and speak. Same with Brother Lee and Nee. Brother Lees word is not higher than the divine revelation in His word but to many of us he had a point of view that encompassed the divine revelation in His word with the broadest inclusiveness. However, even that is insufficient in and of itself. It is the vision revealed to me personally that captured me for His recovery. That vision was facilitated by the Lord through a ministry of life to the extent that even if Brother Lee would have departed from it I wouldn’t.

So, if it all the same to you, I’ll not count my experience of Christ through this ministry as dung. Rather, it has been my life changer in Christ for four decades that I could not deny nor will I flush it down.

Thanks
Drake
I respect that. I would never believe your experiences and revelations of Christ to be dung.
04-26-2018 07:49 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi Drake,
Your question posed makes for a very logical proof to your stance. But, I will never be able to get past the fact that Gods word NEVER tells us "sin is Satan in virtual personification in our flesh."

Only Witness Lee. And Lees word is not higher than Gods divine revelation in His word, in fact, it is dung. You should flush it down.
In all sincerity,
byHismercy
byHismercy

The Bible doesn’t explicitly say everything. For instance, it doesn’t explicitly use terms Trinity or Triune to express the Godhead. Nevertheless, the fact is there. We examine all the scripture and using our limited understanding we articulate what we see of the divine things in the language we understand and speak. Same with Brother Lee and Nee. Brother Lees word is not higher than the divine revelation in His word but to many of us he had a point of view that encompassed the divine revelation in His word with the broadest inclusiveness. However, even that is insufficient in and of itself. It is the vision revealed to me personally that captured me for His recovery. That vision was facilitated by the Lord through a ministry of life to the extent that even if Brother Lee would have departed from it I wouldn’t.

So, if it all the same to you, I’ll not count my experience of Christ through this ministry as dung. Rather, it has been my life changer in Christ for four decades that I could not deny nor will I “flush it down”.

Thanks
Drake
04-26-2018 07:39 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

P.S. every mama is a bear.
04-26-2018 07:36 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
I believe you. And I also believe when it comes to those youngins you’re a mama bear!

Drake

Yep. I am a mere human...the Lord is faithful to restrain me...
I have a word for us, brothers...

Jeremiah 17:9 Crooked is the heart above all things, And it is incurable--who doth know it?
That's from Youngs Literal Translation.
04-26-2018 07:22 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Its ok, I declare my chldren safe in Christ Jesus!
I believe you. And I also believe when it comes to those youngins you’re a mama bear!

Drake
04-26-2018 07:09 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Huh? Don’t be ridiculous. Don’t know what you were thinking but I had a bully in mind.

I know it’s tough medicine.
Its ok, I declare my chldren safe in Christ Jesus! And of course the word is able to divide marrow from bone...if you ask Him to divide the truth from the lie in you, He is able and willing!
04-26-2018 07:04 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

One thing comes to mind is....Jesus was faithful to cast out demons and Satan when he encountered poor souls afflicted by their possession. Many people still today are possessed, and if they choose to be set free, we ministers of Christ can cast them out in Jesus' name, by the power of the Holy Spirit and they can be set free.

Just ask this of your stance on this matter....would Jesus really come down and make His abode in us.....and merely tolerate Satans' presence throughout a human lifetime??

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever! I have faith that when a person believes into Jesus as the son of God, receives the Holy Spirit, and is born again....even if that person were afflicted with demonic or Satanic possession....before or after being regenerated....I believe Jesus would assuredly lead that person into an awareness of said unclean spirit....and lead them to help ridding themselves of it. Jesus never left a person alone, possessed, if they sought freedom!!!! Right? Anyone else agree with this thought?

His compassion for us is too great. He would not abide with Satan. This is the most disgusting aberration from Gods word. Please, brothers Drake, Evangelical....consider carefully...I am the least of the least of sisters.....but I HAVE the Spirit of God indwelling me.
04-26-2018 06:50 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ByHismercy,

You are kidding yourself if you think your interpretation is inerrant and mine is altering Gods Word. However, you are welcome to establish your beliefs using Gods Word in this discussion.

You say “sin is a thing”. Therefore, please explain how that “thing” took opportunity, deceived Paul, and slew him.

If your son or daughter came home and complained to you that s/he had been taken advantage of, tricked in some way, then deceived, and beat up would you say...

What did this terrible thing to you?”

Or

Who did this terrible thing to you?”

Of course, you would want to know who.

Drake
Hi Drake,
Your question posed makes for a very logical proof to your stance. But, I will never be able to get past the fact that Gods word NEVER tells us "sin is Satan in virtual personification in our flesh."

Only Witness Lee. And Lees word is not higher than Gods divine revelation in His word, in fact, it is dung. You should flush it down.
In all sincerity,
byHismercy
04-26-2018 06:47 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
[Off topic... again]This is a terrible analogy to say. Did you just want to prove "Satan" is in you?
Huh? Don’t be ridiculous. Don’t know what you were thinking but I had a bully in mind.

I know it’s tough medicine.
04-26-2018 06:39 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Following your pattern of speech, can I say "WL has no degree in anything. Maybe he is really great at nothing" ?
You would be late to that party.

Drake
04-26-2018 06:27 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ByHismercy,

You are kidding yourself if you think your interpretation is inerrant and mine is altering Gods Word. However, you are welcome to establish your beliefs using Gods Word in this discussion.

You say “sin is a thing”. Therefore, please explain how that “thing” took opportunity, deceived Paul, and slew him.

If your son or daughter came home and complained to you that s/he had been taken advantage of, tricked in some way, then deceived, and beat up would you say...

What did this terrible thing to you?”

Or

Who did this terrible thing to you?”

Of course, you would want to know who.

Drake
[Off topic... again]This is a terrible analogy to say. Did you just want to prove "Satan" is in you?
04-26-2018 06:16 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Dr Tomes has a degree in economics. Maybe he is really great at economics. I don’t know. I do know that in this op-ed about what Brother Lee taught concerning Satan and sin he missed the boat badly. His methodology leads him to leave out important details... like ‘Satan as sin”.

I like that you bring in outside credible viewpoints like Dr. Burrows. Almost every forum participant has expressed indignation that Brother Lee did not surround himself with theologians to balance his ideas. That is water under the bridge but it is ironic that some participants have objected to your bringing in those outside viewpoints. Anyway, Nigel Tomes is entitled to his opinion and I am sure he is a nice brother but he is no more informed about biblical truths than anyone in this forum. Sometimes he acts less informed.

Drake
[Sorry. Off topic] Have to say I am really disappointed. Not long ago you said everyone here is having scriptural conversation. Then Evangelical and you started establishing/discounting credibility based on what PhD degree someone has.

Following your pattern of speech, can I say "WL has no degree in anything. Maybe he is really great at nothing" ?
04-26-2018 05:54 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Would you say that Brother Lee did not believe in the independent sinful self? (either independent of God, or satan). To me, Lee's teaching about every person being a "miniature Garden of Eden" suggests this - that there is no real escaping God or satan, they are always "in the Garden". This seems to be the focus of Dr Burrowes work, studying how beliefs changed from the early church period to the time of Augustine and beyond regarding the independent self. The matter of interpreting Paul's words in Romans regarding the flesh and sin, is part of that work.

I believe people are shocked regarding the teaching of satan in the flesh because we don't think of ourselves as being influenced by anyone or anything other than our selves. We think that our free will and free mind is "only us". This sort of independent thinking is particularly ingrained into us in the West. But to balance this teaching about satan in the flesh, is the teaching that God is in our spirit, and this balances things out. As Dr Burrowes implies, we retain free will, however we are not completely independent from the good and evil influences within us.

There's always a battle - a Christian is never in a place where he or she can let down their guard. A person is never in a place where "me and my sin" can rest a little while , while we choose whether we should serve God or the devil. All our thoughts must be checked as either from the devil or from God -" take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" 2 Cor 10:5.
Right

A believer is especially complicated. God in our spirit. Satan as sin in our flesh and the continual battle is for the soul...... God desires to have every thought of ours captured by Christ, to love God with our whole heart, to choose God. That is, full salvation.

I believe this is what Brother Lee taught about that.

Drake
04-26-2018 05:32 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah View Post
1Cor 2:8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory:

However, this verse does not say that Satan could have stopped the plan of redemption, you may want to rethink that part.
I accept that. Yes, that is the verse I was trying to recall.

Thanks
Drake
04-26-2018 05:30 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Sin is a thing.....

Brother, how can you justify altering Gods' word?!
ByHismercy,

You are kidding yourself if you think your interpretation is inerrant and mine is altering Gods Word. However, you are welcome to establish your beliefs using Gods Word in this discussion.

You say “sin is a thing”. Therefore, please explain how that “thing” took opportunity, deceived Paul, and slew him.

If your son or daughter came home and complained to you that s/he had been taken advantage of, tricked in some way, then deceived, and beat up would you say...

What did this terrible thing to you?”

Or

Who did this terrible thing to you?”

Of course, you would want to know who.

Drake
04-26-2018 05:23 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB

Sure. I’ll even color it a little.

I believe Satan indwells our flesh in the virtual personified form of sin. The book of Romans makes it very clear that sin is and behaves like a person not a non sentient force like gravity. I do not believe that the archangel Lucifer indwells our flesh but do believe that he entered Judas and will do so again with AntiChrist. I also believe that we have inherited the sin nature from Adam’s fall and that nature is depicted as serpentine in the incident of the brass serpent. Unlike every other man, the Lord Jesus did not have the serpentine nature in dwelling His flesh, only the form as a man so He is the brass serpent. I believe Peter was expressing the mind of Satan to resist the way of the cross as part of the sin nature within him.

There is no difference between what I believe and what brother Lee taught.

Drake
Couple of questions:

1. Do you believe the use of "Satan" to refer to the person of Lucifer, or generically to an adversary of the Lord, or would you interpret it differently depending on the context?

2. Was Satan crucified on the cross? If so, how since he didn't indwell Jesus flesh?

3. Judas is a type of the false prophet, not the antichrist. Why is it that Satan enters Judas here, but the antichrist at the end of the age?

4. You have quoted numerous verses concerning the personification of sin, equating it with an evil indwelling presence (though apparently not Satan). What is the difference between that personified sin and "the sin nature"?

5. In Matthew 8 the demons could not enter into the swine without the Lord's permission. Can we also assume that Satan could not enter into Judas without the Lord's permission?

6. If you agree that Satan entered Judas with the Lord's permission, can you explain what a person would do that would result in the Lord permitting Satan to enter them?
04-26-2018 05:16 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Dr Tomes has a degree in economics. Maybe he is really great at economics. I don’t know. I do know that in this op-ed about what Brother Lee taught concerning Satan and sin he missed the boat badly. His methodology leads him to leave out important details... like ‘Satan as sin”.

I like that you bring in outside credible viewpoints like Dr. Burrows. Almost every forum participant has expressed indignation that Brother Lee did not surround himself with theologians to balance his ideas. That is water under the bridge but it is ironic that some participants have objected to your bringing in those outside viewpoints. Anyway, Nigel Tomes is entitled to his opinion and I am sure he is a nice brother but he is no more informed about biblical truths than anyone in this forum. Sometimes he acts less informed.

Drake
Would you say that Brother Lee did not believe in the independent sinful self? (either independent of God, or satan). To me, Lee's teaching about every person being a "miniature Garden of Eden" suggests this - that there is no real escaping God or satan, they are always "in the Garden". This seems to be the focus of Dr Burrowes work, studying how beliefs changed from the early church period to the time of Augustine and beyond regarding the independent self. The matter of interpreting Paul's words in Romans regarding the flesh and sin, is part of that work.

I believe people are shocked regarding the teaching of satan in the flesh because we don't think of ourselves as being influenced by anyone or anything other than our selves. We think that our free will and free mind is "only us". This sort of independent thinking is particularly ingrained into us in the West. But to balance this teaching about satan in the flesh, is the teaching that God is in our spirit, and this balances things out. As Dr Burrowes implies, we retain free will, however we are not completely independent from the good and evil influences within us.

There's always a battle - a Christian is never in a place where he or she can let down their guard. A person is never in a place where "me and my sin" can rest a little while , while we choose whether we should serve God or the devil. All our thoughts must be checked as either from the devil or from God -" take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" 2 Cor 10:5.
04-26-2018 05:11 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Dr Tomes has nothing on Dr Burrowes, a man who has no relationship to Nee or Lee or the Recovery, who obtained his doctoral degree showing in his thesis that Western Christianity in general has been deceived by "saint" Augustine to believe that man has an independent sinful self which is independent of Satan.

If Burrowes is correct which is highly likely given that he has done years of research and obtained his doctorate, then it is highly likely that the real deceived ones are those propagating Augustines theology.

Lee did not have a doctorate but it is remarkable that what Lee found had been incorrectly believed in modern Chrisrianity since Augustine, should now be validated by the work of Dr Burrowes and colleagues.
Dr Tomes has a degree in economics. Maybe he is really great at economics. I don’t know. I do know that in this op-ed about what Brother Lee taught concerning Satan and sin he missed the boat badly. His methodology leads him to leave out important details... like ‘Satan as sin”.

I like that you bring in outside credible viewpoints like Dr. Burrows. Almost every forum participant has expressed indignation that Brother Lee did not surround himself with theologians to balance his ideas. That is water under the bridge but it is ironic that some participants have objected to your bringing in those outside viewpoints. Anyway, Nigel Tomes is entitled to his opinion and I am sure he is a nice brother but he is no more informed about biblical truths than anyone in this forum. Sometimes he acts less informed.

Drake
04-26-2018 05:10 PM
ZNPaaneah
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
If Satan knew of the plan of redemption he didn't need to stop it by using Peter... he could have stopped it by calling the Romans off or changing the minds of the chief priest so they never prosecuted Him. There is a verse that says something to the effect of "if the powers knew that the Lord was going to the cross..." . Well, I cannot recall it.
1Cor 2:8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory:

However, this verse does not say that Satan could have stopped the plan of redemption, you may want to rethink that part.
04-26-2018 05:06 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
My question would be this; if Satan is sin how is it possible that Lucifer sinned? Was Satan before Lucifer? Scripture teaches that Lucifer became Satan after he himself sinned against God.
This is such an excellent question....
04-26-2018 05:03 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Ohio,

That is how Dr. Tomes characterized what Brother Lee taught. He conveniently dismisses Brother Lee's qualifying statements such as :

"..the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.

"Satan as sin is in our flesh."

"As" has meaning.

preposition: as
1. used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has.
"he got a job as a cook"
synonyms: like, in the guise of, so as to appear to be
"he was dressed as a policeman"
in the role of, being, acting as
"I'm speaking to you as your friend"


It is easier for Dr. Tomes to craft an argument and gain support from dissenters by polarizing the points Brother Lee made rather than to deal with the intended meaning as Brother Lee delivered them. He just repeats old rhetoric to rally the base. And though it works for the base, it's shoddy workmanship nevertheless.

Yet, you have yet to offer your own explanation about what sin is and how it looks for opportunity to deceive you and slay you. If you do not agree that sin is the virtual personification of Satan then what is sin? Who is the deceiver? Who roams the earth seeking whom he may devour? It is Satan. Sin deceives and slays. Satan deceives and slays. Is sin the actual fallen archangel? No. Is sin the virtual personification of the fallen archangel. Yes! What is the character of our fallen nature since the moment sin entered through disobedience? It is serpentine.

Scriptures are clear. Brother Lee was clear. It is Dr. Tomes and his followers who polarize Brother Lee's teaching.

Drake
Drake, what is the"virtual personification" of Satan??? I cannot even wrap my brain around what you brothers mean!! Sin is a thing....Satan is a fallen angel....I propose there is actually no such entity as a "virtual personification" of a person. I mean, there are unclean spirits, demons, Satan himself, yes. But a virtual personification???

1John 4:3
This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

Here, the Lord says twice that this spirit is in the world. I know earlier you mentioned you believe Satan would enter the antichrist.

Brother, how can you justify altering Gods' word?!
04-26-2018 04:16 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Dr Tomes has nothing on Dr Burrowes, a man who has no relationship to Nee or Lee or the Recovery, who obtained his doctoral degree showing in his thesis that Western Christianity in general has been deceived by "saint" Augustine to believe that man has an independent sinful self which is independent of Satan.

If Burrowes is correct which is highly likely given that he has done years of research and obtained his doctorate, then it is highly likely that the real deceived ones are those propagating Augustines theology.

Lee did not have a doctorate but it is remarkable that what Lee found had been incorrectly believed in modern Chrisrianity since Augustine, should now be validated by the work of Dr Burrowes and colleagues.
04-26-2018 04:06 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
This word substitution may sound "spiritual" to you, but not to me.

Perhaps this explains one of the reasons why TLR is so short of love.

Why is it that those in TLR only seem to love their own?

Jesus said we should love our enemies and love those who cannot repay us, but those in TLR only love those who come to their meetings. Just ask byHisMercy.

Like Jesus says, you have become no different from the Gentile sinners.

When so many testify on this forum that there is little love in TLR, perhaps the reality is that there is very little God in TLR. Go back and read the tragic story of byHismercy's excommunication, before you start playing these word games with us.

.
I am not playing word games. I pointed to the Greek version of the Scripture for a more accurate interpretation. You posted something that was technically incorrect and could lead someone astray to think that 1Cor 13 does not mean Gods love. It is so obvious that it really shows how poor your biblical knowledge is. Everyone from John Piper to Billy Graham knows it refers to Gods love. Maybe it is that you were only referring to the literal English because it does not have the word 'God' in there. "1 cor 13 does not refer to Gods love because the word God is absent".
04-26-2018 11:01 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
You have become nothing more than a shill for LSM.

And these quotes in your post are just dishonest. What about the ones which both a little brother and I posted the other day. I'll provide some of Lee's quotes below since your memory appears to be shot:[INDENT][I][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]"The body is something satanic and devilish because Satan dwells in this body. All the lusts are in this corrupted body, which is called the flesh. The Word reveals that the lust is “the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). The flesh is the corrupted body full of lusts and indwelt by Satan. Now you see that the fall of man was not just a matter of man committing something against God but of man receiving Satan into his body. Satan, from the time of the fall, dwells in man. This is what happened when man partook of the second tree.

We must apply the cross to our soul because Satan dwells in our flesh and seeks to control our soul. [B]Our soul has been saturated with Satan himself. Our mind, will, emotion, self, soul-life, and relationship with the world have been saturated and permeated with Satan.

Sin itself, according to the Bible's revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him...One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you…Sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan [B]as sin.”
Ohio,

Those quotes above are relevant..... when you include the how..... "Satan as sin" .... as Brother Lee taught then you understand how he meant it.

Look at your last quote above. Step out of your subjective discontent and read it. What does it say about inside and outside?

Satan outside of you is not sin. Satan in you is sin.

That is what he taught even using your own selective quotes.

Drake
04-26-2018 10:55 AM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Is sin the actual fallen archangel? No. Is sin the virtual personification of the fallen archangel. Yes! What is the character of our fallen nature since the moment sin entered through disobedience? It is serpentine.

Scriptures are clear. Brother Lee was clear. It is Dr. Tomes and his followers who polarize Brother Lee's teaching.

Drake
My question would be this; if Satan is sin how is it possible that Lucifer sinned? Was Satan before Lucifer? Scripture teaches that Lucifer became Satan after he himself sinned against God.

Sin is what caused Lucifer's character or nature and subsequently his name to change.

Personification is the "embodiment" of a quality. Any certain quality needs a person for that person to be considered the personification of that quality. It could be said that Satan is the personification of sin rather than what you've stated because sin was not embodied before Satan. You're making sin a person and Satan a quality and that's completely backwards in logic and scripture.

This is also exactly the error Mr. Lee committed in his teaching equating Satan to sin. This teaching is dangerous because it essentially makes people "Satan in the flesh" and it would be hard for anyone to love an embodiment of Satan. This only works to provoke contempt for our fellow man. Remember that our fight isn't againt people but principalities in high places.
04-26-2018 09:05 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
It is easier for Dr. Tomes to craft an argument and gain support from dissenters by polarizing the points Brother Lee made rather than to deal with the intended meaning as Brother Lee delivered them. He just repeats old rhetoric to rally the base. And though it works for the base, it's shoddy workmanship nevertheless.
You have become nothing more than a shill for LSM.

And these quotes in your post are just dishonest. What about the ones which both a little brother and I posted the other day. I'll provide some of Lee's quotes below since your memory appears to be shot:[INDENT][I][COLOR=purple][FONT=Verdana]"The body is something satanic and devilish because Satan dwells in this body. All the lusts are in this corrupted body, which is called the flesh. The Word reveals that the lust is “the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). The flesh is the corrupted body full of lusts and indwelt by Satan. Now you see that the fall of man was not just a matter of man committing something against God but of man receiving Satan into his body. Satan, from the time of the fall, dwells in man. This is what happened when man partook of the second tree.

We must apply the cross to our soul because Satan dwells in our flesh and seeks to control our soul. [B]Our soul has been saturated with Satan himself. Our mind, will, emotion, self, soul-life, and relationship with the world have been saturated and permeated with Satan.

Sin itself, according to the Bible's revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him...One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you…Sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.”
04-26-2018 08:21 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
Except for the fact that Lee taught that Satan literally dwelt in every one of us.
Ohio,

That is how Dr. Tomes characterized what Brother Lee taught. He conveniently dismisses Brother Lee's qualifying statements such as :

"..the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.

"Satan as sin is in our flesh."

"As" has meaning.

preposition: as
1. used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has.
"he got a job as a cook"
synonyms: like, in the guise of, so as to appear to be
"he was dressed as a policeman"
in the role of, being, acting as
"I'm speaking to you as your friend"


It is easier for Dr. Tomes to craft an argument and gain support from dissenters by polarizing the points Brother Lee made rather than to deal with the intended meaning as Brother Lee delivered them. He just repeats old rhetoric to rally the base. And though it works for the base, it's shoddy workmanship nevertheless.

Yet, you have yet to offer your own explanation about what sin is and how it looks for opportunity to deceive you and slay you. If you do not agree that sin is the virtual personification of Satan then what is sin? Who is the deceiver? Who roams the earth seeking whom he may devour? It is Satan. Sin deceives and slays. Satan deceives and slays. Is sin the actual fallen archangel? No. Is sin the virtual personification of the fallen archangel. Yes! What is the character of our fallen nature since the moment sin entered through disobedience? It is serpentine.

Scriptures are clear. Brother Lee was clear. It is Dr. Tomes and his followers who polarize Brother Lee's teaching.

Drake
04-26-2018 08:09 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
What is the difference between "virtual personified form" and "a person"? You seemed to use both to describe sin. ("in the virtual personified form of sin", "sin is ... a person"). Is this a subset of the person or the whole person of Satan?
It seems like in TLR virtual reality and real reality are indistinguishable.

Another thing I noticed about TLR -- while I was there, many of us were convinced by LSM that Christianity (i.e. the greater body of Christ) was our enemy. Once I left TLR, I discovered that every other Christian and church on the planet knew who the real enemy was -- not their brother or sister in another church -- but Satan, the adversary of God, the enemy we read about in the Bible. (So simple a child could figure it out.)
04-26-2018 08:06 AM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB

Sure. I’ll even color it a little.

I believe Satan indwells our flesh in the virtual personified form of sin. The book of Romans makes it very clear that sin is and behaves like a person not a non sentient force like gravity. I do not believe that the archangel Lucifer indwells our flesh but do believe that he entered Judas and will do so again with AntiChrist. I also believe that we have inherited the sin nature from Adam’s fall and that nature is depicted as serpentine in the incident of the brass serpent. Unlike every other man, the Lord Jesus did not have the serpentine nature in dwelling His flesh, only the form as a man so He is the brass serpent. I believe Peter was expressing the mind of Satan to resist the way of the cross as part of the sin nature within him.

There is no difference between what I believe and what brother Lee taught.

Drake
What is the difference between "virtual personified form" and "a person"? You seemed to use both to describe sin. ("in the virtual personified form of sin", "sin is ... a person"). Is this a subset of the person or the whole person of Satan?
04-26-2018 07:29 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB

Sure. I’ll even color it a little.

I believe Satan indwells our flesh in the virtual personified form of sin. The book of Romans makes it very clear that sin is and behaves like a person not a non sentient force like gravity. I do not believe that the archangel Lucifer indwells our flesh but do believe that he entered Judas and will do so again with AntiChrist. I also believe that we have inherited the sin nature from Adam’s fall and that nature is depicted as serpentine in the incident of the brass serpent. Unlike every other man, the Lord Jesus did not have the serpentine nature in dwelling His flesh, only the form as a man so He is the brass serpent. I believe Peter was expressing the mind of Satan to resist the way of the cross as part of the sin nature within him.

There is no difference between what I believe and what brother Lee taught.

Drake
Except for the fact that Lee taught that Satan literally dwelt in every one of us.
04-26-2018 07:12 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
An informed opinion is more worthy than an uninformed one.
Most certainly!
04-26-2018 06:22 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
May I know then what you believe on the topic of Satan indwelling flesh? Any difference from what WL taught?
ALB

Sure. I’ll even color it a little.

I believe Satan indwells our flesh in the virtual personified form of sin. The book of Romans makes it very clear that sin is and behaves like a person not a non sentient force like gravity. I do not believe that the archangel Lucifer indwells our flesh but do believe that he entered Judas and will do so again with AntiChrist. I also believe that we have inherited the sin nature from Adam’s fall and that nature is depicted as serpentine in the incident of the brass serpent. Unlike every other man, the Lord Jesus did not have the serpentine nature in dwelling His flesh, only the form as a man so He is the brass serpent. I believe Peter was expressing the mind of Satan to resist the way of the cross as part of the sin nature within him.

There is no difference between what I believe and what brother Lee taught.

Drake
04-26-2018 01:00 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
One can replace the word love in 1 Cor 13 with God
This word substitution may sound "spiritual" to you, but not to me.

Perhaps this explains one of the reasons why TLR is so short of love.

Why is it that those in TLR only seem to love their own?

Jesus said we should love our enemies and love those who cannot repay us, but those in TLR only love those who come to their meetings. Just ask byHisMercy.

Like Jesus says, you have become no different from the Gentile sinners.

When so many testify on this forum that there is little love in TLR, perhaps the reality is that there is very little God in TLR. Go back and read the tragic story of byHismercy's excommunication, before you start playing these word games with us.

.
04-25-2018 09:46 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Just because Evangelical disagrees with you does not mean he is not having a scriptural discussion and you are. That gets stated in this forum now and again as if ones opinion from reading the Bible is more worthy than someone else’s.
I understand what you mean. But I don't quite understand why things simple as a word not always having the same meaning can cause so much disagreement. Anyway, I don't intend to further continue that discussion. Enough has been said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
On our last chat, I had nothing more to contribute. What you believe and why is clear.
May I know then what you believe on the topic of Satan indwelling flesh? Any difference from what WL taught?
04-25-2018 09:45 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB,

Just because Evangelical disagrees with you does not mean he is not having a scriptural discussion and you are. That gets stated in this forum now and again as if ones opinion from reading the Bible is more worthy than someone else’s.

On our last chat, I had nothing more to contribute. What you believe and why is clear.

Thanks
Drake
An informed opinion is more worthy than an uninformed one.
04-25-2018 09:38 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
I certainly hope we are having a scriptural conversation, but couldn't help wondering given Evangelical's response.

BTW, hope my discussion with Evangelical hasn't interrupted the discussion with you. Feel free to continue with what we were discussing previously.

Apologies to byHismercy too. Hope I didn't hijack your thread too far away.
Please, hijack away. Bedtime calls us here. But it is not a person.
04-25-2018 09:33 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
I certainly hope we are having a scriptural conversation, but couldn't help wondering given Evangelical's response.

BTW, hope my discussion with Evangelical hasn't interrupted the discussion with you. Feel free to continue with what we were discussing previously.

Apologies to byHismercy too. Hope I didn't hijack your thread too far away.
ALB,

Just because Evangelical disagrees with you does not mean he is not having a scriptural discussion and you are. That gets stated in this forum now and again as if ones opinion from reading the Bible is more worthy than someone else’s.

On our last chat, I had nothing more to contribute. What you believe and why is clear.

Thanks
Drake
04-25-2018 09:21 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Dear brother, I really don't know what to do with you. After pointing out all the scripture references showing the Greek word agape does not always mean God's love, you still insist. Since when gotquestions.org became a more authoritative source of truth than the scripture?
I already agreed with you that it does not always mean God's love and we have already established that the word agape in 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love. So "agape does not always mean..you still insist" is not relevant, is it? In 1 Cor 13, the word agape, always means, God's love. Paul must have thought it obvious to any Greek reader that he was referring to God's love, because he used the word agape. This is because the Greek word agape was hardly ever used in Greek-speaking societies but in the New Testament it is used over 300 times. So it would be unlikely for a Greek speaker to wrongly interpret the word 'agape' as a natural kind of human love.

I think it is correct to say:

There is no literal reference to God's love in the English translation of 1 Cor 13.
There is literal reference to God's love in the Greek of 1 Cor 13 because of the words special meaning and special use by Paul.

Still, it does not bode well for anyone to be arguing from the English translation while being ignorant of the Greek because they miss the meaning completely: the intention of Paul in 1 Cor 13 was to apply God's agape love to the situation at hand, and not to provide a generic definition of natural human love.



Gotquestions.org has some credentials:


All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process. He possesses a Bachelor's degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary University and a Master's degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO).



Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Paul also said in Rom 8 nothing can separate us from God's love. So if love is the person of God, and we cannot be separated from it, so we are person of Love, and then we are the person of God?
A person may say "Nothing can separate us from God's love" or "Nothing can separate us from God", because "God is love".
04-25-2018 09:07 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
ALB,

Don’t kid yourself. Everyone here is having a scriptural conversation.

Drake
I certainly hope we are having a scriptural conversation, but couldn't help wondering given Evangelical's response.

BTW, hope my discussion with Evangelical hasn't interrupted the discussion with you. Feel free to continue with what we were discussing previously.

Apologies to byHismercy too. Hope I didn't hijack your thread too far away.
04-25-2018 09:06 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Since when gotquestions.org became a more authoritative source of truth than the scripture?:
ALB,

Don’t kid yourself. Everyone here is having a scriptural conversation.

Drake
04-25-2018 08:59 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Or we could say, in English, Ohio is correct. In Greek however, Ohio is wrong because there are different words for love and the meaning should be apparent.
Dear brother, I really don't know what to do with you. After pointing out all the scripture references showing the Greek word agape does not always mean God's love, you still insist. Since when gotquestions.org became a more authoritative source of truth than the scripture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
But whether or not 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love is really not the point. The point is - can God's love be separated from God's person? I would say no because Scripture says "God is love", indicating that love is not just something God does, but something God is.
Paul also said in Rom 8 nothing can separate us from God's love. So if love is the person of God, and we cannot be separated from it, so we are person of Love, and then we are the person of God?
04-25-2018 08:47 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Here comes the infamous LC-style terminology twisting again.

If Ohio means there is no literal reference to God's love in 1 Cor 13, then he is not wrong. (Sorry, may be I am doing the word play I learned from LC too. I'd better leave it to Ohio himself to comment what he truly meant.)
Or we could say, in English, Ohio is correct. In Greek however, Ohio is wrong because there are different words for love and the meaning should be apparent.

But whether or not 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love is really not the point. The point is - can God's love be separated from God's person? I would say no because Scripture says "God is love", indicating that love is not just something God does, but something God is.
04-25-2018 08:36 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Technically not a mistake, because it does mean God's love. It is often used to describe God's love, but can be used in a negative context. Still, given that the word is not used negatively in 1 Cor 13, I don't really see the relevance of your additional information.

So based on the part highlighted in bold which you wrote, you probably agree with me that Ohio is wrong when he said:

" there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13".
Here comes the infamous LC-style terminology twisting again.

If Ohio means there is no literal reference to God's love in 1 Cor 13, then he is not wrong. (Sorry, may be I am doing the word play I learned from LC too. I'd better leave it to Ohio himself to comment what he truly meant.)
04-25-2018 08:22 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Don't twist what I said. I was just pointing out your mistake saying "apape" means God's love. The verses I referred to prove it. 1 Cor 13 is talking about God's love. But not because of "agape" but the whole context. The "person" is not in the "agape" but the "God's" in the context. We simply know the kind of love mentioned by Paul there could not come from anyone else but God.
Technically not a mistake, because it does mean God's love. It is often used to describe God's love, but can be used in a negative context. Still, given that the word is not used negatively in 1 Cor 13, I don't really see the relevance of your additional information.

So based on the part highlighted in bold which you wrote, you probably agree with me that Ohio is wrong when he said:

" there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13".
04-25-2018 08:13 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I'm more interested in what it means in 1 Cor 13.
I am not surprised, many people are more interested in what they want to see instead of what God wants them to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Outside of the New Testament, the word agape is used in a variety of contexts, but in the New Testament it takes on a distinct meaning. Agape is used to describe the love that is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). God does not merely love; He is love itself.

https://www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html

It is interesting that you are disputing fairly standard interpretations of 1 Cor 13 to say that it does not mean God's love. I find that people's knowledge of the Bible on this forum, in general, is poor. So poor in fact, that it suits many to deny even what is commonly believed in Christianity.
Don't twist what I said. I was just pointing out your mistake saying "apape" means God's love. The verses I referred to prove it.

1 Cor 13 is talking about God's love. Not because of "agape" but the whole context. The "person" is not in the "agape" but the "God's" in the context. We simply know the kind of love mentioned by Paul there could not come from anyone else but God.
04-25-2018 08:02 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
I would suggest you to check the use of agape in Luke 6:32, John 3:19, John 12:43, 2 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:15, 1 John 2:15.

You will then find agape doesn't always mean god's love.
I'm more interested in what it means in 1 Cor 13.

Outside of the New Testament, the word agape is used in a variety of contexts, but in the New Testament it takes on a distinct meaning. Agape is used to describe the love that is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). God does not merely love; He is love itself.

https://www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html

It is interesting that you are disputing fairly standard interpretations of 1 Cor 13 to say that it does not mean God's love. I find that people's knowledge of the Bible on this forum, in general, is poor. So poor in fact, that it suits many to deny even what is commonly believed in Christianity, so that I don't even have to "defend Lee", rather, simply quote what is stated on many evangelical websites such as gotquestions.org.
04-25-2018 07:42 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
That depends on the context and why we may need further clarification. I know that 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love because the word love in 1 Cor 13 is the word ἀγάπη agape which is God's unconditional love.

So we may say "God's love is patient.. God's love is kind". etc.

In 1 Cor 13 for example, it only says love, but that this refers to God's love is known because it uses the word 'agape'.

So Ohio who said "But there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13" is clearly wrong since it uses the word 'agape'.

Now God's love and God himself are hard to separate. If we could separate them as you are trying to do, then we could say "I experienced God's love but I did not experience God". This is like saying "his arm touched me but he did not touch me". This does not make much sense. And remember the woman who touched Jesus's garment, and Jesus said "who touched Me".
I would suggest you to check the use of agape in Luke 6:32, John 3:19, John 12:43, 2 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:15, 1 John 2:15.

You will then find agape doesn't always mean god's love.
04-25-2018 07:39 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi Drake, can you give me the verse reference to this matter of sin deceiving us? I can't find it...but, I think I understand what you are saying...how can sin deceive if it is not a person.....in the same way, God let love be personified in 1 Cor. 13....love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way, it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.......vs 13 So now faith, hope, and love ABIDE, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Here love is personified, yet we know it is NOT A PERSON, it is a fruit of the Spirit!
Love is personified because the word love in Greek used in 1 Cor 13 is "agape" which refers to God's love. The point of 1 Cor 13 is not to define love but to apply God's agape love to their situation.

Now if (God's) love is not a person, then why does 1 John 4:16 say if we dwell in His love we dwell in God?

1 John 4:16 ...God is love, and everyone who dwells in love dwells in God
04-25-2018 07:10 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
So when we say "love" alone, what (or who) is the person?
That depends on the context and why we may need further clarification. I know that 1 Cor 13 refers to God's love because the word love in 1 Cor 13 is the word ἀγάπη agape which is God's unconditional love.

So we may say "God's love is patient.. God's love is kind". etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Don't you see the person is not in the "love", but the "Your/Fred's/God's" before it?
In 1 Cor 13 for example, it only says love, but that this refers to God's love is known because it uses the word 'agape'.

So Ohio who said "But there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13" is clearly wrong since it uses the word 'agape'.

Now God's love and God himself are hard to separate. If we could separate them as you are trying to do, then we could say "I experienced God's love but I did not experience God". This is like saying "his arm touched me but he did not touch me". This does not make much sense. And remember the woman who touched Jesus's garment, and Jesus said "who touched Me".
04-25-2018 06:57 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Your love is your person
Fred's love is his person
God's love is His person.

When you love someone, that is you loving them, it is not you and this independent part of you called love.

etc
So when we say "love" alone, what (or who) is the person?

Don't you see the person is not in the "love", but the "Your/Fred's/God's" before it?
04-25-2018 06:53 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Then how could you deduce "Love" is a person?
Your love is your person
Fred's love is his person
God's love is His person.

When you love someone, that is you loving them, it is not you and this independent part of you called love.

etc
04-25-2018 06:51 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If it is "God's love is God" then yes. If it is "human love is God", then no. If we experience God's love then we experience God. The qualities of God cannot be separated from His person. Joy, love, peace etc, do not exist independently from a person.
Then how could you deduce "Love" is a person? What actually does this mean?
04-25-2018 06:48 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Is "God is Love" equivalent to "Love is God"?
If it is "God's love is God" then yes. If it is "human love is God", then no. If we experience God's love then we experience God. The qualities of God cannot be separated from His person. Joy, love, peace etc, do not exist independently from a person.
04-25-2018 06:47 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
But there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13. This is the "better way" recommended by the writer for the saints in Corinth. This is exhortation and definition for their love to one another.
One can replace the word love in 1 Cor 13 with God
04-25-2018 06:38 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Why is it personified? Maybe because "God is love", and God is a person.
Is "God is Love" equivalent to "Love is God"?
04-25-2018 06:37 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
I think the Lord really wanted us to know SIN IS SIN. Really interesting, don't you think? He knew there would be a great confusion, an erroneous teaching....He is so very clear....
Well said! If Satan is dwelling in our flesh, this is certainly an important piece of information Paul would write about.

I always feel that God's wisdom is so wonderful that His mistery is not hidden as obscured parts in the scripture. Some are just there in the plain text yet many people are not able to see. And they try to build complicated theological systems and terminology on top to make the truth more difficult to see.

WL was particularly fond of saying "X is a person" as if it represents some higher truth or knowledge. And this habit is inherited by many LCers. I just did a quick search...
Sin is a person, life is a person, grace is a person, justification is a person, our oneness is a person, the "place" in John 14 is a person, the sower is a person, the seed is a person, the kingdom is a person, ...

It is like when God wants to tell us what to do by being specific, WL would hold us back by pointing everything back to the "person" so that we don't do anything and just "eat the Lord". Ends up many became sayers than doers.
04-25-2018 06:07 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Why is it personified? Maybe because "God is love", and God is a person.
But there is no reference to God's love in this section of I Cor 13. This is the "better way" recommended by the writer for the saints in Corinth. This is exhortation and definition for their love to one another.
04-25-2018 05:54 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi Drake, can you give me the verse reference to this matter of sin deceiving us? I can't find it...but, I think I understand what you are saying...how can sin deceive if it is not a person.....in the same way, God let love be personified in 1 Cor. 13....love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way, it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.......vs 13 So now faith, hope, and love ABIDE, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Here love is personified, yet we know it is NOT A PERSON, it is a fruit of the Spirit!
Why is it personified? Maybe because "God is love", and God is a person.
04-25-2018 04:23 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Hi byHismercy,

Romans 7:11 "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me."

Sin took occasion, deceived, and slew Paul.

Sin has been pretty busy.

Drake
Ok thanks Drake, this is good. I am reading through this portion Rom 7. In vs 23 we see that the law of sin dwells in our members, and Vs 22 the writer delights in the law of God, and the law of my mind is mentioned as well, and 8:2 the law of sin and death. In 7:8 sin lies dead, then revives when the commandment came. In vs 13 God said THAT SIN MIGHT BE SHOWN TO BE SIN.

I think the Lord really wanted us to know SIN IS SIN. Really interesting, don't you think? He knew there would be a great confusion, an erroneous teaching....He is so very clear....
04-25-2018 02:52 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi Drake, can you give me the verse reference to this matter of sin deceiving us? I can't find it...
Hi byHismercy,

Romans 7:11 "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me."

Sin took occasion, deceived, and slew Paul.

Sin has been pretty busy.

Drake
04-25-2018 02:44 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Okay. Sin dwells in you. How does sin deceive you?

Drake
Hi Drake, can you give me the verse reference to this matter of sin deceiving us? I can't find it...but, I think I understand what you are saying...how can sin deceive if it is not a person.....in the same way, God let love be personified in 1 Cor. 13....love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way, it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.......vs 13 So now faith, hope, and love ABIDE, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Here love is personified, yet we know it is NOT A PERSON, it is a fruit of the Spirit!
04-25-2018 02:31 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Its plausible but I don't think so and here's why.

If Satan knew of the plan of redemption he didn't need to stop it by using Peter... he could have stopped it by calling the Romans off or changing the minds of the chief priest so they never prosecuted Him. There is a verse that says something to the effect of "if the powers knew that the Lord was going to the cross..." . Well, I cannot recall it.

Anyway, I think then that Peter being called Satan was because his mind was emulating the mind of Satan... operating in the flesh, the good flesh mind you, but still operating not according to the things of God but the things of men.
If you think Peter was emulating the mind of Satan, doesn't it mean Satan himself was not operating in his flesh?

Here is my reasoning:
1. It is very likely Satan did not hear what Jesus said at all. That means Satan did not indwell the flesh (of Peter or other disciples there); or

2. If Satan did hear Jesus' words (based on the theory of Satan indwelling the flesh), even if he did not fully comprehend the wisdom in the plan, doesn't it make sense to stop Jesus' foretold death from happening whatever it means? Afterall, as you said, he can simply call the Romans off. From this, I propose Satan does not indwell flesh.
04-25-2018 02:22 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

One thing that seems consistent with the Lee/LC stance on Satan indwelling humanitys' flesh...is the seeming contradictory statements abound...Ex: Satan is not omnipresent, but indwelling all....Lee said it, but not really, what he meant was....

Then what God spoke in 1 Tim 6:20-21.....O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverant babble AND CONTRADICTIONS of what is falsely called "knowledge," for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.
04-25-2018 01:37 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Okay. Sin dwells in you. How does sin deceive you?

Drake
James 1.13-16: Let no man say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God," for God can't be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one. But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. Don't be deceived, my beloved brothers.
04-25-2018 12:39 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Drake, isn't it ironic that you and are using the same verse to prove our disparate points?
I believe it says sin dwells in in me....

And I believe you are translating "sin dwells in me" to "Satan dwells in me". Is that right? Why not just take the Lords word exactly as spoken, if it meant avoiding error, brother?

I mean, you would never substitute the name Christ for another name of your choosing, right? Sin isnt Satan, same way no other name substitutes for the precious and most high name of the Lord Jesus!
Okay. Sin dwells in you. How does sin deceive you?

Drake
04-25-2018 12:30 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
This is an interesting window into the mind of a long time Lee follower:

I am not asked by Drake to prove or disprove something according to scripture, but whether it matches Lee's teachings or not. The teachings of Lee are his standard of reference, not the actual scripture.

I and others have already stated that Satan does not dwell within us, but rather sin does. I quoted a verse. I referenced an article by Nigel Tomes who followed Lee closely for decades. Tomes' article is extremely well written, well-documented, and based both on the word of God and Biblical scholars.

In usual fashion, reminiscent of previous LSMer posters, Drake belittles Tomes and dismisses his entire article:Folks, this quote from Drake is standard LSM boilerplate to discredit their critics. I have seen it for decades. If Tomes is brief, he is condemned. If Tomes is thorough, then he is condemned as "verbose, overwhelming with volume." Notice how every phrase of this quote is no different than biased, political spin we hear in the daily news cycle.

Drake never sees Lee's "shoddy workmanship filled with leaps of logic, gaps, and contradictions." Concerning Satan dwelling in our flesh, Drake completely misses Lee's own "leaps" from sin to Satan Himself. But that is another story.

This is just one more in a series of speculations, long promoted by Lee, yet not supported by scripture. My goal for the "Recovery" is that they return to their scriptural roots, and de-leaven their ministry of exclusive and extra-biblical teachings which serve only to divide the body of Christ.

I am starting to realize this, Ohio. It really is as if the Lee ministry is elevated so far above the word of God for some folks. What a vile trap of Gods enemy! What a misstep! May the Lord Jesus lead them out of deception....may He keep us all from the enemys snare....

What a sad lie to reconcile as the truth....in spite of Gods word...to be set in yourself to believe that Satan lives in your flesh....how horrible! It is bad enough that we fell and have to cope with sin dwelling in our flesh!

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Witness Lee speaking was only infused with his breath, which apparently stank.
04-25-2018 10:21 AM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Well Ok.

But what does that have to do with the discussion about Peter being Satan, or Satan entering Judas, or sin being the personification of Satan, or Satan entering Antichrist.?

Drake
Hi Drake, it wasn't meant to address those points, it was not related back to that...I was answering to your point about receiving a believers expounding of the bible...receiving the counsel of many provides a protection for us....the Bereans were praised for receiving the apostles gospel of Christ by being ready of mind and searching all the things they were taught in the scripture....I think the Lord is leading me to emulate the Bereans model....I would not have fallen into deception if I had been searching the scripture in the first place, when I came into contact with the Lee ministry 20+ years ago.

Sorry for going off topic...I just wanted you to know that I deeply believe in counsel,of many saints....fellowship of saints.....searching the scriptures.....just because I reject the Lee ministry as a false thing....I don't reject all teaching from the body...

I'll try to stay on point....I am not always in my lane:
04-25-2018 10:07 AM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
On this topic, for those who think that sin is some inanimate force like gravity as opposed to a personification of a sentient being as Brother Lee teaches why then does Paul describe indwelling of Christ and the indwelling of sin using similar expressions?

Galatians 2:20 "It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me"

Romans 7:17 "It is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me"

Drake
Drake, isn't it ironic that you and are using the same verse to prove our disparate points?
I believe it says sin dwells in in me....

And I believe you are translating "sin dwells in me" to "Satan dwells in me". Is that right? Why not just take the Lords word exactly as spoken, if it meant avoiding error, brother?

I mean, you would never substitute the name Christ for another name of your choosing, right? Sin isnt Satan, same way no other name substitutes for the precious and most high name of the Lord Jesus!
04-25-2018 09:19 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Either will suffice.

Prove or disprove your beliefs .....and I don't care how you do it.

Please proceed.

Drake
-15

see verse
04-25-2018 08:47 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
I am not asked by Drake to prove or disprove something according to scripture, but whether it matches Lee's teachings or not.
Either will suffice.

Prove or disprove your beliefs .....and I don't care how you do it.

Please proceed.

Drake
04-25-2018 08:43 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Oh, thanks. I stand corrected. You are right about the redemption. He redeemed us, not our sin.

Back to the question, if Satan did not know, why did he want to stop Jesus in Mat 16:22? Even if he did not know before Mat 16:21. Now Jesus spoke about his plan and Satan certainly knew Jesus would not lie. So should Satan have known after this?
That is in interesting question, ALB.

Jesus did tell His disciples everything that was going to happen to Him. Did Satan find out at that time what Jesus' plan was? Did Satan upon hearing this plan enter Peter in a similar way he entered Judas to thwart the Lord's intention?

Its plausible but I don't think so and here's why.

If Satan knew of the plan of redemption he didn't need to stop it by using Peter... he could have stopped it by calling the Romans off or changing the minds of the chief priest so they never prosecuted Him. There is a verse that says something to the effect of "if the powers knew that the Lord was going to the cross..." . Well, I cannot recall it.

Anyway, I think then that Peter being called Satan was because his mind was emulating the mind of Satan... operating in the flesh, the good flesh mind you, but still operating not according to the things of God but the things of men.

Drake
04-25-2018 08:04 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Ohio, You say you believe that sin dwells in you but you failed to define what sin is, or how it can dwell in you. In your view is sin an inanimate force like gravity? If so, how can sin deceive you?

Do you really disagree with the following explanation and if so, what is your alternative explanation? Or are you just disagreeing because Brother Lee said it and that is what you’re supposed to do here? -- Drake

——————————————————————
SIN BEING SATAN HIMSELF IN OUR FLESH

Now we need to see what sin is. Sin is not evil deeds such as hating and killing others. These are outward doings. They are not sin itself. Sin itself, according to the Bible’s revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him. We can use the illustration of a black bookmark being placed within a book. The book may be likened to something created by God and the black bookmark to sin being placed within it. One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you.

Sin is a living person. Romans says that sin can deceive us, kill us (7:11), and lord it over us, that is, have dominion over us (6:12, 14). All these activities prove that sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh.

Paul says in Romans 7 that he practiced what he hated (v. 15). Since this was the case, he says, “It is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me” (v. 17). Paul uses the phrase no longer I twice. In Galatians 2:20 he says, “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.” In Romans 7 he says, “It is no longer I...but sin that dwells in me.” Sin is another person within us. I may like to do something, but eventually I do not do it. Instead, I do what I hate. So it is no longer I, but another person who does it. This person is in my flesh. Paul says, “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells” (v. 18). In my flesh nothing good dwells, because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.

Some people do not believe that there is such a person as Satan in this universe. They do not know that this person, whom they do not believe exists, is in their flesh. They do not believe that Satan exists, and they do not know that while they are saying this, Satan is speaking in their speaking. They speak for Satan, whom they do not believe exists. Satan is in man’s flesh.”
The Flesh and the Spirit, Witness Lee
This is an interesting window into the mind of a long time Lee follower:

I am not asked by Drake to prove or disprove something according to scripture, but whether it matches Lee's teachings or not. The teachings of Lee are his standard of reference, not the actual scripture.

I and others have already stated that Satan does not dwell within us, but rather sin does. I quoted a verse. I referenced an article by Nigel Tomes who followed Lee closely for decades. Tomes' article is extremely well written, well-documented, and based both on the word of God and Biblical scholars.

In usual fashion, reminiscent of previous LSMer posters, Drake belittles Tomes and dismisses his entire article:
Quote:
Drake: I've read Dr. Tomes articles and frankly they are shoddy workmanship filled with leaps of logic, gaps, and contradictions. In general, his writings are verbose and attempt to establish credibility by overwhelming the reader with volume as opposed to substance. Sad for an economics professor who should know how to apply his secular discipline to make a compelling argument on matters related to God. But thanks for your exhortation opening the door to clarify my views on Dr. Tomes ramblings. Happy to do that anytime prompted else I probably would have ignored it.
Folks, this quote from Drake is standard LSM boilerplate to discredit their critics. I have seen it for decades. If Tomes is brief, he is condemned. If Tomes is thorough, then he is condemned as "verbose, overwhelming with volume." Notice how every phrase of this quote is no different than biased, political spin we hear in the daily news cycle.

Drake never sees Lee's "shoddy workmanship filled with leaps of logic, gaps, and contradictions." Concerning Satan dwelling in our flesh, Drake completely misses Lee's own "leaps" from sin to Satan Himself. But that is another story.

This is just one more in a series of speculations, long promoted by Lee, yet not supported by scripture. My goal for the "Recovery" is that they return to their scriptural roots, and de-leaven their ministry of exclusive and extra-biblical teachings which serve only to divide the body of Christ.
04-25-2018 07:27 AM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
He didn't actually "redeem our sin"..... he redeemed us.

Yet, I don't think Satan knew the plan of salvation... but why do you ask?

Drake
Oh, thanks. I stand corrected. You are right about the redemption. He redeemed us, not our sin.

Back to the question, if Satan did not know, why did he want to stop Jesus in Mat 16:22? Even if he did not know before Mat 16:21. Now Jesus spoke about his plan and Satan certainly knew Jesus would not lie. So should Satan have known after this?
04-25-2018 07:17 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
If Satan can enter Judas, it is possible that he entered Peter at that time too.

I am not theologically trained so my way to approach this is simple. Don't laugh at my reasoning but if you want to know, allow me to start with this question:

Did Satan know Jesus' plan to die for us on the cross to redeem our sin?
He didn't actually "redeem our sin"..... he redeemed us.

Yet, I don't think Satan knew the plan of salvation... but why do you ask?

Drake
04-25-2018 06:57 AM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
I'd rather hear what you have to say on this topic providing you too do not also get overly verbose and long winded. Let's have a conversation. Perhaps you would like to take a crack at explaining why Jesus called Peter Satan. Was Peter really Satan? Why does sin dwell or how can sin deceive if not a personification of some sentient entity? Still, if you insist you can quote Tomes, if he represents your viewpoint, but hopefully you can articulate your own viewpoint without redirecting your argument into "Nigel Tomes said...".
If Satan can enter Judas, it is possible that he entered Peter at that time too.

I am not theologically trained so my way to approach this is simple. Don't laugh at my reasoning but if you want to know, allow me to start with this question:

Did Satan know Jesus' plan to die for us on the cross to redeem our sin?
04-25-2018 06:33 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

On this topic, for those who think that sin is some inanimate force like gravity as opposed to a personification of a sentient being as Brother Lee teaches why then does Paul describe indwelling of Christ and the indwelling of sin using similar expressions?

Galatians 2:20 "It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me"

Romans 7:17 "It is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me"

Drake
04-25-2018 06:19 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
I think this is well covered by Nigel Thome already. Perhaps you can start by reading it more seriously.

Scripture only identifies one person as indwelt by Satan; that is Judas, the betrayer. During the last supper, we are told that “Satan entered into Judas
” (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). J. Stafford Wright notes “Satan is only once said to have entered into a person, i.e. Judas.” This is a counter-example to LSM’s teaching about Satan’s indwelling. Stated rhetorically--If Satan (the person) indwells everyone’s flesh, Satan would not have needed to enter Judas; he would already be there!
ALB,

I've read Dr. Tomes articles and frankly they are shoddy workmanship filled with leaps of logic, gaps, and contradictions. In general, his writings are verbose and attempt to establish credibility by overwhelming the reader with volume as opposed to substance. Sad for an economics professor who should know how to apply his secular discipline to make a compelling argument on matters related to God. But thanks for your exhortation opening the door to clarify my views on Dr. Tomes ramblings. Happy to do that anytime prompted else I probably would have ignored it.

I'd rather hear what you have to say on this topic providing you too do not also get overly verbose and long winded. Let's have a conversation. Perhaps you would like to take a crack at explaining why Jesus called Peter Satan. Was Peter really Satan? Why does sin dwell or how can sin deceive if not a personification of some sentient entity? Still, if you insist you can quote Tomes, if he represents your viewpoint, but hopefully you can articulate your own viewpoint without redirecting your argument into "Nigel Tomes said...".

Thanks
Drake
04-25-2018 05:52 AM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Well Ok.

But what does that have to do with the discussion about Peter being Satan, or Satan entering Judas, or sin being the personification of Satan, or Satan entering Antichrist.?

Drake
I think this is well covered by Nigel Thome already. Perhaps you can start by reading it more seriously.

Scripture only identifies one person as indwelt by Satan; that is Judas, the betrayer. During the last supper, we are told that “Satan entered into Judas
” (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). J. Stafford Wright notes “Satan is only once said to have entered into a person, i.e. Judas.” This is a counter-example to LSM’s teaching about Satan’s indwelling. Stated rhetorically--If Satan (the person) indwells everyone’s flesh, Satan would not have needed to enter Judas; he would already be there!
04-25-2018 05:37 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
byHismercy, for supposedly being such a "naive" sister , you have far more insight than I ever had. I accepted this teaching of Satan dwelling in my flesh for 30 years.

It is so sad to watch those who support Lee's errors wiggle, squirm, and lead us thru the maize, when the Bible says clearly that sin dwells in us. (Romans 7.17)
Ohio,

You say you believe that sin dwells in you but you failed to define what sin is, or how it can dwell in you. In your view is sin an inanimate force like gravity? If so, how can sin deceive you?

Do you really disagree with the following explanation and if so, what is your alternative explanation? Or are you just disagreeing because Brother Lee said it and that is what you’re supposed to do here?

Drake

——————————————————————
SIN BEING SATAN HIMSELF IN OUR FLESH

Now we need to see what sin is. Sin is not evil deeds such as hating and killing others. These are outward doings. They are not sin itself. Sin itself, according to the Bible’s revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him. We can use the illustration of a black bookmark being placed within a book. The book may be likened to something created by God and the black bookmark to sin being placed within it. One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you.

Sin is a living person. Romans says that sin can deceive us, kill us (7:11), and lord it over us, that is, have dominion over us (6:12, 14). All these activities prove that sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh.

Paul says in Romans 7 that he practiced what he hated (v. 15). Since this was the case, he says, “It is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me” (v. 17). Paul uses the phrase no longer I twice. In Galatians 2:20 he says, “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.” In Romans 7 he says, “It is no longer I...but sin that dwells in me.” Sin is another person within us. I may like to do something, but eventually I do not do it. Instead, I do what I hate. So it is no longer I, but another person who does it. This person is in my flesh. Paul says, “I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells” (v. 18). In my flesh nothing good dwells, because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.

Some people do not believe that there is such a person as Satan in this universe. They do not know that this person, whom they do not believe exists, is in their flesh. They do not believe that Satan exists, and they do not know that while they are saying this, Satan is speaking in their speaking. They speak for Satan, whom they do not believe exists. Satan is in man’s flesh.”
The Flesh and the Spirit, Witness Lee
04-25-2018 05:14 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Thank you for this thoughtful response, Drake. I really appreciate the discourse.
And to the point of believing God but not His servants....I have to say my receiving of counsil by my brothers and sisters in Christ is not what I am opposed to. It is the history of Lee and his ministry that makes him highly suspect in my mind as one whos counsil should be received. Turning the saints into merchandise made Jesus really angry and I don't like it either. Keeping his son Philip in the LSM office as he molested married sisters, discarding brothers who tried to take a stand against the evils of his son, shifting the saints tithes around into various business ventures, dividing the body of Christ to his own selfish gain, and control....so many issues that I am now aware of....this man was not living before the Lord, and I would not look to him for his vision of Gods word, ever.

His comment on the saints losing their money....how they "lost their virginity" after he knowingly fleeced them. That alone is enough to sicken me, and I am betting I'm not alone in that. He was a person I wouldn't have around my children....much less the Minister of the Age. Gimme a break.
Well Ok.

But what does that have to do with the discussion about Peter being Satan, or Satan entering Judas, or sin being the personification of Satan, or Satan entering Antichrist.?

Drake
04-24-2018 08:17 PM
Trapped
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I think it is obvious to most what Lee meant. If it helps, just replace Satan with "the spirit of Satan" and it all makes sense.
I have heard a number of saints who worked directly with Witness Lee state that he would sometimes take days to choose a specific word to make sure it most accurately conveyed the meaning he wanted with no unintended misunderstandings, so that everyone who read his books – from the most highly educated to the lowest, and from the most intelligent to the least (yes even those of low intelligence who you are claiming are so moronic as to take his statement at face value) – would not misunderstand what he meant. Lee was aware that those of varying levels of intelligence would be reading, and strove diligently to be readily understood by them all.

I have also read decades enough of his works to know that he was not one to save paper but instead frequently “hammered it home” when it came to repeating himself in ever so slightly different ways so that the reader would get his point and there would not be resulting interpretations of his interpretation. For example, “We must see that Christ is the good land. He is the good land! The good land is a person! Who is the good land? It is Christ! Hallelujah we have all seen that Christ is the good land!” (this is not a real example from the ministry but I think anyone who has read some of it will recognize that repetitive word-pattern).

He also had those helping him who would read, re-read, and scour the books before they were published to make sure that what was printed was really what he meant.

My point in saying that is to show that there is no reason for Lee not to have used “the spirit of Satan” if that is what he meant. To say, “if it helps, just replace [word he used] with [this other phrase he could have easily chosen to use to make it more accurate and understandable but did not]” denies the entire way he wrote everything else. He never left it up to the reader to synthesize the facts or carry out their own interpretation of his speaking, but stated what he meant simply, clearly, and repetitively. If Lee “obviously meant” “the spirit of Satan” then that is what would be stated (at least once)!

I’m not getting into whether Lee is right or wrong, but to start saying “it all makes sense if you put something different there that he did not write” causes it to unravel pretty fast.
04-24-2018 05:55 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
byHismercy, for supposedly being such a "naive" sister , you have far more insight than I ever had. I accepted this teaching of Satan dwelling in my flesh for 30 years.

It is so sad to watch those who support Lee's errors wiggle, squirm, and lead us thru the maize, when the Bible says clearly that sin dwells in us. (Romans 7.17)
I know, Ohio. I want all my brothers and sisters in Christ to be released from deception of all kinds.
04-24-2018 05:41 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
the substance of the argument that you avoided and instead retreated to a more general line of defense along the lines of believing God but not His servants (for which there is no scriptural precedence either... yet that is a different discussion).

Drake
Thank you for this thoughtful response, Drake. I really appreciate the discourse.
And to the point of believing God but not His servants....I have to say my receiving of counsil by my brothers and sisters in Christ is not what I am opposed to. It is the history of Lee and his ministry that makes him highly suspect in my mind as one whos counsil should be received. Turning the saints into merchandise made Jesus really angry and I don't like it either. Keeping his son Philip in the LSM office as he molested married sisters, discarding brothers who tried to take a stand against the evils of his son, shifting the saints tithes around into various business ventures, dividing the body of Christ to his own selfish gain, and control....so many issues that I am now aware of....this man was not living before the Lord, and I would not look to him for his vision of Gods word, ever.

His comment on the saints losing their money....how they "lost their virginity" after he knowingly fleeced them. That alone is enough to sicken me, and I am betting I'm not alone in that. He was a person I wouldn't have around my children....much less the Minister of the Age. Gimme a break.
04-24-2018 05:39 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Where does the devil flee to when we resist him? Does he exit the flesh and then come back later that night? Does he find a hidden corner of the flesh where we simply don't notice his indwelling of our beings? How can he both abide in us, and flee?
byHismercy, for supposedly being such a "naive" sister , you have far more insight than I ever had. I accepted this teaching of Satan dwelling in my flesh for 30 years.

It is so sad to watch those who support Lee's errors wiggle, squirm, and lead us thru the maize, when the Bible says clearly that sin dwells in us. (Romans 7.17)
04-24-2018 04:52 PM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi Drake,

In all fairness, yesterday you demanded to see in print the words of WL....to prove that I was not lying about his erroneous teaching. When 2 kind brothers obliged you, you neither acknowledged the truth presented, nor apologized for calling my testimony fraudulent. If you read my entire post, you will know exactly where I stand on Satanic posession.

I like to tell my kids, if they can't play fair, and with kindness, they are not allowed to join in. I think that is more than fair to expect that of all people. Simple.

Besides that, the burden is actually on you, if you want to prove WLs teaching on Satan indwelling all people was biblically sound. I can see it is not when I look into Gods word. I have been really clear and really honest, and I don't play games.

What did you think/feel when you read the words of WL and his expounding of Satan in our flesh? I mean, you were so eager to know....I was really looking forward to your reaction...

Thanks
Sure.

I think Brother Lee meant it the same way that the Lord Jesus meant it when he called Peter "Satan".

Was Peter really Satan? Or did Jesus mean that Peter was conducting himself in a way that reflected the mind of Satan (e.g. a Satan principle was operating)? I believe the latter not the former because Jesus explained to Peter that the characterization was related to his mind. His mind or his thought process was characterized as Satan. However, here is another situation a bit more difficult to explain that way:

Luke 22:3 "Then Satan entered Judas Iscariot who was one of the Twelve"

In this case, did Satan enter Judas? I would say yes because it says it directly and there is no reference to his mind, that is, there is not a qualification about what "Satan entered Judas" meant. Probably the Antichrist will have the actual Satan enter him too or so it appears from the related prophecies.

Therefore, it would appear that both examples of entering a person as a Satan principle or as the real Satan is confirmed in scripture. I therefore, assess that the teaching of Witness Lee is right down the center as Evangelical has pointed out very thoroughly.... the substance of the argument that you avoided and instead retreated to a more general line of defense along the lines of believing God but not His servants (for which there is no scriptural precedence either... yet that is a different discussion).

Drake
04-24-2018 02:35 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Brett Burrowes explains how the idea of an autonomous, independent sinful nature/self is possibly wrong:

https://brettburrowes.wordpress.com/...and-the-flesh/

F. F. Bruce, the well-known British evangelical scholar, writes in his commentary that this means that those who sin have their spiritual source in the devil. So the origin of all sins (and not just Adam’s!) is in the devil himself and not in a defective or corrupted human nature.

Now I think about it, the bible does not say "resist your sinful nature", it does say however "resist the devil, and he will flee". (James 4:7).
Evangelical,

Where does the devil flee to when we resist him? Does he exit the flesh and then come back later that night? Does he find a hidden corner of the flesh where we simply don't notice his indwelling of our beings? How can he both abide in us, and flee?
04-24-2018 02:30 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Sure. Happy to.

Matthew 16:23 “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

ByHismercy,

Was Peter Satan? Please explain your answer.

Thanks
Drake
Hi Drake,

In all fairness, yesterday you demanded to see in print the words of WL....to prove that I was not lying about his erroneous teaching. When 2 kind brothers obliged you, you neither acknowledged the truth presented, nor apologized for calling my testimony fraudulent. If you read my entire post, you will know exactly where I stand on Satanic posession.

I like to tell my kids, if they can't play fair, and with kindness, they are not allowed to join in. I think that is more than fair to expect that of all people. Simple.

Besides that, the burden is actually on you, if you want to prove WLs teaching on Satan indwelling all people was biblically sound. I can see it is not when I look into Gods word. I have been really clear and really honest, and I don't play games.

What did you think/feel when you read the words of WL and his expounding of Satan in our flesh? I mean, you were so eager to know....I was really looking forward to your reaction...

Thanks
04-24-2018 06:50 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Also, I would just like to add....
I am so grateful for Drake and Evangelical being open to discuss these things...thank you brothers....
And thank you to the brothers who helped me make this point with references!!
Seeing this error really was a huge turning point for me....and I am filled up with love for all of the saints! Credit....Jesus
Sure. Happy to.

Matthew 16:23 “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

ByHismercy,

Was Peter Satan? Please explain your answer.

Thanks
Drake
04-24-2018 02:04 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Let me ask you a question, how did Adam operate before he commit the first sin?
Probably operated by God. At first, I thought he was saying that mankind had no free will, but he clarifies that here:

There is no independently operating human self or nature in the New Testament. So does this abolish our free will? By no means, recognizing what we do not control enables us to recognize what is within our control: we have the choice to take God at His word and trust Him, or we can continue to trust Satan’s deception that we autonomously run our own lives.

His use of the word independent seems to mean not completely separate from either God or Satan. This reminds me that Lee called human beings a "minitature garden of Eden", and also reminds me as sometimes portrayed in movies, a little devil on one shoulder and a little angel on the other.
04-23-2018 11:47 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Brett Burrowes explains how the idea of an autonomous, independent sinful nature/self is possibly wrong:

https://brettburrowes.wordpress.com/...and-the-flesh/

F. F. Bruce, the well-known British evangelical scholar, writes in his commentary that this means that those who sin have their spiritual source in the devil. So the origin of all sins (and not just Adam’s!) is in the devil himself and not in a defective or corrupted human nature.

Now I think about it, the bible does not say "resist your sinful nature", it does say however "resist the devil, and he will flee". (James 4:7).
Nice to have different opinions. From the link:

Humans do not operate themselves, since Paul says that we are either operated by the spirit of sin which indwells us, “it is no longer I but sin” (Rom. 7:17, 20), or we are operated by the spirit of Christ

Let me ask you a question, how did Adam operate before he commit the first sin?
04-23-2018 11:36 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Why does Satan need to be "manufactured" omnipresent? He simply corrupted humanilty and the law of sin and death now operates autonomously within the flesh. He doesn't need to be there at all. Of course, from time to time, he might send out his minions too.

As for the "attacks from Satan" saying, probably it is just pointing to the source of the attack. In fact, such saying is quite popular in the LC too. I think they sometimes might have misrecognized certain acts of God to be from Satan.

You know what, neither WL needs to be omnipresent to implant his teachings to the LCers. He doesn't even need the Internet. A publishing house and a team of minions will do.
Brett Burrowes explains how the idea of an autonomous, independent sinful nature/self is possibly wrong:

https://brettburrowes.wordpress.com/...and-the-flesh/

F. F. Bruce, the well-known British evangelical scholar, writes in his commentary that this means that those who sin have their spiritual source in the devil. So the origin of all sins (and not just Adam’s!) is in the devil himself and not in a defective or corrupted human nature.

Now I think about it, the bible does not say "resist your sinful nature", it does say however "resist the devil, and he will flee". (James 4:7).
04-23-2018 11:23 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
What the quote from Lee shows, is that he has considered the practical impossibility of Satan being omnipresent, and would not say that, but the bible is clear that "Satan is everywhere" - how to reconcile that Satan is not everywhere, but multitudes of believers face attack from Satan daily?

Multitudes of believers claim "attacks from Satan" every day. This would only be possible if Satan is omnipresent. Therefore Christianity in general, must believe that Satan is everywhere. Think about it. If Satan is not omnipresent then what do believers have to worry about?

I introduced the idea of different kinds of omnipresence. God is omnipresent because He can do all things. Satan is limited but surely presents himself as a sort of god, with some sort of "manufactured" omnipresent ability.
Why does Satan need to be "manufactured" omnipresent? He simply corrupted humanilty and the law of sin and death now operates autonomously within the flesh. He doesn't need to be there at all. Of course, from time to time, he might send out his minions too.

As for the "attacks from Satan" saying, probably it is just pointing to the source of the attack. In fact, such saying is quite popular in the LC too. I think they sometimes might have misrecognized certain acts of God to be from Satan.

You know what, neither WL needs to be omnipresent to implant his teachings to the LCers. He doesn't even need the Internet. A publishing house and a team of minions will do.
04-23-2018 10:52 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
Nice reference. Think about it. If I say "although we do not say you are stupid, we must realize that you very often do stupid things.", do I think you are stupid or do I not?

I hope one day you would realize a seemingly unbreakable axiom is "dwelling" in you - WL is always right, he is right even when he is wrong.

Do you know why you seem always able to find something from WL's teaching to prove he is right? Because his teaching is in itself full of contradictions! And it needs lots of twisting in the terminology in order to make his teaching sound right. "Manufactured omnipresence"? Are you serious?

You stepped one major step forward when you said "If Lee..., then he is clearly wrong." in your earlier post. I am sorry that you stepped backward again so soon.

------------------------------------
Mat 5:37 But let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no; for anything more than these is of the evil one.
I think your example shows there is a difference between being stupid, and doing stupid things. In Christianity, I have heard something like this - "Even though you sin, I would not call you a sinner, but a Christian". What's the difference? So I could say, that God IS omnipresent, but Satan only "does" omnipresence.

What the quote from Lee shows, is that he has considered the practical impossibility of Satan being omnipresent, and would not say that, but the bible is clear that "Satan is everywhere" - how to reconcile that Satan is not everywhere, but multitudes of believers face attack from Satan daily?

Multitudes of believers claim "attacks from Satan" every day. This would only be possible if Satan is omnipresent. Therefore Christianity in general, must believe that Satan is everywhere. Think about it. If Satan is not omnipresent then what do believers have to worry about?
04-23-2018 08:45 PM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
A General Sketch of the New Testament in the Light of Christ and the Church
By Witness Lee

"although we do not say that Satan is omnipresent, we must realize that he dwells in man's flesh" "Today Satan, the evil spirit, is working in mankind."
Nice reference. Think about it. If I say "although we do not say you are stupid, we must realize that you very often do stupid things.", do I think you are stupid or do I not?

I hope one day you would realize a seemingly unbreakable axiom is "dwelling" in you - WL is always right, he is right even when he is wrong.

Do you know why you seem always able to find something from WL's teaching to prove he is right? Because his teaching is in itself full of contradictions! And it needs lots of twisting in the terminology in order to make his teaching sound right. "Manufactured omnipresence"? Are you serious?

You stepped one major step forward when you said "If Lee..., then he is clearly wrong." in your earlier post. I am sorry that you stepped backward again so soon.

------------------------------------
Mat 5:37 But let your word be, Yes, yes; No, no; for anything more than these is of the evil one.
04-23-2018 08:00 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

1 John 4:4.....You are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.
04-23-2018 07:26 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Amen to that, Jo S!
04-23-2018 07:06 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
I just got out of this cult and I am never going to rely on a mans interpretation of Gods word again.....I learned my lesson......bless you....
Amen

"And don't let anyone call you 'Teacher,' for you have only one teacher, the Messiah" -Matthew 23:10
04-23-2018 07:00 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

I'm sorry, Evangelical....WLees opinion does not stand as facts for me. Gods' word stands as the truth, the facts. All I can see is that Lees opinions are contrary to what God Himself spoke.....He told us that He and the Father were one, and they would make an abode with us....He spoke clearly and plainly....He would make His home in our hearts....His Spirit will indwell believers....over and over He made these truths clear......why did He not speak explicitly that Satan would indwell me? You cannot convince me, brother.....I just got out of this cult and I am never going to rely on a mans interpretation of Gods word again.....I learned my lesson......bless you....
04-23-2018 06:05 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
-----Evangelical quote---So if people want to interpret this as the person of Satan as meaning the one individual fallen angel person who obviously is not omnipresent, then I guess that reflects more on their intelligence than Lee's.----

Myself and any thinking person should understand this to mean the spirit of Satan.

My response to this statement is John 14:26.....But the Comfortor, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said to you.

The Lord Spirit has everything to do with understanding His word, not a man made measurement of the human intelligence quotient. I mean, what you are suggesting is that only a person or persons with a so called low i.q.will not be able to believe and receive what Lee was teaching. What silly nonsense.

John 14:17.....Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees Him not, neither knows Him: but you know Him; for He dwells with you, and shall be in you.

Gods' word refutes Lees error.
What is indicative of low intelligence is people's inability to synthesize all the facts and jump to conclusions about Lee's beliefs. For example, here, Lee clarifies his position, stating clearly that he does not believe Satan to be omnipresent, and refers to Satan as the evil spirit working in mankind:

A General Sketch of the New Testament in the Light of Christ and the Church
By Witness Lee

"although we do not say that Satan is omnipresent, we must realize that he dwells in man's flesh" "Today Satan, the evil spirit, is working in mankind."


Christians implicitly believe Satan to be omnipresent anyway, because of his minions, his influence, his spirit. If he wasn't, then the warnings in Scripture could not apply to all believers. The chances of meeting the actual Satan would be very small, and few would have to worry about encountering such evil.

The next time two Christians say at the same time "Satan tempted me today", we should say "no, that's incorrect, he tempted only one of you, because he cannot be in two places at the same time". If we are serious about calling Lee's interpretation into question over this then we should apply that belief consistently. Clearly Lee does not believe Satan himself is omnipresent, but does believe his influence is everywhere which is as if Satan were everywhere. Most Christians believe like this, but they think that sin is some fault of man, rather than Satan.

I think we need to distinguish between actual omnipresence, and manufactured omnipresence. As God's counterfeit and evil copy-cat, Satan must give the appearance of omnipresence, a false omnipresence, and I think this is what Lee is referring to by Satan in the flesh. I believe this also can be achieved by having the ability to travel very fast and utilize hordes of minions.
04-23-2018 05:47 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

-----Evangelical quote---So if people want to interpret this as the person of Satan as meaning the one individual fallen angel person who obviously is not omnipresent, then I guess that reflects more on their intelligence than Lee's.----

Myself and any thinking person should understand this to mean the spirit of Satan.

My response to this statement is John 14:26.....But the Comfortor, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said to you.

The Lord Spirit has everything to do with understanding His word, not a man made measurement of the human intelligence quotient. I mean, what you are suggesting is that only a person or persons with a so called low i.q.will not be able to believe and receive what Lee was teaching. What silly nonsense.

John 14:17.....Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees Him not, neither knows Him: but you know Him; for He dwells with you, and shall be in you.

Gods' word refutes Lees error.
04-23-2018 05:22 PM
Kevin
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Augustine had no influence on their understanding of sin and human nature, and so to this day, the understanding of sin as a reference to the spirit of Satan is still an influential and important interpretation in Eastern Orthodox theology.[/I]

It is no doubt the LCM followed the Eastern Orthodox tradition rather than that of Western theology. That's why Hank Hanegraff had recently converted to Eastern Orthodox church through chrismation due to his influence of Lee's idea of theosis. It is interesting that Lee is trying, with some success, developed a synthesis between Protestant and Orthodox traditions.
04-23-2018 05:21 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

1 John 3:6-10

Whosoever abides in Him sins not: whosoever sins has not seen Him, neither known Him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous. He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not righteous is not of God, neither he that loves not his brother.

I can testify this word of God is true! He leads His children into a righteous life! Not into a life of living in sin. So you can see from His word that there are two "parents" here....God and the devil. A person born of God cannot be the child of the devil.
04-23-2018 04:47 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
According to the PhD thesis which I quoted before, it seems that the early church personified sin as Satan, and Augustine separated the two, so Lee is technically more correct, if we consider the early church's understand as more authoritative (just as we take their understanding of the Canon and the Trinity as authoritative).

I also believe that it is better to consider sin as Satan, then we can see the true nature of it, as not a dormant temptation living in us that we can choose to ignore or pay attention to, but as a living person with intent that we must battle and overcome. The enemy which Christians face is not "sin within and Satan without", it is ALL Satan - Satan within, Satan without. Judas Iscariot could easily have justified his sin as "it was the sin in me which caused me to betray Christ, not Satan", when Scripture clearly says satan entered him.
04-23-2018 04:43 PM
Kevin
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I think it is obvious to most what Lee meant. If it helps, just replace Satan with "the spirit of Satan" and it all makes sense. Just as Lee does not differentiate between the Spirit of God and God himself, neither does he differentiate between the spirit of Satan and Satan himself. Just as the Spirit of God is "God's person", the same can be said of Satan. Remember, the spirit of a person is their true self and identity. I have come across this "we are spirits in a body" idea in Christianity, so I think it is well accepted that this is the case.

So if people want to interpret this as the person of Satan as meaning the one individual fallen angel person who obviously is not omnipresent, then I guess that reflects more on their intelligence than Lee's.

Myself and any thinking person should understand this to mean the spirit of Satan.

The same one mentioned here:

Ephesians 2:2

in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Considering that it says "the spirit" and not "the spirits", I don't see anyone arguing against Ephesians 2:2, saying "how can Satan work in all the disobedient ones.. he's not omnipresent!" or "I don't have to worry about Satan influencing me, because he can only be in one place at a time!"

I believe the "spirit of Satan" has some omnipresent ability even though the fallen angel himself probably doesn't.

I say probably doesn't, because as an angel it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, visiting every person on the planet within a minute, and give the appearance of omnipresence. A good analogy of how this is possible is the internet - information travelling at the speed of light visiting every person almost instantaneously.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Does Satan has one body in this universe and we express it here on earth?
04-23-2018 04:38 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by A little brother View Post
The Economy of God. Ch 12 & Man and the Two Trees Ch 1

The body is something satanic and devilish because Satan dwells in this body. All the lusts are in this corrupted body, which is called the flesh. The Word reveals that the lust is “the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). The flesh is the corrupted body full of lusts and indwelt by Satan. Now you see that the fall of man was not just a matter of man committing something against God but of man receiving Satan into his body. Satan, from the time of the fall, dwells in man. This is what happened when man partook of the second tree.

The Kingdom. Ch 10

We must apply the cross to our soul because Satan dwells in our flesh and seeks to control our soul. Our soul has been saturated with Satan himself. Our mind, will, emotion, self, soul-life, and relationship with the world have been saturated and permeated with Satan.
I think it is obvious to most what Lee meant. If it helps, just replace Satan with "the spirit of Satan" and it all makes sense. But still realizing that the "spirit of" is a person, not a thing or inanimate object. The idea of "seeking to control our soul" obviously implies intent, and is therefore a living person.

Just as Lee does not differentiate between the Spirit of God and God himself, neither does he differentiate between the spirit of Satan and Satan himself. Just as the Spirit of God is "God's person", the same can be said of Satan. Remember, the spirit of a person is their true self and identity. I have come across this "we are spirits in a body" idea in Christianity, so I think it is well accepted that this is the case.

So if people want to interpret this as the person of Satan as meaning the one individual fallen angel person who obviously is not omnipresent, then I guess that reflects more on their intelligence than Lee's.

Myself and any thinking person should understand this to mean the spirit of Satan.

The same one mentioned here:

Ephesians 2:2

in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Considering that it says "the spirit" and not "the spirits", I don't see anyone arguing against Ephesians 2:2, saying "how can the spirit of Satan work in all the disobedient ones.. he's not omnipresent!" or "I don't have to worry about Satan influencing me, because he can only be in one place at a time!"

I believe the "spirit of Satan" has some omnipresent ability even though the fallen angel himself probably doesn't.

I say probably doesn't, because as an angel it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light, visiting every person on the planet within a minute, and give the appearance of omnipresence. A good analogy of how this is possible is the internet - information travelling at the speed of light visiting every person almost instantaneously.
04-23-2018 11:54 AM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Also, I would just like to add....

I am so grateful for Drake and Evangelical being open to discuss these things...thank you brothers....

And thank you to the brothers who helped me make this point with references!!

Seeing this error really was a huge turning point for me....and I am filled up with love for all of the saints! Credit....Jesus
04-23-2018 11:49 AM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Another teaching that I learned from WLee that my first inward response to was red flagged...I knew Gods' word did not teach that, nor say that, but I went along with it?! The saints seemed genuine for the Lord, this huge church, this venerated man expounding the bible....they couldn't all be wrong, right? And of course, there is no talking about it with the believers around you...

How wrong I was! And now, armed with the light of Gods' word, I can safely proclaim this to be a false teaching. And, my brothers still in the LC, you have to choose, also! Gods' truth, or WLs' fabrication? I know that, from experience, if you reject the lie and choose Jesus, the blessing will flow out from the throne of God to you! And I encourage you to choose Him!

Peace to us all, in Christ Jesus! Amen
04-23-2018 10:56 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Please provide the quote from BrotherLee and cite the reference.

Thanks
Drake
Read Nigel Tomes article. He cites quotes from Lee.

Quote:
“The Sin that dwells in our Flesh…is Satan Incarnated”—W. Lee
Most Christian scholars and Bible-readers would probably accept the co-workers’ explanation of sin as the “virtual personification of Satan” in man's flesh. They might quibble with this description, but still consider it as orthodox. At times Bro. Lee’s own exposition approximates this position. For example he says, 15 “If the fact of indwelling sin is unveiled to us, we will see that we have…the very personification of Satan as sin, making its home in our flesh.” At other times, however Bro Lee “pushes the envelope.” He can say, 16 “In a sense, the sin that dwells in our flesh…is Satan incarnated. Satan as sin is in our flesh.” The caveat that sin is the “virtual personification of Satan” is absent from Bro. Lee’s writings. Instead, equivalence is asserted. “Sin itself is Satan himself,” who is a “living person,” he declares. His statement, in context, reads: 17

Sin itself, according to the Bible's revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him...One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you…Sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.”

Bro. Lee has ventured beyond the co-workers’ statement. It is no longer merely something of Satan, his “life and nature” within mankind; rather it is Satan himself who (allegedly) “gets into you.” Moreover, sin is described not as the “virtual personification of Satan;” instead, Bro. Lee declares that Satan as a “living person” is “in our being.” As a result (Bro. Lee says) we are Satan-possessed, in that “the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” Along the same lines, he declares 18 “the sin that dwells in our flesh…is Satan incarnated.” Moreover, Satan’s personality has impacted man’s soul. The “real significance of man’s fall” (Bro. Lee says) is that 19 “through man’s fall Satan’s personality became one with man’s soul, and he [Satan] has taken into man’s body…” Hence, allegedly, man’s flesh is “fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin,” this sin is “Satan incarnated,” and “Satan’s personality became one with man’s soul.” Moreover, 20 “Man has been inwardly constituted with Satan and has become a satanic thing. Man has been mixed with Satan.”
04-23-2018 08:27 AM
A little brother
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
I don’t do rock fetches for unfounded assertions.

Please provide the quotes you mentioned if they exist. Otherwise, your argument goes into the dust bin of unsubstantiated “Brother Lee said...” claims.

Drake
The Economy of God. Ch 12 & Man and the Two Trees Ch 1

The body is something satanic and devilish because Satan dwells in this body. All the lusts are in this corrupted body, which is called the flesh. The Word reveals that the lust is “the lust of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16). The flesh is the corrupted body full of lusts and indwelt by Satan. Now you see that the fall of man was not just a matter of man committing something against God but of man receiving Satan into his body. Satan, from the time of the fall, dwells in man. This is what happened when man partook of the second tree.

The Kingdom. Ch 10

We must apply the cross to our soul because Satan dwells in our flesh and seeks to control our soul. Our soul has been saturated with Satan himself. Our mind, will, emotion, self, soul-life, and relationship with the world have been saturated and permeated with Satan.
04-23-2018 05:52 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
You should look it up in your own ministrybooks.org
I don’t do rock fetches for unfounded assertions.

Please provide the quotes you mentioned if they exist. Otherwise, your argument goes into the dust bin of unsubstantiated “Brother Lee said...” claims.

Drake
04-23-2018 05:37 AM
Kevin
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake View Post
Please provide the quote from BrotherLee and cite the reference.

Thanks
Drake
You should look it up in your own ministrybooks.org
04-23-2018 05:29 AM
Drake
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not if, he certainly believed it!
Please provide the quote from BrotherLee and cite the reference.

Thanks
Drake
04-23-2018 03:59 AM
Kevin
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If Lee believed that the person (i.e. fallen angel) Satan literally indwelt all people at the same time (impossible as Satan is not omnipresent, and in Scripture we do see Satan entering and leaving people, such as Judas, but not abiding) , then he is clearly wrong.
Not if, he certainly believed it!
04-23-2018 01:17 AM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Evangelical, I understand Lee taught that Satan himself literally indwelt all people, and this aberant teaching was later cleaned up, polished, and repackaged to say that Lee didn't really mean what he said, but an easier to swallow version of this teaching was presented. The Nigel Tomes article expounds on this, I believe.
If Lee believed that the person (i.e. fallen angel) Satan literally indwelt all people at the same time (impossible as Satan is not omnipresent, and in Scripture we do see Satan entering and leaving people, such as Judas, but not abiding) , then he is clearly wrong.
04-22-2018 11:12 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Yes! Excellent point!
Luke 22:3 And then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve.

4 he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.
04-22-2018 11:04 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I understood Lee to use the term Satan to describe the influence of Satan. Not literally meaning that Satan as the fallen angel indwelt every person.
I agree that Satan himself is not omnipresent. I understood Lee to mean sin/flesh as a personification of Satan. Lee possibly overused the term "is". "is this" and "is that", as a means to emphasize the point, rather than explain a literal fact.

That said, if Satan could travel faster than the speed of light, which I believe angels can, it would be possible for him to visit every person on the planet near instantaneously, giving the appearance of omnipresence.

This is a very interesting supposition! But not what Lee taught. Lee taught that sin indwelling our flesh was actually Satan himself....
04-22-2018 10:45 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
I understood Lee to use the term Satan to describe the influence of Satan. Not literally meaning that Satan as the fallen angel indwelt every person.
I agree that Satan himself is not omnipresent. I understood Lee to mean sin/flesh as a personification of Satan. Lee possibly overused the term "is". "is this" and "is that", as a means to emphasize the point, rather than explain a literal fact.

That said, if Satan could travel faster than the speed of light, which I believe angels can, it would be possible for him to visit every person on the planet near instantaneously, giving the appearance of omnipresence.

Evangelical, I understand Lee taught that Satan himself literally indwelt all people, and this aberant teaching was later cleaned up, polished, and repackaged to say that Lee didn't really mean what he said, but an easier to swallow version of this teaching was presented. The Nigel Tomes article expounds on this, I believe.
04-22-2018 10:39 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I'm new here. I hope it's ok for me to chime in. It's an interesting question. I guess the first thing that would come to mind is if Satan was omnipresent, why was it that he "entered" Judas at the supper if he had already dwelled in Judas (Luke 22:3)?
Yes! Excellent point!
04-22-2018 10:34 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Evangelical, I completely agree with you, and Gods' word. Satan and his unclean spirits can possess people, I think that our Lord and the apostles cast unclean spirits out of believers and unbelievers alike.

But WL took that and went farther. To teach that Satan, substituting for sin indwells the flesh of every person is to teach that Satan possesses omnipresence....this is not the same as a demon or unclean spirit or Satan himself possessing a person. I don't believe Satan can settle down and live, indwell, possess!! every human being of Gods' creation simultaneously!!

Herein WL ADDED to Gods' word, wrongly so, and deceived myself and others. Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Not a gentle warning. I would watch out not to fall into this error very carefully!
I understood Lee to use the term Satan to describe the influence of Satan. Not literally meaning that Satan as the fallen angel indwelt every person.
I agree that Satan himself is not omnipresent. I understood Lee to mean sin/flesh as a personification of Satan. Lee possibly overused the term "is". "is this" and "is that", as a means to emphasize the point, rather than explain a literal fact.

That said, if Satan could travel faster than the speed of light, which I believe angels can, it would be possible for him to visit every person on the planet near instantaneously, giving the appearance of omnipresence.
04-22-2018 10:31 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo S View Post
I'm new here. I hope it's ok for me to chime in. It's an interesting question. I guess the first thing that would come to mind is if Satan was omnipresent, why was it that he "entered" Judas at the supper if he had already dwelled in Judas (Luke 22:3)?
I think Satan is not omnipresent.
04-22-2018 10:30 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
Ephesians 2:2 clearly shows Satan is a spirit who is at work inside people:

in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Romans 6:12 and 6:14 show that sin can reign and sin can be a master:

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

14 For sin shall no longer be your master

A thing, an it, cannot reign and be a master. Only a living entity can reign and be master, i.e. Satan.

Evangelical, I completely agree with you, and Gods' word. Satan and his unclean spirits can possess people, I think that our Lord and the apostles cast unclean spirits out of believers and unbelievers alike.

But WL took that and went farther. To teach that Satan, substituting for sin indwells the flesh of every person is to teach that Satan possesses omnipresence....this is not the same as a demon or unclean spirit or Satan himself possessing a person. I don't believe Satan can settle down and live, indwell, possess!! every human being of Gods' creation simultaneously!!

Herein WL ADDED to Gods' word, wrongly so, and deceived myself and others. Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Not a gentle warning. I would watch out not to fall into this error very carefully!
04-22-2018 10:20 PM
Jo S
Re: Now's good

I'm new here. I hope it's ok for me to chime in. It's an interesting question. I guess the first thing that would come to mind is if Satan was omnipresent, why was it that he "entered" Judas at the supper if he had already dwelled in Judas (Luke 22:3)?
04-22-2018 10:04 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Romans 7:17 So no it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Sin, NOT SATAN, dwells within us.
Ephesians 2:2 clearly shows Satan is a spirit who is at work inside people:

in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Romans 6:12 and 6:14 show that sin can reign and sin can be a master:

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

14 For sin shall no longer be your master

A thing, an it, cannot reign and be a master. Only a living entity can reign and be master, i.e. Satan.
04-22-2018 09:58 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?
Romans 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Sin, NOT SATAN, dwells within us.
04-22-2018 09:53 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
There are sources outside of Lee which can corroborate his beliefs.
Evangelical, if the source is not Gods' Word, it is not the authority you need....God said, sin dwells in our flesh. God did not say Satan, the fallen servant angel, dwells in our flesh. How can a fallen angel dwell simultaneously in every believer in the world, and of course this would include every unregenerated human being as well....when angels do not possess omniscience, as our Lord is the only one who is omniscient!! Lee gave Satan powers he did not possess, elevating Satan, albeit in a negative way. This is adding to the word of God! A grievous error! A teaching to be rebuked. Corrected. Thank you for finding the article by Tomes, Ohio.

Trapped, this article is a wonderful read, I highly recommend.
04-22-2018 06:46 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

There are sources outside of Lee which can corroborate his beliefs. Here is an article by the evangelical bible scholar and theologian Brett Burrowes:

https://zerubbabel.org/intercessor-a...and-the-flesh/

also see https://brettburrowes.wordpress.com/...and-the-flesh/

In fact before St.Augustine’s time, the early church believed that “Sin” in Romans 7 did not refer to some mysterious sin principle or sin nature but to Satan himself. Didymus the Blind, who wrote in Egypt in the fourth century, said: “it is the devil who dwells in sinners and does the evil through them, just as Christworks the good in believers.” Another important theologian, Basil of Caesarea, known for his important work on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, calls the devil “sin itself,” when interpreting Romans.Another church father of the fourth century, Methodius, also interpreting Romans 7, says: “But the devil, whom he calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the commandment to deceive me into disobedience, deceived and slew me. By such a choice I am sold to the devil, fallen under sin, the lawof the devil according to the lust which dwells in the flesh.” Irenaeus, one of the earliest Christian theologians and bishop of Lyon (185 AD),writes that Adam became a vessel in Satan’s possession. I could quote additional early church writers, but I think these suffice to showthat something changed in the way that sin in Romans 7 was understood. In my doctoral dissertation I have traced this change to St. Augustine. In fact, in the eastern part of the church,Augustine had no influence on their understanding of sin and human nature, and so to this day, the understanding of sin as a reference to the spirit of Satan is still an influential and important interpretation in Eastern Orthodox theology.


When Augustine became Christian, he reacted against the Manichean religion he had once followed and rejected the view that Satan continued to be the source of all human sin even after Adam’s sin and reduced him to only beginning the process. In other words, Satan corrupted human nature, which became independently sinful, but Satan did not continue to dwell in humanity, as the other church fathers taught.


Contrary to what Augustine and the entire Catholic and Protestant traditions have taught, sin is not the corruption of an independently operating human nature, but the enslaving spirit of Satan.

So we have good evidence that it was in fact Augustine who had "ill-advised theological constructs by a man who had absolutely no business delving into such deep and advanced theological concepts". Modern day beliefs about Satan do not come from the Bible nor the (earliest) early church, but from Augustine's personal reaction to Manichean religion.

The Nigel Tomes article does not consider the changes brought about by Augustine nor consider the similarity between Lee's beliefs and the early church fathers. It is clear from this article by Burrowes that Augustine swung the pendulum away from commonly held early Christian beliefs and Lee was one of a number to try and swing it back again. When I consider that the Tomes article or the discussion on here does not address or even mention these things, it proves that there is not enough evidence to debunk Lee's teaching entirely.
04-22-2018 06:26 PM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?
Check out this excellent article on the subject by ex-member Professor Nigel Tomes, which debunks Lee's errant theology:

"The Enemy Within - Satan In The Believer's Body - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology"

We also had much excellent discussion on this article a number of years ago.
04-22-2018 05:52 PM
UntoHim
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical View Post
If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?

Maybe for the same reasons that, though the Holy Spirit indwells us, we don't always do holy things.

Actually, the Bible never tells us that Satan indwells our flesh. Just like the Bible never tells us that the Father died on the cross. Just like the Bible never tells us that God became man so that man can become God. These are all ill-advised theological constructs by a man who had absolutely no business delving into such deep and advanced theological concepts; much, much less claiming that his make-it-up-as-he-went-along theology was "recovered truth".

-
04-22-2018 05:38 PM
Trapped
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
It is the two trees in the garden of Eden. The tree of life represented God, and Lee taught that by eating the tree of knowledge, Satan got into our flesh -- like the so-called "original sin."
After man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil".

I never understood how the tree of knowledge could represent Satan (and partaking of it meant partaking of Satan) since God stated that the man became like God once he ate of it.

I asked an elder that question several months back: "was it the tree itself that was the problem and sin entered through taking in of the tree? or was it the act of disobedience that was the problem and there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with the tree but sin entered through the act?" He didn't have an answer but did reference Romans 5:12 about sin entering into the world through one man.

I've always grown up with "life good, knowledge bad" as evidenced by the two trees (and of course there is the verse that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life) but .... is that just an interpretation of Genesis by W.Lee that is not commonly held elsewhere or is that generally accepted, or is this one of those still-debated topics today?
04-22-2018 04:35 PM
Evangelical
Re: Now's good

If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?
04-22-2018 11:04 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped View Post
byHismercy, can you explain this a little more? What is the context that witness lee taught Satan himself indwells our flesh? What is the refutation (or where could you point me to it)? Thanks in advance.
It is the two trees in the garden of Eden. The tree of life represented God, and Lee taught that by eating the tree of knowledge, Satan got into our flesh -- like the so-called "original sin."
04-22-2018 10:53 AM
Trapped
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
This morning I was reflecting on one persons 'testing' of the teaching we received in the witness lee ministry about Satan himself dwelling in our flesh, I believe it was Nigel Tomes who wrote on this subject and refuted this idea with scripturs? Please correct me if I am wrong. That article was entirely eye opening to me...of course this lee teaaching I received at the time, but now, I see, of course, Satan CANNOT INDWELL ALL BELIEVERS because he is a fallen angel, not having omniscience nor omnipresence as our Lord Savior Christ does....

Realizing this teaching was completely in error made me realize that Lee and co. could be wrong about absolutely anything...
byHismercy, can you explain this a little more? What is the context that witness lee taught Satan himself indwells our flesh? What is the refutation (or where could you point me to it)? Thanks in advance.
04-22-2018 06:33 AM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by aron View Post
The great problem with the LC system is that the subjectivism of Nee and Lee is now writ large across the assemblies and becomes that basis for ascertaining "reality" as it seems to be presenting to the members. It is all about how you feel. The Bible itself is secondary, as is basic righteousness, or rightness. Common sense. Interpretational consistency. All goes out the window in the subjective LC. If you don't "get life" you don't do it. And if Lee didn't "get life" from something, then neither can you.

All of which leads to some strange and very unchristian stuff. Eventually the disconnect becomes so glaring it is impossible not to notice. People who should always get love are treated as "straw to be burned" because why? They aren't absolute for this week's ministry message? What is the basis here? Subjectivism unhinged and unrestrained. "There is no one to restrain the madness of the prophet" indeed. The safety of multiple counselors, cited repeatedly in Proverbs, is completely absent in the LC. Whatever WL wanted to talk about today was "God's oracle."

The glory of the gospel, for me, is in its simplicity. God's love reaches everyone, not just those who fit our subjective comfort zones. God's power raised Jesus from the dead. God's light shines into the darkness, and mine is the worst, so why should I judge anyone? But rather God forgives, so I don't worry about anyone else's "subjective Christ" over-riding the word of the Bible in front of me.

Anyway I'm writing to say thank you for writing. I write too much, and often wish others would share their experiences. There's a need for people to realize there is indeed life, and "Christ", outside the LC. Thank you for sharing yours.

In Him always.
Thank you aron and everybody else who kindly responded to my post....praise God in Christ Jesus, saints! His goodness and fellowship is faithful! This morning I was reflecting on one persons 'testing' of the teaching we received in the witness lee ministry about Satan himself dwelling in our flesh, I believe it was Nigel Tomes who wrote on this subject and refuted this idea with scripturs? Please correct me if I am wrong. That article was entirely eye opening to me...of course this lee teaaching I received at the time, but now, I see, of course, Satan CANNOT INDWELL ALL BELIEVERS because he is a fallen angel, not having omniscience nor omnipresence as our Lord Savior Christ does....

Realizing this teaching was completely in error made me realize that Lee and co. could be wrong about absolutely anything...

I agree with the Lord and several posters here....we should test all things, hold fast the good, leave the rest for the trashcan. Forgive me, that is not the accurate quote...oftentimes the Lord leaves me with a very strong impression of the truth, but not exactly His perfect wording...

Another scriptural truth I am choosing to believe over Lees word is in 1John 5.....for everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world-our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

I do! And this verse is one of many which the Lord gave me to shine His light into the darkness I was fed in the local church! I believe Him and His word, utterly! And how many other Lee teachings miss the mark completely, I am left wondering...

I know for sure the dividing from saints without the conditons set forth in the Word is unscriptual and abhorrent! And I will, by His mercy, never participate in such a body damaging practice. Again, thank you, saints! The warm responses from everybody really blessed me...
04-15-2018 03:46 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Yes, Ohio. Thank you...

Deceived as I once was. And this forum is being used by the Lord to encourage me in Him! And my desire is to keep others, all others, from falling into the trap of the false teachings, erroneous belief system...the Lord warned his disciples to beware of the leaven of the pharisees and the sadduces...is this what we are coming out of? I would love input from participants here...
Definitely! That's what makes leaving so difficult.

Leaving the LC's is an unleavening process. The early disciples were forced to do the same.

I Thess 5 provides one guideline, "Test all things, hold on to the good."
04-14-2018 10:32 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Yes, Ohio. Thank you...

Deceived as I once was. And this forum is being used by the Lord to encourage me in Him! And my desire is to keep others, all others, from falling into the trap of the false teachings, erroneous belief system...the Lord warned his disciples to beware of the leaven of the pharisees and the sadduces...is this what we are coming out of? I would love input from participants here...
This account is in Matthew chpt 16...the first chunk of it
04-14-2018 10:28 PM
byHismercy
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio View Post
ByHismercy, thanks for sharing your story.

Your dear friend has been deceived. Deceived by the exclusive, elitest, legalistic, and judgmental demands coming from a book publisher in Anaheim. This is not the evidence of God's love, life, and light. They totally misrepresent our Savior's heart of love, unconditional love, and conditionally confine it only to those willing to read their books and travel to their meetings. Who do you think are the real "naive" ones?

This forum exists to help those like you and me who once believed these deceptions, so that one's like you can continue your faith walk in Christ without fear and without guilt.
Yes, Ohio. Thank you...

Deceived as I once was. And this forum is being used by the Lord to encourage me in Him! And my desire is to keep others, all others, from falling into the trap of the false teachings, erroneous belief system...the Lord warned his disciples to beware of the leaven of the pharisees and the sadduces...is this what we are coming out of? I would love input from participants here...
04-14-2018 06:22 PM
aron
Re: Now's good

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
We were first cut off (from fellowship, friendship) by an older sister in Christ whom our family loved greatly. In fact, she led me to believe her dropping of our family was her obeying the Lord. This came from someone who I trusted and viewed as having a better walk, a deeper connection to Him. I thought and feared that He Himself was dropping me, or punishing me, or trying to rebuke me somehow. Then I had our other sister in Christ telling me, that the woman who dropped us knew when the building was just straw, to be burned, of course. And that my mentor in Christ, was waiting for me in the meetings. I began to understand....I was being shunned outside the meetings, but would be embraced, and worthy to speak to, if I came into the meetings.
The great problem with the LC system is that the subjectivism of Nee and Lee is now writ large across the assemblies and becomes that basis for ascertaining "reality" as it seems to be presenting to the members. It is all about how you feel. The Bible itself is secondary, as is basic righteousness, or rightness. Common sense. Interpretational consistency. All goes out the window in the subjective LC. If you don't "get life" you don't do it. And if Lee didn't "get life" from something, then neither can you.

All of which leads to some strange and very unchristian stuff. Eventually the disconnect becomes so glaring it is impossible not to notice. People who should always get love are treated as "straw to be burned" because why? They aren't absolute for this week's ministry message? What is the basis here? Subjectivism unhinged and unrestrained. "There is no one to restrain the madness of the prophet" indeed. The safety of multiple counselors, cited repeatedly in Proverbs, is completely absent in the LC. Whatever WL wanted to talk about today was "God's oracle."

The glory of the gospel, for me, is in its simplicity. God's love reaches everyone, not just those who fit our subjective comfort zones. God's power raised Jesus from the dead. God's light shines into the darkness, and mine is the worst, so why should I judge anyone? But rather God forgives, so I don't worry about anyone else's "subjective Christ" over-riding the word of the Bible in front of me.

Anyway I'm writing to say thank you for writing. I write too much, and often wish others would share their experiences. There's a need for people to realize there is indeed life, and "Christ", outside the LC. Thank you for sharing yours.

In Him always.
04-14-2018 05:02 PM
manna-man
Re: Now's good

Amen byHismercy!

It's not by might nor power but by my spirit saith the Lord!
04-14-2018 08:54 AM
awareness
Re: Now's good

Great post sister (left below). Thanks much.

Kinda funny. I recently changed my tagline.

I replaced "Life would be tragic if it was so funny - Stephen Hawking

with:

Judaism is Satanic Catholicism is demonic and Christianity is christless - Witness Lee.

Relating to your post, that's irony of ironies.

Many blessings sister ..

Harold-awareness

-------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by byHismercy View Post
Hi saints, I originally posted under the name eyesopened, under someone elses' introduction, and I'd like to apologize for that...I think that was not the appropriate place to jump in...

I feel like now's good to share some of my experience of the witness lee church. This is because very recently, this week, as I was reflecting on the events that led me out of the LC, I began to realize the Lords operation over me, and His sovereign intervention on my behalf, and His sheltering care of my kiddos, of our family. More than just a testimony, or a cautionary tale of Lees' local church, I wish to share His faithfulness to shepherd me, His dependability, and to show how trustworthy Jesus is, always. In so many ways, He prepared me beforehand all the situations I was to encounter throughout my shunning, or quarantining, or whatever the LC would like to name it. They are the ones concerned with names, let it be known. Except for the one name we, as believers, need to hold as highest, that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

I apologize in advance if this testimony feels disjointed or simply raises questions.....

One detail to illustrate His 'preparation' of me was to come as a renewed desire, deep and sure, my feeling that He wanted me in His word, daily and consistently, I feel that He told me to read the bible cover to cover, then begin it again the day I finished it...He gave me this impulse after some time in His word and prayer, and so when the next day, a dear sister in the Lord, a LCer, encouraged me to read and study the Life Study of Exodus with her, I regretfully declined as He had already put His instruction on my heart! And with three young children, I knew I could not accomplish both. I am not one of those supermoms, sort of the opposite, actually.

Later, the same dear sister had wanted me to read some portions of some WLee book, I don't know which, forgive me. She wanted me to know exactly how much the Lord HATES division, denominations, particularly. However, the Lord had already had His own fellowship with me regarding His body, it's oneness, and born from talking to Him, my hearts great desire was to practice that oneness with EVERY redeemed, Jesus believing, Spirit filled saint....forgetting city boundaries, denomination boundaries, condition, etc. Qualified by Jesus name...that is who I love! Because of His love for me. My friend in the LC called me up to see if I had read the portion a few days later and I had to be honest...that though I loved her, I DID NOT want to read anything anymore that would poison me against meeting with saints in Christ, no matter where...and that, He put in me, He knew exactly what I would face, before I did.

I had been deeply deceived, saints. For years, I believed into what I was being taught in the Lee church. Never good enough to meet with them, because of personality traits of my own, yet longing to be with believers, pursuing Him in His word, fully convinced that outside of the LC was nothing...no truth, no life, no building...I was lied to. And, I was naive. My parents could have named me Naive and no one would have thought it strange.

We were first cut off (from fellowship, friendship) by an older sister in Christ whom our family loved greatly. In fact, she led me to believe her dropping of our family was her obeying the Lord. This came from someone who I trusted and viewed as having a better walk, a deeper connection to Him. I thought and feared that He Himself was dropping me, or punishing me, or trying to rebuke me somehow. Then I had our other sister in Christ telling me, that the woman who dropped us knew when the building was just straw, to be burned, of course. And that my mentor in Christ, was waiting for me in the meetings. I began to understand....I was being shunned outside the meetings, but would be embraced, and worthy to speak to, if I came into the meetings. This was the Lord opening the door a crack for me, of course, I pushed open the door and was stunned by what I found. The truth about this idolatrous group came into broad daylight and I understood, after months of this silent treatment....that I and my precious children, who trust in Jesus, had been sacrificed on their alter to their real god, Witness Lee, a mere man, dead 20 years now. No matter the reality we share of His blood, His atoning death and resurrection, His Spirit, His Father, our common inheritance in Christ...none of that matters. We are Not To Be Spoken To. Rightly said Steven Hawking....life would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Or is it the other way around?

But I have to glory in Jesus, because, on the far side of our quarantining, we are about 7 months out now, I see His sovereighnty in all of this mess! In fact, I have to say, His work here is divinely in our favor, NOT a mess! And although we lost ones whom we loved, He is working out compassion in my heart which, naturally was full of pain, indignation, anger towards those we loved, trusted as dear friends, who deceived us. The truth is, when I consider all that has taken place, and the darkness that has been exposed, I want to run to my friends and companions in Christ and show them...look! Look what the LC believes! Look what egregious acts they perpetrate on true believers!!!! And it is the saddest fact, that, they know. They themselves are the ones dividing the Lords' body. How foolish of me to want to warn them of this deception being played out by Satan, trying to destroy the body, the oneness that we in actuality share. Actually, I would attempt to have this conversation, but I feel, in effect, locked out...my communicaes go unanswered, phone calls not taken, etc. Unless we meet our sisters' qualifications for fellowship...meet a minimum of twice a month, and lunch with the sisters in the ministry on Fridays. This, by the way, to take place 30 miles from our home, where the Lee church meets, in order to be reinstated as worthwhile to meet with an old dear friend who lives within 5 miles of us.....what??? That is Deception talking the talk and walking the walk.

How thankful I am, my precious Savior would not tolerate us remaining in deception any longer! What mercy! What love! What grace I am under! His is the only name I will bow to, forever, saints. I love Him. He alone deserves all glory.
04-14-2018 08:21 AM
Truthseeker
Re: Now's good

Who ever destroys His body, the Lord will destroy that person. If we sow divisiveness among brothers and sisters in Christ like what LSM is doing, we will be punished because this is Body's destroying. Praise the Lord for His mercy and grace on you. He drags your hands out of dark pit unto His salvation.
04-14-2018 06:17 AM
Ohio
Re: Now's good

ByHismercy, thanks for sharing your story.

Your dear friend has been deceived. Deceived by the exclusive, elitest, legalistic, and judgmental demands coming from a book publisher in Anaheim. This is not the evidence of God's love, life, and light. They totally misrepresent our Savior's heart of love, unconditional love, and conditionally confine it only to those willing to read their books and travel to their meetings. Who do you think are the real "naive" ones?

This forum exists to help those like you and me who once believed these deceptions, so that one's like you can continue your faith walk in Christ without fear and without guilt.
04-14-2018 12:38 AM
byHismercy
Now's good - byHismercy

Hi saints, I originally posted under the name eyesopened, under someone elses' introduction, and I'd like to apologize for that...I think that was not the appropriate place to jump in...

I feel like now's good to share some of my experience of the witness lee church. This is because very recently, this week, as I was reflecting on the events that led me out of the LC, I began to realize the Lords operation over me, and His sovereign intervention on my behalf, and His sheltering care of my kiddos, of our family. More than just a testimony, or a cautionary tale of Lees' local church, I wish to share His faithfulness to shepherd me, His dependability, and to show how trustworthy Jesus is, always. In so many ways, He prepared me beforehand all the situations I was to encounter throughout my shunning, or quarantining, or whatever the LC would like to name it. They are the ones concerned with names, let it be known. Except for the one name we, as believers, need to hold as highest, that is the Lord Jesus Christ.

I apologize in advance if this testimony feels disjointed or simply raises questions.....

One detail to illustrate His 'preparation' of me was to come as a renewed desire, deep and sure, my feeling that He wanted me in His word, daily and consistently, I feel that He told me to read the bible cover to cover, then begin it again the day I finished it...He gave me this impulse after some time in His word and prayer, and so when the next day, a dear sister in the Lord, a LCer, encouraged me to read and study the Life Study of Exodus with her, I regretfully declined as He had already put His instruction on my heart! And with three young children, I knew I could not accomplish both. I am not one of those supermoms, sort of the opposite, actually.

Later, the same dear sister had wanted me to read some portions of some WLee book, I don't know which, forgive me. She wanted me to know exactly how much the Lord HATES division, denominations, particularly. However, the Lord had already had His own fellowship with me regarding His body, it's oneness, and born from talking to Him, my hearts great desire was to practice that oneness with EVERY redeemed, Jesus believing, Spirit filled saint....forgetting city boundaries, denomination boundaries, condition, etc. Qualified by Jesus name...that is who I love! Because of His love for me. My friend in the LC called me up to see if I had read the portion a few days later and I had to be honest...that though I loved her, I DID NOT want to read anything anymore that would poison me against meeting with saints in Christ, no matter where...and that, He put in me, He knew exactly what I would face, before I did.

I had been deeply deceived, saints. For years, I believed into what I was being taught in the Lee church. Never good enough to meet with them, because of personality traits of my own, yet longing to be with believers, pursuing Him in His word, fully convinced that outside of the LC was nothing...no truth, no life, no building...I was lied to. And, I was naive. My parents could have named me Naive and no one would have thought it strange.

We were first cut off (from fellowship, friendship) by an older sister in Christ whom our family loved greatly. In fact, she led me to believe her dropping of our family was her obeying the Lord. This came from someone who I trusted and viewed as having a better walk, a deeper connection to Him. I thought and feared that He Himself was dropping me, or punishing me, or trying to rebuke me somehow. Then I had our other sister in Christ telling me, that the woman who dropped us knew when the building was just straw, to be burned, of course. And that my mentor in Christ, was waiting for me in the meetings. I began to understand....I was being shunned outside the meetings, but would be embraced, and worthy to speak to, if I came into the meetings. This was the Lord opening the door a crack for me, of course, I pushed open the door and was stunned by what I found. The truth about this idolatrous group came into broad daylight and I understood, after months of this silent treatment....that I and my precious children, who trust in Jesus, had been sacrificed on their alter to their real god, Witness Lee, a mere man, dead 20 years now. No matter the reality we share of His blood, His atoning death and resurrection, His Spirit, His Father, our common inheritance in Christ...none of that matters. We are Not To Be Spoken To. Rightly said Steven Hawking....life would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Or is it the other way around?

But I have to glory in Jesus, because, on the far side of our quarantining, we are about 7 months out now, I see His sovereighnty in all of this mess! In fact, I have to say, His work here is divinely in our favor, NOT a mess! And although we lost ones whom we loved, He is working out compassion in my heart which, naturally was full of pain, indignation, anger towards those we loved, trusted as dear friends, who deceived us. The truth is, when I consider all that has taken place, and the darkness that has been exposed, I want to run to my friends and companions in Christ and show them...look! Look what the LC believes! Look what egregious acts they perpetrate on true believers!!!! And it is the saddest fact, that, they know. They themselves are the ones dividing the Lords' body. How foolish of me to want to warn them of this deception being played out by Satan, trying to destroy the body, the oneness that we in actuality share. Actually, I would attempt to have this conversation, but I feel, in effect, locked out...my communicaes go unanswered, phone calls not taken, etc. Unless we meet our sisters' qualifications for fellowship...meet a minimum of twice a month, and lunch with the sisters in the ministry on Fridays. This, by the way, to take place 30 miles from our home, where the Lee church meets, in order to be reinstated as worthwhile to meet with an old dear friend who lives within 5 miles of us.....what??? That is Deception talking the talk and walking the walk.

How thankful I am, my precious Savior would not tolerate us remaining in deception any longer! What mercy! What love! What grace I am under! His is the only name I will bow to, forever, saints. I love Him. He alone deserves all glory.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 PM.


3.8.9