How I got here, and what is this place?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Here is an exerpt from gotquestions.org which is a statement that I agree with;

"Second, Gnostics claim to possess an elevated knowledge, a “higher truth” known only to a certain few. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know.” Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plane of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God."

I believe the teaching within the LC is called the "high peak truths".

This isn't about comparing apples to oranges. It's understanding that the apple has multiple parts which make up the whole.

Just because gnostics take a mystical approach does not mean mysticism in Christianity is gnosticism. Note that the mystical approach in gnosticism is different - gnostics use mysticism to replace the literal truth of the Bible and do not take it literally. They deny John who wrote Jesus came in the flesh, directly contradicting the Bible. Christian mystics on the other hand, reinforce and uphold the objective truth of the Bible through subjective experience. In church history, the reason why gnosticism was deemed heretical in the church and mysticism wasn't, is because gnosticism contradicts the literal written Scripture and mysticism doesn't.

In order to discern the difference you should take note of the whole Gotquestions article:


First, it espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good.

The Person of Jesus Christ is another area where Christianity and Gnosticism drastically differ. The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical

The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical, and that His spirit descended upon Him at His baptism, but left Him just before His crucifixion.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, use a variety of early heretical writings known as the Gnostic gospels, a collection of forgeries claiming to be “lost books of the Bible.”

Only if Lee taught these things could it be considered gnosticism, which he didn't.

[Evangelical]

This old article from 1904 presents a fair and balanced view of Christian mysticism, published in the "BAPTIST REVIEW
AND EXPOSITOR":

IS THERE A TRUE, CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM?
By PROFESSOR HENRY C. VEDDER, D.D.,
Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...63730400100201

The author HENRY C. VEDDER was an American Baptist church historian.

A few excerpts:

There is then a solid Scriptural basis for mysticism,
a much stronger basis than could be furnished by any
accumulation of mere proof-texts. Its basis is, in fact,
the same as the basis of the Scriptures themselves, in so
far as these are a revelation from God, unless we are to
exhaust the word "revelation" of all real significance.

To deny the fundamental tenet or thesis of the mystic,
is to take out of the Bible all that is distinctively Christian,
and reduce the Christian religion to a purely naturalistic
basis.


This essential, fundamental doctrine of mysticism may
be put into the form of a simple thesis = it is possible for
man to have direct, immediate, intuitive knowledge of
God


If these criteria are fully recognized and faithfully
applied, there is no danger in mysticism, but great gain.
It founds the Christian life on the solid rock of personal
knowledge, while efficient safeguards are provided against
fanaticism. Such a mysticism is true, because its ultimate
principle is that which validates all truth, namely,
trust in the testimony of consciousness. It is Christian,
because it subordinates the experience of the individual
to the Scriptures and the Christian consciousness of the
ages.


To reframe the good professors conclusions in a simple way:

To deny mysticism is to deny the Bible itself since all authors of the Bible acquired knowledge through the direct revelation of God.
The Christian life should be founded on the rock of personal knowledge of God which in itself is a safeguard, not a danger.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To reframe the good professors conclusions in a simple way:

To deny mysticism is to deny the Bible itself since all authors of the Bible acquired knowledge through the direct revelation of God.
The Christian life should be founded on the rock of personal knowledge of God which in itself is a safeguard, not a danger.

A mystical experience is different from true spiritual revelation that comes from God. One is acheived while the other is given through faith.

Mysticism turns spirituality into a work where as Christianity relies on God's judgment and grace in whether he will provide us certain revelation or not.

If you have to work to have a supernatural experience, you're getting into something else altogether. Chasing after or working for spiritual or mystical experiences is not Christianity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

A mystical experience is different from true spiritual revelation that comes from God. One is acheived while the other is given through faith.

Mysticism turns spirituality into a work where as Christianity relies on God's judgment and grace in whether he will provide us certain revelation or not.

If you have to work to have a supernatural experience, you're getting into something else altogether. Chasing after or working for spiritual or mystical experiences is not Christianity.

I agree if the goal is the spiritual or mystical experiences themselves, that will lead to something else. But the goal is clearly stated as the person of Jesus Christ, and God the Father. For those familiar with his teachings, Witness Lee provides safeguards against mystical experiences by focusing our attention on the spirit and God's Word and not our soul. For example, calling on the name of the Lord is to seek the Lord, not a mystical experience. Many times there is no feeling after calling on the Lord. Sometimes there is. Pray reading the Word is also to seek the Lord, there is often no mystical experience or feeling, though sometimes there is. As we pray read the Word only, our experience comes from the Word and not from our feelings.

Working to contact the Lord, meaning persistent and regular prayer, is simply obeying the scriptural commands to seek God and find Him. The Bible shows that we have responsibility to draw near to God, and seek God and find Him. This is a kind of spiritual work and requires exercise. There is no shortcut to this where we may sit back, relax, and expect God to visit us whenever He feels like it.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, calling on the name of the Lord is to seek the Lord, not a mystical experience. Many times there is no feeling after calling on the Lord.

Do you mean the LC's practice of chanting "Oh, Lord Jesus" five times in unison? I've experienced this phenomenon a few times first hand. However, I personally did not partake in it.

If you took a picture of those meetings that I was in, I'd be the one that looked like August Landmesser.

Sometimes there is. Pray reading the Word is also to seek the Lord, there is often no mystical experience or feeling, though sometimes there is. As we pray read the Word only, our experience comes from the Word and not from our feelings.

You then believe that the sounds that are made from the pronounciation of the words themselves can trigger a mystical experience?

This is a kind of spiritual work and requires exercise. There is no shortcut to this where we may sit back, relax, and expect God to visit us whenever He feels like it.

I'm sure scripture shows us neither Jesus Christ nor any of the apostles sat back and relaxed. Their works were a product of genuine faith and through that same faith, they received revelation yet they were not mystics. Mystics work toward an experience through practices rather than allow an experience to proceed from faith alone. A Christian's works have no direct correlation to their spiritual experiences.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Do you mean the LC's practice of chanting "Oh, Lord Jesus" five times in unison? I've experienced this phenomenon a few times first hand. However, I personally did not partake in it.

If you took a picture of those meetings that I was in, I'd be the one that looked like August Landmesser.

You then believe that the sounds that are made from the pronounciation of the words themselves can trigger a mystical experience?

The Bible reveals many different types of prayer. This type of prayer is not an incantation but a prayer to invoke the presence of Christ using the name of Jesus. It is scriptural because the phrase "call upon the name of the Lord" is throughout the bible and means a literal calling upon His name.

It is safe to do so because
a) we know that Jesus is alive (praying to a dead saint on the other hand will surely open to demonic experiences).
b) we know that the name of Jesus is all powerful and above every other name (it is the only name we can safely call).
c) we know that when we ask God for a fish he won't give a stone (God is faithful to answer, and we have His divine protection and faithfulness).

Originally Posted by Jo S

You then believe that the sounds that are made from the pronounciation of the words themselves can trigger a mystical experience?

There is no such superstitious belief. It is the words which are said which matter and the heart of faith when we say them. It is prayer.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm sure scripture shows us neither Jesus Christ nor any of the apostles sat back and relaxed. Their works were a product of genuine faith and through that same faith, they received revelation yet they were not mystics. Mystics work toward an experience through practices rather than allow an experience to proceed from faith alone. A Christian's works have no direct correlation to their spiritual experiences.

In the LC, mystic means experiencing Christ by seeking Him by faith. Now, experiencing Christ does not mean experiencing a feeling. This experience is registered in our spirit and typically goes by unnoticed. But we believe by faith that some spiritual benefit has been gained, even though we don't feel anything. The goal is Christ, not experiences. A real mystic as you describe (i.e. one who seeks experiences) would be disappointed and likely seek a pentecostal church.

To use an analogy to describe the difference, consider a plant which sucks up the water to obtain life and grow. We would be like the plant which simply sucks up the water and grows, not feeling anything about the water, and not seeking water but growth. A plant is satisfied with water and does not demand orange juice or Coca Cola just because it tastes better. This is because the plant has no feeling or taste about the water, it simply receives the water and grows.

A mystic as you describe would be like a plant which seeks different kinds of water because it has some taste and preference. The plant would seek orange juice one day and coca cola the next because it tastes better. The goal of the plant would be to obtain whatever kind of liquid tastes better to it, not growth.

[Jo S]

Ok, Evangelical. I'll leave it at that and let us both get a breather.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just because gnostics take a mystical approach does not mean mysticism in Christianity is gnosticism.

It's the same as mystics using a gnostic approach in discerning their mystical experiences. So does that then make them a gnostic? The two cannot be seperated.

If I were to use the fruit analogy, what you are doing in your argument is skinning and pitting the apple and still calling it an apple. While technically true, you're not presenting the apple in it's entirety. Gnosticism and mysticism are parts of the same apple or, at most, different apples from the same tree.

These two terms are somewhat ambiguous to start off with so if you get too stuck on symantics, points are hard to get across.

Here is a statement from an article titled "Gnosticism and The Gnostic Jesus";

"Gnosticism is a philosophy that refers to a body of teachings that stress the acquisition of “gnosis,” or inner knowledge. This knowledge is not mere intellectual, but mystical knowledge; not merely knowing about something or someone, but a mystical knowledge that comes from within each of us. This special mystical knowledge allows us to discover an esoteric divine nature within each of us that is obscured by ignorance and false teaching about God and Jesus.""Furthermore, the Gnostics believe this knowledge is not in the possession of the masses, but only to the Gnostics (the Knowers) who truly understand its benefits and how to attain it. To the Gnostic, the masses are trapped in the ignorance of religious teaching and doctrine that serves to control and regulate the conduct of believers. The Gnostic, on the other hand, believes he has pierced through the ignorance and trappings of organized religion and has reached the core of special spiritual knowledge about God and the God-nature in each of us. The only problem is that this “core of special spiritual knowledge” of God and the God-nature is a “core of special spiritual knowledge” of their own creation."

Alot of what this article states about the characteristics of gnosticism sound eerily similar to the sentiments held within the LC.

You already openly acknowledge that mysticism is practiced within the LC. This above statement then highlights the LC's gnostic influences as well as showing mysticism and gnosticism go together hand in hand.

In order to discern the difference you should take note of the whole Gotquestions article:

First, it espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good.

You can make the argument that the LC's belief on Satan literally dwelling in our flesh lines up with this gnostic teaching very well.

"If we did not have such an evil thing as the flesh with us, we might not pray so desperately." -Witness Lee

Reading the above statement by Lee, my question would be; who is 'us' if not our body of flesh? Here, Lee is merely viewing flesh as an accessory that is "with us". What then makes up "us". Is it our Spirit?

Lee's teachings do emphasize getting into your spirit. He suggests that our minds and flesh are not good, only the spirit is good.

In Christianity, it's sin that dwells in our flesh and it's sin that is evil. Our literal flesh is just a vehicle. When God first created man, he was created "good" and that included his body. For a new creation in Christ or a born again Christian, our body is now a temple for the Holy Spirit. How then can something holy dwell in something that is evil?

In scripture the term "flesh" is used to point back to sin nature where as the gnostic understanding objectifies "flesh" and points it to matter. This lines up with the above gnostic teaching. Taken to an extreme, this is where the religious practices of asceticism and flagellation or penance comes from.

Again, if human flesh was objectively evil, how is it possible that the Holy Spirit operates through God's people? Did Jesus Christ and the apostles lay evil flesh on those that they healed?

The Person of Jesus Christ is another area where Christianity and Gnosticism drastically differ. The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical

The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical, and that His spirit descended upon Him at His baptism, but left Him just before His crucifixion.

You can liken this belief to the LC's teaching that; First, Jesus before incarnation was spirit. He then was temporarily incarnated as a human being. And then after resurrection, Jesus returned to being a life giving spirit.

Scripture doesn't teach that humans were spirit before birth and neither teaches that any of us will ever be just spirit. So one can conclude that this teaching does not teach a fully human Jesus, only a Jesus that temporarily "seemed" human because no human operates or has ever operated in such modalities.

Furthermore, if it's stated that the only good part of us is our spirit (because our flesh is evil) then it's easy to conclude in error that Jesus shed his human flesh and ascended into heaven as a "life giving spirit" and that we to will one day be just as him, spirits. This belief would be considered gnosticism.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, use a variety of early heretical writings known as the Gnostic gospels, a collection of forgeries claiming to be “lost books of the Bible.”

There were many gnostic communities in ancient times, not all of them shared the same beliefs and teachings. They did not have an exclusive set of scriptures that they all adhered to. The writtings discover at Nag Hammadi were only labeled "gnostic gospels" by they are not the official scriptures for all gnostics.

Only if Lee taught these things could it be considered gnosticism, which he didn't.

I'll let others judge that for themselves.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Here is a statement from an article titled "Gnosticism and The Gnostic Jesus";

"Gnosticism is a philosophy that refers to a body of teachings that stress the acquisition of “gnosis,” or inner knowledge. This knowledge is not mere intellectual, but mystical knowledge; not merely knowing about something or someone, but a mystical knowledge that comes from within each of us. This special mystical knowledge allows us to discover an esoteric divine nature within each of us that is obscured by ignorance and false teaching about God and Jesus.""Furthermore, the Gnostics believe this knowledge is not in the possession of the masses, but only to the Gnostics (the Knowers) who truly understand its benefits and how to attain it. To the Gnostic, the masses are trapped in the ignorance of religious teaching and doctrine that serves to control and regulate the conduct of believers. The Gnostic, on the other hand, believes he has pierced through the ignorance and trappings of organized religion and has reached the core of special spiritual knowledge about God and the God-nature in each of us. The only problem is that this “core of special spiritual knowledge” of God and the God-nature is a “core of special spiritual knowledge” of their own creation."

Alot of what this article states about the characteristics of gnosticism sound eerily similar to the sentiments held within the LC.

Similarity does not make it the same. All religions are similar in many ways. When you compare the whole teaching of gnosticism as I have showed before, they are miles apart. For example - Gnostics do not uphold the Lord Jesus and God the Father. Christian mystics do. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You already openly acknowledge that mysticism is practiced within the LC. This above statement then highlights the LC's gnostic influences as well as showing mysticism and gnosticism go together hand in hand.

It has never been denied that mysticism is practiced within the LC. But mysticism does not mean contacting an alternate reality or a Jesus who is a spirit only and not flesh and blood (the gnostic Jesus), but the realm of spiritual reality contained in Christ.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You can make the argument that the LC's belief on Satan literally dwelling in our flesh lines up with this gnostic teaching very well.

"If we did not have such an evil thing as the flesh with us, we might not pray so desperately." -Witness Lee

I have already proven by providing scholarly references from evangelical theology that the LC's belief on Satan aligns with the beliefs of the orthodox (not gnostic) early church and proper interpretation of Romans. Such evidence is hard for you or anyone to refute and so far has not been easily disproven on this forum.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Reading the above statement by Lee, my question would be; who is 'us' if not our body of flesh? Here, Lee is merely viewing flesh as an accessory that is "with us". What then makes up "us". Is it our Spirit?

Lee's teachings do emphasize getting into your spirit. He suggests that our minds and flesh are not good, only the spirit is good.

This means the fallen sinful flesh, not the physical flesh. Again, Lee's interpretation of "the flesh" is correct and matches Paul's usage of the term, as proven by the scholarly work of Dr Burrowes (I showed in the other thread discussing Satan).

Originally Posted by Jo S

In Christianity, it's sin that dwells in our flesh and it's sin that is evil. Our literal flesh is just a vehicle. When God first created man, he was created "good" and that included his body. For a new creation in Christ or a born again Christian, our body is now a temple for the Holy Spirit. How then can something holy dwell in something that is evil?

In scripture the term "flesh" is used to point back to sin nature where as the gnostic understanding objectifies "flesh" and points it to matter. This lines up with the above gnostic teaching. Taken to an extreme, this is where the religious practices of asceticism and flagellation or penance comes from.

Again, if human flesh was objectively evil, how is it possible that the Holy Spirit operates through God's people? Did Jesus Christ and the apostles lay evil flesh on those that they healed?

The part highlighted in bold is exactly why Lee's teaching is not Gnostic.
Lee is not talking about our literal physical flesh. The term flesh as used by Lee means the fallen self and the sinful elements of our human nature.
This is documented throughout his books and ministry material.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You can liken this belief to the LC's teaching that; First, Jesus before incarnation was spirit. He then was temporarily incarnated as a human being. And then after resurrection, Jesus returned to being a life giving spirit.

The LC does not teach this and these allegations have never stuck, even on this forum because they are so easily disproven. Lee and the LC affirms that Jesus came in the flesh and remained in the flesh after resurrection and ascension, satisfying the test of 1 John 4:2. The LC affirms the eternal incarnation of Christ.

For proof, see first sentence of third paragraph here:

https://www.ministrybooks.org/books....=984TJOTAIU1OS

I can be helpful and tell you where the exact difference lies between the LC and orthodoxy (open for debate). The difference is in the understanding of the relationships between the person of the Trinity, not the fundamental nature of the Son. The Trinity says the Son is not the Father, Lee says the Son is the Father based on a literal interpretation of Isaiah "everlasting Father".

Also, Lee's meaning of "Jesus becoming the Spirit" does not mean what you think. It means that Christ's experiences of the cross were infused into the Holy Spirit. Jesus as a fully incarnated man in a fleshly resurrected physical human body does not change back, to or from flesh and spirit at all. Also, the Spirit does not become human but remains 100% divine nature.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Scripture doesn't teach that humans were spirit before birth and neither teaches that any of us will ever be just spirit. So one can conclude that this teaching does not teach a fully human Jesus, only a Jesus that temporarily "seemed" human because no human operates or has ever operated in such modalities.

Furthermore, if it's stated that the only good part of us is our spirit (because our flesh is evil) then it's easy to conclude in error that Jesus shed his human flesh and ascended into heaven as a "life giving spirit" and that we to will one day be just as him, spirits. This belief would be considered gnosticism.

I am happy to say that the LC teaches none of this.