[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by 77150

Using the Bible WL concluded there was an organic relationship, Igzy concluded that this was overblown and that it was really relational. .

First of all, Witness Lee used a lot unbiblical language in his teachings. Many times his “conclusions” were apparently based upon his own imagination and human reasonings. Secondly, he had a strong tendency to overemphasize things, especially certain theological notions that he invented himself. Such is the case with this matter of our “organic” connection to God. Yes, we have an organic connection with God, which is most vividly illustrated in the parable of the vine and branches in John 15. However Lee certainly went beyond what is taught by the Lord Jesus and the apostles.

Igzy can speak for himself (and I’m sure he will), but I think the problem he has with this proposition is not as cut and dry as you might think. No regular reader of the Bible would deny there is an “organic” aspect to our connection with God. This may be a more a matter of overemphasis more than a matter of organic versus relational. Actually, I don’t see these two as antithetical at all -- not saying that is what anybody here is claiming that they are, it’s just that it appears that way in reading some of 77150’s posts.

How do you then explain 1Cor 6, according to Igzy they don't really become "one flesh" in the sense of being "one Body" because if one dies the other still lives. Instead he interpreted this word concerning oneness to be something relational.

Here you continue to force a black and white choice between taking this statement literally or “not literally”(my choice of words). The simple fact is that we do not need to go that far with every single verse in the Bible. The Lord Jesus did not teach in this manner, and He, of course, is the gold standard when it comes to teachings. He used parables. He used stories. He even used hyperbole and figures of speech. Now the apostle Paul was not far behind – he may be considered the silver standard. Nevertheless, he also used hyperbole and figures of speech, along with many other literary tools. A good Bible student (not to mention Bible teacher) will take into consideration the use of all these tools. This is to say nothing of the problematic scientific art of translating the ancient biblical languages into English.

The scientific studies I mention demonstrate that it is not merely relational. I am not arguing that there is not a relational oneness, instead I am pointing out that in many different ways there is clearly and indisputably an organic oneness…

If God wanted us to take modern scientific knowledge into consideration, the New Testament would have been written in the 20th century and not in the 1st century. We must take into consideration what the 1st century writer was trying to convey, and what the 1st century reader would have likely understood. This is not to discount that the Word of God has timeless value and meaning, only that if we are going to be good students of the Word there are methods to getting at the two of the most important goals of biblical interpretation – what was meant at the time of the writing, and what could it mean for us today. Sometimes these turn out to be one in the same, other times not.

How does this relate to our "being one spirit with Christ". First it demonstrates that having a single experience of Christ will forever mark your spirit with that experience. It also shows that over time, as we behold Christ, we will be changed from one glory to the next. This process, is clearly a function of our relation with Christ, but is also an organic process.

I have no basic problem with what you have written here. “He who joined to the Lord is one spirit” – This is both organic and relational. I think the problem comes in with how Witness Lee turned the whole thing, every rhyme and reason, into a purely hyper-physical, almost automatic function. This is why he used the example of eating and digesting food so much – it’s how he looked at spiritual things. The simple truth is that spirituality is both organic and relational. Maybe they are more of the same thing than they are something different….if that makes any sense.