Today's Jerusalem for Christians

[JJ]

What is “Jerusalem” for today’s Christians?- Part 1
This discussion is for those already familiar with “The Lords Recovery” and Witness Lee’s (and “the Blended Brothers”) preaching and teaching that todays’ Christian equivalent of the Jews’ “Jerusalem”, and of “Mount Zion with the Temple of God” in particular, the God-ordained place that Christians should gather and worship God, and Lee’s view that it is in “the local churches”. This is “Part 1” because to keep it short, I’d like to reference each New Testament reference for an equivalent of Jerusalem for Christians one verse at a time. The first such reference is Jesus’ discussion with the Samaritan “woman at the well” in John 4:19-24 which reads in the New American Standard version as follows:
The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

From this we see that Jesus said today’s Jerusalem is “worshipping the Father in spirit and truth”.

I note there is no particular reference to “local churches, or “the ground of oneness” in this simple discussion. I also note that during this discussion the Lord Jesus reveals himself as the living water who abides and springs up to eternal life in those who drink Him. I also note the woman admitted her sinful condition, and went and testified to her city that Jesus is the promised Messiah. So, it seems that she got the message.

So, for our discussion then:

Can we use John 4 to support Lee’s claims?
Can we use John 4 to refute Lee’s claims?

[Evangelical]

Not really. It comes down to how we define worship in truth. Catholics might say it's the truth that they are the true church founded by Peter.
No particular mention of denominations..altar rails..music bands..either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not really. It comes down to how we define worship in truth. Catholics might say it's the truth that they are the true church founded by Peter.
No particular mention of denominations..altar rails..music bands..either.

You are so quick to judge the entire body of Christ, but you ... Evangelical ... never mention how LSM peddles and adulterates the word of God for profit. (II Cor. 2.17, 4.2; Titus 1.11; I Peter 5.2)

Which is far, far more serious than contemporary Christian music. Have you forgotten that renowned songwriter Fanny Crosby herself was condemned in her day for her own "worldly" Christian music.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are so quick to judge the entire body of Christ, but you ... Evangelical ... never mention how LSM peddles and adulterates the word of God for profit. (II Cor. 2.17, 4.2; Titus 1.11; I Peter 5.2)

Which is far, far more serious than contemporary Christian music. Have you forgotten that renowned songwriter Fanny Crosby herself was condemned in her day for her own "worldly" Christian music.

Let's not hijack JJ's thread. I won't respond here. i think the topic is novel as it brings in the topic of Jerusalem.

If you wish, please create another thread on the matter of God's Word for profit and I will reply there. I think perhaps one is already existing.

I am interested to see how you argue that charging church members the measly sum of $50 a year for rather well printed devotional books is "peddling God's Word". As compared to say, Joel Olsteen's $50 M empire or Billy Graham's $25 M, or Rick Warren $30 M.

[JJ]

My thoughts about this are that Jesus' wonderful and simple words give some invioble principles for our gathering to worship that have been violated in today's TLR:

Worship in spirit: our regenerated human spirits are filled with God who is Spirit, and was manifested in Jesus Christ the living one for our drinking and overflowing. Now the Lord is The Spirit (not "The Leading Brothers", who Lord it over the saints). And, where the Spirit is, there is liberty (not a hundred spoken and unspoken rules).

Truth, thruthfullness, reality: Real transparent, open leadership that is from and checked against the Holy Bible. This site chronicles how that is not the case with TLR.

[Evangelical]

As far as I know , Lee was the only one to associate worshipping in spirit with the use of one's spirit and the truth of being filled with God. Perhaps his was the closest to the true intent of Christ's words as compared to denominations. Catholics associate worshipping in truth with the Mass, Presbyterians have their own reformed traditions, Pentecostals associate it with speaking in tongues. Some would say ancient liturgies are not in spirit and truth, and others would say the opposite. No one denomination seems to have a clear understanding of what worshiping in spirit and truth actually means. Neither does Scripture well-define it enough to rule out any particular style of worship as not being "in spirit and truth".

[JJ]

Thanks for your thoughts, EV.
I give credit to Lee for promoting the first part of what you said. That's certainly where I learned it. But, this is a matter of fairly straight forward truth from the Bible that doesn't take "rocket science" to get. And, even Lee admitted to learning it from "inner life" Christians who preceded him: Jesse Penn-Lewis, Andrew Murray, Mary E. McDonough, Nee, and a number of others championed this before and during Lee's ministry (like Austin Sparks and Steven Kaung).

I don't defend the Catholic Church or denominations. This thread is about Lee and the churches who follow him, and whether or not their teaching and practice regarding interpretting "Jerusalem" to themselves is correct or not. I'm interested in others' thoughts on this, now that we have yours EV.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As far as I know , Lee was the only one to associate worshipping in spirit with the use of one's spirit and the truth of being filled with God. Perhaps his was the closest to the true intent of Christ's words as compared to denominations. Catholics associate worshipping in truth with the Mass, Presbyterians have their own reformed traditions, Pentecostals associate it with speaking in tongues. Some would say ancient liturgies are not in spirit and truth, and others would say the opposite. No one denomination seems to have a clear understanding of what worshiping in spirit and truth actually means. Neither does Scripture well-define it enough to rule out any particular style of worship as not being "in spirit and truth".

Lee failed because he thought he could judge by himself what is worship in spirit and came up with behavioral practices to help "turn to the spirit".

Things like "calling on the name of the Lord" became criteria to assess whether someone is in the spirit. Come to think of it, it is not different from the other rituals in the denominations that you mentioned.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Lee failed because he thought he could judge by himself what is worship in spirit and came up with behavioral practices to help "turn to the spirit".

Things like "calling on the name of the Lord" became criteria to assess whether someone is in the spirit. Come to think of it, it is not different from the other rituals in the denominations that you mentioned.

Calling on the name of the Lord to determine whether someone is in the spirit has sound biblical basis:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Paul tells us how to determine what is by the Spirit or not in that verse.

Every denomination has their own criteria, e.g. attending the mass, ability to speak in tongues, or ability to pray the sinners prayer and confess Jesus is Lord in front of the church. But I have to say none of these have as much biblical basis as the direct application of 1 Cor 12:3 - test whether someone can say Jesus is Lord or not, (and mean it, of course).

The word Lord is important. Only the genuine can say Lord Jesus. Demons do not confess Jesus is their Lord.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Calling on the name of the Lord to determine whether someone is in the spirit has sound biblical basis:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Paul tells us how to determine what is by the Spirit or not in that verse.

The word Lord is important. Only the genuine can say Lord Jesus. Demons do not confess Jesus is their Lord.

It is actually an example of how the Bible is twisted to support man's theory.

1. The verse is about saying/confessing "Jesus is Lord". Not about calling "O Lord Jesus" n times as if He is not answering you.
2. It talks about what happens if someone is "speaking by the Spirit of God". The speaker is already "in the spirit" and not trying to turn to the spirit. When Lee said calling on the name of the Lord can help you to turn to the spirit, he was actually denying this very verse.
3. "Can say" doesn't mean "have to say". A person not calling "O Lord Jesus" during worship does not necessarily mean he is not in the spirit.

And back to John 4. the problem of LC is that other man-made boundaries were set to confine what is "true" worship.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Calling on the name of the Lord to determine whether someone is in the spirit has sound biblical basis:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

It is true that no one can say "Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." But are you sure you know what he meant when he said "say"? Did he mean, no one can speak the words except by the Holy Spirit? Or did he mean that no one can make the honest claim that Jesus is their Lord except where there is the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit? We are used to the idea that people say things that are not true, yet here we somehow believe that no one is capable of saying those three words unless they are telling the truth and the Hoy Spirit is in them.

I suggest that this is an error in understanding. Paul was not saying there is a sure-fire way to prove that Jesus is someone's Lord by getting them to say three words. I cannot accept such a trite understanding of the passage. By it there has been evidence of serious unrighteousness undertaken by those who stopped periodically to say three words. If you are right, then the activities that were being undertaken could never have happened because the Spirit could not have been involved. Therefore they were not, at the time, under the Lordship of Jesus. Yet they said the words.

Out of the same fountain cannot come filth and purity.

And, like ground, where it suits the MOTAs, oversimplify beyond credulity.

[JJ]

What is “Jerusalem” for today’s Christians?- Part 2
This discussion is for those already familiar with “The Lords Recovery” and Witness Lee’s (and “the Blended Brothers”) preaching and teaching that todays’ Christian equivalent of the Jews’ “Jerusalem”, and of “Mount Zion with the Temple of God” in particular, the God-ordained place that Christians should gather and worship God, and Lee’s view that it is in “the local churches”. This is “Part 2” because to keep it short, I’d like to reference each New Testament reference for an equivalent of Jerusalem for Christians one verse at a time. The second such reference is in Galations 4:21-31 (http://biblehub.com/context/galatians/4-1.htm) when the apostle Paul likens the earthly Jerusalem and its law keepers to Hagar (Abraham’s concubine who bore Ismael) and says the following about Jerusalem (New American Standard Bible):
“she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written,
‘Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.’
And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say?
‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’
So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.”

From this we see that Jesus today’s Jerusalem is:
• Above
• Free
• Our mother
And we also see that the Christian brethren are:
• Like Issac
• Cause our “barren mother” to rejoice, break forth and shout, for her children are more numerous than the children of the earthly Jerusalem
• Children

[JJ]

What is “Jerusalem” for today’s Christians?- Part 2
This discussion is for those already familiar with “The Lords Recovery” and Witness Lee’s (and “the Blended Brothers”) preaching and teaching that todays’ Christian equivalent of the Jews’ “Jerusalem”, and of “Mount Zion with the Temple of God” in particular, the God-ordained place that Christians should gather and worship God, and Lee’s view that it is in “the local churches”. This is “Part 2” because to keep it short, I’d like to reference each New Testament reference for an equivalent of Jerusalem for Christians one verse at a time. The second such reference is in Galations 4:21-31 (http://biblehub.com/context/galatians/4-1.htm) when the apostle Paul likens to the earthly Jerusalem and its law keepers to Hagar (Abraham’s concubine who bore Ismael) and says the following about Jerusalem (New American Standard Bible):
“she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. For it is written,
‘Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.’
And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say?
‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’
So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.”

From this we see that today’s Jerusalem is:
• Above
• Free
• Our mother
And we also see that the Christian brethren are:
• Like Issac
• Cause our “barren mother” to rejoice, break forth and shout, for her children are more numerous than the children of the earthly Jerusalem
• Children of promise
• Born according to the Spirit
• Persecuted by those born according to the flesh (law keepers)
• Charged to cast out the earthly Jerusalem and “her son” (earthly Jerusalem and its law keepers)
• Heirs with the son of the free woman (Heirs with Christ, my interpretation)
• Children of the free woman (Children of the Jerusalem which is above)

As with Part 1 of this discussion, I note there is no particular reference to “local churches, or “the ground of oneness”. I also note that per the bullet points this Jerusalem is above (not on earth) and is a given thing to all born again Christians with no conditions other than a charge to cast out the earthly Jerusalem and its law keepers.
So, for our discussion then:
Can we use Galations 4 to support Lee’s claims?
Can we use Galations 4 to refute Lee’s claims?
My notes make evident where I stand (refutes Lee’s claims). But, I want to hear from you. Maybe I’m missing something here.

[Evangelical]

I think it can be used to support Lee's claims by the following analysis.

If we understand "ground of the church" to be against the concept of denominationalism, then let us consider, is the conglomeration of denominations known as Christianity more like the earthly Jerusalem or the heavenly one?

I think Christianity is more like the earthly Jerusalem for one simple reason - Catholic and Protestant alike murdered true Christians over past centuries, just as earthly Jerusalem persecuted and still persecutes today, God's prophets and genuine believers.

Given the persecution of true Christians but the Catholics and then the Protestants in past centuries, we must conclude that Christendom is represented, in a prophetic sense, by earthly Jerusalem.

Then the heavenly Jerusalem is represented by the local churches. I think anyone would have difficulty in proving that the denominations are someone representing the Heavenly Jerusalem.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it can be used to support Lee's claims by the following analysis.

If we understand "ground of the church" to be against the concept of denominationalism, then let us consider, is the conglomeration of denominations known as Christianity more like the earthly Jerusalem or the heavenly one?

I think Christianity is more like the earthly Jerusalem for one simple reason - Catholic and Protestant alike murdered true Christians over past centuries, just as earthly Jerusalem persecuted and still persecutes today, God's prophets and genuine believers.

Given the persecution of true Christians but the Catholics and then the Protestants in past centuries, we must conclude that Christendom is represented, in a prophetic sense, by earthly Jerusalem.


Then the heavenly Jerusalem is represented by the local churches. I think anyone would have difficulty in proving that the denominations are someone representing the Heavenly Jerusalem.

EV,

When I read the bullet points of my starting post and ask myself "are these all true of just the Christians in TLR, and not other Christians?", I have to say No. And, even Witness Lee would not have made that claim in his earlier days.

And, I don't recall you answering why "The Local Churches" denominated themselves by insisting on allegiance to The Living Stream Ministry, nor why those who stood up to challenge that are persecuted by the leaders of The Lords Recovery.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

EV,

When I read the bullet points of my starting post and ask myself "are these all true of just the Christians in TLR, and not other Christians?", I have to say No. And, even Witness Lee would not have made that claim in his earlier days.

And, I don't recall you answering why "The Local Churches" denominated themselves by insisting on allegiance to The Living Stream Ministry, nor why those who stood up to challenge that are persecuted by the leaders of The Lords Recovery.

If ground of the church means all genuine believers in the city, which it does.
And if the earthly Jerusalem is represented by organizations of man which persecute genuine believers.
Then I think all the genuine believers in the city are the heavenly Jerusalem.
To my knowledge only the local churches are standing for all the genuine believers in the city.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it can be used to support Lee's claims by the following analysis.

If we understand "ground of the church" to be against the concept of denominationalism, then let us consider, is the conglomeration of denominations known as Christianity more like the earthly Jerusalem or the heavenly one?

I think Christianity is more like the earthly Jerusalem for one simple reason - Catholic and Protestant alike murdered true Christians over past centuries, just as earthly Jerusalem persecuted and still persecutes today, God's prophets and genuine believers.

Given the persecution of true Christians but the Catholics and then the Protestants in past centuries, we must conclude that Christendom is represented, in a prophetic sense, by earthly Jerusalem.

Then the heavenly Jerusalem is represented by the local churches. I think anyone would have difficulty in proving that the denominations are someone representing the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Bro EvanG I've heard similar logic before. Comparing analogies between things of the spiritual realm with things of the physical realm, and tagging yours to the spiritual realm, is just a pitch for your preferred denomination.

I've heard similar pitches before, from saints wanting me to come back to the local church. I've told about them before. Five years later and they get nailed, for pretty much the same reasons as for why I got nailed.

One particular brother comes to mind, Stan. He was a good brother. I liked him. I ran into him at a gas pump. We greeted. He was friendly and nice. We shook hands.

Then he proceeded to tell me that the local church had changed. That it wasn't the same as it was when I was in. And he knew. He was one of the elders present in a private meeting with me, when the lead elder told me, "If you want to go on the the local church you have to take my personality as yours, and if you want to blow your nose you have to ask me which side first." So Stan knew up close and personal how bad it was when I was in.

Years later Stan called me about a computer. We spent time talking in his living room. There he apologized to me for his part in what the lead elder said and did. He's the only elder that ever apologized to me.

I like him, he's a good brother. Still, I didn't buy his local church pitch. And nothing personal -- I like you too -- but I don't buy yours either.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

One particular brother comes to mind, Stan. He was a good brother. I liked him. I ran into him at a gas pump. We greeted. He was friendly and nice. We shook hands.

Then he proceeded to tell me that the local church had changed. That it wasn't the same as it was when I was in. And he knew. He was one of the elders present in a private meeting with me, when the lead elder told me, "If you want to go on the the local church you have to take my personality as yours, and if you want to blow your nose you have to ask me which side first." So Stan knew up close and personal how bad it was when I was in.

Years later Stan called me about a computer. We spent time talking in his living room. There he apologized to me for his part in what the lead elder said and did. He's the only elder that ever apologized to me.

I like him, he's a good brother. Still, I didn't buy his local church pitch. And nothing personal -- I like you too -- but I don't buy yours either.

I know Stan too. And this story of Stan and Mel P. highlights for me what the LC was all about.

Like many others I knew, the brothers and sisters were heavenly Jerusalem, born of promise like Isaac, sons of God thru faith in Christ Jesus. They were looking for a better country like father Abraham. They lived in freedom, they loved the Lord, His word, and His family.

There was also another spirit in the Recovery, a spirit of bondage, an evil spirit which infected mostly the leadership. These ones were earthly Jerusalem, born of Hagar the maidservant, living according to the law, leading the LC's into legalism, and persecuting those under grace. These ones exalted man, and dishonored God. They are no different than the fleshly Judaizers who hated Paul, who rightly called them dogs and evil workers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it can be used to support Lee's claims by the following analysis.

If we understand "ground of the church" to be against the concept of denominationalism, then let us consider, is the conglomeration of denominations known as Christianity more like the earthly Jerusalem or the heavenly one?

Did you just say that if you understand that red is blue, then the conglomeration of peanut butter with jelly is more like the earthly Jerusalem?

You think that is silly?

Well, just starting with a bald, unsubstantiated "understanding" that "the ground of the church" actually exists in any form similar or dissimilar to what Lee taught about it is a presumption that you are unable to establish as a sound understanding other than as a possible maybe.

If you can get past that, then you have some basis to at least entertain the next step. But as of today, this has never been established as anything more than an opinion based upon selective observations of positive references (without the slightest hint of doctrinal or prescriptive meaning) and the exclusion of all negative observations.

You've got a long way to go to be able to just say "if we understand" anything about the "ground of the church" as Lee taught it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did you just say that if you understand that red is blue, then the conglomeration of peanut butter with jelly is more like the earthly Jerusalem?

You think that is silly?

Well, just starting with a bald, unsubstantiated "understanding" that "the ground of the church" actually exists in any form similar or dissimilar to what Lee taught about it is a presumption that you are unable to establish as a sound understanding other than as a possible maybe.

If you can get past that, then you have some basis to at least entertain the next step. But as of today, this has never been established as anything more than an opinion based upon selective observations of positive references (without the slightest hint of doctrinal or prescriptive meaning) and the exclusion of all negative observations.

You've got a long way to go to be able to just say "if we understand" anything about the "ground of the church" as Lee taught it.

My analysis was very simple, even logical.

The earthly Jerusalem persecuted the true church.
Catholic and Protestant denominations persecuted the true church.

Therefore they are the earthly Jerusalem. Those who stand against denominationalism are the heavenly Jerusalem.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did you just say that if you understand that red is blue, then the conglomeration of peanut butter with jelly is more like the earthly Jerusalem?

You think that is silly?

Well, just starting with a bald, unsubstantiated "understanding" that "the ground of the church" actually exists in any form similar or dissimilar to what Lee taught about it is a presumption that you are unable to establish as a sound understanding other than as a possible maybe.

If you can get past that, then you have some basis to at least entertain the next step. But as of today, this has never been established as anything more than an opinion based upon selective observations of positive references (without the slightest hint of doctrinal or prescriptive meaning) and the exclusion of all negative observations.

You've got a long way to go to be able to just say "if we understand" anything about the "ground of the church" as Lee taught it.

The ground of the church is this:
"We stand on the ground of the oneness of all believers in each locality"

That's how Lee taught it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

Can we use John 4 to support Lee’s claims?
Can we use John 4 to refute Lee’s claims?

I would say that these verses in John 4 cannot define what is "in spirit and in truth," therefore they cannot support Lee's position. They are insufficient for the purpose of defining what is the meaning of the terms. That does not make the terms undefined or uncertain. But these verses provide no insight into what they mean.

But they also do not provide a proof against Lee. They indicate that a particular place is not where worship will happen. That at least hints at the idea that worship is not bound by a place. That would make it difficult to argue that within any reasonable segment of physical space in the 2-deminsional bounds of the surface of the earth, nothing precludes anywhere as being a place where worship may be occurring. If you take this to the extreme, then it means that even if you think there are other parameters that define the bounds of worship, it cannot be bound by space, therefore others meeting with the same reasonable amount of physical space are not precluded simply because they are not in another place within that space.

I know, too undefined.

And I realize that even the LRC does not define their meeting in terms of the place, but in terms of another alternate criteria — the manner of naming. If you name it wrong, it is presumed to not be in spirit whereas if you name it right, it is presumed to be in spirit. But if it was that simple, then Jesus was pulling our leg to say it was about something as poorly defined as "in spirit." I know that we all think we have a good handle on what the term means. And when Jesus said it, while it may not have been immediately understood by the woman, it probably was not that poorly defined.

But I would suggest that it is not simply one simple definition. It does not simply mean that we are using some mentioned but undefined "organ" of our person called the human spirit. That was a popular way of speaking of it in the LRC. But even parsing through Nee's verses on the "tripartite man" should help us become clear that the so-called separation of soul and spirit that ne spoke of is not really there. Most of the characteristics applied to the spirit are the same as those applied to the soul. It would appear that the spirit is more like an enhanced soul than a separate thing.

And when Paul and others (like Jesus did in John 4) make reference to being "in spirit" (as opposed to being "in the Spirit"), it would seem that a more common meaning of "spirit" is actually in use. The word is not so much about engaging some organ of the body, but in having your whole being — mind, emotion, will, and even body — focused and engaged in the thing that is being spoken of. Of course, that is very "spiritual." But it is not an organ that does not include our mind, emotion, and will. It seems evident to me that when Paul said "spirit of sonship" he was saying to be fully engaged as a son rather than a non-son playing the part. It is not some thing that falls on us. It is a fact that we can engage with. We may be adopted (in one sense) yet have full rights as a son, therefore have the right to act like it in all ways.

But if we presume that a group of Christians meeting as they engage their full being in focus on the worship of God is not "in spirit" just because they are not in the same meeting as some who have named their assembly in a better way, then there is a problem with the definition of "in spirit." That kind of definition adds something to the meaning of "in spirit" that is never even hinted at in any passage.

So while do not think that John 4 can defeat Lee's teachings, it can be a part of the full discussion that does just that.

And in some cases, it may be that there is nothing that specifically refutes certain of Lee's teachings that we do not think of a healthy. But without also finding evidence that the teaching is actually true, it is also safe to say that the scripture does not support it either. Therefore Lee's teaching could not rise above that of "opinion not supported by fact." Neither refuted nor supported.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that these verses in John 4 cannot define what is "in spirit and in truth," therefore they cannot support Lee's position. They are insufficient for the purpose of defining what is the meaning of the terms. That does not make the terms undefined or uncertain. But these verses provide no insight into what they mean...

So, OBW:

You talked about "spirit", but not truth, the other aspect of today's Jerusalem for Christians.

I'm not fully satisfied with your analysis regarding "spirit" as I still subscribe mostly to Mary E McDonough, Nee, Lee (and others like Major Ian Thomas) "tripartite man" exposition, but have learned the importance of the mind and other parts of soul and heart in engaging with God, man, and other Christians.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Lee's tripartite man explanation discussed elsewhere on these boards. So, I don't want to chase that very interesting topic on this thread.

I haven't seen discussion on other things the Lord Jesus said to the woman at the well, and how she responded that may give us clues about what is and isn't in spirit and truth. Like Jesus telling her the man she was living with wasn't her husband and her 5 husbands, and her confessing that Jesus told her all the things she had done (confessing sin). Or that she confessed Jesus is the Christ to her city.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

So, OBW:

You talked about "spirit", but not truth, the other aspect of today's Jerusalem for Christians.

I'm not fully satisfied with your analysis regarding "spirit" as I still subscribe mostly to Mary E McDonough, Nee, Lee (and others like Major Ian Thomas) "tripartite man" exposition, but have learned the importance of the mind and other parts of soul and heart in engaging with God, man, and other Christians.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Lee's tripartite man explanation discussed elsewhere on these boards. So, I don't want to chase that very interesting topic on this thread.

I haven't seen discussion on other things the Lord Jesus said to the woman at the well, and how she responded that may give us clues about what is and isn't in spirit and truth. Like Jesus telling her the man she was living with wasn't her husband and her 5 husbands, and her confessing that Jesus told her all the things she had done (confessing sin). Or that she confessed Jesus is the Christ to her city.

What you think about the tripartite man is not really relevant. It isn't discussed here, so has no bearing on the subject.

As for "truth," you note a few true things that were said, but that does not define truth. It doesn't even really define the nature of truth other than to note that it is true.

Within the context of the scripture, truth would generally be understood as aligning with the nature of God, the author of truth, rather than the evil one who is the author of deception and lies. While it is not defined within the context of John 4, it is not a difficult topic. It would include discreet items that are true, but mostly is to be understood as a state of being. So "truth" would be more about the nature of the worshipers as those who live lives of truth and not falsehood.

While this does not refute Lee, neither does it agree with him. It provides no basis of support for his teachings that I can find.