Christ or faith the Savior?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Did you wonder why you couldn't give a simple yes or no answer to my question?

No, I didn't wonder. Your post had two questions. I was addressing your first "What exactly do the first two tests prove?" Your second question was rhetorical and was answered by my response to the first:

"The tests prove if someone has the Spirit of God. The tests are not a test of doctrine or teachings."


For example, if someone asked two questions:

"How do I get to the park?" "don't you think parks are nice places?"

Obviously someone would answer the first question as that is what they really want to know. Why would I simply answer "yes" or "no" to the second question and not tell them how to get to the park?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Because those "tests" you mentioned are not what you think. They are very specific to the situation the apostles were facing at their time. You have over-generalized them as if they apply to all situations.

Nonsense. In that case we could say that Jesus's fruit test in Matthew was specific only to the Pharisees and Scribes he was speaking about. Cursing Jesus or not, is general, not specific. If it were specific, then it means that there are cases where a person can curse Jesus "by the Spirit". As this cannot be the case, it must be a general test.

Originally Posted by A little brother

If the tests were really what you said, probably the LC should change saying 5 times "Oh Lord Jesus" to saying 5 times "Jesus is Lord" in order to be sure they are in the spirit.

That's a good point. Sometimes we do say "Jesus is Lord" corporately and in unison and it's something a newcomer might be encouraged to say to see if they are a believer or not. But I think Lord Jesus means the same thing and part of it is in how you say it. If a person said the "Lord" part quickly or only mumbled it then it might indicate something. That is why there is an emphasis on the Lord, as in Loooooord Jesus.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nonsense. In that case we could say that Jesus's fruit test in Matthew was specific only to the Pharisees and Scribes he was speaking about. Cursing Jesus or not, is general, not specific. If it were specific, then it means that there are cases where a person can curse Jesus "by the Spirit". As this cannot be the case, it must be a general test.

Is this your way of using the scripture to explain the scripture? You took an irrelevant section and then apply the generality to the specific verses we were discussing. You should know better who is speaking nonsense.

My previous question was meant to let you understand the "test" is specific as to who is behind the saying of "Jesus be cursed" and "Jesus is Lord", nothing more. If I say "Jesus is Lord, and WL/LSM's teachings are very wrong", the "test" does nothing on discerning whether the second part is from the Holy Spirit or not.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's a good point. Sometimes we do say "Jesus is Lord" corporately and in unison and it's something a newcomer might be encouraged to say to see if they are a believer or not. But I think Lord Jesus means the same thing and part of it is in how you say it. If a person said the "Lord" part quickly or only mumbled it then it might indicate something. That is why there is an emphasis on the Lord, as in Loooooord Jesus.

Great, you have just proved yourself wrong by telling me Paul's test is not enough - You have to say it a certain way. You should not mumble, you have to place emphasis here and there. That is something you added on top of Paul's words.

BTW, in my locality, I don't think I have ever heard the saying of "Jesus is Lord" corporately and in unison in the past few years. But I certainly won't use your "tests" to judge the situation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

My previous question was meant to let you understand the "test" is specific as to who is behind the saying of "Jesus be cursed" and "Jesus is Lord", nothing more. If I say "Jesus is Lord, and WL/LSM's teachings are very wrong", the "test" does nothing on discerning whether the second part is from the Holy Spirit or not.

I agree that the test does nothing on discerning about the second part, but I already said that here:

The tests prove if someone has the Spirit of God. The tests are not a test of doctrine or teachings.

Let's break it down :

"The tests prove if someone has the Spirit of God." - this is what the test is about. I never talked about using the test for doctrine or teachings, only you have. I have clearly stated many times that the test is about what kind of spirit a person has.

"The tests are not a test of doctrine or teachings." - This is where I agree that the test does nothing on discerning about the second part, as if the first part was not clear enough already.

This problem is not because I could not answer yes or no to your question, but because you cannot comprehend that I already answered your question sufficiently.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Great, you have just proved yourself wrong by telling me Paul's test is not enough - You have to say it a certain way. You should not mumble, you have to place emphasis here and there. That is something you added on top of Paul's words.

BTW, in my locality, I don't think I have ever heard the saying of "Jesus is Lord" corporately and in unison in the past few years. But I certainly won't use your "tests" to judge the situation.

My point was that we must be able to hear it clearly - it was about how the test is applied, not "adding to it". It does not say those who "mumble under their breath that Jesus is Lord" does it? It is the same when taking an oath or "swearing on the bible" or getting married - no judge or wedding celebrant is going to accept an incoherent mumble.

Anyway your bias is noted, as you ignore some obvious unscriptural things Jo S said for example about corporate prayer or loud or singing prayer not being allowed but pick apart how I think Paul's test should be applied. That is, you seem fixated on technicalities about scriptural tests but ignore clear unscriptural things another posted has stated that in my view are more of a concern than "chanting" to Jesus.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"The tests are not a test of doctrine or teachings." - This is where I agree that the test does nothing on discerning about the second part, as if the first part was not clear enough already.

So we can be in the spirit (by being able to say "Jesus is Lord") and still following wrong teachings (because the test does nothing on discernment), right?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My point was that we must be able to hear it clearly - it was about how the test is applied, not "adding to it". It does not say those who "mumble under their breath that Jesus is Lord" does it? It is the same when taking an oath or "swearing on the bible" or getting married - no judge or wedding celebrant is going to accept an incoherent mumble.

It does not say anything about oath or swearing or being clear, does it?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyway your bias is noted, as you ignore some obvious unscriptural things Jo S said for example about corporate prayer or loud or singing prayer not being allowed but pick apart how I think Paul's test should be applied. That is, you seem fixated on technicalities about scriptural tests but ignore clear unscriptural things another posted has stated that in my view are more of a concern than "chanting" to Jesus.

Of course I am biased. I care more about showing the truth to my brothers and sisters in the LC than to anybody else. It was you who brought up the "scriptual tests" and I feel obliged to share with you the different view.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

So we can be in the spirit (by being able to say "Jesus is Lord") and still following wrong teachings (because the test does nothing on discernment), right?

Agree.

Originally Posted by A little brother

It does not say anything about oath or swearing or being clear, does it?

That's right, it's only an analogy. But that it should be clear is common sense really.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Agree.

But then this I don't understand. What is the point of being in the spirit if we don't/can't follow its anointment that teaches us what is right or wrong?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by A little brother

But then this I don't understand. What is the point of being in the spirit if we don't/can't follow its anointment that teaches us what is right or wrong?

It's because this is the central strategy religious and spiritual leaders use for defrauding people. All leaders that use this technique say the same things. They will say things like in the case of Witness Lee, "get out of the mind and get into the spirit" or within the New Age something like get in tune to your "higher consciousness", ect.

What this really does is work to get people into a heightened emotional state where they're no longer thinking rationally but reacting to everything emotionally. And when you're in this state, you're the most suggestible. God is holy as is his Holy Spirit. He's not only "spiritual", God is also rational (Isaiah 1:18). You don't need to get out of one to get into another. And neither do you need to get into the Holy Spirit because those born of God already have his spirit in them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

But then this I don't understand. What is the point of being in the spirit if we don't/can't follow its anointment that teaches us what is right or wrong?

You must be thinking of this verse:

1 John 2:20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

1 John 2:26 gives the context:
These things have I written to you concerning them that seduce you.

So verse 20 is specific and not a general claim that the anointing will teach us everything.

If we look at verse 21 and 22 we can find what sort of knowledge/teaching he is talking about:

I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.


So in context, it means that we don't need anyone to teach us that Jesus is the Christ because we have the Holy Spirit. The anointing teaches about Christ. There is no reason to think it should teach about doctrine such as Calvinism or whether we should keep the Sabbath.

For this we have Scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

and teachers:

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,

Acts 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

For these reasons I do not expect the anointing to teach about this - "WL/LSM's teachings are very wrong" - that is what Scripture is for.

But the anointing does teach that "Jesus is Lord" because this is about Christ.

Even if you disagree that the anointing's teaching is limited (to Christ), you can at least see that the Bible speaks of Scripture and teachers as being our teacher. It is not only the anointing that God gave for teaching. We could add the moral conscience and Creation in there as well for "teachers" (Romans 1:20), and also parents/elders (Proverbs 22:6).

And if the anointing was some kind of safeguard against wrong doctrine, teachers would not need to be judged with greater strictness (according to James 3:1) and the scriptures would not need to warn about false teachers and prophets (any teacher or pastor or prophet could say whatever false doctrine they wanted without consequence because everyone is taught the right thing by the anointing in them).

I suggest that the reason Christianity is divided today into hundreds of denominations is because the anointing does not teach us everything. If it did there would be no need for theologians or bible commentaries or Christian books.