Today's Jerusalem for Christians

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Lee failed because he thought he could judge by himself what is worship in spirit and came up with behavioral practices to help "turn to the spirit".

Things like "calling on the name of the Lord" became criteria to assess whether someone is in the spirit. Come to think of it, it is not different from the other rituals in the denominations that you mentioned.

Calling on the name of the Lord to determine whether someone is in the spirit has sound biblical basis:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Paul tells us how to determine what is by the Spirit or not in that verse.

Every denomination has their own criteria, e.g. attending the mass, ability to speak in tongues, or ability to pray the sinners prayer and confess Jesus is Lord in front of the church. But I have to say none of these have as much biblical basis as the direct application of 1 Cor 12:3 - test whether someone can say Jesus is Lord or not, (and mean it, of course).

The word Lord is important. Only the genuine can say Lord Jesus. Demons do not confess Jesus is their Lord.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Calling on the name of the Lord to determine whether someone is in the spirit has sound biblical basis:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Paul tells us how to determine what is by the Spirit or not in that verse.

The word Lord is important. Only the genuine can say Lord Jesus. Demons do not confess Jesus is their Lord.

It is actually an example of how the Bible is twisted to support man's theory.

1. The verse is about saying/confessing "Jesus is Lord". Not about calling "O Lord Jesus" n times as if He is not answering you.
2. It talks about what happens if someone is "speaking by the Spirit of God". The speaker is already "in the spirit" and not trying to turn to the spirit. When Lee said calling on the name of the Lord can help you to turn to the spirit, he was actually denying this very verse.
3. "Can say" doesn't mean "have to say". A person not calling "O Lord Jesus" during worship does not necessarily mean he is not in the spirit.

And back to John 4. the problem of LC is that other man-made boundaries were set to confine what is "true" worship.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

It is actually an example of how the Bible is twisted to support man's theory.

1. The verse is about saying/confessing "Jesus is Lord". Not about calling "O Lord Jesus" n times as if He is not answering you.
2. It talks about what happens if someone is "speaking by the Spirit of God". The speaker is already "in the spirit" and not trying to turn to the spirit. When Lee said calling on the name of the Lord can help you to turn to the spirit, he was actually denying this very verse.
3. "Can say" doesn't mean "have to say". A person not calling "O Lord Jesus" during worship does not necessarily mean he is not in the spirit.

And back to John 4. the problem of LC is that other man-made boundaries were set to confine what is "true" worship.

Are you saying that to be saved a person must say "Jesus is Lord" and simply calling "Lord Jesus" is not enough? To me they are saying the same thing.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you saying that to be saved a person must say "Jesus is Lord" and simply calling "Lord Jesus" is not enough? To me they are saying the same thing.

Off topic. As you said not long ago, "let's not hijack JJ's thread".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Off topic. As you said not long ago, "let's not hijack JJ's thread".

I won't go further. Maybe people should stop baiting me with Lee said this and Lee said that.

Address the topic at hand people:

Can we use John 4 to support Lee’s claims?
Can we use John 4 to refute Lee’s claims?

[JJ]

Thanks for asking for input on the thread EV. Good form!

Yes, please stop with off topic stuff, and start or add to another thread on another topic if you want to discuss that.

I'll give this topic some more time. I admit John 4 alone isn't enough for a complete look at this Jerusalem topic. I'll start Part 2 if no one else wants to write on Part 1, but only after a good pregnant pause.

[JJ]

OK time for Part 2 then. I'm starting another thread for "Part 2 on Today's Jerusalem for Christians" under Apologetic discussions folder.

Others may add to Part 1 if they wish.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Calling on the name of the Lord to determine whether someone is in the spirit has sound biblical basis:

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

It is true that no one can say "Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." But are you sure you know what he meant when he said "say"? Did he mean, no one can speak the words except by the Holy Spirit? Or did he mean that no one can make the honest claim that Jesus is their Lord except where there is the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit? We are used to the idea that people say things that are not true, yet here we somehow believe that no one is capable of saying those three words unless they are telling the truth and the Hoy Spirit is in them.

I suggest that this is an error in understanding. Paul was not saying there is a sure-fire way to prove that Jesus is someone's Lord by getting them to say three words. I cannot accept such a trite understanding of the passage. By it there has been evidence of serious unrighteousness undertaken by those who stopped periodically to say three words. If you are right, then the activities that were being undertaken could never have happened because the Spirit could not have been involved. Therefore they were not, at the time, under the Lordship of Jesus. Yet they said the words.

Out of the same fountain cannot come filth and purity.

And, like ground, where it suits the MOTAs, oversimplify beyond credulity.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by OBW

I suggest that this is an error in understanding. Paul was not saying there is a sure-fire way to prove that Jesus is someone's Lord by getting them to say three words. I cannot accept such a trite understanding of the passage. By it there has been evidence of serious unrighteousness undertaken by those who stopped periodically to say three words. If you are right, then the activities that were being undertaken could never have happened because the Spirit could not have been involved. Therefore they were not, at the time, under the Lordship of Jesus. Yet they said the words.

This glaring "error in understanding" comes from being indoctrinated into the Church of Witness Lee. One could even call it deception.

On a lighter note:
While at a "training" in Anaheim I saw a H2 hummer with a sticker on the rear windshield that read "Call: (ohh) LORD-JESUS". I thought it was hilarious and took a pic - still have it on my phone. It seems like "trite" is a perfect way to describe it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is true that no one can say "Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." But are you sure you know what he meant when he said "say"? Did he mean, no one can speak the words except by the Holy Spirit? Or did he mean that no one can make the honest claim that Jesus is their Lord except where there is the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit? We are used to the idea that people say things that are not true, yet here we somehow believe that no one is capable of saying those three words unless they are telling the truth and the Hoy Spirit is in them.

I suggest that this is an error in understanding. Paul was not saying there is a sure-fire way to prove that Jesus is someone's Lord by getting them to say three words. I cannot accept such a trite understanding of the passage. By it there has been evidence of serious unrighteousness undertaken by those who stopped periodically to say three words. If you are right, then the activities that were being undertaken could never have happened because the Spirit could not have been involved. Therefore they were not, at the time, under the Lordship of Jesus. Yet they said the words.

Out of the same fountain cannot come filth and purity.

And, like ground, where it suits the MOTAs, oversimplify beyond credulity.

Evangelical Christians might ask someone "is Jesus your Lord?" to discern whether they are saved or not. Some might ask "are you saved?" but this normally elicits insufficient responses. I once knew a man who asked almost everyone he came across "is Jesus your Lord and Savior?". I don't really see what is the difference here.

It would be easier for someone to fake by answering "yes" to a posed question than to demonstrate an active calling on the Lord's name. To ask someone "is Jesus your Lord" is like asking someone "can you drive a car?". But to call on the Lord's name is an actual demonstration that one can do it.

It's a spiritual reality that no demon possessed person can say that Jesus is Lord. It's as impossible for them as it is for an atheist to say "God is real", for in that moment they become an unbeliever to a believer.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is true that no one can say "Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." But are you sure you know what he meant when he said "say"? Did he mean, no one can speak the words except by the Holy Spirit? Or did he mean that no one can make the honest claim that Jesus is their Lord except where there is the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit? We are used to the idea that people say things that are not true, yet here we somehow believe that no one is capable of saying those three words unless they are telling the truth and the Hoy Spirit is in them.

I suggest that this is an error in understanding. Paul was not saying there is a sure-fire way to prove that Jesus is someone's Lord by getting them to say three words. I cannot accept such a trite understanding of the passage. By it there has been evidence of serious unrighteousness undertaken by those who stopped periodically to say three words. If you are right, then the activities that were being undertaken could never have happened because the Spirit could not have been involved. Therefore they were not, at the time, under the Lordship of Jesus. Yet they said the words.

Out of the same fountain cannot come filth and purity.

The context of 1 Cor 12 is "concerning spiritual gifts" (v 1), not a matter of salvation. Paul gives a simple test for discerning the spiritual source of a person excercising their spiritual gift of prophecy. The statement "Jesus is accursed" surely does not come from The Spirit, while the statement "Jesus is Lord" comes from The Spirit. Again, not a "salvation test".

Neither is 1 Cor 12:3 "The Test" for "worship in spirit and truth" according to its context. The word "worship" is not used here.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by JJ

The context of 1 Cor 12 is "concerning spiritual gifts" (v 1), not a matter of salvation. Paul gives a simple test for discerning the spiritual source of a person excercising their spiritual gift of prophecy. The statement "Jesus is accursed" surely does not come from The Spirit, while the statement "Jesus is Lord" comes from The Spirit. Again, not a "salvation test".

Neither is 1 Cor 12:3 "The Test" for "worship in spirit and truth" according to its context. The word "worship" is not used here.

That may be the immediate context, but why would the test work for spiritual gifts but not for salvation, the greatest spiritual gift of all?

How is it possible for someone to pass the spiritual gift test yet fail the salvation test if it is all the same Spirit?

[JJ]

Romans 10 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...0&version=NASB) is a better series of verses for a test of salvation. And, calling on the Lord is part, but not all of it. Salvation involves hearing the word of the truth of God's righteousness from a gospel preacher (the word of faith the apostles preached, as Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans), confessing with your mouth "Jesus Lord" and believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead.

I learned the hard way once that getting an unbeliever to say "Oh Lord Jesus" alone isn't enough. I coaxed (coerced is a better word ) an atheist to say the words "Oh Lord Jesus", and contrary to my local church training, he didn't get saved!!! I realized later that was because he said it, but didn't believe it. And, my presentation of the gospel was deficient as well.