The following respond to a comment by awareness passed on from a Pentecostal pastor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
The problem with labeling everyone else as "different", i.e. defective, incomplete, lacking, "poor", etc is that you risk being the worst of all. I think the "full gospel" includes not judging others, not comparing oneself, not pointing out others' faults, and in being magnanimous (accepting and generous) toward all, if possible.
The one who says, "Everyone is divisive but me!" is probably the most divisive of all. While LCs are peculiar, so are many of us. They're not preaching a "different gospel" or presenting a "different Jesus."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It's OK if he does that, but not Lee.
|
And both are correct in their assessment of the charge being laid at the feet of Lee.
So, as has been asked elsewhere, what is "the same" to begin with. How much wiggle room is there within "the same," and what, even if somewhat different, is still "the same."
It is clear that almost every group latches onto certain aspects of the details surrounding Christ and the gospel at the expense of others. There may or may not be true problems in that, but at least they are talking about the same person and the same basic message. I believe that when Paul starts talking about "different" he does not mean just that they are emphasizing different things that are true, but emphasizing things that are not true. The gospel is by faith alone in Christ alone and accomplished by the once-for-all death on the cross, not by any of our works.
So for the Galatians to assert that they needed to do anything other than have faith is another gospel. Now as long as faith is included, it is not as if they were denying others the opportunity to salvation. But they did give salvation many more hurdles than is actually required. Will someone who gets circumcised and also has faith in Christ be denied salvation? Of course not. But will some balk at the prospect of being a convert if they have to do this thing? Therein is the problem. It is not that they are not becoming Christian, but that they are not preaching and living the true gospel. The gospel of salvation by grace, and of changed lives through that faith.
When I think of the kind of "different gospel" that Lee taught, it does not rise to a non-Christian gospel. And the Christ they preached was not a different person. Just not the whole person. When the teachings of Christ that called for obedience, justice, righteousness, etc., are set aside in favor of waiting for enough dispensing, and the requirements concerning the law are simply abolished, then the Christ I see preached is missing arms and legs. He needs no action. Just basking in the dispensing. It sounds nice. It makes us feel better. But it is not the gospel. And it is not "the Christ."
So if we teach a Christ/gospel that easily ignores the very commandment of Christ and of the scripture, how are we to assess that?
Do not sue your brother. But if we first send them our demands, since we are "the church" they have been served and we can treat them as heathen and sinners.
Do not do as the Pharisees do, demanding the best seats at the table. Seems that these are exactly the things taught by Deputy Authority.
Do not think more highly of yourselves than you ought. Yet we thought we were the highest.
You have everything you need for godliness. But instead we were taught that you shouldn't even bother trying to reckon yourself dead to sin.
I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. But they spend most of their time looking for the already-saved who are on the college campuses because they are "good material."
Can you name more? Each one of these is not decisive in itself. But there is a pattern of setting aside the clear command of Christ for something else.
No. They are not teaching that Christ is not God, or the brother of Lucifer. But they gut so many parts of who he is and what he teaches.
And when Paul talked about a different Christ, was he talking about something that literally denied the faith, or that gutted important parts of its impact? No, Lee was not teaching a Christ so different that he is not the Christ of the Bible. But he was teaching enough difference that the life we were called to was literally denied as the truth in some cases. I know that Yoda's "there is no try" is a popular mantra these days. But that is not what the Bible says. It tells us to do, and supplies the pardon if we fail. So there must be try. If it is "do or do not" then there would be no requirement for grace after salvation. Well, not entirely, because those who "do not" will surely need grace. But this notion that we are not to try, therefore if you consider that you might not succeed you should not try, then you are shrinking back from trying. But that is precisely what Lee taught.
If we are only talking about the "onset" of salvation, Lee did not teach a different gospel. But after that, his gospel was very different. And as for Christ, he taught a Christ that denied his own requirement to live a higher law than the 10 commandments.
It was still the Christ of the Bible — but gutted of important teaching. At some level, a "different Christ."
I don't know how else to say it.