Christ or faith the Savior?

[Evangelical]

The early church's idea of salvation was firmly rooted in the person of Christ the Savior. They did not quibble over the meaning or role of faith and works, or question whether one's faith was "real faith" or not, on the basis of a person's understanding on the relationship between faith and works, as many evangelicals do today.

It can be said that in history, Catholicism contributed the idea of salvation by faith and works. Calvin gave us salvation by faith alone, Arminius gave us salvation by faith with man's responsibility, and Luther gave us salvation by faith which is never alone which is somewhere between Arminianism and Calvinism.

Unfortunately the majority of Christianity has been pre-occupied with theories about salvation rather than the Savior Himself. They often confuse salvation itself with theories of how we are saved. Nee, Lee and others contributed or recovered rather, to Christianity the idea and more importantly, the practice of salvation by the Person of Christ, the Savior.

Catholicism's view of salvation is rooted in James 2:14-26 about faith and works. Protestant/evangelical Christianity's view of salvation is rooted in John 3:16, that salvation is by faith alone. Pentecostals take this one step further and put even more emphasis on faith being extended to the physical realm to accomplish miracles, signs and wonders. Unfortunately these approaches place too much emphasis on either faith and works. Catholics, Protestants and Pentecostals often argue over these things and miss the more important matter of Christ's Person.

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15). This is why a view of salvation based only on belief ("I believe in Christ") or knowing Christ ("a personal relationship with Christ") is inadequate. I think Christians outside of the recovery recognize this too. They know that not everyone who says "I believe in Christ" is really saved, and that not everyone who claims a "personal relationship" with Christ really has one. But their approach I think is wrong - they introduce other terminology such as "genuine faith" and "genuine relationship" to distinguish the true from the false. They start demanding proof and evidence, or apply a list of rules about how to tell if someone's faith is genuine or not. I think a better approach is to place the emphasis on Christ's Person - a person has either gained Christ and is in Him or they haven't.

An example from the bible that illustrates this is Peter versus Judas Iscariot. Both Peter and Judas knew Christ and had a personal relationship with Him. They both gave up everything to follow Christ. But the difference was during the 3 years of spending time with Christ, Peter had "gained Christ" and Judas hadn't.

For these reasons a better view of salvation is found in Phil 3:9:

and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

Calvinists, Arminians, Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics and Pentecostals only see this part of Pauls words: "the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith". In this, they might even place more emphasis on the faith rather than the "righteousness that comes from God". They usually don't acknowledge the first part which is to "gain Christ (vs 8) and be found in Him". A typical evangelical gospel tract mentions none of this.

A more comprehensive definition of salvation and something which cannot apply to devils can be taken from Phil 3:8-9 to say "Salvation is to gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of our own, but the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.".

While most of Christianity is preoccupied with faith and works, i.e. whether they have enough faith, whether their faith is in the right thing, whether their faith is genuine or not, whether their faith can be affected by sin and "lose their salvation", or whether they have done enough works, it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him.

The English Bishop Joseph Hall (1574-1656) wrote in "Christ Mystical"

The loss of one's all in this world (St. Paul echoes the sacred words) is as nothing; all things put together are but as dung, compared with the one thing which St. Paul so longed to gain, Christ himself - his presence in the soul, spiritual union with the Lord. "To gain Christ is to lay fast hold upon him, to receive him inwardly into our bosoms, and so to make him ours and ourselves his, that we may be joined to him as our Head, espoused to him as our Husband, incorporated into him as our Nourishment, engrafted in him as our Stock, and laid upon him as a sure Foundation"..

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The early church's idea of salvation was firmly rooted in the person of Christ the Savior. They did not quibble over the meaning or role of faith and works, or question whether one's faith was "real faith" or not, on the basis of a person's understanding on the relationship between faith and works, as many evangelicals do today.

They didn't quibble???

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but whole books in the Bible were written on the subject of faith and works -- Galatians for one.

Having listened to LSM's teachers for years, they have great confusion over the matter of works in the scripture. Unless we can clearly delineate between works of the law, works of the flesh, dead works, and good works, you are wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Having listened to LSM's teachers for years, they have great confusion over the matter of works in the scripture. Unless we can clearly delineate between works of the law, works of the flesh, dead works, and good works, you are wasting your time.

Pretty bold claim without substantiating evidence. Can you share some points that clearly show the confusion? I ask considering that this is "Apologetic Discussions" so we ought to be ready to substantiate everything we say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Pretty bold claim without substantiating evidence. Can you share some points that clearly show the confusion? I ask considering that this is "Apologetic Discussions" so we ought to be ready to substantiate everything we say.

Kindly register before I invest the time needed to discuss.

But I will give an opener. Before the Blendeds excommunicated Titus Chu, they condemned the Great Lakes Area Young People's Gatherings for introducing "dead works." What they were referring to was such services as visiting nursing homes.

Lee's teachings, followed exclusively by the Blended attackers of TC at LSM/DCP confused "dead works" and "good works." Titus 2.10-15 clearly displays the "goal of our salvation by His grace to be a people for His own possession zealous of good works. These things speak and exhort with authority. And let no one despise you," especially if they work for LSM.

Apostle Paul warned Timothy of folks like those at LSM.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15).

At this point I'm not sure I get the point of this thread. But looking into this so far, I was gobsmacked. It hit me, and I busted out laughing out loud : no matter what I know, the devils know more. So knowing doesn't distinguish me from them. Do I know God? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Christ? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Paul? Well of him. So do they, better than me. So forth and so on.

So can I be certain that I won't suffer the same fate as the devils? If their greater knowledge than mine doesn't save them, it most certainly won't save me.

Without divine intervention I have no hope. The devils know that too ... and shudder.

So brother Evan, are you saying it's not enough to know Jesus, but to have Jesus, (or should I call it Christ, in all it's come to mean)?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

At this point I'm not sure I get the point of this thread.

I am guessing that "real" salvation is never assured until you join the LC.

"Home, home in the church, Here we ended our search."

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They often confuse salvation itself with theories of how we are saved. Nee, Lee and others contributed or recovered rather, to Christianity the idea and more importantly, the practice of salvation by the Person of Christ, the Savior.

In otherwords, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism within Christianity. Mysticism being the practice of gaining a spiritual experience through contemplative prayer and these subjective experiences being the confirmation of salvation in an individual. This is no different from practices of Buddhism or New Age mysticism or even charismatic faiths. Salvation in the Christian's life isn't a work, a practice, or a theory.

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15). This is why a view of salvation based only on belief ("I believe in Christ") or knowing Christ ("a personal relationship with Christ") is inadequate.

If I were to sum this entire post in the simplest way possible it is this; Christians who hold to the truth that salvation comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different then Satan's demons.

It's interesting how that can be said in such an indirect way through bad hermeneutics.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In otherwords, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism within Christianity. Mysticism being the practice of gaining a spiritual experience through contemplative prayer and these subjective experiences being the confirmation of salvation in an individual. This is no different from practices of Buddhism or New Age mysticism or even charismatic faiths. Salvation in the Christian's life isn't a work, a practice, or a theory.

That's right, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism which is to gain Christ. As opposed to the norm in Christianity at the time which was merely to know things about Christ or even to know Him at a personal level , but not gain Him. I agree that salvation is not a work, practice, or theory, but rather to gain the person of Christ. Many things in Christianity are similar to other religions, even paganism, Viola and Barna's book make clear. But I would not say that Christian prayer or its various forms are anything Buddhist or New Age. A key point of difference is that Christians believe in and pray to Christ and that is enough to make any kind of prayer that is about Christ very much Christian. Even if a Buddhist or New Age person starts praying to Christ in their prayers while they are in their temple, then technically they are no longer a Buddhist or New Ager, are they? Even Muslims have found Christ through their own prayers and religious practices. I don't know who said it, perhaps it was Billy Graham, but they said something similar to there being many different paths to accepting Christ as personal Lord and savior.

Originally Posted by Jo S

If I were to sum this entire post in the simplest way possible it is this; Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different then Satan's demons.

It's interesting how that can be said in such an indirect way through bad hermeneutics.

I did not mean that. Awareness put it rightly when he said it is not enough to know Jesus but to have Jesus.

Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ could be no different than Satan's demons, if they have never gained Him like Paul did.

A good example of this is Judas Iscariot. He was a Christian who believed in Christ by faith (he followed Christ as a believing disciple for many years), but unlike Peter and the other disciples (particularly John) did not gain Christ.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism which is to gain Christ. As opposed to the norm in Christianity at the time which was merely to know things about Christ or even to know Him at a personal level , but not gain Him. I agree that salvation is not a work, practice, or theory, but rather to gain the person of Christ. Many things in Christianity are similar to other religions, even paganism, Viola and Barna's book make clear. But I would not say that Christian prayer or its various forms are anything Buddhist or New Age. A key point of difference is that Christians believe in and pray to Christ and that is enough to make any kind of prayer that is about Christ very much Christian.

I did not mean that. Awareness put it rightly when he said it is not enough to know Jesus but to have Jesus.

Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ could be no different than Satan's demons, if they have never gained Him like Paul did.

If you are needing mystical practices in order to gain Christ, you're gaining a different Christ. Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works. He's gained the moment you have faith in him.

Demons are unredeemable, they're already judged by God. To equate the type of belief demons have toward Christ to the faith available to people is just wrong and also bad hermeneutics.

A good example of this is Judas Iscariot. He was a Christian who believed in Christ by faith (he followed Christ as a believing disciple for many years), but unlike Peter and the other disciples (particularly John) did not gain Christ.

What would be your evidence to justify the belief that Judas actually had faith in Christ? Is your reasoning because he was following him around? How then do you explain the part where Judas betrayed him? That's evidence against the idea that Judas had faith in Jesus. What I read is that he was a thief and liked to take from the money bag. He followed Christ because he was an opportunist and just like any wolf in sheep's clothing they perceive kindness and humility as weakness and take advantage of that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you are needing mystical practices in order to gain Christ, you're gaining a different Christ. Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works. He's gained the moment you have faith in him.

When you say "Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works" I think you are putting conditions on how Christ comes to people. Usually some kind of work precedes the faith (such as praying, or reading the Bible, or attending an evangelical crusade).

For example the woman who was healed by touching His garment - her work was to touch Jesus's garment, it was a work on her part, and Jesus came to her. That woman might say to you "you are wrong, Jesus did not come to me when I had faith in him, but after I touched his garment".

Also consider Judas, he had faith in Christ, he was a disciple, but he did not gain him. He exchanged Christ for silver. Silver was his gain.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Demons are unredeemable, they're already judged by God. To equate the type of belief demons have toward Christ to faith available to people is just wrong and also bad hermeneutics.

Actually when I wrote about demons, I was thinking more of Judas Iscariot who Christ called "a devil", but I have tried to think about this from the perspective of a spiritual being.

"Type of belief" - how many types of belief are there? I think there is only belief, and unbelief. We either believe, or we don't. I can't say, I "50% believe in Christ and 50% don't". I can't say "my belief is of an apple type and yours is of an orange type". It's just common sense really. Of course, demons don't "believe in Christ" as their savior, they cannot, but as spiritual beings in the spiritual world they probably have met Christ face to face more than some Christians. They believe in Him as Lord because they must do what He says, but not Savior.

Originally Posted by Jo S

What would be your evidence to justify the belief that Judas actually had faith in Christ? Is your reasoning because he was following him around? How then do you explain the part where Judas betrayed him? That's evidence against the idea that Judas had faith in Jesus. What I read is that he was a thief and liked to take from the money bag. He followed Christ because he was an opportunist and just like any wolf in sheep's clothing they perceive kindness and humility as weakness and take advantage of that.

It gets tricky because we could go around in circles about whether he was a genuine believer, or had genuine faith, and could even get into Calvinism vs Arminianism and the gnostic gospels. We just can't know for sure what was in Judas's heart from the time Christ chose him to the time he betrayed Christ. Arguments have been made anywhere from Judas being the devil incarnate , to him being a Christian in "name only", to a full and genuine disciple of Christ who let his guard down and suffered the consequences.

The evidence to justify my belief is that he followed Christ because Christ chose Him. That's why I think he had belief. Why would Christ choose a non-believer to follow him - he wouldn't be a true disciple. To accomplish His plan, Jesus needed 12 true disciples, and one who would betray him. Not 11 true disciples and a fraud.

The Old testament indicates that Judas was Jesus's close friend:

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me.

So I think Judas being a true disciple fits Psalm 41:9 better than him being the devil incarnate.

Even though he was a thief, they were all sinners, tax collectors etc, yet did not betray Christ. I don't think it was because he was a thief, but because he loved money.

I see Judas as a believer, a close friend of Christ, who had his shortcomings as a thief (as they all did), who probably did believe in and love Christ (he regretted, at the end), but unfortunately loved money more. It is hard for me to believe that Judas stayed with the disciples because of the money, I hardly think it would have been a profitable venture. It seems that whether he gained Christ or not determined his eternal fate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ could be no different than Satan's demons, if they have never gained Him like Paul did.

A good example of this is Judas Iscariot. He was a Christian who believed in Christ by faith (he followed Christ as a believing disciple for many years), but unlike Peter and the other disciples (particularly John) did not gain Christ.

There's no verse that affirms that Judas ever believed. Sorry, but you are assuming that. We know little of Judas' heart. He also was the only disciple from Judah, where the Lord spent very little time. There is no evidence that Judas had believed or repented before he met John or Jesus, while he followed Jesus, or after he betrayed Him. John 6.68-71 makes it very clear that the Lord tested His disciples as to whether they believed in Him. Peter spoke for them that Jesus had the words of eternal life. Jesus, however, clarified the situation. He had chosen all of them, yet He knew that one of them was a devil.

Biblical faith is not mental assent. The Bible says "believe into Him," and real faith is substantiates our hope and is the conviction of the unseen. That's why Biblical faith is often accompanied by other descriptors like repent, turn your heart to God, be baptized, be born anew, etc.

Since the fall of man, salvation unto righteousness is only by faith in God's promised Messiah/Christ. From Adam forward they had to believe in the coming One. While Jesus walked the earth, they had to believe into Him. Since His ascension, we all must believe in His finished work. He alone and faith alone is the way to the Father.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's no verse that affirms that Judas ever believed. Sorry, but you are assuming that. We know little of Judas' heart. He also was the only disciple from Judah, where the Lord spent very little time. There is no evidence that Judas had believed or repented before he met John or Jesus, while he followed Jesus, or after he betrayed Him. John 6.68-71 makes it very clear that the Lord tested His disciples as to whether they believed in Him. Peter spoke for them that Jesus had the words of eternal life. Jesus, however, clarified the situation. He had chosen all of them, yet He knew that one of them was a devil.

Biblical faith is not mental assent. The Bible says "believe into Him," and real faith is substantiates our hope and is the conviction of the unseen. That's why Biblical faith is often accompanied by other descriptors like repent, turn your heart to God, be baptized, be born anew, etc.

Since the fall of man, salvation unto righteousness is only by faith in God's promised Messiah/Christ. From Adam forward they had to believe in the coming One. While Jesus walked the earth, they had to believe into Him. Since His ascension, we all must believe in His finished work. He alone and faith alone is the way to the Father.

Scripture does not really refer to him as "the fraud" and considers him part of the 12, it doesn't really talk about the "11 + 1". They even replaced his position after Judas died.

He was a disciple, he was chosen by Christ, the Psalms call him one of Jesus's closest friends. From the point of view of an external observer, he was a believer. We cannot know his heart, I agree, and that's why I prefer to see him as a believer, outwardly, it's easier to explain.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

At this point I'm not sure I get the point of this thread. But looking into this so far, I was gobsmacked. It hit me, and I busted out laughing out loud : no matter what I know, the devils know more. So knowing doesn't distinguish me from them. Do I know God? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Christ? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Paul? Well of him. So do they, better than me. So forth and so on.

So can I be certain that I won't suffer the same fate as the devils? If their greater knowledge than mine doesn't save them, it most certainly won't save me.

Without divine intervention I have no hope. The devils know that too ... and shudder.

So brother Evan, are you saying it's not enough to know Jesus, but to have Jesus, (or should I call it Christ, in all it's come to mean)?

Yes, I think you got the point of thread, or at least were able to see some light in it, and even make a very insightful observation - it is not enough to know Jesus, but to have Jesus.

And the goal of gaining and having Jesus rather than merely knowing or knowing about Him is one of the distinguishing features of the recovery. Regardless of how may say "Lee did this, Lee did that", I don't think anyone can argue that the recovery did not turn their attention away from knowing Christ (as in general Christianity) but to gaining Him.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

While most of Christianity is preoccupied with faith and works, i.e. whether they have enough faith, whether their faith is in the right thing, whether their faith is genuine or not, whether their faith can be affected by sin and "lose their salvation", or whether they have done enough works, it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him.

Evan, you wouldn't know what "most of Christianity is preoccupied with" anymore than the man on the moon. You are in the Local Church of Witness Lee, which is one of the most insular and isolated Christian sects around. Witness Lee was decidedly ignorant regarding what God was doing in Christianity in general, but he was especially clueless when it came to what great and marvelous things were happening among evangelical Christians, especially an entire generation of seeking young Americans. What's most ironic is the fact that all this was happening right there in Southern California, where Witness Lee set up camp in Los Angeles, and later in Anaheim. Now if the Blended Brothers are any indication, nothing has changed in the Local Church since Lee's death over 20 years ago. The group is just as insular and isolated as ever.

You can set aside anything that I've posted above (and you probably will) but the real reason I'm taking a few minutes to reply to one of your posts is this little ditty here:

it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Should I list the problems in numerical or alphabetical order?

Gaining Christ? I'm afraid you're going to have to decode this terminology for us Mr E. I mean, I know what it meant to the apostle Paul. He was willing to suffer evil, beatings, hunger and nakedness to show others what it really is to gain Christ. Christian martyrs throughout the ages have given their blood, sweat and tears to give us the Scriptures in our native languages, thus allowing us to gain the Christ that is found in those hallowed pages.

It seems that Witness Lee has come along with another definition, another understanding of what it is to gain Christ. Oh, don't bother telling me about how wonderful and glorious it is to gain Christ by calling on the Lord, pray-reading and eating Jesus. Been there - Done that. What I want to hear from you, my friend, is just exactly how has all the calling, pray-reading, eating, pumping fists in the air and shouting slogans enabled you to gain Christ? Even more importantly, how have all these things helped you to help others to gain Christ?
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evan, you wouldn't know what "most of Christianity is preoccupied with" anymore than the man on the moon. You are in the Local Church of Witness Lee, which is one of the most insular and isolated Christian sects around. Witness Lee was decidedly ignorant regarding what God was doing in Christianity in general, but he was especially clueless when it came to what great and marvelous things were happening among evangelical Christians, especially an entire generation of seeking young Americans. What's most ironic is the fact that all this was happening right there in Southern California, where Witness Lee set up camp in Los Angeles, and later in Anaheim. Now if the Blended Brothers are any indication, nothing has changed in the Local Church since Lee's death over 20 years ago. The group is just as insular and isolated as ever.
-

Regarding your first paragraph, I am a relative late comer to the recovery with a long history in denominations, so I know something. I never had the chance to know Lee personally but I am acquainted with the issues in Christianity. With the exception of individuals and their works like Madame Guyon, I believe broad Christianity fits the description as I stated, of not really seeking to gain Christ or even knowing what it means. I think a typical response for a person when asked if they have gained Christ might be "huh?", even though it is straight from the words of Paul.

In born again Christianity, many have seen that a personal relationship with Christ is necessary for salvation. They see that there is some sort of inadequacy there in understanding how we are saved. They might typically ask someone "do you have a personal relationship with Christ" as opposed to "do you believe in Christ?". A Judas or a demon could answer yes to both of those questions. Lee takes this one step further to ask the question "have you gained Christ?" which I think is better.

Many evangelical preachers for example, Ray Comfort, simply add more rules and more laws to their preaching, to try and sift through those who claim to know Christ and those who "really know Him". I think Comfort knows that simply getting someone to say "I believe in Christ" is not adequate, so he uses the method of law-preaching to make "true converts". A better way is probably to just preach about gaining Christ which implies not only a genuine knowledge of Christ, but also to have or gain Him as someone of worth.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Should I list the problems in numerical or alphabetical order?

Gaining Christ? I'm afraid you're going to have to decode this terminology for us Mr E. I mean, I know what it meant to the apostle Paul. He was willing to suffer evil, beatings, hunger and nakedness to show others what it really is to gain Christ. Christian martyrs throughout the ages have given their blood, sweat and tears to give us the Scriptures in our native languages, thus allowing us to gain the Christ that is found in those hallowed pages.

It seems that Witness Lee has come along with another definition, another understanding of what it is to gain Christ. Oh, don't bother telling me about how wonderful and glorious it is to gain Christ by calling on the Lord, pray-reading and eating Jesus. Been there - Done that. What I want to hear from you, my friend, is just exactly how has all the calling, pray-reading, eating, pumping fists in the air and shouting slogans enabled you to gain Christ? Even more importantly, how have all these things helped you to help others to gain Christ? [/COLOR]
-

I appreciate you taking some time. I think it highlights that I did not explain very well what gaining Christ is or means, I only gave examples.

As for the meaning of gaining Christ, Darby says it best - "to gain Christ is to have Christ as gain". Others interpret it to mean "we must suffer loss so we may gain Christ" which I disagree with, it's not about suffering to gain Christ. To gain Christ we do not have to perform some work or become a martyr, but there is an element of self-denial and not loving the world, because if we love something more than Christ it will be very hard to gain Him (it is harder for a rich man...). Regardless of anyone's experiences, praying, pray-reading and "eating Jesus" are ways we can gain Christ, but those practices themselves are not gaining Christ. To gain Christ means to have Christ as gain which implies to see and know Christ as someone of value more than other people or things.

To only see Christ but not gain Him is to only appreciate Him. Judas Iscariot saw Christ every day, he had a personal relationship with Christ, he knew Christ and no doubt appreciated him as his master and teacher, but unlike the disciples John and Peter, did not see Christ's worth. He was easily led to betray Christ for silver. Judas knew Christ but he gained silver. He had silver as his gain, not Christ. Peter and John however knew Christ and gained Christ.