Four Areas where W. Lee was Flat Wrong

[Cal]

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

Error #2: Psychology is worthless to spirituality.

In my experience, psychology is very important to spirituality. In fact, much of what we consider spirituality is actually, legitimately, mostly psychology. Paul instructs us how to think in Philippians 4. Proverbs 23:7 says as a man thinks, so he is. Our mind is a very powerful tool for modifying our behavior. Habits are a matter of our mind. Our subconscious mind affects us more than we realize. To dismiss psychology wholesale is to put oneself at an extreme disadvantage. Psychology is simply the way people manifestly operate. To disdain it is to disdain man himself and God’s creation.

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

This is one of Lee’s biggest errors, that the actual element of God is somehow being fused into our souls. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that such a thing is going on. And experience does not support it. Transformation is being made more like God in our soul. That means, primarily, learning to value things and think about things the way God does. I.e., it is primarily a matter of what we think about and how we think about it. Where our thoughts go, the rest of our being follows. As we become more obedient, naturally the Spirit is manifested more in our lives because He flows more freely through us, but that doesn’t mean He’s been “worked into our being.”

Note: 1, 2 and 3 above show a pattern whose cumulative effect is to put listeners in a compromised mental state.

First they are taught to mistrust knowledge itself, thus embracing ignorance. Second, they taught to mistrust the way their minds are manifestly designed to work, thus becoming dull of mind. Thirdly, they are taught to trust a vague and unverifiable process which operates beyond the scope of their experience. So even though there is no evidence that God is infused into anyone’s soul, they believe this is happening, to the disdain of anything else shown to be more accurate and effective. It is only years or decades later that they realize that none of this had the effect that was promised.

Error #4: Rapture and reward depend on growth.

The Bible never teaches either. Rapture is taught by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 as one event and he never suggests any believers will be left behind. Time and again, reward in the Bible is taught as based on faithfulness, not growth. This error leads believers to focus on their own condition, rather than on service to the Lord.

[ZNPaaneah]

Comments

1. I don't buy the first one. To be balanced you should also point out that WL often emphasized a college education. All young people in the LRC were encouraged very much to develop their mind. And he would often rebuke the idea that "knowledge = evil" as an understanding of his teaching. I think you couldn't be a full timer in the FTTT unless you had a college degree. I think there is a lot of documentation to support WL's emphasis of the need for a sound, well trained mind.

2. I agree with you that WL's stated opinion was that psychology was relatively worthless. In his defense I would point out that the science of psychology has come a very long way in the last 40 years as has our understanding of the brain. So if you are going to say this it should be emphasized that the context was the 70s and 80s.

3. I would be interested in your critique of the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union, the verses of one spirit and the analogy of one flesh. At present I believe there is a very good basis to support the idea that Christ in you, the hope of glory is something organic. I expect that this point is where the debate will focus, but that is just my first impression.

4. I don't buy this. The NT very clearly talks of growth and maturity. The two OT examples of rapture, Moses and Elijah, could certainly be examples of growth and maturity. No doubt faithfulness is also a critical factor. But just because the heart is critical for life doesn't make the liver a non factor. Likewise even though faithfulness is critical, there is a big difference between a believer who has only been saved for a month being "faithful" and one like Moses who is faithful in all His house.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Comments

1. I don't buy the first one. To be balanced you should also point out that WL often emphasized a college education. All young people in the LRC were encouraged very much to develop their mind. And he would often rebuke the idea that "knowledge = evil" as an understanding of his teaching. I think you couldn't be a full timer in the FTTT unless you had a college degree. I think there is a lot of documentation to support WL's emphasis of the need for a sound, well trained mind.

2. I agree with you that WL's stated opinion was that psychology was relatively worthless. In his defense I would point out that the science of psychology has come a very long way in the last 40 years as has our understanding of the brain. So if you are going to say this it should be emphasized that the context was the 70s and 80s.

3. I would be interested in your critique of the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union, the verses of one spirit and the analogy of one flesh. At present I believe there is a very good basis to support the idea that Christ in you, the hope of glory is something organic. I expect that this point is where the debate will focus, but that is just my first impression.

4. I don't buy this. The NT very clearly talks of growth and maturity. The two OT examples of rapture, Moses and Elijah, could certainly be examples of growth and maturity. No doubt faithfulness is also a critical factor. But just because the heart is critical for life doesn't make the liver a non factor. Likewise even though faithfulness is critical, there is a big difference between a believer who has only been saved for a month being "faithful" and one like Moses who is faithful in all His house.

Z,

1. Lee talked out of both sides of his mouth. But the fact is he misrepresented knowledge by calling the tree of knowledge of good and evil the tree of knowledge. Then there is the song that's still in the hymnal: "Knowledge, knowledge, fruit of knowledge isn't good to eat."

Sure Lee encouraged secular learning. For one thing he knew people needed to be employable. But when it came to spiritual knowledge, he blunted real learning by dismissing the function of the mind in favor of simply taking his interpretation of everything.

2. I don't think your point makes a difference. Lee wasn't just dissing the science of psychology. He was dissing any psychological techniques used to modify behavior. Everything for him had to be "the Spirit's working." I even heard him once scoff at positive thinking, calling it "cooperating with demons," even though Paul teaches positive thinking in Philippians 4.

3. Christ is in our spirit. But there is no evidence biblically that he moves into our souls or becomes infused or saturated into our souls. Changing as a Christian is a matter of learning new patterns of thought, some of which the Spirit teaches us directly. It is not a matter of Christ getting into our souls. If it were, what happens to Christ in my soul when I rebel, or become sinful? Does he run away and come back later to reclaim his infused position? It doesn't make any sense.

4. Z, I'm going to ask you a favor because you have a real problem with this: Please try to follow the point a poster is making and don't comment on a point he didn't make. Can you do that for me in this thread? Thank you.

I never said growth is not important. I said the Bible never says growth per se is necessary to be rewarded or be an overcomer. Faithfulness, endurance and obedience are. But the Bible never says that reward will be handed out based on who grew the most. The thought is just not taught in the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Z,

1. Lee talked out of both sides of his mouth. But the fact is he misrepresented knowledge by calling the tree of knowledge of good and evil the tree of knowledge. Then there is the song that's still in the hymnal: "Knowledge, knowledge, fruit of knowledge isn't good to eat."

Sure Lee encouraged secular learning. For one thing he knew people needed to be employable. But when it came to spiritual knowledge, he blunted real learning by dismissing the function of the mind in favor of simply taking his interpretation of everything.

2. I don't think your point makes a difference. Lee wasn't just dissing the science of psychology. He was dissing any psychological techniques used to modify behavior. Everything for him had to be "the Spirit's working." I even heard him once scoff at positive thinking, calling it "cooperating with demons," even though Paul teaches positive thinking in Philippians 4.

3. Christ is in our spirit. But there is no evidence biblically that he moves into our souls or becomes infused or saturated into our souls. Changing as a Christian is a matter of learning new patterns of thought, some of which the Spirit teaches us directly. It is not a matter of Christ getting into our souls. If it were, what happens to Christ in my soul when I rebel, or become sinful? Does he run away and come back later to reclaim his infused position? It doesn't make any sense.

4. Z, I'm going to ask you a favor because you have a real problem with this: Please try to follow the point a poster is making and don't comment on a point he didn't make. Can you do that for me in this thread? Thank you.

I never said growth is not important. I said the Bible never says growth per se is necessary to be rewarded or be an overcomer. Faithfulness, endurance and obedience are. But the Bible never says that reward will be handed out based on who grew the most. The thought is just not taught in the Bible.

1. This is your thread, you should be the one to provide the references to WL's ministry. The reference to the hymnal is weak, what number hymn was that and was it written by the saints or WL? WL wrote many hymns and published many volumes, certainly we can get a clear reference of his teaching to discuss. Let us be realistic, if you want to make a hymn about the two trees in the garden you are not going to fit "tree of knowledge of good and evil" into any song. So bad song, poor writer, but doesn't prove anything concerning WL's teaching. Second, WL was emphasizing that this was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" instead of "the apple" which was how it was misrepresented prior to WL.

2. My point is simply that to say psychology was not useful in spiritual ministry is not as egregious 40 years ago as saying it today might be. I have heard many Christian teachers speak far worse than that.

3. Once again WL taught extensively on this point, and used many NT verses. If you want to say that his teaching is flat wrong I think you should be quoting his teaching. Also I would disagree with your assertion. I think that Jasper is a critical type in the NT of Christian transformation, and petrified wood is an excellent picture of the type of Christian transformation that WL taught. Jasper replaces the carbon of the wood molecule by molecule, even if some of the wood is rotten or corrupt. WL often used this NT example when teaching about transformation.

4. What you didn't do is quote WL saying that the only factors in the rapture were growth and maturity. Without a quote from WL to discuss we are not anchored anywhere and can feel free to flap in the breeze. My point was simple, Moses was an example of both faithfulness and maturity in growth, and he was also one of only two examples of rapture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. This is your thread, you should be the one to provide the references to WL's ministry. The reference to the hymnal is weak, what number hymn was that and was it written by the saints or WL? WL wrote many hymns and published many volumes, certainly we can get a clear reference of his teaching to discuss. Let us be realistic, if you want to make a hymn about the two trees in the garden you are not going to fit "tree of knowledge of good and evil" into any song. So bad song, poor writer, but doesn't prove anything concerning WL's teaching.

You can't possibly really be this naive. Tell me you are just taking the devil's advocate's position.

No, Lee didn't write it. But Lee micromanaged everything. I'm sure he reviewed every hymn that was put in the permanent supplement. Which where this hymn is.

Second, WL was emphasizing that this was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" instead of "the apple" which was how it was misrepresented prior to WL.

The difference is "the apple" was never mentioned to make people suspicious of apples. But Lee clearly meant to take a swipe at "knowledge" and affect people's opinions about it.


My reference is Lee's book, The Tree of Life. I'll gather some quotes, but don't have it with me.

2. My point is simply that to say psychology was not useful in spiritual ministry is not as egregious 40 years ago as saying it today might be. I have heard many Christian teachers speak far worse than that.

So you are asking me for quotes, but are not going to provide any yourself?

3. Once again WL taught extensively on this point, and used many NT verses. If you want to say that his teaching is flat wrong I think you should be quoting his teaching. Also I would disagree with your assertion. I think that Jasper is a critical type in the NT of Christian transformation, and petrified wood is an excellent picture of the type of Christian transformation that WL taught. Jasper replaces the carbon of the wood molecule by molecule, even if some of the wood is rotten or corrupt. WL often used this NT example when teaching about transformation.

So you go from the picture of jasper, to petrified wood (which is not related to jasper, nor referred to in the Bible), to the process of how petrified wood is created, to arrive at a doctrine of transformation which is never alluded to lterally in the Bible? Creating doctrines from the whole cloth of type is risky. But creating one from a type which is not even in the Bible (petrified wood) is, well....

4. What you didn't do is quote WL saying that the only factors in the rapture were growth and maturity. Without a quote from WL to discuss we are not anchored anywhere and can feel free to flap in the breeze. My point was simple, Moses was an example of both faithfulness and maturity in growth, and he was also one of only two examples of rapture.

Z, I think you are just arguing to argue. Anyone who sat at the feet of Lee knows he likened the rapture to a harvest, and that the ones that matured early would be raptured early. And he also taught that if you didn't mature, you would spend time in the "dark closet" to get the growth you lacked. Everyone knows this, as do you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are asking me for quotes, but are not going to provide any yourself?

About Christian teachers teaching worse than this? Sure, I have sat through messages where people preach against the teaching of evolution and assert very strongly that the Earth is 6,000 years old and many other things that I consider to fly in the face of sound knowledge.

I have read Christian teaching that justified slavery in this country, though most of it predated the Civil War.

The Monkey trial is a pretty good example of what I would consider "worse than this".

These come to mind, but there are many more.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you go from the picture of jasper, to petrified wood (which is not related to jasper, nor referred to in the Bible), to the process of how petrified wood is created, to arrive at a doctrine of transformation which is never alluded to lterally in the Bible? Creating doctrines from the whole cloth of type is risky. But creating one from a type which is not even in the Bible (petrified wood) is, well....

Petrified wood is often petrified with Jasper. Which is why the Petrified Forest in Arizona, a National Park, is also called the Jasper forest.

The apostle Paul relates our experience of transformation to that of a precious stone. The apostle John gives us 12 precious stones in the New Jerusalem and by analogy closely links them to the transformation the 12 apostles went through.

The doctrine of transformation is based on the plain word of the Apostle Paul in Corinthians. Once you have the teaching by Paul and the analogy with precious stones and you are presented with Jasper as being a prime example of a precious stone then it is perfectly reasonable to look more carefully at how Jasper is formed.

In order for wood to be petrified it must be immersed, or baptized if you prefer, into a liquid that is saturated with Jasper. Jasper is a molecule that is formed of three atoms, two oxygen and one silicon. It is a "triune" molecule, three atoms but one molecule. Silicon is the most abundant earth element comprising about 50% of the crust. It is very close to carbon in structure. Oxygen is the source of our life form on earth. Although blue green algae predated oxygen, it was oxygen in our atmosphere that began the explosion of life that separates the precambrian from our current age. Interestingly, this boundary in Earth's history is marked by a major deposition of Jasper. Oxygen can also signify the breath or wind. Therefore it is not difficult to see these three atoms typifying the three of the Triune God: The father as the source of life, the Son as being of the Earth, and the Spirit or breath of life.

What is also interesting about this molecule which is most definitely presented as having the appearance of the New Jerusalem is that it has two crystal structures, one is called "Low quartz" and the other "high quartz". To discuss the symmetry of these two crystal structures would probably not be of much interest to most, but I would argue that the symmetry is quite similar to that of the two ministries of Christ, His earthly ministry and His heavenly ministry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Z, I think you are just arguing to argue. Anyone who sat at the feet of Lee knows he likened the rapture to a harvest, and that the ones that matured early would be raptured early. And he also taught that if you didn't mature, you would spend time in the "dark closet" to get the growth you lacked. Everyone knows this, as do you.

This is where I do get quite upset. The Bible likens the rapture to a harvest. The word tribulation is taken from the word that means sickle, an instrument for reaping the crops. Revelation talks about a first fruit and a harvest. It talks about putting in your sickle. Jesus talked about the kingdom being likened to planting seeds. John 15 likens God's work in this age to farming and running a vineyard.

Jesus also talked about some being cast out to where there would be "weaping and gnashing of teeth". WL, unlike many others, taught that those verses applied to born again Christians, not to unbelievers. He made a very compelling case. Are you now saying that those verses don't apply to genuine Christians?

WL didn't create these parables, He only commented on them.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

3. Christ is in our spirit. But there is no evidence biblically that he moves into our souls or becomes infused or saturated into our souls. Changing as a Christian is a matter of learning new patterns of thought, some of which the Spirit teaches us directly. It is not a matter of Christ getting into our souls. If it were, what happens to Christ in my soul when I rebel, or become sinful? Does he run away and come back later to reclaim his infused position? It doesn't make any sense.

I was reading the thread on "becoming one flesh" because it seemed relevant to this discussion and I discovered something you said in post #45 in that thread:

Igzy "You said somewhere that you might not be quite following my point and I think that's somewhat true. I never said it was relational to the exclusion of anything organic. My point was the personally relational aspect is the most important or at least the leading aspect of the phenomenon.

I think the mistake is to separate "organic" and "personally relational." God's relationship with us certainly has an organic aspect, but I don't believe that organic precludes or excludes relational. It is never impersonal. The word says "eternal life is knowing God and Christ" (John 17:3). Knowing means relationship. You can't know a person without having a relationship with him. Again life is a Person, and life is knowing that Person. We experience Christ as life, but He is even in that experience a Person.

This speaks, however, to exactly the error I am objecting to and which the LRC indulged in. That of seeming to think one could experience God "organically" but not relationally.

There is also the other error, that one could experience God relationally, but not organically. That is not possible either as NT believers. God is not just with us, He is in us. That's organic."

So if these two posts of yours are consistent you are saying that Christ is in us, that is organic, but it is restricted to the spirit and does not include our soul, our mind, our heart, our emotions or our will. Is that accurate?

[UntoHim]

Ok guys. Let's slow down a little bit.

Let's slow down and take each point in the order that Igzy placed them in the first post.

If at all possible, let's try to stay away from side issues and concerns and try to focus on each issuel.

First one:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.
Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. This is your thread, you should be the one to provide the references to WL's ministry. The reference to the hymnal is weak, what number hymn was that and was it written by the saints or WL? WL wrote many hymns and published many volumes, certainly we can get a clear reference of his teaching to discuss. Let us be realistic, if you want to make a hymn about the two trees in the garden you are not going to fit "tree of knowledge of good and evil" into any song. So bad song, poor writer, but doesn't prove anything concerning WL's teaching. Second, WL was emphasizing that this was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" instead of "the apple" which was how it was misrepresented prior to WL.

How's this reference for ya --

Get of your mind, bruuuuuuther!!

Sorry, don't have a page number, just memories of practically shouting this in each other's faces...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok guys. Let's slow down a little bit.

Let's slow down and take each point in the order that Igzy placed them in the first post.

If at all possible, let's try to stay away from side issues and concerns and try to focus on each issuel.

First one:

Hey, UntoHim. Since we are talking about point #3, can we run with that for now and then go to the others? These are all related to me anyway. Thanks!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was reading the thread on "becoming one flesh" because it seemed relevant to this discussion and I discovered something you said in post #45 in that thread:

Igzy "You said somewhere that you might not be quite following my point and I think that's somewhat true. I never said it was relational to the exclusion of anything organic. My point was the personally relational aspect is the most important or at least the leading aspect of the phenomenon.

I think the mistake is to separate "organic" and "personally relational." God's relationship with us certainly has an organic aspect, but I don't believe that organic precludes or excludes relational. It is never impersonal. The word says "eternal life is knowing God and Christ" (John 17:3). Knowing means relationship. You can't know a person without having a relationship with him. Again life is a Person, and life is knowing that Person. We experience Christ as life, but He is even in that experience a Person.

This speaks, however, to exactly the error I am objecting to and which the LRC indulged in. That of seeming to think one could experience God "organically" but not relationally.

There is also the other error, that one could experience God relationally, but not organically. That is not possible either as NT believers. God is not just with us, He is in us. That's organic."

So if these two posts of yours are consistent you are saying that Christ is in us, that is organic, but it is restricted to the spirit and does not include our soul, our mind, our heart, our emotions or our will. Is that accurate?

Short answer, yes. My point is that Christ does not become infused into our soul. He does not become joined to our soul the way he does with our spirit.

My experience bears this out. I've been a Christian since 1974. I've had a lot of experiences of the Lord. He has no doubt changed me. But I have no evidence he has moved into my soul. In fact, I have evidence that he hasn't.

Think for a moment. Assuming soul means the psychological part of man--mind, emotion, will--if Christ is now infused into your soul, which part of it is he in? Your mind? Okay, your mind is basically your thoughts then. Which thoughts is he infused into? How about when you think the most horrible things? How about when you have a fight with your wife? Which part of your mind is he in then? It seems to me that if Christ has been only a little bit infused into your soul, how could your soul ever sin again?

Further, if Christ has been infused into your soul, then it seems you could then have fellowship with the Christ in your soul. Have you ever done this? Neither have I. Have you ever detected the Christ which has been infused into you soul? Neither have I.

I believe the Holy Spirit transforms us by teaching us and softening our heart. Yes, some of this is a supernatural process we cannot understand. But some of it is quite understandable. He draws us with his love and beauty and wisdom. The change is one which comes by virtue of us being drawn to him and wanting more and more to please him. How "metabolic" it is is secondary at best. The leading part is the relational aspect. We love him and want to be like him.

I'm saying that the doctrine "God wants to work himself into our being" is flatly inaccurate.

Who else teaches this but Lee? I've haven't seen anybody else but Lee and his disciples who teach that God "is being worked into our being." That should tell you something.

This is one of those teachings that we bought into that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, even with the far-blown typology of jasper and petrified wood.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Short answer, yes. My point is that Christ does not become infused into our soul. He does not become joined to our soul the way he does with our spirit.

My experience bears this out. I've been a Christian since 1974. I've had a lot of experiences of the Lord. He has no doubt changed me. But I have no evidence he has moved into my soul. In fact, I have evidence that he hasn't.

Think for a moment. Assuming soul means the psychological part of man--mind, emotion, will--if Christ is now infused into your soul, which part of it is he in? Your mind? Okay, your mind is basically your thoughts then. Which thoughts is he infused into? How about when you think the most horrible things? How about when you have a fight with your wife? Which part of your mind is he in then? It seems to me that if Christ has been only a little bit infused into your soul, how could your soul ever sin again?

Further, if Christ has been infused into your soul, then it seems you could then have fellowship with the Christ in your soul. Have you ever done this? Neither have I. Have you ever detected the Christ which has been infused into you soul? Neither have I.

I believe the Holy Spirit transforms us by teaching us and softening our heart. Yes, some of this is a supernatural process we cannot understand. But some of it is quite understandable. He draws us with his love and beauty and wisdom. The change is one which comes by virtue of us being drawn to him and wanting more and more to please him. How "metabolic" it is is secondary at best. The leading part is the relational aspect. We love him and want to be like him.

I'm saying that the doctrine "God wants to work himself into our being" is flatly inaccurate.

Who else teaches this but Lee? I've haven't seen anybody else but Lee and his disciples who teach that God "is being worked into our being." That should tell you something.

This is one of those teachings that we bought into that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny, even with the far-blown typology of jasper and petrified wood.

Thanks for clarifying this. To me this is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of interpretation. You believe that Christ is in you, I also believe that.

I don't have any interest in convincing you of "the far blown typology of Jasper". What I would be interested in is how you can say with certainty that the teaching that God wants to work Himself into you is flatly wrong. I will agree to stay away from "far-blown typology" if you will stay away from your own logic. Simply, where in the NT do you have the basis to say that this interpretation is flat wrong.

For example, why is it unreasonable to understand "let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" to mean that God wants to work Himself into your mind?

I would say that Paul's expressed desire here is one and the same as God's desire, hence this is something that God wants. The context of "let" is basically to say Amen to various experiences of the cross, for example humbling yourself. Why can't this process be described as "work" since just like the Lord Jesus it might result in long prayer vigils in the garden. Why is it flat wrong to think that the Mind of Christ is equivalent to the Mind of God and that for this mind to be in you it suggests that God has now renewed your mind with His?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Think for a moment. Assuming soul means the psychological part of man--mind, emotion, will--if Christ is now infused into your soul, which part of it is he in? Your mind? Okay, your mind is basically your thoughts then. Which thoughts is he infused into? How about when you think the most horrible things? How about when you have a fight with your wife? Which part of your mind is he in then? It seems to me that if Christ has been only a little bit infused into your soul, how could your soul ever sin again?

Further, if Christ has been infused into your soul, then it seems you could then have fellowship with the Christ in your soul. Have you ever done this? Neither have I. Have you ever detected the Christ which has been infused into you soul? Neither have I.

12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I read this verse to say that the renewing of your mind allows you to prove what is the good, acceptable and perfect will of God. When I fellowship I do so in my spirit, hence the objectionable expression “hey brother, get out of your mind” but that does not mean that I don’t use my mind when I fellowship. The mind should be under the direction of the spirit. An unrenewed mind would suggest carrying the ark of the covenant in an ox cart instead of by the levitical priesthood. An unrenewed mind would suggest lying to a maid about knowing Jesus. An unrenewed mind would rebuke the Lord for saying that He must be crucified.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Short answer, yes. My point is that Christ does not become infused into our soul. He does not become joined to our soul the way he does with our spirit.

My experience bears this out. I've been a Christian since 1974. I've had a lot of experiences of the Lord. He has no doubt changed me. But I have no evidence he has moved into my soul. In fact, I have evidence that he hasn't.

I am kind of surprised you would say this. Does not Christ desire to make home in our heart? If indeed our soul is only mind, emotion, and will, can you assert that your mind, emotion, and will have not changed with each experience of the Lord? Do you think differently, feel differently, or choose differently?

Anyways, not interested in another course on the "Parts of Man 101." I just don't think we can slice and dice our souls up to see which is Christ and which is still us.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. I would be interested in your critique of the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union, the verses of one spirit and the analogy of one flesh.

If the last one you mention here is representative of what we are talking about, then I would say that it is not some "organic union." The analogy of one flesh is (at least in one place) given in terms of husband and wife. No matter how much they may influence each other's behavior, and even health (in various ways), they remain literally separate. The union is in commitment, focus, goal, etc. It is not "organic." This is how God comes to us. He is there as a resource to lean on. As a teacher. As a guide. As the one to follow. But he does not organically join in and cause it to happen. It is in the alignment of mind and will. The relegating of our own egos to second place. This is how it is worked out in this time and space.

I do not deny the aid we receive from aligning with the Spirit in our taking action. But if it is organic, we would have nothing to align. It would simply be so.

Why is there divorce? Because the union is not organic. Outside influences can come to bear and tear things apart. There is nothing that simply causes us to submit to one another. It is not automatic. It is not organic. It takes will. "Organic" needs no will. Organic will do what it will do.

However, if you want a critique of "the verses that WL used to emphasize the organic union" then i suggest that you supply them (at least the references). No matter how much you may think they should roll off our tongues, they may not. (And in my case, they do not. It has been too long.) And point us to the book(s) or messages where Lee's statements are found, that would be ideal. While my time has been limited lately, I have generally enjoyed looking back into the meat of some of these topics. Pray that I come to it with the same open mind that I so often suggest that we have about Christianity, denominations, clergy, etc.

[OBW]

And an important point in the above post that I left out is that since marriage is used as the metaphor for "become one flesh," then the phrase must not mean "organic." It must mean something else. It would seem that to insist that it is about "organic" union is to say something that the metaphor does not. If the intent was "organic union," then another metaphor was needed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And an important point in the above post that I left out is that since marriage is used as the metaphor for "become one flesh," then the phrase must not mean "organic." It must mean something else. It would seem that to insist that it is about "organic" union is to say something that the metaphor does not. If the intent was "organic union," then another metaphor was needed.

The word is used in Corinthians to say that if you are joined to a prostitute you sin against your own body. How could that sin not refer to diseases like AIDS? How can the transmission of AIDS not be organic?

[OBW]

I started looking back at the beginning of this thread.

In post #7 I said

And an important point in the above post that I left out is that since marriage is used as the metaphor for "become one flesh," then the phrase must not mean "organic." It must mean something else. It would seem that to insist that it is about "organic" union is to say something that the metaphor does not. If the intent was "organic union," then another metaphor was needed.

Shortly after, the reply in post #11 is

The word is used in Corinthians to say that if you are joined to a prostitute you sin against your own body. How could that sin not refer to diseases like AIDS? How can the transmission of AIDS not be organic?

This is the kind of illogic and misunderstanding that Igzy and others are standing against.

The response uses off-point issues to establish an organic union. The fact that disease is passed from one person to another does not establish the kind of "organic union" that Lee spoke of. For Lee, it means that there is a permanent life connection that cannot be broken. He is not talking about simply the passing of separate organic things between persons, or between man and God. He is talking about them becoming literally one.

And even if engaging with a prostitute is called sinning against your own body, that is "me" sinning against "my" body and is not described as the result of something organic. It is no more organic than sticking two long stem roses together into a vase. They remain separate although there is a shared environment.

Now scripture clearly refers to a husband and wife as being one. But it does not declare them to be a single organic entity. In terms of "organic," other than the fact that they will pass many "foreign" organic items between themselves due to extreme proximity and intimacy, they remain two separate organic entities. Their souls, psyches, wills, etc., become unified, but even in that, not literally singular. Only unified. There is a difference between union into one and unified.

And AIDS is not a determiner of organic union. Yes, you might get it from a prostitute. But you can also get it from certain less committed activities, such as other bodily fluids, including blood (which can transmit its diseases without any intimacy).

I don't want to draw out the source of this particular argument. But it does show to me the kind of "stuck" mentality that we all got learning from Lee. We start to repackage everything, even science, to fit a view of theology that is not consistent with scripture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why is there divorce? Because the union is not organic. Outside influences can come to bear and tear things apart. There is nothing that simply causes us to submit to one another. It is not automatic. It is not organic. It takes will. "Organic" needs no will. Organic will do what it will do.

Jesus likened divorce to amputating a member of your body. Since the union of my hand to my arm is organic, amputation proves that you can have "divorce" in an organic relationship. The same holds true with the analogy of being branches in a vine that are pruned or "taken away".

It is not for me to supply the verses, the thread was started by Igzy, he asserts that WL was "flat wrong" in four areas. All I am asking is that WL's teachings be put on the table. How am I to know which teaching he feels is "flat wrong". He has already responded that "WL spoke out of both sides of his mouth" to prove that teaching one thing in one place does not balance out some teaching somewhere else.

[countmeworthy]

#1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Agree Igzy. One of my favorite scriptures that refutes this statement is Daniel 1:17. As for these four youths, God gave them KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE in every branch of literature and Wisdom.

Paul also had the revelation we have the MIND of CHRIST!!! If we have the MIND of CHRIST, I believe we are super geniuses!!! And one day, WE WILL have the manifestation of this TRUTH!!! For now, I speak these words almost every day!

Error #2: Psychology is worthless to spirituality.

Well Igzy, he wasn't the crispiest cookie in the cookie jar but at one time we all thought he was. Many still do.

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

He was also not a very good communicator. But God has changed much of my stinking thinking! For I have the Mind of Christ and He has no stinking thinking. ;-)

Error #4: Rapture and reward depend on growth.

I do not know he even knew/understood the difference between the rapture FOR the saints and the second coming WITH the saints 7 years after the rapture.

Blessings!

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #1: Equating knowledge with evil.

Lee liked to call the tree of knowledge of good and evil "the tree of knowledge," changing the meaning of the metaphor. But the Bible never equates knowledge with evil. It says knowledge is not an end in itself and can be abused, but that is true for most things God created.

Genesis 2;17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:6,7 ... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they 'knew' that they were naked;

From the two verses above, I can only infer that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not only equal evil, it equals death. If my inference is wrong, the only other inference is that God lied or was not completely honest.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #2: Psychology is worthless to spirituality.

In my experience, psychology is very important to spirituality. In fact, much of what we consider spirituality is actually, legitimately, mostly psychology. Paul instructs us how to think in Philippians 4. Proverbs 23:7 says as a man thinks, so he is. Our mind is a very powerful tool for modifying our behavior. Habits are a matter of our mind. Our subconscious mind affects us more than we realize. To dismiss psychology wholesale is to put oneself at an extreme disadvantage. Psychology is simply the way people manifestly operate. To disdain it is to disdain man himself and God’s creation.

I personally am open to psychology if it helps someone. And, I know brothers who were partaking of the table at my local church while on medication provided by psychologists.

Regarding Br. Lee's opinion against psychologists, he is not the only Christian who is against psychologists. There are many Christian denominations which even discourage visiting general doctors.

I googled and found the links below against psychology.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Counseling/spoiling.htm
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/ps...y_christianity

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error # 3: God wants to work himself into our beings.

This is one of Lee’s biggest errors, that the actual element of God is somehow being fused into our souls. Nowhere does the Bible suggest that such a thing is going on. And experience does not support it. Transformation is being made more like God in our soul. That means, primarily, learning to value things and think about things the way God does. I.e., it is primarily a matter of what we think about and how we think about it. Where our thoughts go, the rest of our being follows. As we become more obedient, naturally the Spirit is manifested more in our lives because He flows more freely through us, but that doesn’t mean He’s been “worked into our being.”

In the above quote on Br. Lee's so-called 'biggest error', you give your own definition of transformation. You say 'As we become more obedient...' which implies a comparison to a state of less obedience.
How do you explain 'become more obedient'? Wasn't there a change which resulted in the 'more obedience'? What was the change?

You also say 'He flows more freely through us'
What medium does the Spirit take to flow though us?
'more freely' would imply some change in the medium compared to an earlier time when the Spirit was flowing 'less freely'. What is the change in the medium that enables the 'more freely' flow of the Spirit?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Error #4: Rapture and reward depend on growth.

The Bible never teaches either. Rapture is taught by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 as one event and he never suggests any believers will be left behind. Time and again, reward in the Bible is taught as based on faithfulness, not growth. This error leads believers to focus on their own condition, rather than on service to the Lord.

Why does anyone care about the rapture or the reward?
Why can't we just gaze at the Bridegroom's face instead of disagreeing over the crown and the garment?

Hymn 206 stanza 3
(Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/206)

The Bride eyes not her garment,
But her dear Bridegroom's face;
I will not gaze at glory,
But on my King of grace:
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory,
And my eternal stand!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

From the two verses above, I can only infer that eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil does not only equal evil, it equals death. If my inference is wrong, the only other inference is that God lied or was not completely honest.

I'm not sure what your point is relative to my post. But I'll expand on what I believe.

The item in question is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It is not called "the tree of knowledge," neither is it called "the tree of good and evil."

Lee would often call it "the tree of knowedge," and use that to indict knowledge. I don't recall Lee calling it directly "the tree of good and evil." But his oft-quoted assertion that "good and evil are from the same tree" basically did that.

Both of these ideas, that the tree was "the tree of knowledge," and that it was "the tree of good and evil" seriously distort the meaning of the picture.

So what does "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" mean? I think it clearly means trying to live morally independent from God. Man cannot live with some kind of guide as to what is good and what is evil. We are supposed to look to God for this knowledge, not make ourselves the source. And the latter is exactly what Adam and Eve did when they reinterpreted God's command!

But to take this symbol so far as to indict knowledge, or to say good and evil come from the same source contradicts the rest of the Bible. The Bible upholds proper knowledge as as goal to aim for. The whole book of Proverbs is about this. And again and again the Bible says do good and abstain from evil.

God said that eating from the tree would cause man to be "like us [God], knowing good and evil." But obviously, man did not become like God. He didn't truly know good and evil. What he became was an entity which thought he himself was a source of knowledge of good and evil and so would not need another source of such knowledge other than himself. In other words, he became morally independent. This is what "like us" meant.

Yes, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil results in death. That is, seeking to know good and evil apart from God results in death.

So saying "knowledge results in death" or "good and evil come from the same tree" are flat wrong teachings

I personally am open to psychology if it helps someone. And, I know brothers who were partaking of the table at my local church while on medication provided by psychologists.

Regarding Br. Lee's opinion against psychologists, he is not the only Christian who is against psychologists. There are many Christian denominations which even discourage visiting general doctors.

I googled and found the links below against psychology.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Counseling/spoiling.htm
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/ps...y_christianity

Psychology isn't just about "psychologists." It is the whole study of human behavior and how people learn and improve. Lee basically threw all that out and said we need to just soak in the Spirit to get transformed. My assertion is that is an inefficient way to grow. We need to also use all the psychological tools God has given us to learn, change and improve. Transformation, the Bible says, is a matter of "the renewing of our mind." That implies our thinking changes

We need grace, but we also need to determine to do certain things, particularly we need to decide to think in new ways. That's what repenting means. I had to make a definite effort to overcome certain sins. Just waiting for the Spirit to change oneself is not good enough, in my experience.

Be honest, has the practice of "just taking in the Spirit" produced transformed Christians in the LRC? Certainly being filled with the Spirit is important. But to say that's all there is to transformation is to put oneself at a disadvantage.

In the above quote on Br. Lee's so-called 'biggest error', you give your own definition of transformation. You say 'As we become more obedient...' which implies a comparison to a state of less obedience.
How do you explain 'become more obedient'? Wasn't there a change which resulted in the 'more obedience'? What was the change?

The change is you decide to think differently. God obviously gives us grace to do this. But you have to make up your mind to do it.

"Work out your salvation... for it is God that works in you." Phil 2:12-13

You also say 'He flows more freely through us'
What medium does the Spirit take to flow though us?
'more freely' would imply some change in the medium compared to an earlier time when the Spirit was flowing 'less freely'. What is the change in the medium that enables the 'more freely' flow of the Spirit?

The medium is our mind. The change in the medium is that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think. Everything hinges on that.

Why does anyone care about the rapture or the reward?
Why can't we just gaze at the Bridegroom's face instead of disagreeing over the crown and the garment?

Well, the Bible does tell us to take care and not lose our reward. So you have to think about it some. But I agree, we shouldn't obsess on it. Keeping our eyes on Jesus is the best way to get the prize.

Thanks for your comments.

[Cal]

Essentially, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil equates to acting under the belief that "I don't need God to decide what is good and what is evil."

This is exactly what Adam and Even did when they decided to go against God's command. They decided for themselves what was right and wrong.

Disobedience is, essentially, deciding you know better than God. Therefore, any disobedience is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This upholds the more mainstream belief that it was disobedience that caused man's fall, not literal "eating."

Eating from the tree was accomplished in their minds before they partook of anything physical. The tree of knowledge of good and evil may have actually been benign itself, because the act of deciding for themselves, in contradiction to God, what was good and evil was itself a partaking of the essence of what the tree represented.

This speaks to another error by Lee, that the tree represented Satan and by eating it man took Satan into his body. There is no evidence biblically that this happened. Man fell because he corrupted himself, not because he took Satan into his body.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This speaks to another error by Lee, that the tree represented Satan and by eating it man took Satan into his body. There is no evidence biblically that this happened. Man fell because he corrupted himself, not because he took Satan into his body.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

From the verses above, we see that in Gen 1:31, there was no sin in man. By the time we reach Rom 7, there is sin in man.
At what point did sin enter man? What is the substance which when introduced into man created sin in man?
My answer is what I understand from Br. Lee's writings - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents Satan. When man ate from the tree of knowledge of good and even, death (the source of which is Satan) entered into man.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Essentially, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil equates to acting under the belief that "I don't need God to decide what is good and what is evil."

This is exactly what Adam and Even did when they decided to go against God's command. They decided for themselves what was right and wrong.

Disobedience is, essentially, deciding you know better than God. Therefore, any disobedience is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This upholds the more mainstream belief that it was disobedience that caused man's fall, not literal "eating."

Eating from the tree was accomplished in their minds before they partook of anything physical. The tree of knowledge of good and evil may have actually been benign itself, because the act of deciding for themselves, in contradiction to God, what was good and evil was itself a partaking of the essence of what the tree represented.

As I said before, I do not think eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil was just an act of disobedience. I agree with Br. Lee that it was man ingesting sin into his body.

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The item in question is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It is not called "the tree of knowledge," neither is it called "the tree of good and evil."
Lee would often call it "the tree of knowedge," and use that to indict knowledge. I don't recall Lee calling it directly "the tree of good and evil." But his oft-quoted assertion that "good and evil are from the same tree" basically did that.
Both of these ideas, that the tree was "the tree of knowledge," and that it was "the tree of good and evil" seriously distort the meaning of the picture.

I hear what you are trying to say. But, I still wanted to point out that Wikipedia says Tree of Knowledge may refer to Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I don't think Br. Lee asked brothers to remain ignorant/illiterate. He may have said 'knowledge is bad'. But, at least I understood that knowledge without Christ is bad. Just as I know that 1 Cor 8:1 (knowledge puffeth up) is not indicting knowledge.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So what does "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" mean? I think it clearly means trying to live morally independent from God. Man cannot live with some kind of guide as to what is good and what is evil. We are supposed to look to God for this knowledge, not make ourselves the source. And the latter is exactly what Adam and Eve did when they reinterpreted God's command!
But to take this symbol so far as to indict knowledge, or to say good and evil come from the same source contradicts the rest of the Bible. The Bible upholds proper knowledge as as goal to aim for. The whole book of Proverbs is about this. And again and again the Bible says do good and abstain from evil.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil results in death. That is, seeking to know good and evil apart from God results in death.
So saying "knowledge results in death" or "good and evil come from the same tree" are flat wrong teachings

I agree with you about what the Bible says about knowledge. And, that is what I understood from Br. Lee's writings as well. I never felt Br. Lee was asking anyone to give up knowledge in the literal sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Igzy

God said that eating from the tree would cause man to be "like us [God], knowing good and evil." But obviously, man did not become like God. He didn't truly know good and evil. What he became was an entity which thought he himself was a source of knowledge of good and evil and so would not need another source of such knowledge other than himself. In other words, he became morally independent. This is what "like us" meant.

Gen 3: 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

As I said before, I do not think eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil was just an act of disobedience. I agree with Br. Lee that it was man ingesting sin into his body.

Are you suggesting that the snake turned into a piece of fruit and so when they ate the fruit they biologically ingested Satan and thus Satan is passed down genetically from generation to generation?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

What is the substance which when introduced into man created sin in man?

I believe that this question defines the problem in Lee's (and your) view of the fall. It is the presumption that there must be a substance taken in for man to sin. To have sin within him. But there is no substance taken in for us to know anything. Note that the thing that God comments on concerning man is his knowing. But when I look at the passage, including in a rather poor Hebrew interlinear, I am uncertain whether even God commenting on man's knowing is about what man simply knows, or about man is coming to know. In other words, discerning.

Put another way, what man will decide for himself from his own perspective, experience, etc.

But whether or not that is a correct understanding, there is nothing fundamentally required to be "introduced into man" for him to be sinful. The only requirement was that he listened to the voice of the snake and exercised his free will to choose. Something that was always a possibility anyway. While there was only one crack at this and we therefore can only speculate, I believe it would be a reasonable speculation to assume that even without a snake to entice Eve, then Adam, to disobey, the possibility was always there.

And the ensuing records describe the cause of man's curse as disobedience, not the introduction of foreign substance. If substance is required, then the whole idea of a spiritual realm is meaningless. If we had to eat to fall, then we must have to do something similar to be freed from that fall. And saying words would not be it because there is no "substance" to the words. You can argue that God is in them, or behind them.

But God is not "substance" in the way that you seem to require for purposes of the fall. You are requiring man to physically take something in to fall, yet no such requirement is made for becoming freed from it. If there is substance to it, then substance must be removed to take away its hold.

No, the whole think is predicated upon disobedience. And what better way to establish the act of disobedience than in something that has physical evidence? And what better (or worse) enticement than the lure of knowing what God knows.

By the way. I note that the verse does say that man became like God ("us") in that he knew good from evil. But that is a specific comparison. It is not that man is simply like God. He has attained some level of common knowledge. (I will suggest that it is not truly the same, because man's version of good v evil does not consistently agree with God's. Therefore, the similarity is not complete even in this one thing.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I personally am open to psychology if it helps someone. And, I know brothers who were partaking of the table at my local church while on medication provided by psychologists.

Regarding Br. Lee's opinion against psychologists, he is not the only Christian who is against psychologists. There are many Christian denominations which even discourage visiting general doctors.

I googled and found the links below against psychology.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Counseling/spoiling.htm
http://www.awmi.net/extra/article/ps...y_christianity

These overly long posts make it difficult to respond without picking on a couple points. First of all, I can go on line and find some Christian saying anything I want to hear. I read the 2nd link above, and found it to be extremely poorly written -- heaps of condemnation without a sober argument that made sense. If you want to quote something specific, then great.

You mentioned psychologists prescribing meds to some saints. They don't do that, Psychiatrists do. There's a world of difference between the two.

WL and the Blendeds berated any kind of Christian help outside of there ministry. They categorically condemned all contemporary Christian literature. Except for Christian authors now deceased, none was ever spoken highly of. I have heard both Billy Graham ("anyone can get people saved, but BG doesn't see the church") and James Dobson ("parents used to go to Dr. Spock, but now they all go to Dobson" belittled publicly. I have heard all Christian "self-help" ridiculed as "chicken soup for the soul."

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Psychology isn't just about "psychologists." It is the whole study of human behavior and how people learn and improve. Lee basically threw all that out and said we need to just soak in the Spirit to get transformed. My assertion is that is an inefficient way to grow. We need to also use all the psychological tools God has given us to learn, change and improve. Transformation, the Bible says, is a matter of "the renewing of our mind." That implies our thinking changes

I haven't been to psychiatrists or psychologists ever before. So, I do not know the exact difference and honestly, I don't care. What I meant was 'There have been saints in my local church who have been allowed to treat issues with their psyche'.

Originally Posted by Igzy

We need grace, but we also need to determine to do certain things, particularly we need to decide to think in new ways. That's what repenting means. I had to make a definite effort to overcome certain sins. Just waiting for the Spirit to change oneself is not good enough, in my experience.

I do not believe that I can do anything by myself.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. (Rom 7:18)

Originally Posted by Igzy

Be honest, has the practice of "just taking in the Spirit" produced transformed Christians in the LRC? Certainly being filled with the Spirit is important. But to say that's all there is to transformation is to put oneself at a disadvantage.

I can't say everyone is transformed. But, there are many who are transformed by the Spirit.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

In the above quote on Br. Lee's so-called 'biggest error', you give your own definition of transformation. You say 'As we become more obedient...' which implies a comparison to a state of less obedience.
How do you explain 'become more obedient'? Wasn't there a change which resulted in the 'more obedience'? What was the change?

Originally Posted by Igzy

The change is you decide to think differently. God obviously gives us grace to do this. But you have to make up your mind to do it.

"Work out your salvation... for it is God that works in you." Phil 2:12-13

I believe that in us dwelleth no good thing.

Rom 9:16 says So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
As per Rom 9:17,18 the Lord even sent the plagues on Egypt after God himself had hardened Pharoah's heart.

So, I do not agree that we can do anything by ourselves at all.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

You also say 'He flows more freely through us'
What medium does the Spirit take to flow though us?
'more freely' would imply some change in the medium compared to an earlier time when the Spirit was flowing 'less freely'. What is the change in the medium that enables the 'more freely' flow of the Spirit?

Originally Posted by Igzy

The medium is our mind. The change in the medium is that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think. Everything hinges on that.

I agree that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think? But, how?
I believe it is because God is working himself into our being? When we have more of God in our being, our mind thinks more in a way according to how God would have us think?
If you do not agree with me, how do you explain the fact that the mind thinks more as God wants us to think?

[SavedbyGrace]

Originally Posted by Ohio

First of all, I can go on line and find some Christian saying anything I want to hear. I read the 2nd link above, and found it to be extremely poorly written -- heaps of condemnation without a sober argument that made sense. If you want to quote something specific, then great.

I am just saying that there are other Christians as well who discourage meeting psychiatrists/psychologists or whoever it is Igzy is referring to. I know it personally because the Pentecostal group I was part of earlier, discouraged it too.
Also, it is only in the United States that meeting psychologists is so popular. In my country, even unbelievers do not meet psychologists at the drop of a hat. So, it is not even a topic of interest for most saints in my country.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You mentioned psychologists prescribing meds to some saints. They don't do that, Psychiatrists do. There's a world of difference between the two.

There may be a huge difference. But, I don't care. I just wanted to say that there have been people in my local church who have treaetd their psyche without being condemned by the leading brothers.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I agree that we think in a way that is more according to how God would have us think? But, how?
I believe it is because God is working himself into our being? When we have more of God in our being, our mind thinks more in a way according to how God would have us think?
If you do not agree with me, how do you explain the fact that the mind thinks more as God wants us to think?

SavedbyGrace,

The bottom line is the Bible never says transformation means God moves into our soul.

Be honest. You believe God gets worked into your soul because Lee taught it and you've been told to believe him because he was the minister of the age or something like that. But the fact is you've never questioned his teachings with any real rigor, have you? I can tell by your responses to me that you haven't.

Admit it, you have no personal experience which actually confirms that God has been worked into your soul or anyone else's, do you? You are just assuming it happened because that's what Lee told you transformation was, aren't you?

But the fact is, if you examine yourself, you'd have to admit that you are still just you and God is still God. Yes, he is very close to you, he is in your spirit, and he is changing you somehow. Praise him for that. But there is no experiential nor biblical evidence that he has moved into your soul, and in fact, there is a lot of evidence he hasn't.

Be honest. It is not a sin to think outside Lee's box.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We need grace, but we also need to determine to do certain things, particularly we need to decide to think in new ways. That's what repenting means. I had to make a definite effort to overcome certain sins. Just waiting for the Spirit to change oneself is not good enough, in my experience.

Originally Posted by SavedbyGrace

I do not believe that I can do anything by myself.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. (Rom 7:18)

In a way, you are right. But not entirely. You seem determined to analyze the whole thing in terms of Romans 7. What about Romans 8?

In Romans 8, we are admonished to walk. To set our minds. I would agree that this cannot be "by myself." But if the walking is "by the Spirit" and the setting is "on the Spirit" how "by myself" am I? Romans 7 is the build-up to Romans 8. And Romans 8 is serious about doing. It is about walking, not waiting, or even abiding. I am not dismissing the abiding side of the equation. But abiding is part of activity. The metaphor of a vine and branches is not one of passivity. It is one of activity fueled by a source that exists because of the connection to the trunk (the vine). Branches do not just sit there and sap causes fruit to appear on the ends of the branches. Branches do all the things that branches do, including transmitting nutrients from the ground, and processed nutrients from leaves and then bring it all together to create fruit.

I think that Lee's version of abiding was built on the wrong metaphor. I think he was actually using the sense of living in a house. Living in a house does not provide anything. It is a passive "activity." There are stores down the street. And factories that produce things. But it doesn't happen in the house. You just abide there and eat your dinner and get bigger (fatter?).

But that is not the metaphor Jesus used. He used abiding in terms of a branch attached to a trunk (the vine) constantly doing all the things that the whole of the vine does, including producing fruit. So the vine must take in the nutrients from the trunk, but it must always be using them in its activities, not just collecting them in the bark.

And while Paul is not using the vine-branch-abiding metaphor here, is it that hard to see that "walking according to the Spirit" is little more than a different way of discussing the same thing? If we are not connected to the Spirit (the vine) then all the walking we try to do (producing of fruit) will be without positive result. But if we simply connect to the Spirit yet do nothing, you not only have no positive result, you don't even have the possibility of being right for the wrong reasons. We can complain about people who manage to "do it in themselves" all we want. But if they are actually doing it and the person who is actually getting the correct source is not actually doing anything, I'm not sure that it is any better.

In fact, I question whether they are just fooling themselves about how much Spirit they are actually taking in (or being set upon, or whatever). And that is the very kind of question that James asks right up front in his little epistle.

And for all those people who we think are just "doing it in themselves," what happens if you don't have to be part of "God's best," or even be part of some very evangelical/fundamental group to be hooked into the supply? What if we have been fed a line about how bankrupt all those people who recite creeds and come and sing and pray together once a week really are? What if as a result of their faith in Jesus, they are encouraged to step out and live righteously, and without having wonderfully high-peak meetings they really are walking according to the Spirit, and setting their minds on the Spirit?

In other words, they are doing exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 8 without being engaged in morning watch, going to trainings, or 7 feasts, or listening to the apostle of the age?

What happens if there are even a staggering number of Roman Catholics in that crowd? What if the cloud of witnesses spurring us on includes more people from groups that we despise than it does from the ones we think are the best?

My point in going into all of that is to question the very mindset that presumes that Christianity is simply bankrupt. That practices that do not look a whole lot like those of the LRC are useless to shepherd us along in the way we should live. And to ask whether it is not much more important to live right than the think right. To love much than to know much. To walk by the Spirit than simply turn to your spirit.

[Cal]

OBW,

You know if you quit the board, you can't just come back.

In order to come back you have to post a video of you singing your high school fight song.

You know that, don't you?

Waiting...