The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life

[OBW]

Since SonstoGlory mentioned this book in another thread, I thought I would look into it. I am not trying to rain on anyone's consideration of what is good about Lee's teachings. But I also am not sure that just letting everyone think that what they once thought was necessarily true is really beneficial for them or anyone else. He (and others) will have to decide whether they still want to hold to what they already think. But to withhold this alternative view just because of feelings seems to put emotions over truth, or at least the search for truth.

I don’t think we should litter that other thread with a discussion of this book, so I started a new one. It may not ever really go anywhere, but I thought it would be worthwhile to at least start through a look at one of Lee’s books in 2019 rather than just point back at previous threads that are as much as 10 years old or more, or not even on this forum (going back to the old Berean forum).

(Caveat: This post is long. If you don't like long posts, read it in pieces, or just ingore this thread. I wanted to get certain things out as a start, so this is what it is.)

The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life was from messages Lee gave in 1971 — about 1-1/2 years before I heard of the LC. It begins with some statements concerning the faith. According to Lee, the faith is “composed of the beliefs concerning the Bible, God, Christ, the work of Christ, salvation, and the church.”

The Bible. He starts with three sentences concerning the Bible. Only two points:

Divinely inspired word-by-word. (“The genuine Christians do not have any doubt about this point.”)

Infallible. No qualifier(s). Not “infallible in matters of faith.” Or “infallible on the points which it is addressing” and not to side issues like alleged facts of science.

God. God is uniquely one but triune. Some believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate persons and this is tritheism (never quite says it here). He uses the “spirit, soul, and body” analogy — generally understood as a poor analogy, at best.

Christ. Lee starts making more not-quite accurate statements, such as “the very God in eternity,” claims “with” the Father, is “called the Father” (referring to Isaiah). When he says “[e]ven while He was in the flesh on the earth, the Father was with Him” he is not suggesting that the Father is always there. He is taking it right up to the never-quite-stated “they are just one.” Then quickly moves on to say that as the sender and giver of the Spirit, as the last Adam he “became the life-giving Spirit.” Not just “spirit” — the essence of God as stated in John 4 — but the third of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. He even references John 4:24 to say that the triune God is “Spirit.” But “Spirit” is the name of one of the Three while “spirit” is the common nature or essence of the Three.

Now I said earlier that he “quickly moves on” to his next point. This whole section is one of his pep-talk speeches. The purpose is to make a whole lot of statements that will immediately garner a bunch of “amens.” Why? Because in the LC it is never enough to hear something true. You have to assert an enthusiastic “amen” in response. So when we can hardly get one “amen” out before he has made another such statement requiring yet another “amen,” we begin to turn off the question filter than is nagging us with that quiet “what did he just say?” as we drown it all out. If you read through his litany of attributes, you will see that it is more like a list of things to say “amen” about. Not saying that most of them are not meaningful. But the way some of them are stated are somewhat LC-speak for something that is not entirely orthodox. Yet Lee is in the middle of saying what it is what ALL GENIUNE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE.

(Let me take a moment to say that I have noted the first chapter of other of Lee’s books having these kinds of pep-talks. A litany of truths that often are not necessary, followed by the one truly questionable statement that is simply ignored in a now feverish chorus of amens. And the hook is set. You have accepted the questionable so moving on with that as a “given” is easier. I first saw this when starting through The Economy of God several years ago. And it kept popping up in others. Nee had a different approach. He would just make some bold declaration and say it was a fact. And say it enough times that unless you just outright rejected it, you would start to follow along. After all, he was accepted to be the smartest person in almost any room, so he must know what he is talking about. Then he went on as if it was settled truth. Authority and Submission begins with the declaration that where the word “power” is used, it is equivalent to “authority.” He even quoted some scripture using the change, including the ending of the Lord’s prayer. It is true that His is the authority. But it didn’t say that. And the fact that the word “power” is there does not make the claimed equivalency with authority as if stated there.

I can be generous and suggest that Lee is just trying to get his listeners/readers to understand what he believes to be true. Or I can be less generous and suggest that Lee is trying to get his listeners/readers to dismiss the obvious and follow something for which there is no real substance. I will let you decide how malicious Lee may or may not have been. But either way, the effect is the same.)

These pep talks are designed to get you tracking with him (Lee) so that once he is through, you have enthusiastically agreed with things that you might not really believe if given the time to consider and study. When the fervor of the pep-talk dies down, and even when you go home for the evening, you might find some of those questions arising. But since you were so enthusiastic to say “amen” at the time, and all those people who can’t be all wrong were also enthusiastically saying “amen,” then it must be true.

I think that this is one of the reasons that the charges against Titus Chu included the fact that he taught study of the Bible through careful reading of the scripture, and commentaries, and after that come to see that it matches the “ministry’s” teachings. They insisted that you should be taught to first be filled with the ministry, and only after that to begin to check it against the Bible and commentaries. That way the tendency to believe what you read first would come to play and any discrepancies would be passed off as the error of others, or even your own lack of ability to read the word in the Bible correctly.

In the subsection “Concerning Christ,” paragraph 8, he says, “[t]hus, in Him all the attributes of God become our virtues.” Now I will be the first to agree that much of the attributes of God are attributed (or imputed) to us. But imputation is more like a title given than fact of character. It is not a statement of practical fact. If they were actually our virtues, then we would live-out those virtues in this world, not just in some imputed, spiritual way. But they are the attributes of the one in whom we have believed and in whose likeness we are growing. We have not automatically become anything. (It is to our benefit that God sees us that way, but he also set out a course of obedience to practice those things, not just claim that we own them without outward proof.) At this point, you might say “of course, and Lee didn’t really mean it that way.” But I am not so sure.

We could continue to pick our way through the items of the faith, and we could do that if it is of interest to anyone. But it is probably a good time to stop and think about what we have gleaned from just this little bit.

This section is designed to declare that the LCs are holding to the core tenets of the Christian faith along with all “genuine Christians.” It includes all that we read above, plus much on the work of Christ, salvation, and the church (including the statement that the body of Christ is “locally one — one city, one church.” (There is a reference given (Rev 1:11) but neither this verse, nor any other, states as a matter of faith or doctrine that there is one church in any single city.)

But since not all Christians agree on all the litany of things Lee spoke (and others distilled into the book), such as Christ becoming the Spirit or there only being one church (assembly) per city (and presumably all the other “boundary of the church” rules would apply), then what is a good, Lee-following LCer supposed to think? Maybe that all those so-called Christians that are not in the LC are NOT genuine Christians. That there is something flawed in their spiritual situation that tarnishes their claim to being a Christ-follower.

We are about 3/5ths of the way through the first chapter and the questions are piling up. The next main section is “THE SPECIALITY OF THE CHURCH LIFE.” The first two sentences following that header are:

These are the six main items of the proper Christian faith. All real Christians do not have any disputations about these items.

Lee is generous after that. He acknowledges that many do not agree with the one city – one church rule, but admits that they are saved, though lacking in “the proper church life.”

So what are the core tenets of the faith? It seems that the earliest statements of faith distilled it to the following:

• Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit

• The death, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension of Christ

• The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints

• Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful

I’m sure that there are other versions with slight variations. But first, what is missing? The Bible.

The Bible. It is probably safe to assume that the finality of what is now the Christian Bible did not exist at the time of the earliest statements of faith. But even if it did, it is noteworthy as to what the Bible does NOT say about itself. It never claims to be:

• Absolutely authoritative

• Verbally inspired (word-for-word)

• Without any kind of error

The main point with all of these is that the Bible makes almost no claims about itself. It does say that it is inspired by God, but without defining how detailed the inspiration was. It is “profitable for teaching . . .,” not “your absolutely complete and inerrant compendium for all teaching . . . .”

There are other things that could be said. If you need some examples, the OT has places where there are statements concerning things like “digging brass.” Brass is not dug up like iron or copper. It is the combination of other metals that may be dug up separately. The OT makes claims concerning the complete annihilation of certain enemies, yet they seem to still be around afterward making things tough for the Israelites. Some annihilation.

The second paragraph in the section “THE SPECIALITY OF THE CHURCH LIFE,” starts with the following”

The faith is the speciality of the church life. This is something very specific, very special. Concerning these points of our Christian faith there should be no argument. If we are going to fight for something, we have to fight for this.

Out of context, this sounds absolutely right. But when you consider some of the things that have been claimed to be part of the factual base of the things we are to fight for (and have no argument over) are a littering of things like those I have pointed out above. Ground of the church. Christ “becoming” the Spirit. We as Christians simply having Christ’s virtues. There are more, or if you go elsewhere in this book, or in others, you will find that Lee defines some of the more agreeable things in ways that would not be agreeable if stated in that manner in this section.

So . . . comments? Agreements? Disagreements? Want to continue? Want to treat it as “nothing to see here . . . move along”?

[Sons to Glory!]

So, Mike, thanks for starting this thread. Yes, we will see if it gets any traction . . .

But I think first, before jumping into all the details, it would be good to give the overall theme and purpose the book is conveying. What do you see is the main idea Lee is trying to present in this? (and that could be a loaded question - if you see everything of Lee's having a nefarious, underlying motivation to it)

[Sons to Glory!]

Seems my original question got quickly lost, so I thought it beneficial to present it again:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But I think first, before jumping into all the details, it would be good to give the overall theme and purpose the book is conveying. What do you see is the main idea Lee is trying to present in this? (and that could be a loaded question - if you see everything of Lee's having a nefarious, underlying motivation to it)

[byHismercy]

Mike,

Can you first go into or expound on the reference to digging brass? I googled the term and only found one verse combining digging with brass. Understanding it is an alloy, I don't understand what we are supposed to understand from the expression, or what you believe about it....what you are conveying with it.

Apart from that, I would like to see this conversation had between you brothers and sisters. I have to disagree with StoG regarding promoting Lee writings....I mean recordings. I don't have the standing of long research or depth of study that brothers here display, I only have my experiences in the Lord, and what I believe He gifted me, a discerning of spirits.

I would NEVER promote Lee material to my children, (therefore to no one else), nor keep it in my home, just the same as I would never let the peace symbol (which is actually the cross of Christ smashed, broken, and turned upside down within a circle, which Satanists use in their rituals), or children's literature promoting witchcraft, indian`medicine', or any other false thing, or physical altars to idols.....etc abide in my home because God is a jealous God, and because I want to shut the door to our enemy, full stop. He is not allowed in my home or life.

My personal experience with `The Ministry' material was, when I discovered the uplifting of Lee, I burned all the material in my fireplace. The demon that came out of that was in my face that night and was sent away via the authority in Jesus name. I have spoken about that before here, and I appreciate so much the brothers thoughtful, well read, historical study of this group, and I also trust the Lord and what He reveals to me in spirit. One example, and what I appreciate lately, is how I was kept so much in the dark by the group, but the Lord led me slowly to light and led me out in spite of the hidden stuff, which, now aware of, I disagree with. I hope this isn't too much of a tangent.

[JJ]

Mike,

I’m amazed at your statements regarding Bible inerrancy. Psalm 119:60 says “The entirety of Your words are truth”.

https://biblehub.com/psalms/119-160.htm
See also the verses in Treasury of Scripture cited here.

Here is a link to a general discussion of this topic

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...allibility.cfm

Books have been written on this topic defending inerrancy. So I won’t attempt doing it on a discussion board.

[JJ]

https://books.google.com/books?id=tY...page&q&f=false

One of the more well known books on biblical inerrancy.

Lee Stroebel mentions interviewing the author in his book “The Case for Christ” which has a good discussion about alleged errors in the Bible.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by JJ

Mike,

I’m amazed at your statements regarding Bible inerrancy. Psalm 119:60 says “The entirety of Your words are truth”.

https://biblehub.com/psalms/119-160.htm
See also the verses in Treasury of Scripture cited here.

Here is a link to a general discussion of this topic

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...allibility.cfm

Books have been written on this topic defending inerrancy. So I won’t attempt doing it on a discussion board.

I also have a hesitation on that too. All Scripture is God-breathed. Can God breathe errors?

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I also have a hesitation on that too. All Scripture is God-breathed. Can God breathe errors?

Amen amen He does not make mistakes. I'm still not sure what Mike is meaning, but the word about digging brass, while impossible to do with man, is possible if the Lord says so. My immediate take away from this verse is that the Lord is saying if you dig into the word, and unearth truths via the Spirit, you can get results that are like brass....a wonderfully useful and functional alloy. Something very good...

[JJ]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Amen amen He does not make mistakes. I'm still not sure what Mike is meaning, but the word about digging brass, while impossible to do with man, is possible if the Lord says so. My immediate take away from this verse is that the Lord is saying if you dig into the word, and unearth truths via the Spirit, you can get results that are like brass....a wonderfully useful and functional alloy. Something very good...

Right, brass is an alloy of elements mined from the ground (copper and zinc) that even can sometimes be found together https://uwaterloo.ca/earth-sciences-...-articles/zinc.

And, I can think of many reasons why a king and his city/state would have been wiped out completely by the children of Israel in a battle on a given day then it’s people re-emerge later from citizens not there on that day (men and even families away on business, holiday, AWOL, etc).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I also have a hesitation on that too. All Scripture is God-breathed. Can God breathe errors?

What was inspired? To write from what was seen or heard? Or to write specific words that were not otherwise already in the head of the writer? Was the inspiration dictation, or just the nudging to put to writing what was there in front of them or in their minds already? Probably some combinations given the diversity of content. And I'm sure that when someone said "thus saith the Lord," that there was probably some amount of dictation involved because it was God speaking. But do you think that the scribes that chronicled the events of the times of the kings wrote down only what was dictated to them by God? Or did they chronicle the major events of those kings? Was the inspiration in the words used, or in the fact that they wrote at all?

And if it was not all "breathed" (dictated) then any errors (as we now understand them) would not be God's. So your incredulity that God might be credited with speaking an error is solely founded in the insistence that every word is dictated through the inspiration of God. That is something that even Paul did not say. He did not specify what is scripture other than to identify it with being a sound base for teaching, etc.

And if you are needing to read every fortune cookie (what you get when you rip a verse from its context) and find "truth" in it, then you need an inerrant Bible. But if the whole of the subject being written on is the point, then the specific words become less important. For example, in 1 Cor 15, Paul talks for many verses about the kind of body we will receive at the resurrection. During that discussion, he says something about the last Adam that, in context, has nothing to do with the trinity, but as a fortune cookie, was thought to be (by Lee) a declaration that Jesus became the Holy Spirit. Ignoring Lee's error, if God dictated it, why didn't he just give them a precise definition instead of talking all around it and coming to no absolute conclusion?

And why isn't the debate over Calvinism v Arminianism settled clearly? That has been a problem in the church for centuries. Surely God saw that coming. Yet there remain verses that, when viewed under either microscope, are problematic. Might it be that the parts that everyone thinks are so important are more like filler in the narrative that was really talking about something else? In other words, the particular words were not the point. Rather the thrust of the whole was it and the words used were not really that important.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m amazed at your statements regarding Bible inerrancy. Psalm 119:60 says “The entirety of Your words are truth”.

You are presuming that everything that ended out between "in the Beginning" and "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (I left out the less clearly unique last verse) are all "words of God." But there are many words in the Bible that are not the words of God. (Note there is a difference between the "Word of God" and the "words of God.") All of the words that are given as statements of God are true. But much of the Bible is not "statements of God" unless you insist on an otherwise unstated premise that the Bible is word-by-word dictated by God. And the Bible does not say that.

But even that does not grant the words of the serpent as being "words of God." They are not God's words, but the serpent's.

Take care concerning what is actually said in any verse. Otherwise, you might find yourself in the clutches of yet another huckster like Lee.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are presuming that everything that ended out between "in the Beginning" and "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus" (I left out the less clearly unique last verse) are all "words of God." But there are many words in the Bible that are not the words of God. (Note there is a difference between the "Word of God" and the "words of God.") All of the words that are given as statements of God are true. But much of the Bible is not "statements of God" unless you insist on an otherwise unstated premise that the Bible is word-by-word dictated by God. And the Bible does not say that.

But even that does not grant the words of the serpent as being "words of God." They are not God's words, but the serpent's.

Take care concerning what is actually said in any verse. Otherwise, you might find yourself in the clutches of yet another huckster like Lee.

I’m not presuming anything different than generations of Christians have regarding “the canon of scripture” being God’s words. And, if you want to take that topic on these boards.... well...really? I suspect Unto Him will move that discussion to Alternative Views. We should probably talk about your other points in the OP.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m not presuming anything different than generations of Christians have regarding “the canon of scripture” being God’s words. And, if you want to take that topic on these boards.... well...really? I suspect Unto Him will move that discussion to Alternative Views. We should probably talk about your other points in the OP.

We have already had a discussion on inerrancy. Needless to say, what is inerrant if we can't agree on what it says? Or is inerrant a term to put on top of our version of what it means so we can dismiss what others think it means?

I am not trying to say that the canon of scripture is invalid. Or that what we learn of God is diminished. But at the same time, the words used are not defined (by the Bible) as being inerrant. Neither are they described as dictated word-by-word by God.

The word translated as "inspired" or "God-breathed" does not simply mean dictated. We use it to refer to varying degrees of connection between one thing and another. Like a movie "inspired by the book" which is similar to, but not exactly like the book. Or is a story that is sort of like the book but has none of the same characters. Either could be "inspired" by something.

The problem with making a general statement like "generations of Christians" is that you presume that because they may have used a common word in some part of what they said that they mean the exact same thing. Two different groups using the same flowery verbiage concerning what scripture does and doesn't say stand and call the others heretics for their differing insistence that the Bible says "X" or "Y" in a certain place. Calling the words on the page "inerrant" really does not solve anything. It just works as a club to beat others over the head with.

In other words, the claim of inerrancy is almost always associated with "my way" of understanding the words I am reading. That makes inerrancy of no practical importance. But to say that the Bible (scripture) is profitable for teaching, etc., is without controversy (ignoring skeptics and unbelievers). But we do not presume to think that our mission is to hamstring all of the heathen (what some of Jacob's sons did to a neighboring tribe). So even the declaration that scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that everything that God's people did (and is recorded in the Bible) is profitable for teaching/imitation. What else would you do with that, unless it is not really the point of the scripture, but an account of history that reveals mankind along with the God that slowly brings them to where they needed to be for the coming of the Messiah?

It was not necessary that God dictate those words. No matter how you tell it, you get the picture. But what is important is where God fits into the story. That is what is revealed. He is not revealed in the action of hamstringing the nearby tribe. He is revealed in the whole of the process of saving them from themselves, and eventually from famine. So the fact that it became part of the oral history is "inspired" by God.

If you want a better example of the unimportance of word-by-word dictation, read the various English translations and see that you ultimately get the same information. Even the very different Message translation mostly conveys the same thing while using words and phrases so different that if you are not paying attention, you may not recognize where in the Bible you are because it doesn't sound like the KJV, NASB, NIV, etc. translation that you may be used to. But either way, there is teaching, instruction in righteousness, etc., that is profitable.

But if you are seeking the Christian equivalent of a book of incantations and magical phrases, expect to be disappointed because it is not a book of crafted words that have special powers. (please understand this as a little over-the-top) It is a book of the progressive revelation of God in his relationship with man.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

My personal experience with `The Ministry' material was, when I discovered the uplifting of Lee, I burned all the material in my fireplace. The demon that came out of that was in my face that night and was sent away via the authority in Jesus name. I have spoken about that before here, and I appreciate so much the brothers thoughtful, well read, historical study of this group, and I also trust the Lord and what He reveals to me in spirit. One example, and what I appreciate lately, is how I was kept so much in the dark by the group, but the Lord led me slowly to light and led me out in spite of the hidden stuff, which, now aware of, I disagree with. I hope this isn't too much of a tangent.

Wow! I had not read that anywhere in your posts before. Thanks for sharing that experience.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Wow! I had not read that anywhere in your posts before. Thanks for sharing that experience.

Yes, no problem, Trapped. All you have to do is mention Jesus the Savior in the presence of the right person (harboring the wrong demon) and you sometimes witness the switch flip. You are no longer simply talking to some person.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Can you first go into or expound on the reference to digging brass? I googled the term and only found one verse combining digging with brass. Understanding it is an alloy, I don't understand what we are supposed to understand from the expression, or what you believe about it....what you are conveying with it.

I do not recall what version I was reading when I first came accross this years ago. It was probably when I was near 20, so 40+ years ago. It is not that it is some heinous error, but that it is a statement that on its face is not accurate. No one has a problem with it, but there are many other references that would be scientifically incorrect. You don't dig brass, but its components. The sun, moon, and stars do not move through the sky — we rotate on an axis which gives the illusion of the movement we think we see.

These are examples of places where "facts" of nature are made in the Bible that we know to be incorrect. But that is how the people of the day would understand what was going on. If God was inspiring an "inerrant" book, he would have seen to it that everything was factually accurate. He wouldn't have left so many things only partly explained, but would have fleshed them all out.

Instead, we find in the Bible stories/narratives in which we learn progressively more and more about God. It starts with one of the most compressed narratives imaginable. Creation — a grand and complex series of events — is described as a six-part play that can best be described as "summary." Only a very brief description that probably doesn' really describe any of the actual steps or actions but one — God did it. Did he only speak six times, once each day over the course of six days? Or was there something much more complex that is simplified into those 6 steps because the point was not the details of how the earth was made, but the fact that God made it? And because that was the goal, the description is far from scientifically "accurate." The earth itself constantly reveals its age as many times greater than 6,000 or so years.

Now there are clearly some miracles in the Bible that deny the ability to be scientific. And one of them could have been creating the earth in 6 literal days while hiding artifacts of billions of years for us to find. But it seems kind of capricious to have gone to all that trouble if the earth was really just brand new when Adam walked on the earth.

Then we get to the recording of battles in the OT. Was the annihilation of enemies that we know continued to exist an error of God? Or was it that men, in an era when those kinds of overstatements were the norm when writing of battle victories, wrote the words? Therefore the description is partly bravado on the part of man, not some "error" in the word-by-word dictation by God. So God didn't write everything in the Bible?

And if God was going to dictate it word-by-word, why wouldn't he write in a consistent voice and style? Why write simply for some, and in a more complex way for others (like Paul)? Peter wouldn't have written like Paul if he was the writer. But if God was really the writer, he suddenly has a much more robust language to use. But he didn't.

Instead, for the OT, we have the writings (or eventual recording of the oral stories) that men wrote/spoke after events in which they encountered God. The coming to Abraham and making a promise. The miraculous intervention in Egypt when he lied about Sarah being his sister. The saving of Jacob and his clan from the famine. The rescue from Egypt generations later. And so on. It is more difficult to discuss the prophets as it is likely that it is more than just men writing down what has happened. Yet even there, the particular words may not have been laid out, but only the sense of what was to be covered.

The NT is full of eye-witness accounts of events and statements, but even they do not simply record precisely what was said, but rather the things that impressed each of them. Consider that there are 2 different versions of the words Jesus used when telling the disciples how to pray. Is it "debts" or "trespasses?" It was only said once, but there are two different renderings. Is one "wrong" and the other "right?" In literal terms that would have to be the case. But in terms of the narrative that the two different writers were creating, they used different words — at least in Greek.

The point is that while there may be certain kinds of inconsistencies, and even errors in what is written down, the truth about God is learned a little more in each account. The first oral narratives provide grand themes, but no much details. The histories provide more, but also a lot of factual history of Israel that may not always be given in the manner that we would forensically call "facts" in this day and age. The gospels tell bits and pieces from Jesus' ministry, the most troublesome being John's gospel because it was not strictly chronological and covered many different things than what the other three did. They sometimes seem as if they are covering a different person.

Even where you think there might be something hinky in the narrative, do you learn about God? That is profitable for teaching. Probably not the part where the Israelites waxed barbaric in their description of the defeat of some enemy.

I realize that my analysis might make some question the Bible. But I don't. I just recognize the fallibilities of the writers and choose to see God revealed in the narrative.

And since there was not a complete "Bible" as we know it when Paul wrote that thing about "all scripture," why do we think that simply because it is included in the book that we call the Bible that it is all that there really is to "scripture?" Scripture is profitable for teaching. Reproof. Correction. Instruction in righteousness.

"Break their teeth in their heads" doesn't sound very instructive. But "God so loved the world" does. And the evidence of the whole of the Biblical narrative is that he does love the world.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Since SonstoGlory mentioned this book in another thread, I thought I would look into it. I am not trying to rain on anyone's consideration of what is good about Lee's teachings. But I also am not sure that just letting everyone think that what they once thought was necessarily true is really beneficial for them or anyone else. He (and others) will have to decide whether they still want to hold to what they already think. But to withhold this alternative view just because of feelings seems to put emotions over truth, or at least the search for truth.

I don’t think we should litter that other thread with a discussion of this book, so I started a new one. It may not ever really go anywhere, but I thought it would be worthwhile to at least start through a look at one of Lee’s books in 2019 rather than just point back at previous threads that are as much as 10 years old or more, or not even on this forum (going back to the old Berean forum).

(Caveat: This post is long. If you don't like long posts, read it in pieces, or just ingore this thread. I wanted to get certain things out as a start, so this is what it is.)

The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life was from messages Lee gave in 1971 — about 1-1/2 years before I heard of the LC. It begins with some statements concerning the faith. According to Lee, the faith is “composed of the beliefs concerning the Bible, God, Christ, the work of Christ, salvation, and the church.”

So, Mike, where do you think this thread went? You started out looking at some of the points Lee made regarding articles of the faith we should hold on to. Do you think the responses and resulting discussion were effective regarding these things you brought up?

Generally speaking, I have little desire to disseminate all the detailed particulars of what Lee stated (regarding each of the main points of the faith we should adhere to). As I tried to say (apparently not very successfully, considering the heat I got from others) was that my main take-away was that we are all one in Christ and should not divide ourselves over things that are not essentials of the faith. Yes, that is a very basic and simple concept, and that was what the Anointing was conveying to me at that time. What the Anointing was showing me about practical oneness, had nothing to do with the true condition of the LCs or its leaders . . . it was just a a simple, enjoyable truth, that the Anointing wanted to impress on my young heart at that time.

Maybe a good question for this forum might be: What do we think are the main essentials of the faith that all believers should insist upon for fellowship?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So, Mike, where do you think this thread went? You started out looking at some of the points Lee made regarding articles of the faith we should hold on to. Do you think the responses and resulting discussion were effective regarding these things you brought up?

Generally speaking, I have little desire to disseminate all the detailed particulars of what Lee stated (regarding each of the main points of the faith we should adhere to). As I tried to say (apparently not very successfully, considering the heat I got from others) was that my main take-away was that we are all one in Christ and should not divide ourselves over things that are not essentials of the faith. Yes, that is a very basic and simple concept, and that was what the Anointing was conveying to me at that time. What the Anointing was showing me about practical oneness, had nothing to do with the true condition of the LCs or its leaders . . . it was just a a simple, enjoyable truth, that the Anointing wanted to impress on my young heart at that time.

Maybe a good question for this forum might be: What do we think are the main essentials of the faith that all believers should insist upon for fellowship?

I’m glad you brought this topic up. I’ve been wrestling with that question “what is the faith?” and what I thought about Lee’s definition of it in the book discussed here. So, before my thoughts I’ve put links to the only verses in the New Testament that actually use those two words (based on look into Greek Interlinear, not Just English versions that sometimes add or delete “the” to faith.

Jude 1:3 https://biblehub.com/jude/1-3.htm

Colossians 1:4-8 https://biblehub.com/bsb/colossians/1.htm

Acts 3:16 https://biblehub.com/bsb/acts/3.htm

1 Timothy 1:19 https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/1.htm

So, it seems “the faith”:
Was once delivered to the saints and is something we are urged to contend for.

Is in Christ Jesus and together with love for all saints proceeds out from the hope that is stored up for us in heaven, about which we heard in the word of truth, the gospel that came to us through faithful ministers of the gospel and is bearing fruit and growing all over the world where it has been announced.

Is about Jesus Christ, the Author of life, who was killed after being delivered to death by his own people, but God raised Him from the dead, and the apostles were witnesses of the fact. It is by faith in the name of Jesus, crippled men are made whole and strong (not by the apostles own power or holiness).

Is pretty well spelled out (as well as what it is not) in Chapter 1 of 1 Timothy. Read the whole chapter. I won’t summarize, give critical points, give conclusions, crystallize, make outlines for training, put my digest (regurg?) in a HWFMR, or well you get the point.

Again, I end up much preferring what the Bible actually says, versus what Lee says. Dump Lee’s book, it didn’t produce the fruit the apostles say the the faith does.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m glad you brought this topic up. I’ve been wrestling with that question “what is the faith?” and what I thought about Lee’s definition of it in the book discussed here. So, before my thoughts I’ve put links to the only verses in the New Testament that actually use those two words (based on look into Greek Interlinear, not Just English versions that sometimes add or delete “the” to faith.

Jude 1:3 https://biblehub.com/jude/1-3.htm

Colossians 1:4-8 https://biblehub.com/bsb/colossians/1.htm

Acts 3:16 https://biblehub.com/bsb/acts/3.htm

1 Timothy 1:19 https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/1.htm

So, it seems “the faith”:
Was once delivered to the saints and is something we are urged to contend for.

Is in Christ Jesus and together with love for all saints proceeds out from the hope that is stored up for us in heaven, about which we heard in the word of truth, the gospel that came to us through faithful ministers of the gospel and is bearing fruit and growing all over the world where it has been announced.

Is about Jesus Christ, the Author of life, who was killed after being delivered to death by his own people, but God raised Him from the dead, and the apostles were witnesses of the fact. It is by faith in the name of Jesus, crippled men are made whole and strong (not by the apostles own power or holiness).

Is pretty well spelled out (as well as what it is not) in Chapter 1 of 1 Timothy. Read the whole chapter. I won’t summarize, give critical points, give conclusions, crystallize, make outlines for training, put my digest (regurg?) in a HWFMR, or well you get the point.

Again, I end up much preferring what the Bible actually says, versus what Lee says. Dump Lee’s book, it didn’t produce the fruit the apostles say the the faith does.

Not going to dump the book bro, but I understand if it's quite tainted for many. We may not agree with all the specific particulars, but the basic thought is good as far as I'm concerned. (again, very sad the overall concept wasn't practiced in the LC)

Looking through the verses you cited, including 1st Timothy 1, I see very general references to "the faith." Are there more specific things we can pick-up regarding what the faith is, and what would those references be? Perhaps I am missing something in those verses . . .

Let me take a stab at this - if someone were to ask me what I thought the essentials of the faith were, I might say the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God; God came in the flesh
2. He lived on earth, died on the cross and God raised Him from the dead, to live forever more
3. On the cross God put all our sins on Christ and paid the price for us to be fully reconciled to God
4. If a person accepts God's free gift of reconciliation in Christ, they are saved and regenerated with a new life

So how's that? Do you think there's good scriptural backing for saying these are essentials we shouldn't compromise on? I thought of various things that could be added, but I don't know I would call them "essentials of the faith."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not going to dump the book bro, but I understand if it's quite tainted for many. We may not agree with all the specific particulars, but the basic thought is good as far as I'm concerned. (again, very sad the overall concept wasn't practiced in the LC)

Looking through the verses you cited, including 1st Timothy 1, I see very general references to "the faith." Are there more specific things we can pick-up regarding what the faith is, and what would those references be? Perhaps I am missing something in those verses . . .

Let me take a stab at this - if someone were to ask me what I thought the essentials of the faith were, I might say the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God; God came in the flesh
2. He lived on earth, died on the cross and God raised Him from the dead, to live forever more
3. On the cross God put all our sins on Christ and paid the price for us to be fully reconciled to God
4. If a person accepts God's free gift of reconciliation in Christ, they are saved and regenerated with a new life

So how's that? Do you think there's good scriptural backing for saying these are essentials we shouldn't compromise on? I thought of various things that could be added, but I don't know I would call them "essentials of the faith."

To me the essentials were given by Peter publicly on Pentecost.* God raised up Jesus, of this we are witnesses. ~Acts 2:32 Either Peter's witness is lie, or it is truth. If it is truth, then everything else points to this, and derives its own measure of truth by what degree it points to that. Anything that doesn't point to that is irrelevant at best.

Let me give an example: Paul's writing to the Corinthians. There's a lot of stuff going on there that isn't befitting of Christians. Everything, however, that Paul is less-than-enamored of, is because it's detracting the believers from the path of the gospel, and it ruins this very testimony to the unbelievers. If the believers are fornicating, getting drunk and stealing, then did Christ really rise? And if he did really rise, then why are they conducting themselves so terribly?

And so forth. The focal point of scripture is the agony that Christ bore on the cross, and the glories that followed. Either it's real, or it's not. Everything else is settled by this one proposition.

*Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was repeated almost verbatim in Acts 13 by the Gamaliel-trained urban Pharisee Paul. No stronger 'amen' could be given.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me take a stab at this - if someone were to ask me what I thought the essentials of the faith were, I might say the following:

1. Jesus Christ is the Son of God; God came in the flesh
2. He lived on earth, died on the cross and God raised Him from the dead, to live forever more
3. On the cross God put all our sins on Christ and paid the price for us to be fully reconciled to God
4. If a person accepts God's free gift of reconciliation in Christ, they are saved and regenerated with a new life

I definitely agree with this, and I think would only preface them with "God has created all things."

[aron]

Ohio, you and I were writing at the same time. I would also agree with all of this as well. I just have my own, simplified and stripped-down version, which I posted. But nothing that StG! posted really conflicts with what I said, or vice versa.

There is One God and Father, who created all things and loved us so much that He sent His Only-begotten Son. I mean, either this is real, or not. The acid test is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, which proves that the italicized sentence I wrote is truth. With out the resurrection, it's just wishful thinking. It has no real motive force.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely agree with this, and I think would only preface them with "God has created all things."

Do you think this is a prerequisite for fellowship or to be saved?