Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Leomon and John,
I think one important thing is to realize pictures are pictures and plain words are plain words. Lee tried to get us to look at pictures like they were plain words, and so always pushed these pictures beyond what is balanced. Since the branches are in some sense part of the vine and the body is in some sense the person therefore we must (he felt) go around with the concept that we are part of Christ.
In a sense (important phrase) we are. But not to the sense Lee and the LRC took it. We are part of Christ in the same type of way spouses are part of each other. It's a relational attachment with a real spiritual element.
We tended to look at it as an unconscious spiritually-physical attachment (if you get my meaning). That's taking it too far and even missing the real point.
The point is conscious relationship, not unconscious default connection.
|
Ohio,
This is Igzy's post. There is a clear scriptural basis to teach that the believers are "branches" of a vine tree and that the entire "vine tree" is Christ. Likewise there is a scriptural basis to say that believers can be compared to members of the Body. Each member can be very different in function yet they still all have the same DNA as the body. They have the same life and nature. It is also true that the Body is sometimes referred to as a picture or allegory, but not always.
He does not mention that the church is the Body of Christ, this is not an allegory, it is a fact. So yes, pictures can refer to some Biblical references to the Body, but "plain words" refer to other references to the Body.
Now WL took this teaching to a very dangerous extreme, using language that the NT never uses, and concepts that are clearly forbidden in the OT, though somewhat ambiguous in the NT. Still, he never taught this without a Biblical basis. I have several issues with his teaching, but the one thing I appreciate is that he made it clear how he derived this teaching from the Bible.
Now Igzy is clearly stating that WL's teaching was wrong, I would like the Biblical basis on which he derives this conclusion. A simple and fundamental request.