All natural things are bad?

[love4truth]

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

If you listen to Witness Lee long and hard enough, you will eventually be persuaded that he and his ministry are the only safe things we can love in this life. Does that sound healthy to you? In other words, all other loves are natural and can not be trusted, and only loving him is holy, spiritual, healthy, and can be trusted. Quite a self-serving teaching, don't you think?

Lee taught that all natural loves are like honey in Leviticus 2.11, which is forbidden because it spoils the offering. This is just another of Lee's extreme allegorical views which have damaged the members of the LC's.

[jeff of jesus grace]

Originally Posted by love4truth

....Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

Let me know the meaning here - that is , what do you want to know love4truth? What I mean is, I don't understand if you want to know what the Bible says, or what lee was teaching . (realizing lee was wrong?)

[love4truth]

Ha! My LC friend just told me I have too many opinions. I figured I would get such an answer from one who believes only Witness Lee speaks forth from God and all others are vain opinions.

[love4truth]

I still read with my LC friend. The Life Studies. I was in the LC with her for a brief time. I really like her as a person, but she follows all Lee's teachings and there are no others. I have kept reading with her (on Skype) hoping I can make her see there are other interpretations that are valid besides Lee. She has blinders. I guess soon I will just quit this, but thought I could do some good.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by love4truth

Ha! My LC friend just told me I have too many opinions. I figured I would get such an answer from one who believes only Witness Lee speaks forth from God and all others are vain opinions.

It's often said, "here in the recovery we don't have opinions". Everyone has an opinion. There's no avoiding it. However what is likely intended is "we in the recovery don't want your opinions expressed".

[love4truth]

Originally Posted by jeff of jesus grace

Let me know the meaning here - that is , what do you want to know love4truth? What I mean is, I don't understand if you want to know what the Bible says, or what lee was teaching . (realizing lee was wrong?)

I guess I am asking does he really think that only good that is generated by participating in the "Recovery" comes from God, and that we are to "hate" the appearance of good in anything else. That seems to be what he is saying. We are in Exodus right now, on the Compound Ointment, my LC friend and I.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

It was "natural" for Jesus to ask the Father if the cup of crucifixion could pass, it was natural for Joseph and Mary to go back to Jerusalem looking for their list son, it was "natural" for Paul to want all of his Hebrew brothers to be saved, it is natural for me to want all the marriages of my children to be happy, it is natural for a husband to please his wife, it is perverted to look to WL to determine what is not natural.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

Lee's teaching on natural love and affection is unscriptural. Paul criticizes those without natural affection (astergeo) in Rom 1:31 and 2nd Tim 3 :1-3 suggesting they are destined for God's wrath. More from this article on the four Greek words for love in the NT including stergeo:

https://www.icr.org/article/18306/


Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Romans 1:31).

This phrase “without natural affection” is the translation of one Greek word, astergeo. It was a characteristic of many pagans of the ancient world. Significantly, it is also prophesied to be a characteristic of the humanistic pagans of the end-times. “In the last days . . . men shall be . . . without natural affection” (II Timothy 3:1–3). These are the only two occurrences of this word in the New Testament.

The word stergeo (“natural affection”) is one of four Greek words for “love,” but it is never used at all in the New Testament. It refers to the natural love that members of the same family have for each other. It is such a common characteristic of all peoples that there was apparently no occasion to refer to it at all—except when it is not present, when people lose their instinctive love for their own parents and children, and thus are “without natural affection.” One thinks of the widespread abortionism of these last days, as well as the modern breakdown of the family in general.

Another Greek word for “love” is eros, referring to romantic love, or passion. Like stergeo, eros also is never used in the New Testament. The other two words, however, are used frequently. Phileo, referring to “brotherly love,” occurs over thirty times. It indicates fondness, based on a community of interest with the person or persons so “loved.”

The fourth “love” word, of course, is agape, which is used over 300 times. This is the type of love called out of one’s heart by the preciousness of the object loved, the love that impels one to sacrifice his own interests for the benefit of the person loved. This is the love of Christ, who “loved me, and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). And this is the love generated by the Holy Spirit in the believer for “the fruit of the Spirit is love . . .” (Galatians 5:22). HMM

[KSA]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Lee's teaching on natural love and affection is unscriptural.

I would say this teaching is unnatural

[Freedom]

There is a stanza from a song in the LC hymnal - #1226. It says the following:
"There are seven golden lampstands, in the nature all divine - Nothing natural does the Body life allow."

WL big big on the allegories and this song is a good example of how easily things are taken too far in the LC. I realize that WL didn't necessarily write these lyrics, but it certainly represents his view. In the LC golden=divine=not natural. One need not read further than Rev 2-3 to realize that the seven churches, despite all kinds of problems, were recognized as golden lampstands, irrespective of the so-called natural things.

It's obvious that assertion "nothing natural does the Body life allow" is an irrelevant consideration in the context of churches. I didn't want to throw the thread too far off topic with this, but it's just and example of one of the ridiculous ideas that this "nothing natural" ideology was based off of.

witness lee was surely anointed... most members THOUGHT they understood him...Yet, He once said "I am so alone"... this was said (while I was present) at a meeting along with all the elder brothers were present... there was a questioning surprise look on their faces... yes I was there for years...'n I still read and have his messages from time to time from the seventies (along with copies writings of Watchman Nee) ...

I would like to say this in reference to the natural mind, The natural "Adamic" two fold mind and understanding is that which blinds the eyes of them who profess themselves as wise...It be as a veil shielding them from the truth... BTW the living stream ministry is aired on radio 740 am in southern California... ron kangus and francis ball interpret (must be replays of recordings from the past ...

grammar police "you're up"... LOL

[KSA]

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural.

This is not a problem of Witness Lee only. It is rather general and dates way back to Gnosticism of the first centuries of Christian History. This is an offspring of our dualistic mind. And so contrary to the example of Jesus who removed the boundaries between sacred and profane, who united heaven and earth in Himself.

Originally Posted by love4truth

There seems to be a prevalent teaching of Witness Lee that all natural things are bad, and that God hates the natural. We who are Christians are supposed to hate anything that is in the natural world, no matter how good it appears. To Lee natural love is wrong, only love that comes from Christ is right. But if you are a Christian and you have the experience of love in your heart, how do you divide what is spiritual and what is natural? Is natural love wrong? Love of a mother for her children is seen even in the animal world. I cherish my family, my friends. Natural instincts that are good seem worthy to me. Why should Christians fight for good causes when they may be doing it in the natural? I am a born again Christian, but I do not insist good that I embrace be put under a microscope. Good is good and we should give thanks and rejoice because God created good. Good works do not save us, but they are important. What do you think? Can anyone explain to me just what Lee is trying to say in this teaching?

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

Jesus also commands us to love our enemies and our neighbors as our self. He told us plainly, "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luke 6.27-28)

Now where did Jesus say that loving your enemies "is of no avail if it is Christ-less, and without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish?"

Your post is exactly what Lee taught me for decades. I have seen it bear much rotten fruit. This teaching of Lee is not scriptural. Hence, I have attempted to completely discard it, and love as Jesus commanded us.

Paul told Timothy that in the last days "men will be without natural affection." (II Tim 3.3) I saw far too much of this in the LC's, jut as Paul predicted.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus also commands us to love our enemies and our neighbors as our self. He told us plainly, "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luke 6.27-28)

Now where did Jesus say that loving your enemies "is of no avail if it is Christ-less, and without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish?"

Your post is exactly what Lee taught me for decades. I have seen it bear much rotten fruit. This teaching of Lee is not scriptural. Hence, I have attempted to completely discard it, and love as Jesus commanded us.

Paul told Timothy that in the last days "men will be without natural affection." (II Tim 3.3) I saw far too much of this in the LC's, jut as Paul predicted.

Jesus no where said "walk in the Spirit" either, but that's why we have the rest of the New Testament.

How do we obey Christ? Using our natural strength? No, by the Spirit. Colossians 1:8 mentions "love in the Spirit". Even the denominations know our own strength is of no avail.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus no where said "walk in the Spirit" either, but that's why we have the rest of the New Testament.

How do we obey Christ? Using our natural strength? No, by the Spirit. Colossians 1:8 mentions "love in the Spirit". Even the denominations know our own strength is of no avail.

Yeah, "even the denominations" know that.

Why would Jesus tell us to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength," knowing that our soul was natural, our mind was opinionated, and our strength was fleshly?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

So are we saying that the love of the unsaved is simply vain and pointless?

Or are we saying that the love of even the saved who are not somehow qualified as being "in Christ" is also vain and pointless.

I really don't want this to seem as a kind of "going off" on Evangelical. Instead, this is yet another salvo at the thought that there is some "in Christ" or "not in Christ" problem for the Christian. Maybe there is a problem with people who are Christian (and therefore "in Christ") doing things that they think are right but are not. But where is the rationale that a Christian should not be doing what he knows should be done. To not do what they know has been commanded to be done?

Not talking about remaining ignorant and therefore doing wrong. But about knowing what is right and having any kind of thought that they might not be doing it "in Christ."

If the whole discussion is simply to make points against the unsaved, then why waste your breath?

But if the discussion is to nit-pick over who of Christ's followers are in the instant practicing some kind of "in Christ" thing — that is a whole different question.

I know that a certain person wrote a book on Practicing the Presence of God (if I am remembering the title correctly). At this point I really don't remember a lot about it as my reading was so many years ago. But I have been impressed lately that while there is a real ability to be so engaged in a prayerful attitude through much of what we do at all times in the day, I question whether the emphasis on such things it often at the expense of dismissing those who simply recognize that they are believers in, and followers of Christ, and therefore recognize times when they might have naturally done things in a less than righteous manner and instead decide to be righteous instead. They didn't pray about it. They didn't check whether their last time of prayer was recent enough that they might or might not be "in Christ" at that moment. (I don't believe there is such a time frame.)

I mean, isn't there any belief that the conscience speaking to us is as good as God speaking? They where is the cause to defer such action?

I mean, if there is no proximity of prayer, but just the decision to act differently, how much of the kind of thought that the action is "Christ-less," or not "in Christ" do different people have?

I think that in at least one place one of the NT writers essentially said that if you are still doing "X" you should stop it. I can't remember if it was Paul, or James, or someone else. And I can't remember what it was that was mentioned.

But it was a clear admonition to refuse the unrighteous way and instead do what is righteous. And sometimes we are happy to say that about stealing, adultery, or being alcoholic or taking drugs.

And we want the world to stop aborting babies, although for them to do that is Christ-less and therefore pointless (if we take this "in Christ" thing to its logical end).

Yet we suggest that there are actions toward righteousness and obedience that might not be "in Christ" with respect to a saved person. Doesn't that suggest that maybe they shouldn't yet try to be righteous?

Really?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

CODSWALLOP!

According to Lee and Company there is no right or wrong, and there is no good or bad; there's just in the spirit or out of the spirit. Listen to yourself..."if we love our family without Christ's love... it is vain..." Can you show me anywhere in the bible where Christ or His Apostles state loving your family without Christ's love is vain? When you write "vain" do you mean of no use to the little children who are the recipients of this "vain" love, or the dear wife who finds strength to continue being a mother from the "vain" love of her husband.

I don't give a rodent's posterior (Hope this passes the "sister-censor"!) what Witness Lee means, about anything! It is a release from prison to be "free from Lee". I dropped off the "key Lee and got myself free", you can do the same and become a normal human being who loves Christ as well as people. Sorry for blowing a gasket here, but the implications of what you believe are frightening to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5chfbcWtY

The problem is all inside your head she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover



She said it's really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover



You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free



She said it grieves me so to see you in such pain
I wish there was something I could do to make you smile again
I said I appreciate that and would you please explain
About the fifty ways



She said why don't we both just sleep on it tonight
And I believe in the morning you'll begin to see the light
And then she kissed me and I realized she probably was right
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover



You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free


Written by Paul Simon • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group

[OBW]

I have to say that the whole idea that natural things are bad and only the "spiritual" is good sounds like Gnosticism to me. I don't care that Lee spoke against Gnosticism. That may have been more of a way to hide the very Gnosticism in his teachings.

But the whole idea that the natural created order is simply fallen and to be rejected and only those things that are spiritual or "in spirit," "in the spirit," or "in the Spirit" are to be acceptable is, at its core, Gnosticism. May not take on all the tenets of pure Gnosticism, but that is effectively what it is.

As someone else has already pointed out, when the statements against homosexuality are based on the fact that they are contrary to "natural affection" then it is must be fundamentally true that "natural affections" are very "in" and therefore acceptable, not rejected.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have to say that the whole idea that natural things are bad and only the "spiritual" is good sounds like Gnosticism to me. I don't care that Lee spoke against Gnosticism. That may have been more of a way to hide the very Gnosticism in his teachings.

But the whole idea that the natural created order is simply fallen and to be rejected and only those things that are spiritual or "in spirit," "in the spirit," or "in the Spirit" are to be acceptable is, at its core, Gnosticism. May not take on all the tenets of pure Gnosticism, but that is effectively what it is.

As someone else has already pointed out, when the statements against homosexuality are based on the fact that they are contrary to "natural affection" then it is must be fundamentally true that "natural affections" are very "in" and therefore acceptable, not rejected.

Hellow. Gnosticism teaches "physical is bad". They also did not the physical nature of Christ. Lee did not teach that. Lee taught that the natural man (that is, the old creation) without the Spirit is bad. In other words, the old "Adamic" creation is negative, the new creation in Christ is positive. This is quite basic teaching from the Bible, I learnt it not from Witness Lee, but from my denominational church.

I find many of you do not have a clear idea of what Witness Lee meant by "natural".

This is strange because you are supposed to be former members or maybe you forgot.

If there was any matter that was drummed into us the most in the local churches it is this matter of tree of knowledge of good/evil versus tree of life.

Witness Lee did not teach that the natural man is bad or natural man is good. He taught that the natural man must be nailed to the cross, so Christ can live out of us. Tree of life versus Tree of knowledge.

This is saying nothing different to the New Testament which speaks of being crucified with Christ, and walking/living in the Spirit.

Jesus said to "deny ourself" and take up our cross. This is the same meaning. Deny ourself means deny our natural capacity and natural strength, it is of no use in God's kingdom.

Some say this is gnosticism. Gnosticism is against the physical. Witness Lee embraced both Christ's humanity and divinity, never denying the physical. To be spiritual is to take care of others in a practical way as well.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hellow. Gnosticism teaches "physical is bad". They also did not the physical nature of Christ. Lee did not teach that. Lee taught that the natural man (that is, the old creation) without the Spirit is bad. In other words, the old "Adamic" creation is negative, the new creation in Christ is positive. This is quite basic teaching from the Bible, I learnt it not from Witness Lee, but from my denominational church.

Lee taught that natural things were bad. Everything that he could not tie to "the spirit" or "the Spirit" were rejected. Natural affections, or friendships were disdained. Rejected as not of the spirit.

To the Christian, life is of the spirit and of the Spirit. It is not put in the "spiritual" silo or the "worldly" silo based on some arbitrary analysis of whether you are "in spirit" or "not in spirit." And there are no parts of life that are not "in spirit" (or "in the Spirit") for the Christian. There is no need to check your temperature to determine whether God would have you be righteous today. There is no requirement to have a feeling before you do justice or be righteous.

No. Lee did not reject the bodily nature of Jesus. But too much of his theology was based in the false dichotomy of the Gnostics. There is a status of being "in spirit" that is easily turned on and off and only when it is on are you properly Christian (not the way he said it, but effectively so). There is a false dichotomy of the spiritual and the secular or physical.

But in the theology of Jesus, it is the nature of the believer that the whole of life becomes spiritual. It is all either undertaken by a follower or by someone not following. That is the defining difference. Not some artificial "in spirit."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I don't give a rodent's posterior (Hope this passes the "sister-censor"!) what Witness Lee means, about anything! It is a release from prison to be "free from Lee". I dropped off the "key Lee and got myself free", you can do the same and become a normal human being who loves Christ as well as people. Sorry for blowing a gasket here, but the implications of what you believe are frightening to me.

HERn, you are enjoying yourself, aren't you!

Originally Posted by HERn

CODSWALLOP!

According to Lee and Company there is no right or wrong, and there is no good or bad; there's just in the spirit or out of the spirit. Listen to yourself..."if we love our family without Christ's love... it is vain..." Can you show me anywhere in the bible where Christ or His Apostles state loving your family without Christ's love is vain? When you write "vain" do you mean of no use to the little children who are the recipients of this "vain" love, or the dear wife who finds strength to continue being a mother from the "vain" love of her husband.

I don't give a rodent's posterior (Hope this passes the "sister-censor"!) what Witness Lee means, about anything! It is a release from prison to be "free from Lee". I dropped off the "key Lee and got myself free", you can do the same and become a normal human being who loves Christ as well as people. Sorry for blowing a gasket here, but the implications of what you believe are frightening to me.

I can show you plenty of verses which talk about living in the Spirit and not relying upon our own strength. By saying you don't need Christ's love, you are basically saying that you are capable in your self, in your own strength, to love your family and don't need God's help.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can show you plenty of verses which talk about living in the Spirit and not relying upon our own strength. By saying you don't need Christ's love, you are basically saying that you are capable in your self, in your own strength, to love your family and don't need God's help.

If you can list the verses I'll take the time to comment and help you "drop off the key Lee and get yourself free!"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To love your family is better than to hate your family. But unless you have Christ, to love or to hate is Christ-less, and of no avail. This is what Witness Lee means. Nothing wrong with natural, as in human, but natural things apart from Christ are bad. That is, if we love our family without Christ's love, it is just our own love, and is vain, superficial, natural, even selfish.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash. The Bible never teaches this. There is nothing in the Bible that says natural love is bad, in fact it says that not having natural affection for one's blood kin is a sign of corruption (2 Tim 3:3).

The Bible says we are to love. If we are loving incorrectly, the God will correct us. But it's flat out a false teaching to say we need to go around constantly checking whether we are loving with "Christ's love" (as defined by Lee) or not. We are to walk in the Spirit, we are to love. Don't complicate it with Lee's nonsense. Lee wanted to alienate people from their families and friends. That's why he trashed "natural" love. He just sought to redefine love in a way that best suited his purpose. Don't fall for it.

Okay, that's the annoyed summary. Here's more. If only "Christ" is valid, then it doesn't matter if a worldly person is a humanitarian or a serial killer if he doesn't have Christ. Now I agree he needs to accept Christ as his Savior. But the idea that God doesn't look at the latter type as more offensive to Him than the former is simply crazy. The Bible is full of commands on how to behave. We are to obey those commands, and a person who's life is more in line with those is bound to be more pleasing to God than someone who is evil incarnate.

Lee's teaching is an extreme and warped one which, like many of his teachings, was intended to invalidate everything but what he approved. Thus common in the LCM are the chidings of "Brother, that's not Christ," about whatever behavior the speaker wants to slap down. It's manipulative hogwash.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash. The Bible never teaches this. There is nothing in the Bible that says natural love is bad, in fact it says that not having natural affection for one's blood kin is a sign of corruption (2 Tim 3:3).

The Bible says we are to love. If we are loving incorrectly, the God will correct us. But it's flat out a false teaching to say we need to go around constantly checking whether we are loving with "Christ's love" (as defined by Lee) or not. We are to walk in the Spirit, we are to love. Don't complicate it with Lee's nonsense. Lee wanted to alienate people from their families and friends. That's why he trashed "natural" love. He just sought to redefine love in a way that best suited his purpose. Don't fall for it.

Okay, that's the annoyed summary. Here's more. If only "Christ" is valid, then it doesn't matter if a worldly person is a humanitarian or a serial killer if he doesn't have Christ. Now I agree he needs to accept Christ as his Savior. But the idea that God doesn't look at the latter type as more offensive to Him than the former is simply crazy. The Bible is full of commands on how to behave. We are to obey those commands, and a person who's life is more in line with those is bound to be more pleasing to God than someone who is evil incarnate.

Lee's teaching is an extreme and warped one which, like many of his teachings, was intended to invalidate everything but what he approved. Thus common in the LCM are the chidings of "Brother, that's not Christ," about whatever behavior the speaker wants to slap down. It's manipulative hogwash.

What does it mean "in the Spirit"? It means "not in yourself", it means not in your natural capacity. That should be evidence enough that God wants more than just our natural love. Yet you claim there is nothing in the Bible about that. It's obvious - Spirit = "not natural". Natural = "not Spirit".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What does it mean "in the Spirit"? It means "not in yourself", it means not in your natural capacity. That should be evidence enough that God wants more than just our natural love. Yet you claim there is nothing in the Bible about that. It's obvious - Spirit = "not natural". Natural = "not Spirit".

The Bible never says that if we are in the spirit we are not using our natural capacities. And the Bible never says if we are using our natural capacities we are not in the spirit. It's just a false dichotomy. It's an invention of Lee.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible never says that if we are in the spirit we are not using our natural capacities. And the Bible never says if we are using our natural capacities we are not in the spirit. It's just a false dichotomy. It's an invention of Lee.

Technically this idea was not invented by Lee, it is prevalent in Christianity. If we want to pinpoint its origins, it probably comes from Calvinism, the idea that man in himself is unable to do anything, only by God's grace and enabling. Where God's service is concerned there si biblical support - Ephesians 3:7 shows that Paul ministered not according to his natural ability but the gift of God. Likewise, Peter did not minister effectively until he received the gift of the Spirit at pentecost.