Mere Christianity or Degraded Christianity?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everything is subjective. The Bible is a written record of the author's subjective realities.

All true, and all good points. But you miss something: Jesus' subjective realities, plainly pointed out in the NT by the apostles, are our focus. Not our own experiences and sensations. The first is trustworthy as a stand-in for objective reality, to the believer. The second should not be. My comment has been that the error of Protestantism is to lean upon subjectivism, and be led astray. Not always; not everywhere. But it is a danger. Then the rejection of one's neighbour as the "other" - in the LC, called "fallen Christianity" - in turn leads to isolation, derangement, and perversion. And the last state becomes worse than the first.

By contrast, look at the subjective experiences of Jesus.

~Zeal of Thy (the Father's) house has eaten Me (the Son) up.

~You (the Father) will not let My flesh (Jesus) see corruption.

~My God my God, why have You (the Father) abandoned Me (the Son)?

Our subjective response rests solely on the response of Jesus, and the Father's response (delight, rescue from death, exaltation). We love because He first loved us. We see His atoning blood and we repent. We see His obedience and we hear His voice saying, "Follow Me".

The danger is instead following a subjectivism unhinged, where the supposed "leading" and the so-called "flow", based on one person's impressions, determine our current experience, even objective reality itself. Then, for example, the so-called "oracle of God" downplays scripture en masse as "fallen" and "natural". Dong Yu Lan teaches the same thing in Brasil: that Paul is "judicial" and is less than John, who is "organic". This kind of rampant subjectivism I find to be odious. The crowd jumps up and down and shouts repetetively, then they can be led anywhere. Even away from the Bible, and from the safety of 2,000 years of Bible reception.

That's why I showed Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13 using the same source. They used what was already established as fact by the Jewish society, that David was an oracle of God, and the apostles then used it to point to Christ.

Paul said to Timothy, "I remember your tears". (2 Tim 1:4). But it is Jesus' tears that save us, not our own. That's all I'm trying to say. The danger of Protestantism is that we focus on our own tears, our own joys, and we miss His.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

The danger is instead following a subjectivism unhinged, where the supposed "leading" and the so-called "flow", based on one person's impressions, determine our current experience, even objective reality itself. Then, for example, the so-called "oracle of God" downplays scripture en masse as "fallen" and "natural". Dong Yu Lan teaches the same thing in Brasil: that Paul is "judicial" and is less than John, who is "organic". This kind of rampant subjectivism I find to be odious. The crowd jumps up and down and shouts repetetively, then they can be led anywhere. Even away from the Bible, and from the safety of 2,000 years of Bible reception.

This is the same point that I tried to make yesterday. Subjectivity/spirituality is fine, as long as it's rooted in something, and as long as it doesn't contradict objective facts. That's where the problem is. The LC likes to criticize the Pentecostals for what are seemingly bizarre displays of spiritual ‘experiences’, but yet when anyone attempts to call into question the subjectivity found in the LC, they claim that without subjectivity, Christians are doomed to have a ‘dead’ experience in all the denominations.

DYL's teaching about some scripture being 'judicial' and some being 'organic' bears such a striking resemblance to what WL taught. It's the whole mindset of there being some hidden way to distinguish scripture which is known only to one person, the one has that 'discernment'. People in the LC don't seem to realize that DYL was just another manifestation of the exact same mindset as WL. If they really feel to call into question what DYL taught, then they should also question what WL taught.

I don't think the LC has set out to be purposely esoteric, but that is the end result when subjectivity is given precedence. They start with the claim that objective facts are just "dead doctrine," and that certainly resonates with some people, because doctrine is not 'exciting'. But once the subsequent claim is made that the subjective experiences found in the LC represent something far greater than the objective, then there are problems. It starts to seem okay for the subjective to contradict objective facts, and that is the point where everything becomes muddled.

Doctrine and theology serve to help develop an understanding of the guiding principles for Christians, so it should go without saying that a study or focus of such things is not going to be exciting. But a focus is necessary in order to know which direction to head. Without any kind of guiding principles and understanding, people can make any claim they please.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is the same point that I tried to make yesterday. Subjectivity/spirituality is fine, as long as it's rooted in something, and as long as it doesn't contradict objective facts. That's where the problem is. The LC likes to criticize the Pentecostals for what are seemingly bizarre displays of spiritual ‘experiences’, but yet when anyone attempts to call into question the subjectivity found in the LC, they claim that without subjectivity, Christians are doomed to have a ‘dead’ experience in all the denominations.

DYL's teaching about some scripture being 'judicial' and some being 'organic' bears such a striking resemblance to what WL taught. It's the whole mindset of there being some hidden way to distinguish scripture which is known only to one person, the one has that 'discernment'. People in the LC don't seem to realize that DYL was just another manifestation of the exact same mindset as WL. If they really feel to call into question what DYL taught, then they should also question what WL taught.

I don't think the LC has set out to be purposely esoteric, but that is the end result when subjectivity is given precedence. They start with the claim that objective facts are just "dead doctrine," and that certainly resonates with some people, because doctrine is not 'exciting'. But once the subsequent claim is made that the subjective experiences found in the LC represent something far greater than the objective, then there are problems. It starts to seem okay for the subjective to contradict objective facts, and that is the point where everything becomes muddled.

Doctrine and theology serve to help develop an understanding of the guiding principles for Christians, so it should go without saying that a study or focus of such things is not going to be exciting. But a focus is necessary in order to know which direction to head. Without any kind of guiding principles and understanding, people can make any claim they please.

Pentecostals focus on an emotional experience. We focus on a spiritual one, that is the difference.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Pentecostals focus on an emotional experience. We focus on a spiritual one, that is the difference.

This is the kind of "tyrannical individualism" that I quoted from Louis Bouyer. The charismatic founder of the Protestant spin-off sect has some kind of subjective revelation, then persuades others that this is a stand-in for objective reality itself. All sorts of nonsense follows.

When the charismatic founder's acolytes jump up and down, shout and wave their arms it is being spiritual, when any others do it, it's being emotional. And what is the basis of such a bald statement? Nothing other than the subjectivity of the speaker. This is the reality they want, therefore it is reality.

As the FTTT trainers told the concerned brothers, "When others do it, it's hierarchy, but when we do it, it's not hierarchy."

When Lee or his blended lieutenants critique, it's a correction, or an adjustment, or a rebuke. But if anyone reciprocates that is an attack.

When Lee saw something, it was a revelation, a truth. If anyone else saw something, that was an opinion.