Originally Posted by UntoHim

Hey StG! Don't look now, but you just gave me a little bit of the practical examples I was looking for! But before too many of your shirt buttons pop out, I must tell you that everything you described could be experienced and realized without knowing about, much less caring about, any difference between our soul and our human spirit. Life and peace can come and go, irregardless of any knowledge or appreciation of the difference. How do the sheep hear his voice? Good question! What I can tell you is I was hearing his voice long before I ever heard about the human spirit. And I was experiencing life and peace long before I ever heard about the human spirit.

Here's the bottom line for me...and you can take the last word after this because we've already reached the infamous point of agreeing to disagree (even though I would't agree with that!)... EVEN IF "The spirit is the deepest part within us, the very inmost part of our whole being", this fact would do nothing to bolster the strength of your case.
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excerpt from: The Parts of Man - by Witness Lee

Since Christ, as the life-giving Spirit, dwells in our spirit, we need to discern our spirit from our soul that we may contact and experience Him. We may know that man is composed of the spirit, soul, and body, but to discern the difference between the spirit and the soul is a real problem. To know the difference between the body and the soul is easy, but to discern the spirit from the soul is rather difficult. The following illustration is most helpful. Suppose we find something that we would like to purchase. The more we consider it, the more we feel that we would like to have it. Eventually, we make the decision to buy it. The emotion is exercised, since we like it; the mind is exercised, because we have considered it; and the will is exercised, because we have made the decision to buy it. Therefore, the whole soul is exercised. But when we proceed to buy it, something very deep within us protests. Our emotion likes it, our mind considers it, and our will chooses it; but something deeper than all these protests. This is the spirit. The spirit is the deepest part within us, the very inmost part of our whole being. It is absolutely different from our soul.

We must first realize that Christ is the Spirit in our spirit. Then we need to discern the difference between the spirit and the soul that we may deny the soul and live by the spirit. When we live by the spirit, Christ will have the first place in everything. Then we will experience Christ in the spirit, and we will learn how to apply Him in our daily life.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Please throw me a Humble Pie to eat!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is this!? You say you know Christ simply because you know the counterfeit? I don't think so. You know Christ by accepting Him to come live in you!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, I read where you answered in the affirmative, but you also placed these extra caveats on your answers! It seems just declaring that Christ is in you is not good enough for you. Paul's "test" was real simple: Is Christ in you or not? No extra hoopla or fanfare. And you don't know Christ by knowing how bad the LC was. Come on!

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yeah, Jo S, I gotta say just as an observer, it is glaring that you would say "figuratively He lives in me".

I don't recall any verse in Scripture that talks about Christ in us "figuratively".

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Originally Posted by Jo S

No, it's not necessary. I have twice already addressed your concern, StG. I however don't know why you felt the need to justify yourself. No one asked for your declaration but you're free to do so. I did that to demonstrate what answering THE TEST might look like when it's clear & to the point - I know Christ lives in me! (And giving a frequent witness to that fact is a good thing!)

I've addressed this once in your Poll thread:

Quote Originally Posted by Jo S:
If you are asking whether I know the Christ of scripture, then yes I do because I already know the counterfeit well enough. What is this!? You say you know Christ simply because you know the counterfeit? I don't think so. You know Christ by accepting Him to come live in you!

and also in your Island thread:

Quote Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!:
Does Christ live in you bro, and does He live through you?

Quote Originally Posted by Jo S:
Yes, of course. However, I say that with a caveat. Figuratively, (where does scripture say Christ lives in His believers figuratively?) Christ lives in me by the indwelling spirit of God which lives in him also. Jesus himself is in heaven as a glorified human being. If you mean in terms of the LC teachings of the indwelling Christ where an individual needs to continually "feed" on Christ in order for him to live in you as a spirit, then no. So it really depends on the meaning of the terminology used.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But I'm curious, do others see man's makeup the same way, or is this another LC Kool-Aid drink I've swallowed and need to reconsider?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No, you indeed did not answer that all important question of whether Christ lives in you - you dodged it. But if anyone needs my answer to THE test, here it is: Yes, Christ lives in me and I know that He does! I am washed, in the blood, in the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb! Christ in me is my only hope of glory! Hallelujah & Praise the Lord!

So perhaps I missed it - do you want to make a public declaration again, here and now?

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you are asking whether I know the Christ of scripture, then yes I do because I already know the counterfeit well enough.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Does Christ live in you bro, and does He live through you?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Yes, of course. However, I say that with a caveat. Figuratively, Christ lives in me by the indwelling spirit of God which lives in him also. Jesus himself is in heaven as a glorified human being. If you mean in terms of the LC teachings of the indwelling Christ where an individual needs to continually "feed" on Christ in order for him to live in you as a spirit, then no. So it really depends on the meaning of the terminology used.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Do you want me to take a break or to answer your question?

Regardless, I've already answered it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Give it a break, Jo. Take the day off - you need it!

BTW - Are you ready to answer THE question of the one main test of the faith: "Know you not that Christ is in you?" (unless you fail THE test)

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ahhhh bro StG, I can feel your pain. Perhaps that pie that broadsided you was homemade and tasted good? Personally my wife likes the filling, but I prefer a good crust. Anyways . . .

Discussions here are kind of like the aftermath of a contentious divorce. Child comes home to Mom after an evening with Dad. She says hi, how are you. He says, I had a fun time with Dad. She explodes, I don't want to hear it. Let me tell you about your father. That pathetic, no good, !@#$ me, he %^&* my life. Don't you ever mention him again. Go to your room!

After seeing that, food fights are almost fun!

Such has been life on the LCD forum.

Originally Posted by Jo S

StG, you're an adherent to the Local Church trinity (calling, pray-reading, OCOC). For this reason I know I've tried patiently explaining to you and others alike that for this reason you are still very much indeed Local Church members albeit not part of LSM.

This is obvious to those that completely renounce those doctrines, so by saying that you're not the LC and everyone else is imagining things is essentially gaslighting. You may be in denial but just so you know that's why people may get frustrated with you.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And then folks seem to want to try and paint me as being pro LC. (once again, I am not, and I ask that you please don't automatically assume that)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I do agree with what Curious posted, and also essentially what you said too! So here's my knee-jerk reaction: UntoHim, you always seem to want to paint me in a light that I am somehow defending the practices of the LC to the nth degree! I am not. There was/is abuse and things gone sideways there. Period. I said it once again. Need I repeat myself over and over on this in order that people here understand that I am not trying to champion all things WL/LC!? Not by a long shot!!!

I think it's like bro Ohio said; in the "food fights" we get into here, the one trying to be even a little moderate (aka "middle of the road") gets hit with pie from both sides. However, since almost no one who is pro-LC seems to want to post on here anymore, I'm the one that gets it.

So I get it -->This forum exists to attack (I mean "bring to light") the bad practices and abuses of the LC. And since no LC members seem to have the stones any more to come on here and stand up to the onslaught they will surely receive, then I get to take it. Ain't I the privileged one!? (actually yes!)

So one thing I may be guilty of is starting a thread with the intention of just having some back & forth about a topic. But my error may be in thinking we can do that without always dragging WL or the LC into it. Let me use this admittedly poor illustration to hopefully illustrate what I'm talking about. If I started a thread asking if Cheerios was a better cereal than Cocoa Puffs, I'm hoping to have some simple dialogue around that. But I guess I forget that we're on a forum to disparage (sorry, I mean "bring to light) the evil practices of all things WN/WL/LSM/LC/TLR, and before long someone is bound to say something like, "Well yeah, but what about WL never allowing us to eat Cheerios, and forcing us to only eat Cocoa Puffs!? In fact, he wouldn't even permit us to acknowledge Cheerios ever existed." So again, my bad for thinking we could have a discussion on here without ALWAYS taking a hard turn into all-things-anti-LC-bashing. And then folks seem to want to try and paint me as being pro LC. (once again, I am not, and I ask that you please don't automatically assume that)

Thanks for listening to my little rant for today . . . at least I feel better. But that's my view, for what it's worth, from the middle . . . (don't you pity me now, at least a little? ) Otherwise, hit me with your best shot. (Christ in me still loves you . . . )

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Quote Originally Posted by Curious:
Weather or not the posters on this forum agree that we have a soul and spirit as two separable parts or not, we mostly agree that to believe you are able to separate them yourself to get ‘out of your mind’ where you can be manipulated and controlled by WL is a bad use of the concept of soul and spirit, that replaces sound Christian teaching and ultimately does a great deal of harm, not good. A doorway to exploitation in a typically cultic sense.

Originally Posted by Curious

Weather or not the posters on this forum agree that we have a soul and spirit as two separable parts or not, we mostly agree that to believe you are able to separate them yourself to get ‘out of your mind’ where you can be manipulated and controlled by WL is a bad use of the concept of soul and spirit, that replaces sound Christian teaching and ultimately does a great deal of harm, not good. A doorway to exploitation in a typically cultic sense.

Originally Posted by Curious

In considering this discussion on the soul and the spirit, I am forming the following impression:

WL and WN taught the idea that there is a key to living the Christian life, hidden in the scripture that suggests there can be a separation between the human soul and spirit. They developed an idea that we can envoke that separation ourselves, by thinking and declaring that we are ‘turning to our spirit’, and that is all that is needed to do so.

In this paradigm, the human spirit is unfallen, it communicates (specifically receives) a supply of ‘life’, from God’s Spirit, and therefore does not need the LAW of God. To invoke the LAW of God is in fact religious in a very negative sense. The subjective experience has surpassed the pesky, restrictive and inconvenient law, and needs to be uncoupled from it.

This teaching instructs the follower to believe thereby, that the will and whims they experience are the manifest will of God, reaching their heart through their reliable human spirit. However, it is in fact only their own carnal will, directing him or her towards their own desires or programming. So, what we actually have is subjective experience and therefore the human will, guided without the blueprint of moral guidance, as the central guide to the life of the follower. The will of the soul, unfettered by a concern to submit to the law, masquerading as the spirit of God, is at the helm of the life of the ‘follower’ of WL et al.

Weather or not the posters on this forum agree that we have a soul and spirit as two seperatable parts or not, we mostly agree that to believe you are able to separate them yourself to get ‘out of your mind’ where you can be manipulated and controlled by WL is a bad use of the concept of soul and spirit, that replaces sound Christian teaching and ultimately does a great deal of harm, not good. A doorway to exploitation in a typically cultic sense.

‘Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law’….‘there is no law beyond do as thou wilt’, Aleister Crowley, Satanist. In modern words this says: be led by your will alone, whatever you want to and desire to do, do it, there is no other rule than that'. The teaching of the LC amounts to no different from this defining 'law' of Satanism, only that in the LC there is the lie attached that your will is actually God's will coming from your spirit not your own mind. Does that make it actually worse than Aleister Crowley? At least he is straightforward and clear that he is preaching unabashed selfishness on behalf of the devil.

My conclusion is this directive in the LC adds up to a very dangerous and anti-Christian doctrine and practise. It exposes the individual to personal lawlessness and confusion, as well as exploitation and bondage. Underlining further this discussion point that the LC is a tool of satan….and I watched this confusion of lawlessness happening to LC members first hand, thinking something must be God's will for them because they wanted it. You can justify anything that way, and get into all kinds of problems.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The issue isn't that scripture lacks specific reference to a "false anointing", it's that people mistake demonic influence for God's true anointing.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Really Jo!? Satan's spirit is also called the anointing? Please show us this specifically in scripture (and 1st John 4:1 sure doesn't say that).

Originally Posted by Jo S

If we've learned anything from Nee and Lee is that scripture + spirit can also be dead letter.

It depends on the anointing within as there are more than one (1 Jn 4:1). Satan is a spirit and even he knows scripture. So to be sure we need to thoroughly test all things, including our own "anointing" in prayer and against scripture.

Even a turned cake can be burned if unchecked.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So to say scripture is the final authority, I understand that sentiment. But there needs to be both witnesses - the word and spirit!

I agree that WL went too far and went way off the mark, essentially becoming the word/scripture to followers. But scripture alone can be just dead letter,

Originally Posted by Kevin

The Holy Spirit will also never contradict Scripture.

Originally Posted by aron

I also see this: in the LC we got this vague "sense of life" that was supposed to guide us, whilst plain biblical text was being overturned or ignored, and historical Christian interpretation either waved away or trumpeted depending on the perceived need.

Originally Posted by Curious

...what we actually have is subjective experience and therefore the human will, guided without the blueprint of moral guidance, as the central guide to the life of the follower. The will of the soul, unfettered by a concern to submit to the law, masquerading as the spirit of God, is at the helm of the life of the ‘follower’ of WL et al.

Weather or not the posters on this forum agree that we have a soul and spirit as two seperatable parts or not, we mostly agree that to believe you are able to separate them yourself to get ‘out of your mind’ where you can be manipulated and controlled by WL is a bad use of the concept of soul and spirit, that replaces sound Christian teaching and ultimately does a great deal of harm, not good. A doorway to exploitation in a typically cultic sense.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It was more a curiosity as I wondered if those who don't see any difference between soul & spirit...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by OBW

And adding on to what aron posted, if you think I am dismissing anything about a "human spirit," then you didn't really try to read me well. I did say that when we look at the verses referenced by those trying to establish something about that spirit that is well-defined enough to claim to be a third part of man, then there is a question as to how well we are able to make such a definition or declaration.

To me, that means that there is such a thing because the written scripture does reference it, but not in sufficient detail to define it in the manner required to answer your question. So rather than trying to establish yet one more extrapolated doctrine, let's read the relevant verses to see what it was that the writers were speaking about. Something more than knowledge in our heads. A God who can see enough to know the very unstated reason that we do what we do. And so on. I don't think that the verses that seem to reference "spirit" as a thing (as opposed to a feeling or intent, etc.) require that we understand precisely what a "spirit" is to appreciate what the writer is saying. They surely weren't trying to provide more hidden clues to a doctrine of the human spirit. So why do we need one?

Originally Posted by aron

So I don't really know much at all, since I struggle to show love. But it's good to realize that you don't know much... that's a good place to start. (and I referenced "his angel" randomly; I could have referenced 20 different things in NT to show how little we really understand the sacred writings. But I notice that we ignore a lot in the NT, in a vain attempt to prove to ourselves that we understand it. That was Lee's error [among others])

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Now, while I concur with StG and others here who have argued for a "tripartite" man, I cannot see in scripture the notion of "to know our spirit is to know him". Nor can I agree that merely knowing the difference between our human spirit and our soul gives us the ability to "know the difference between what's just ourselves and what's actually Christ". While I agree there is a degree of needed subjectivity here, I would submit that there is also a more reliable, objective way for us to know the difference - namely the Holy Scriptures. It's right there for us in black and white. The Scriptures "operate" regardless of our subjective feelings or sensibilities. Trust me, the Scriptures always know what's the difference between what's just ourselves and what's actually Christ, and as the author of Hebrews so clearly points out, the Scriptures are able to discern between our spirit and our soul.
-

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Isn't the spirit of sonship the same as is declared in Galatians 4:6, . . . .

So this is a real spirit bro, not just a turn of a phrase!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Now, while I concur with StG and others here who have argued for a "tripartite" man, I cannot see in scripture the notion of "to know our spirit is to know him". Nor can I agree that merely knowing the difference between our human spirit and our soul gives us the ability to "know the difference between what's just ourselves and what's actually Christ". While I agree there is a degree of needed subjectivity here, I would submit that there is also a more reliable, objective way for us to know the difference - namely the Holy Scriptures. It's right there for us in black and white. The Scriptures "operate" regardless of our subjective feelings or sensibilities. Trust me, the Scriptures always know what's the difference between what's just ourselves and what's actually Christ, and as the author of Hebrews so clearly points out, the Scriptures are able to discern between our spirit and our soul.
-

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If Christ is joined to our spirit (He is), then to know our spirit is to know Him, and therefore to know the difference between what's just ourselves and what's actually Christ.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Isn't the spirit of sonship the same as is declared in Galatians 4:6, "And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, 'Abba, Father!'"? And then the sister verses in Romans 8:15-16 "For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of sonship by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God." And isn't sonship the same as in Galatians 4:9, "My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you . . ."? And also in Galatians 1:15-16 , "But when God . . . was pleased to reveal His Son in me"? And where is the unseen Spirit of sonship? First Corinthians 6:17 tells us it is joined to our spirit.

So this is a real spirit bro, not just a turn of a phrase!

Originally Posted by Ohio

STG, speak your heart! Speak truth from the scriptures! Speak from the anointing! Speak to the lurking readers!

But never think you will change the minds of certain posters.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Isn't the spirit of sonship the same as is declared in Galatians 4:6, "And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, 'Abba, Father!'"? And then the sister verses in Romans 8:15-16 "For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of sonship by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God." And isn't sonship the same as in Galatians 4:9, "My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you . . ."? And also in Galatians 1:15-16 , "But when God . . . was pleased to reveal His Son in me"? And where is the unseen Spirit of sonship? First Corinthians 6:17 tells us it is joined to our spirit.

So this is a real spirit bro, not just a turn of a phrase!

Originally Posted by Jo S

God bless you

Originally Posted by OBW

The other difficulty with "spirit" is that it is often used in a manner that is difficult to declare to be like an "organ' of humans. Instead, in these particular passages, it is more like a state of being or a sense. Phrases like "spirit of sonship" (or adoption if you prefer) do not appear to be references to a thing but to a state of being or state of mind. This is like saying a "spirit of camaraderie" which refers to how a person or persons are acting or reacting, not to what part of their being (whether physical or spiritual) is engaged in the action.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Jo, I'm not so much trying to convince you as to share with you how I think we've arrived at clarity between us (at least as far as I'm concerned). You seem to discern such practices as mine as outright mysticism, and tend to be quick to label anyone who practices such things as a mystic. (personally, I don't even see that as a bad thing to be called!) Please forgive me, but I tend to think that what you practice is being pretty dead and fruitless. Again, I think we need both sides of this flapjack, not an unturned cake!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here are some verses from the post I made yesterday on that thread, which illustrates how the bible says we can and should take the initiative to contact the Lord and pursue Him:...

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, it was justified as "tough love." Problem is, there was little love being experienced (so it was just tough)! In the absence of love, Christianity - and especially the LC - just becomes a minister of law.

It's simply a natural gravitation of the flesh. Genuine love, God's love, really is the one thing that can't be faked, and will be present if Christ is.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You asked what my morning devotional practice looks like. Well, I don’t have one. I don’t view devotional reading as a routine. Rather I approach scripture when the Lord allows me to. Sometimes I go long periods without reading scripture. Other times I’m deeply lost in it. I trust the Lord to decide when the time is right to learn scripture. In personal devotion, scripture should be viewed as the road to Emmaus where the Lord decides when to open the scriptures to you. If scripture is viewed as a means to connect to God at your own will you risk turning scripture into an idol; this is because you’re not doing so by God’s needs and His leading, you’re doing so by the leading of your emotional neediness or your intellectual ambitions. So you see exegesis (“Exit Jesus”, lol) isn’t the problem, it’s our selfish motives that cause the “deadness of the letter”. This is true for the mystic and for the intellectual alike.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Regarding your question about my morning time with the Lord, I'm not sure why you are asking for these details. Do you want to correct something with how I'm pursuing Jesus? Will it be a help to you if I record my morning time so you can see exactly? (not going to do that) I just don't know the profit in conveying any more than what I've already conveyed. I will say it's not a set, religious thing I do and any morning may go in differing directions. For instance, at the end of this morning's time, I wound-up in Ephesians chapter three, since we are going through that book now. I read the verses (can't remember if out loud or not) and considered their meaning. Any-a-ways, maybe I should ask you - what happens in your morning time with the Lord, bro?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So here's a section of that article on I linked to before and which we both commented on. Found Here: A Danger of Lactio Divina

In the bolded above, the author is saying that both are needed. I read this to mean that we can go into two extremes. Exegesis (WL used to call this "exit Jesus") is good, but it can produce deadness and dead letter, devoid of Spirit. The other extreme, call it Lectio Divina or whatever, could produce something too subjective. Bros here in Scottsdale talk about this sometimes. The need is expressed to "dive deep" into the study of the word, to crack the books, the Greek, etc. to get some real riches. I've heard bros here say that the idea of "Get out of your mind" is not a good one, since God gave us a mind for a reason. But all mind is just that - all our mental (human) understanding and no Spirit. It's an extreme. An unturned cake. I think what the author here is saying is that there should be a balance of both. And they use the word "may," as in Lectio Divina "may teach us to approach the text subjectively rather than objectively, and that in this way it leads to unstable, unsupportable conclusions." Sure, suppose I can see that . . . it needs a balance with the solid scriptural study too..

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I often see the parallels of the LC with the RCC. It's what happens when man's flesh takes control - it eventually wants a strong, centrally controlling authority. This is the natural route many Christian groups have taken. So by sight the church is a mess. But by faith the church is His glorious bride and is just fine - He's got this!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Concerning your bolded comment above, I surely don't see it as the former - no one thinks we should go back to those times, although there certainly was an undeniable move of the Spirit present back then - it's just something He did in the past. Jo, you see patterns of things people are supposedly trying to defend regarding LC practices, because you evidently tend to only see the dirty bathwater, and you view all things LC through that lens. Some on here may share your perspective and others on here don't. Perhaps you should try to refrain from categorizing everyone that doesn't automatically assume your viewpoint, as someone who is still totally mired in the LC clay.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Specifically, I was curious to know more detail on what you meant by this statement:

"But I use the scripture to meditate upon Him and His works and intentions towards me (and others)"

How exactly do you use scripture to meditate? What's involved in the meditating aspect of it? Are you simply referring to inward reflection or is it more involved than that?

Regardless it does look like you practice the 4 steps of traditional Lectio Divina (Lectio, Meditatio, Oratio, Contemplatio). The LC's do, in fact, act out an "evolved" version of Lectio Divina. It's akin to the practice of calling. Calling in the LC's also began as a simpler personal practice then snowballed into a corporate chant. It's the same dilemma of the lesser of two evils.

I have to say a pattern I see here with yourself and other ex LC members who defend these practices is not necessarily a desire to return to the purity of scripture as much as a desire to return to an earlier and more pure version of the Lord's Recovery. Or perhaps it's a process of progression toward complete freedom from the Local Churches. I hope for the latter.

It's quite astonishing when you come to the realization that the LC's are almost an exact microcosm of the Catholic church. In it's early formative years the Roman church too laid down a foundation of works based spirituality (mysticism). It first went through a period of flourishing, then became weighed down by legalism, and finally fractured into factions looking to return back to their spiritual roots.

My hope is that those who seek freedom from the legalism of the Local Churches don't stop short at Witness Lee or even Watchman Nee but continue on through to Christ and the Apostles lest you find yourselves repeating history. StG says YES! Amen to that!!!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I don't view my morning time as pray-reading exactly, at least not in the LC sense perhaps. I outlined it two posts ago - did you see that? I usually read a couple devotionals. One is Daily Light, edited by Anne Graham Lotz, which is is just a page of topical scripture. I read those verse while talking to the Lord. I intersperse it with prayer for other things and people, as they come to mind. If I don't understand something in the scripture, I ask the Lord to show me. I thank Him for His shed blood and for loving me and all of us. I praise Him for what He's done, is doing and what He has planned. If a good song comes to mind, I'll sing that (from memory usually). Really nothing set. (BTW - I don't say certain words over and over, like I've heard LC folks do.)

If that helps towards your question, great. If not, I'm happy to tell you more.

Also, I don't agree with what you said about that article and will post a quote from it, when I get a chance later.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I don't see anything in that article outlining a lesser extreme version of Lectio Divina. The author seems to flat out reject it altogether. I believe he's delineating between a subjective approach (LD) and an objective approach to scripture (Exegesis).

StG, perhaps you can outline your personal practice of pray-reading. What does it look like in detail? Does it look similar to the practice taught in the LC's where they single out a verse and declare it over and over again?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Gotcha, and that would be taking it to an extreme, and anything taken that far is . . . well . . . extreme! Please see the article and comment I posted after editing my last post (we're both quick to answer right now).

Originally Posted by Jo S

Lectio Divina is popular among Catholics and Gnostics. It actually predates Christianity but in the very early church it entered Christendom through the Gnostics and then later into the mainstream by monastic Catholicism.

It's a practice I discourage as it's a very similar to what you'll find in eastern mysticism where you take a verse and turn it into a mantra of sorts for the purpose of emptying the mind of thoughts. The idea of this is that God can only speak to you through a completely quiet and tranquil mind. It makes me wonder how the Holy Spirit spoke through those who were undergoing martyrdom...

The inherent danger in this is that by emptying the mind, there remains no buffer for differentiating or discerning between what is true and what is a lie. So those that benefit from Lectio Divina simply validate their experience by feelings rather than having a way to challenging their feelings through critical reasoning.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I didn't know what was meant by Lectio Divina, so I looked it up and found this video by evidently a Catholic preist (he calls himself "father"): Lactio Divina 4 explanation minute video

This is not too far from what I've practiced in my morning times with Jesus for some time now. I read the word; I thank the Lord for specific things I'm reading or ask Him to operate in my heart. Sometimes that leads into a song that comes up in me, so I sing that. But I use the scripture to meditate upon Him and His works and intentions towards me (and others), and thank/praise Him that He is faithful and true and able to do what He said He will do. Do you see something wrong with that? (the one thing I don't do is Lectio Divina step #5 - go out and do something according to the meditation you just had - but not sure there's anything inherently wrong with that)

Originally Posted by Jo S

Spirit by works, as you'll find in the LC, it one that comes by imposing your own will onto the spiritual realm - aka the practices of "calling" and Lectio Divina (pray-reading).

Spirit by faith is one that comes as a result of Godly repentance, which is a work of God in your life, through faith alone.

These are two completely different spirits. The former is the spirit of the world, the latter is the Holy Spirit of God.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm still thinking about the 1st question. But I have a question regarding something you said - What do you mean by a spirit "that comes by works"?

Originally Posted by Jo S

One topic at a time for me, I suppose.

So I'll start by saying that I agree, salvation by the indwelling Spirit in the Old Testament is an unfulfilled promise to the faithful. I'll throw this out there as well; for former LC members and current ones, it's important to differentiate between the spirit which the Local Churches preach (one that comes by works) and the one that scripture speaks of (one which comes by grace through faith alone).

My first question still stands regardless. Let me perhaps rephrase it:

Do you believe the Old Testament faithful had a human spirit? If so, can you clearly show this from OT text?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

See!? You didn't disappoint, but what took you so long?

Good questions and interesting theory. Let me approach it this way: The main event in all of history was the death & resurrection of Christ. Christ did this for two key reasons - First so God could pay for all man's sins and redeem mankind back to Himself; and secondly that Christ could then come to live inside His believers via the new birth to a living hope (Christ in them, the hope of glory).

The promise was given to those under the old covenant, and Christ fulfilled that promise. Something brand new that had never happened before took place through the cross. Something wonderful and marvelous and so far beyond us, and it begins in us with the new birth. This was not available to those before the cross. Romans 5:6 says that when the timing was right, Christ came and died for the ungodly. Therefore, this was something the ones prior to that could not partake of - "That which is born of Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6) When Jesus appeared to the disciples after His death, it says "He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" Something brand new, never seen before had taken place and was being made available. "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:17)

So the new covenant is all wrapped-up in this Spirit begetting spirit. I don't think this new creation was available to the old testament saints.

One last verse to illustrate: "'He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:38-39)

So I think that should address your second question. If you accept that, then it might make the first question something of a moot point (but perhaps not).

Originally Posted by Jo S

Yes, I assumed so. I just wanted to be sure. I do not know why you thought of me for this topic. Maybe you can fill me in on that.

So in an attempt to engage in this topic, I share with you this theory that I have. The theory is that all claims or doctrines derived from New Testament writings (such as body, mind, and soul and their relation to man) should to be able to be clearly vetted and validated by the Old Testament or Tanakh; after all Jesus and the apostles always supported their claims with Old Testament scripture.

As a challenge to you and to the forum, I'll pose these two questions:

1) Can you point to where in the Old Testament it speaks of a human spirit (or a human "ruach" in Hebrew)?

2) Intrinsically, what is the main difference between a faithful believer in the OT vs. a born-again believer in the NT?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Got any idea? Now who could it be? Could it be . . . . . . Jo S? DING DING DING DING Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!

But you knew that when you asked, didn't you? And why do you think I had you in mind?

Originally Posted by Jo S

Who's this you're referring to?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well put! And I think you will be before me in the kingdom! (yes, I am so very humble )

This resonates with me as it sounds much like exhortations I've given others on here before, when going at something ad nauseam (I've perhaps used that phrase too much lately). We haven't reached that point . . . and maybe we shouldn't try. I actually thought someone in particular would want to jump on this topic, but they didn't. So much for my little fishing expedition!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I never really got the additional subdivisions of exactly what makes up our conscience, intuition, heart, etc. from WN/WL teachings. I've read different things about these further supposed subdivisions of our being, but it all seems something of a stretch and nothing really clicks. Besides, it seems to make little difference . . . at least to me.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Originally Posted by Curious

Where I ‘trained’ in matters of faith and practice, the belief was very clearly that the body, soul, spirit makes up the man. There was only one difference in detail: the spirit part of us, in the LSM is broken down into ‘conscience, communication with God, and intuition’. The teaching I got fed was, instead of ‘intuition’, the third part of the spirit of a human is ‘creativity’. (intuition being part of communication, I would assume). The logic behind it was probably that God’s creative energy with which He made the universe comes from His Spirit and so our reflection of that is likewise from ours.

Originally Posted by aron

How much time did Jesus spend discussing the trichotomous vs dichotomous views? I'd say that we should spend the same amount of time and attention as he did.

Everything hinges on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Over and over the gospel message in Acts homes in on this. This was the foundation on which all the epistles were written.

Instead we get fascination with extraneous matters, like giphy-loops that cycle over and over. I'm not picking on StG who may be a better Christian than I (seriously) but the discussion, to be profitable, should be rooted and grounded in the man, his obedience and piety, suffering, shameful death (on our behalf, from the Father's love), his resurrection to glory, and his rule over every name which is named, both in this age and to come.

There's only one thing that matters, really - one thing that is the nexus of our faith, our hope, our joy, our life. Everything else, conceptually, is sourced from this, looks to this. The rest is fluff.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Any way, I'm kinda done - not interested in the ad nauseam... just wanted to see what others on here think about the subject, and I've heard that.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I've read a good deal of stuff about the dichotomy idea, but the light I believe I've received shows me man has a soul that can be divided from spirit...

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory! Could you please tell us of what practical application and benefit it is to know the difference between our soul and our spirit? I think we're all familiar with the verses used by Nee and Lee to support the tripartite view, so please don't just quote those verses as "proof". Now I happened to think that scripture does make a distinction, although I'm not sure it is not a distinction without a difference, and more importantly, what is the real practical application and benefit of knowing about the difference between our soul and our human spirit.
-

Originally Posted by aron

If everyone you read interprets scripture in only one way, then perhaps you should broaden your reading list. Read people that you don't agree with, read people that challenge your thinking. Then read people who challenge them! If you only read people who say exactly what you're thinking, how can you learn, grow, change?

But Soul & Spirit - different or same or unknown isn't getting me, personally, closer to Jesus. It just presents me with someone's aspect, or view. But I want to know Jesus' view. I want to know the view of Paul (might lend to tripartite interpretation) and John (might not).

We all know where the 'tripartite' view brought us once - deeper into Witness Lee's lair. Now, someone can show me how it brings us closer to Jesus' view, his living, his walk, his glory? Certainly he didn't teach it.

(btw, some of my favourite authors taught the tripartite view, long before Watchman Nee [think Desiderius Erasmus, the "Enchiridion"]. But I'm willing to hold it at arms length, anyhow. Jesus taught, you must be willing to lose your soul, lose your favorite authors best writings)

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ferguson said above: "probably," therefore he admits it's just his take on it. And everyone I read interprets scripture to say we have three parts (in the image and likeness of the triune God who created us).... even if these authors are on the fringe, I see the aspect of three all over creation, in scripture, and yes, in man too.

Originally Posted by Trapped

To provide some more granularity regarding the tripartite man teaching, according to Nee/Lee, the three parts of man are further divided up thus:

body - physical body
soul - mind, emotion, will
spirit - conscience, fellowship, intuition
(heart = soul plus conscience)

I did note with interest one of the verses that was referenced in one of the articles you mentioned, Mark 12:30:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Heart, soul, mind, and strength. This would mean that, according to the LC teaching, in that verse Jesus is telling us to love God with:

-our whole soul plus 1/3 of our spirit (heart)
-our whole soul (soul)
-1/3 of our soul (mind)
-some % of our body (strength)

It would make no sense for Jesus to tell us to love God but leave 2/3 of our spirit (the main organ to contact God according to the LC, remember) out of it.

Originally Posted by jesusislord

please stop guessing and stick to the scripture

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-is-the-soul

Originally Posted by jesusislord

the spirit have the mind, how does it mind is only within the soul? if it can't be separated, don't do it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Really!? Ferguson said above: "probably," therefore he admits it's just his take on it. And everyone I read interprets scripture to say we have three parts (in the image and likeness of the triune God who created us). And I don't think I'm just reading those who are considered on the fringe. But even if these authors are on the fringe, I see the aspect of three all over creation, in scripture, and yes, in man too.

Originally Posted by Trapped

To provide some more granularity regarding the tripartite man teaching, according to Nee/Lee, the three parts of man are further divided up thus:

body - physical body
soul - mind, emotion, will
spirit - conscience, fellowship, intuition
(heart = soul plus conscience)

I did note with interest one of the verses that was referenced in one of the articles you mentioned, Mark 12:30:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

Heart, soul, mind, and strength. This would mean that, according to the LC teaching, in that verse Jesus is telling us to love God with:

-our whole soul plus 1/3 of our spirit (heart)
-our whole soul (soul)
-1/3 of our soul (mind)
-some % of our body (strength)

It would make no sense for Jesus to tell us to love God but leave 2/3 of our spirit (the main organ to contact God according to the LC, remember) out of it.

I personally doubt Nee/Lee got this teaching right, but look forward to reading others' thoughts.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Gordon Ferguson, in his article, has refferenced this excerpt from something called The College Press Commentary

"That idea is further underlined with the combination “spirit, soul and body.” Much discussion of this phrase has concerned whether it indicates that human beings are trichotomous, consisting of three distinct aspects described by these terms, or dichotomous, really consisting of two aspects, body and spirit. In favor of the former interpretation is the fact that all three terms are used here; in favor of the latter is the difficulty in distinguishing clearly between the meaning of “spirit” (pneuma) and “soul” (psychē). However, it must be conceded that Paul is not discussing the precise nature of humanity but is offering assurance of God’s protection. The combination of three terms here is PROBABLY only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27. Paul, like the other New Testament writers, repeatedly indicates that God’s purpose is to save the whole person, not just some part."
-
I think this is a pretty fair representation of what is taught by most orthodox, evangelical protestant teachers, scholars and apologists. To be sure, what Nee originally brought forth back in the day in mainland China in the middle of the 20th century, Witness Lee took and ran with until it reached all new heights of exaggeration and absurdity, until we ended up with "Get out of your mind get your spirit in gear!"
-

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The last couple days on the index page of this forum, a couple authors (Gordon Furguson is one) have been highlighted who have written things about Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's teachings. I've read just a little of the things linked to, and one main subject seems to be the authors' disagreement with the teaching of man being a tripartite being - spirit, soul and body. From what I've read, the augment is made that this view is not supported in the word, and therefore lends itself to an overly mystical approach in Christians. The authors appear to support the idea that man is in fact dichotomous - soul and spirit are synonymous with each other in the Bible.

Personally, I believe man has been made with three main parts, as is said in 1st Thessalonians 5:3, "your whole spirit and soul and body . . ." (the Greek has the article "and" between each). Admittedly I first heard this teaching in the LC, when I arrived in 1974. Everything I read in scripture seems to support this. But I'm curious, do others see man's makeup the same way, or is this another LC Kool-Aid drink I've swallowed and need to reconsider?