What is God's Economy?

[OBW]

While stewardship may generally be the better understanding of the term for purposes of the scripture, there is something about the way that everything about the Christian and the church was distilled into that one term "God's stewardship" or "God's arrangement" that made those verses in 1 Timothy seem to be talking about everything as it would relate to the Christian — life, worship, prayer, etc. — and the workings of the church that makes "dispensing" or even "stewardship" kind of weak in explaining all it meant.

If I read Paul's words right, then everything that comes out of teachings to be obedient, righteous, meek, merciful, lovers of God, lovers of neighbor, in submission to one another (and a whole lot of other "one anothers"), and many more things is what constitutes "God's arrangement." It is not just "grace." Unless you define that so broadly as to be all-encompassing.

The right teachings set the whole of the Christian life in order. The wrong teaching create a lot of questions and rabbit trails (like angels on the heads of pins). There is no place for suggesting that there is a lack (need more dispensing). Peter dispensed with that idea (we have everything we need for . . . .)

God's economy is not so mysterious. It is the whole enchilada, so to speak. It is not "simply" anything. It is everything.

And when everything seems messed up, then that might be the sign that there is something wrong with the teachings.

And when it seems right (not necessarily splendid physically, but spiritually right) then it is probably the result of good teachings.

And a great morning watch over bad teachings is like sprinkling holy water on pig feces. You might be rescued a little from it all. But you have been focused on error. It just doesn't go anywhere good.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

While stewardship may generally be the better understanding of the term for purposes of the scripture, there is something about the way that everything about the Christian and the church was distilled into that one term "God's stewardship" or "God's arrangement" that made those verses in 1 Timothy seem to be talking about everything as it would relate to the Christian — life, worship, prayer, etc. — and the workings of the church that makes "dispensing" or even "stewardship" kind of weak in explaining all it meant.

If I read Paul's words right, then everything that comes out of teachings to be obedient, righteous, meek, merciful, lovers of God, lovers of neighbor, in submission to one another (and a whole lot of other "one anothers"), and many more things is what constitutes "God's arrangement." It is not just "grace." Unless you define that so broadly as to be all-encompassing.

The right teachings set the whole of the Christian life in order. The wrong teaching create a lot of questions and rabbit trails (like angels on the heads of pins). There is no place for suggesting that there is a lack (need more dispensing). Peter dispensed with that idea (we have everything we need for . . . .)

God's economy is not so mysterious. It is the whole enchilada, so to speak. It is not "simply" anything. It is everything.

And when everything seems messed up, then that might be the sign that there is something wrong with the teachings.

And when it seems right (not necessarily splendid physically, but spiritually right) then it is probably the result of good teachings.

And a great morning watch over bad teachings is like sprinkling holy water on pig feces. You might be rescued a little from it all. But you have been focused on error. It just doesn't go anywhere good.

Decades ago people were still grasping the concept of a "personal relationship with God" as opposed to "doing things". That was an improvement over the works-based doctrines prevalent in Christianity. Lee, Nee and others, have further clarified this, that it is not merely a buddy friend "personal relationship" with God, as if God and His children were separated, but a so-called "organic union" between God and man. In a world where Christianity is mostly about outward things, God's economy brings us back to the inward things. It is fine and accurate to say we have a personal relationship with God, because we may pray to Him regularly and go to church. But if we have the same temper, or lust problem we had when we were first saved, what is the benefit? Only if God somehow changes us from the inside, can we be truly changed.

People generally understand that they have to put food and water into their bodies to grow, they have to feed their children, and they need to water and fertilize plants for them to grow and bear fruit. Can you teach a person or plant to grow? No you cannot. Teaching does not cause spiritual growth. However it may facilitate spiritual growth if it leads towards the source of (living) water, that is, Christ.

Dispensing is related to everything in the Christian life and without dispensing the Christian life is not genuine.

Is not the most important thing in the universe to be saved? (who wants to spend an eternity in hell?).
Are we not saved by being "born again" ?

So my question is - can we be "born again" without God's dispensing?

God's dispensing as I understand it, is simply filling an empty cup (human vessels) with water (the Holy Spirit).

An empty cup is not much use for anything. A cup is not designed to be empty (humans are not meant to be without God). A full cup is better than an empty cup (I just explained salvation, in a nutshell). Many billions of full cups is even better than a single cup (I just explained the universal church, in a nutshell). Then again billions of cups becoming a huge bucket of water is even better (I just explained the ONE universal church and genuine Christian unity, in a nutshell).

Dispensing is essentially the purpose and meaning of the human life. To say God's economy is "simply" dispensing is not to trivialise its importance, but to emphasise its simplicity. If we can understand how a cup is filled with water, then we can understand God's economy.
To understand its practical application is harder, but again, if we understand that biological systems do not grow by themselves or by teaching, but by feeding and watering (dispensing), then we can understand the practical side as well. The practical side is seen in the fruit of our spiritual growth.
Spiritual growth is simply the removal of things from us that are not God (negative things such as bad habits and sins), and the addition of things that are God (which is God Himself). If we can look back on our life and see a change in us over time, then we have observed the practical result of God's economy, namely, His dispensing. We may well call this being conformed to the image of the Son.

Spiritual growth is not, how many church services you attend, how much you pray or read the Bible, how good and pleasant you are outwardly (human ethics), it is everything to do with God's dispensing and the outward effects of that. Our giving, our service, our prayer, worship, how we treat other people, and how we react to circumstances, are all an outward effect of the inward change that the Holy Spirit has accomplished in us.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Decades ago people were still grasping the concept of a "personal relationship with God" as opposed to "doing things"..

The blended brothers of LSM and the elders of the Local Churches are blinded to the reality that Christ has millions of lovers of Jesus and vital children in thousands of groups not controlled by LSM.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

The blended brothers of LSM and the elders of the Local Churches are blinded to the reality that Christ has millions of lovers of Jesus and vital children in thousands of groups not controlled by LSM.

If these millions of lovers of Jesus love Him so much why are they in "thousands of groups"? They cannot even love each other let alone love Jesus.

John 17:21 - a true lover of Jesus seeks oneness and not division, because that's what Jesus wants.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If these millions of lovers of Jesus love Him so much why are they in "thousands of groups"? They cannot even love each other let alone love Jesus.

John 17:21 - a true lover of Jesus seeks oneness and not division, because that's what Jesus wants.

Silly Evangelical, the Lord Jesus does not see denominations, He sees His bride! Only divisive blended brothers and elders see denominations.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

Silly Evangelical, the Lord Jesus does not see denominations, He sees His bride! Onily divisive blended brothers and elders see denominations.

Jesus may overlook this, for the sake of the gospel and keeping the peace, but I believe it is still on His heart.

Jesus only built one church and prayed for unity, not division.

Everyone attending their own denomination and claiming they are "one" , in spirit, or whatever (but not in practice), is not genuine unity in my view. A step in the right direction but not at the goal.

The other way, the way that the Recovery took, is to separate from the divisions, and start a new unity. This works provided the new unity remains a unity and does not divide itself again.

There is a risk that the new unity become another division, it seems this is what has happened in practice, by holding to the teachings of Lee/Nee and not Christ. Well, this forum is evidence of that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus may overlook this, for the sake of the gospel and keeping the peace, but I believe it is still on His heart.

Jesus only built one church and prayed for unity, not division.

Everyone attending their own denomination and claiming they are "one" , in spirit, or whatever (but not in practice), is not genuine unity in my view. A step in the right direction but not at the goal.

The other way, the way that the Recovery took, is to separate from the divisions, and start a new unity. This works provided the new unity remains a unity and does not divide itself again.

There is a risk that the new unity become another division, it seems this is what has happened in practice, by holding to the teachings of Lee/Nee and not Christ. Well, this forum is evidence of that.

Have not the Blended Brothers also divided the Body of Christ in practice when they excommunicated the country of Brazil and the GLA, where I am from?

These divisions were formed because the Blended Brothers in practice held on to the teachings of Lee, and not Christ.

Based on not learning from history, I can guarantee that their new unity in the Recovery will one day be divided again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If these millions of lovers of Jesus love Him so much why are they in "thousands of groups"? They cannot even love each other let alone love Jesus.

John 17:21 - a true lover of Jesus seeks oneness and not division, because that's what Jesus wants.

Are you serious, Evangelical?

The Blended Brothers lived, worked, and served with scores of brothers over the years whom they later quarantined, slandered, and even sued.

They can't even love the brothers identical to them, let alone their enemies, as Jesus has instructed us. The Blendeds Brothers only love those who are in subjection to them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious, Evangelical?

The Blended Brothers lived, worked, and served with scores of brothers over the years whom they later quarantined, slandered, and even sued.

They can't even love the brothers identical to them, let alone their enemies, as Jesus has instructed us.

I don't deny the hypocrisy, but take away the problem for a moment (Blended Brothers), and possibly the LSM etc. What is left is local churches, they have the Bible, the Spirit, and each other, and they probably are an OK representation of the unified Body of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't deny the hypocrisy, but take away the problem for a moment (Blended Brothers), and possibly the LSM etc. What is left is local churches, they have the Bible, the Spirit, and each other, and they probably are an OK representation of the unified Body of Christ.

So Evangelical, you are willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the Blended Brothers and LSM, but not the hypocrisy of the rest of the body of Christ. Have you not become a "respecter of persons?"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Decades ago people were still grasping the concept of a "personal relationship with God" as opposed to "doing things". That was an improvement over the works-based doctrines prevalent in Christianity. Lee, Nee and others, have further clarified this,..

A lot of popular theology phrased in Lee's way, plus some peculiar Leeology. I'm not going to respond point-by-point. That you want to call what ultimately happens "dispensing" is fine. But that was the thing that was declared to be the whole of God's economy.

And I say that is nonsense. It is entirely dismissive of all that God does in and through us.

While I do not entirely dismiss the "personal relationship with God" teachings, they are for the most part a creation of recent thinking. Maybe more like a new label on old theology. But it is so constantly wrapped in the activities of a fully-literate population doing things that only a very few could do much more than 200 or so years ago that I think the crux of what is called "personal relationship" is about doing a lot of personal reading. Reading that a large portion of the world couldn't (and somewhat still can't) do. Deep-dives into complex studies of the scripture.

Before that, the most that many had to consider for an entire week was what they could remember from their last sermon. And that might not even be entirely straight scripture. There was a reason for creeds. It was repetition of small amounts, not continuous wandering through endless analyses of scripture, that most people could even hope to deal with in their lives.

And we gripe about how poor those people and their ways were. Their poor reliance on doing what they learned from sermons and their liturgy.

So we throw it all off, dig deep into the scripture, and think it is all about high theology, yet don't even try to DO what is commanded. We argue about who we shouldn't count as being our neighbor so we don't have to love them. We belittle the works of the faithful as we are unfaithful because we have done the modern equivalent of pledging our parent's help to the temple so we don't have to support them.

All in the name of a personal relationship that has no practical application to today's living.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

A lot of popular theology phrased in Lee's way, plus some peculiar Leeology. I'm not going to respond point-by-point. That you want to call what ultimately happens "dispensing" is fine. But that was the thing that was declared to be the whole of God's economy.

You seem to be implying that we, or the Reformers for that matter, should have been content with hearing and applying the unquestionable sermons of the Catholic Priest, rather than searching out matters for ourselves. Rather ironic, given the claims made here about Lee and his teachings.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be implying that we, or the Reformers for that matter, should have been content with hearing and applying the unquestionable sermons of the Catholic Priest, rather than searching out matters for ourselves. Rather ironic, given the claims made here about Lee and his teachings.

I do not deny that we should use the good (and now well-trained) minds that God gave us.

But the purpose of it all was not to be spiritual and go to the New Jerusalem. Yes, that is the final stage as described in Revelation. But is that really the goal? Some land of walls and cubits and gates and leaves, etc.? Or is it that the description of the return of the redeemed to the place as God's image bearers relative to the "nations" that continue to exist to the end? We read through a few chapters of a clearly metaphorical description of the spiritual war that goes on behind the daily battle of life that we face and then fail to realize that the ending is no less a metaphor.

We disdain those that speak of "going to heaven" then pine away for a different version of it. What it is difference?

But when I read the accounts of what Jesus said to the people (not just to the 12, or even the 70 or other number that were in training to be the leaders). I see talk about living righteously, even hungering and thirsting for it. I see the primary command for our lives being encapsulated in a single word. And the word is not "church," "saints," "economy," "dispensing," or any of the other things that so captured out minds in the LCM (and in many other places as well). The word was (and still is) "love." Love God and love neighbor as self. Try to read the gospels without the overlays of spirituality. Of everyone being an evangelist. Or a disciple (in the sense of the 12). What did Jesus teach the people?

And when we then go to read Paul, why do we think that he is given authority to dismiss what Jesus said? We would never admit to that. But we do it all the time when we presume that the Christian life is about seeking to be crucified with Christ. Or so many other "spiritual" things. But Paul didn't say to be crucified with Christ. He said because we are we should live differently. We should think on our fellow Christians differently that just what they are in natural terms (slave, slave owner, Roman, Jew, etc.)

You despise the sermon of the Catholic priest. And presume that I am suggesting we should still just be Catholic (or EO). But look at the actual sermons for the people. They were not about "the intrinsic processing of Christ as the Spirit for the revealing of the seven-fold intensified Spirit that now lives in our spirit." Or any other strictly "spiritual" nonsense that has no application to my drive home on 121 this evening. If you despise the sermons of the average Catholic priest, then you hate the ones Jesus gave to the people sitting on the side of a mountain. He didn't tell them some fancy constitution. He gave simple instructions in the ways of living righteously. He healed people and sent them home to live differently.

We have it all wrong. We were created to represent God as his image bearers but think that salvation is for the purpose of getting out of Dodge and to heaven or the New J. Not to bear His image in a dark, perverse world, but to escape to a meeting where we can be invigorated to tolerate the fallen world.

And I will return to the use of our good minds. John warned that there were some that had been among us who went out and were now a problem. But we know better than to be captured by their nonsensical teachings.

Returning to the use of our minds. It is through the mind that we realize what we are called to do. What is the right was to live. We read. Or we listen. And we respond. You want it to be an effort in significant thought to conclude what is to be done. But it is really quite simple. We hear the word. It commands and directs our living. Those who say that we should not do things because of a command are ducking from their unwillingness to obey. But it is not so hard to know what to do. And even the simple obedience arising from faith can do this. From those who hear those "poor" sermons and realize it is something they should do.

Do you think that if they do what they are told that they are somehow not "in the vine"? If so, please explain how you think that is true. I will muddy the waters by noting that what they are told to do is from the scripture. It is not contrary to the teachings of Christ, but is fully in keeping with it. What could possibly make them not "in the vine"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not deny that we should use the good (and now well-trained) minds that God gave us.

But the purpose of it all was not to be spiritual and go to the New Jerusalem. Yes, that is the final stage as described in Revelation. But is that really the goal? Some land of walls and cubits and gates and leaves, etc.? Or is it that the description of the return of the redeemed to the place as God's image bearers relative to the "nations" that continue to exist to the end? We read through a few chapters of a clearly metaphorical description of the spiritual war that goes on behind the daily battle of life that we face and then fail to realize that the ending is no less a metaphor.

The LR believe in a metaphorical, physically-spiritual New Jerusalem, not a material one.

Originally Posted by OBW

We disdain those that speak of "going to heaven" then pine away for a different version of it. What it is difference?

But when I read the accounts of what Jesus said to the people (not just to the 12, or even the 70 or other number that were in training to be the leaders). I see talk about living righteously, even hungering and thirsting for it. I see the primary command for our lives being encapsulated in a single word. And the word is not "church," "saints," "economy," "dispensing," or any of the other things that so captured out minds in the LCM (and in many other places as well). The word was (and still is) "love." Love God and love neighbor as self. Try to read the gospels without the overlays of spirituality. Of everyone being an evangelist. Or a disciple (in the sense of the 12). What did Jesus teach the people?

And when we then go to read Paul, why do we think that he is given authority to dismiss what Jesus said? We would never admit to that. But we do it all the time when we presume that the Christian life is about seeking to be crucified with Christ. Or so many other "spiritual" things. But Paul didn't say to be crucified with Christ. He said because we are we should live differently. We should think on our fellow Christians differently that just what they are in natural terms (slave, slave owner, Roman, Jew, etc.)

The New Jerusalem is not a "different version of heaven". According to Revelation 21:2 New Jerusalem is not heaven because the Bible says it comes down from heaven. It is heavenly (in nature), but it is not heaven.

How are we going to do what Jesus said and be the person He want us to be?
How are we going to live righteously?
How are we going to heal people?
How are we going to put the sermons into practice?

We need the dispensing of the Holy Spirit for that. An engine doesn't run by itself without the right fuel inside of it, powering it.

The gospels by themselves is not the whole picture. We have Paul's writings that teach us about life in the Spirit so we can do and be everything we are supposed to do and be.

Paul (not Jesus) said this:

Galatians 3:3 says "Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"

Jesus told us what we have to be and do, but Paul told us how to do it.

This is why we need the teachings of God's economy etc which focus on the Spirit.

Contrast that with the denominations who talk about God, Father, Jesus, with barely any mention of the Spirit.

Witness Lee and Nee for the most part is just expounding Paul's ministry.

Originally Posted by OBW

You despise the sermon of the Catholic priest. And presume that I am suggesting we should still just be Catholic (or EO). But look at the actual sermons for the people. They were not about "the intrinsic processing of Christ as the Spirit for the revealing of the seven-fold intensified Spirit that now lives in our spirit." Or any other strictly "spiritual" nonsense that has no application to my drive home on 121 this evening. If you despise the sermons of the average Catholic priest, then you hate the ones Jesus gave to the people sitting on the side of a mountain. He didn't tell them some fancy constitution. He gave simple instructions in the ways of living righteously. He healed people and sent them home to live differently.

We have it all wrong. We were created to represent God as his image bearers but think that salvation is for the purpose of getting out of Dodge and to heaven or the New J. Not to bear His image in a dark, perverse world, but to escape to a meeting where we can be invigorated to tolerate the fallen world.

And I will return to the use of our good minds. John warned that there were some that had been among us who went out and were now a problem. But we know better than to be captured by their nonsensical teachings.

Returning to the use of our minds. It is through the mind that we realize what we are called to do. What is the right was to live. We read. Or we listen. And we respond. You want it to be an effort in significant thought to conclude what is to be done. But it is really quite simple. We hear the word. It commands and directs our living. Those who say that we should not do things because of a command are ducking from their unwillingness to obey. But it is not so hard to know what to do. And even the simple obedience arising from faith can do this. From those who hear those "poor" sermons and realize it is something they should do.

Do you think that if they do what they are told that they are somehow not "in the vine"? If so, please explain how you think that is true. I will muddy the waters by noting that what they are told to do is from the scripture. It is not contrary to the teachings of Christ, but is fully in keeping with it. What could possibly make them not "in the vine"?

To "bear God's image" we need God to live in us and shine forth out of us.This is what the teachings of God's economy, if applied, are meant to accomplish.
Otherwise we are just copycats, with the outward form but not the inward reality.

Practical righteousness is the goal or outcome of the church, saints, God's economy, dispensing. The way of God's economy ensures that it is of Him and not of ourselves. Without these things, we could not fulfill Galatians 3:3.

The average Catholic priest and protestant preachers do not focus upon the Spirit. Many, do not even focus upon Jesus. That is what I know as a fact from my time in the denominations.