Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
All --
For now, let's lay aside what Jane said. What about what Witness Lee said???
In a list of superficial things, Lee included the Lamb of God. Is that OK with you?
Reverse these two sentences: "What comparison is there between the ointment and the Lamb? Nothing can compare with this marvelous ointment." Nothing? Not even the sacrifice of the Lamb of God? Do you really believe this?
I really want someone to address these two Lee statements.
Nell
|
At best, Lee creates a false comparison - as if the Lamb should be "compared" to some "ointment." At worst, this comparison denegrates the eternal place of and glory to the Lamb.
This is just another example of extremism.
I for one, can praise the Lamb as the most worthy one, while appreciating God's continued multifarious wisdom and varied grace in the on-going operation of the Spirit within His people - the Spirit who is God - the same God who incarnated, who was tempted in every respect as I, who hungered and thirsted as a man, who had not place to lay His head, who had to look to the Father's will in all He did. They aren't "comparible." They are compatible, one and the same, all part of the wonderful plan of God to redeem His people, have a home among them and express His glory in them.
Importantly, the "redemption" part - the "Savior" part - that was NOT just a "stage." The cross was not a one-time deal. It is part and parcel of our daily interaction and growth with God in our spirit.
That "cross" could be said to be the central virtue of the Last Adam, even as he lived His human life: the emptying, the constantly looking to the Father's will not His own, etc...
This is just a rambling line of thought, but as I'm writing, I'm contemplating more the definition of "Christ's humanity." Perhaps this is its central feature: while "Adam's humanity" was marked by limitation, Christ's humanity is marked by freedom from that limitation which comes from a life lived under the Father's will and by the cross. That is Christ's "humanity."
Thoughts?
Peter
p.s. Nell, sorry - this wasn't a direct answer to your post, but you spurred my thoughts...
p.p.s. but I will just add, I don't think that "list" was a "list of superficial things."