What is God's Economy?

[Sons to Glory!]

Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

Yes, food is all over the Bible. And what does Jesus say about it? "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." I have noted this repeatedly on this forum. God's word became food to Jesus because of Jesus' obedience.

John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." The Father sent Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the sending, and this became life to Jesus. (he was raised from the dead - eternal life). So also we should obey him, and live because of him. Through our obedience to him, we also live. This entire section of John's gospel goes over this in detail.

And yes, this is food to us. We eat the living bread. We obey his commands. "Just as I obey the Father's commands, so you should obey mine." If you see the verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them" it doesn't say or even imply, "Pray-read the words, don't try to obey. Just organically assimilate the words and they will metabolically transform you." No, rather, implied is the process of our obedience by faith, to the eternal life which we receive as a crown.

And what is this obedience? To love our neighbour, even when you don't think they deserve it. To give something to them (attention, encouragement, support, or a sandwich), as we hope for reward in heaven. If you allow yourself to be 'robbed' to aid someone else, because you believe, hope, trust that God is watching you, and paying attention, that is a transformational experience. If you just go, "me, me, me" that isn't very transformed at all. Only if you give will you be given to.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, food is all over the Bible. And what does Jesus say about it? "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." I have noted this repeatedly on this forum. God's word became food to Jesus because of Jesus' obedience.

John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." The Father sent Jesus, and Jesus obeyed the sending, and this became life to Jesus. (he was raised from the dead - eternal life). So also we should obey him, and live because of him. Through our obedience to him, we also live.

And yes, this is food to us. We eat the living bread. We obey his commands. "Just as I obey the Father's commands, so you should obey mine." If you see the verse "Thy words were found and I did eat them" it doesn't say, "Pray-read the words, don't try to obey. Just organically assimilate the words and they will metabolically transform you." No, rather, the process of our obedience by faith becomes intrinsic to the process, to the eternal life which we receive as a crown.

And what is this obedience? To love our neighbour. To give to them, as we hope for reward in heaven. If you allow yourself to be 'robbed' to aid someone else, because you believe, hope, trust that God is watching you, that is a transformational experience. If you just go, "me, me, me" that isn't very transformed.

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me. Therefore, I need Another life. We can step out on faith and obey, but just to be clear - it's His living through us that does the genuine loving.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me. Therefore, I need Another life. We can step out on faith and obey, but just to be clear - it's His living through us that does the genuine loving.

You are talking about your experience, I'm talking about scripture. Jesus said, "I obey". The common refrain of "nobody can obey God" excludes Jesus, yet the gospel narrative centers wholly on Jesus, on his being sent, his obedience, his resurrection, his exaltation. Not your inability, or mine. It is the 'gospel', the good news - not our failure but his success. And his success was his obedience. His obedience allowed him to receive the Father's life, and now our obedience to him allows us to receive his life. I can quote all the verses again.

"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me." Do you see the 'just as'. Jesus' eating was to obey. Our eating is to obey.

"When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love." Again, the 'just as' is here. Jesus obeys, abides in the Father's love. We obey, abide in his love. Don't look at your inability, look at his ability to obey. By faith you we follow, and yes of course it's HIS ability. "No longer I but Christ." We believe in his ability, his being sent, his obedience, his propitiation, his intercession, and his rule. And we by faith obey. And we by faith love those around us. This is his command, and we obey. He is king.

It's even called "the faith of Christ", not the "faith of aron" or Stg or WL or whomever. Gal 2:20, 2:16, Rom 3:22

Now, the scripture doesn't forbid praying as we read the word. But the scripture doesn't tell us what WL sold us, that pray-reading would "eat" the tree of life and "assimilate" God and so forth. The Bible rather talks of obedience. Jesus' to the Father, and ours to him. This is our food.

Hebrews 5:7 While Jesus was here on earth, he offered prayers and pleadings, with a loud cry and tears, to the one who could rescue him from death. And God heard his prayers because of his deep reverence for God. 8 Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. 9 In this way, God qualified him as a perfect High Priest, and he became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey him.

You have obedience, suffering, life. That was Jesus. Then, obedience, suffering, life. That's us. We follow the Master.

On the flip side, disobedience brings death. Right? Not "eating the wrong tree".

Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

Nothing about eating or metabolic assimilation but rather disobedience. God gave a boundary, and the angels trespassed it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

Sons to Glory,

Yes. The TOTKOGAE is only described positively. Forbidden to touch does not always mean the forbidden thing is bad. And as Awoken and I have described, it often times means the thing is actually valuable. I know a forum is the worst place to decipher much of people, but it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.

God said in eating of it, literally, "dying you shall die". The origins of this phrase are judicial (judgment) in nature, not having to do with the "taking in" of something. Sons to Glory - sins are actions, not an "element" that you take in. How did Adam and Eve die? Read the verses - by being cut off from the tree of life so they would not live forever (i.e., die). Death was their punishment. The verses are clear. Death came from being cut off from the tree of life, not from eating something that was only ever described positively. The verses elsewhere are also clear: death is our wages for sin. That is what death is: our punishment from God for our sin, not something we "take in". In Romans the issue was the offense, the transgression, the one act, not something negative about what they ate.

It is not what goes in that defiles someone but what comes out.

Scripture repeatedly contradicts what you are saying.

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sons to Glory.. it seems to me that you have a major block on this in dropping what Witness Lee falsely taught versus what Scripture actually says.

The effect of the block, as noted, is that it results in the ignoring of 'unhelpful' Scripture. I once shared happily of a vision of Christ that I'd had, in a LC meeting. Problem was, it wasn't from one of the verses that supported Lee's teaching on God's economy. The lead elder, who'd been sent from Anaheim to run my small local church and provide guidance to the region, fell silent. Everyone else in the room froze. The formerly lively group conversation instantly shut down.

I remember going home, thinking, "That was really weird." I'd simply brought up a "wrong" verse and noted that it clearly pointed to Christ.

If you look at the gospels, Jesus repeatedly brings up one aspect of the OT, that is the treatment of those who are sick, weak, poor, indigent, and are nothing in the eyes of the world. Those who have, he said, should voluntarily out of love and compassion try to help such unfortunates. This is how you love your neighbour. Paul goes into this at length in 2 Cor 8, and touches it in various epistles. James also addresses this directly. Nope - "Not God's economy", said Lee.

Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

No, not God's economy, says Lee.

Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

No, that's not "exercise your spirit on the local ground". So we can pass by that one. Etc etc.

When one shows a textual pattern to the Lee-affected mind, they'll dismiss the corpus of Scripture with a simplistic and categorical statement meant to displace all that Scripture from their consciousness, where it might trouble them, cause them to think, reconsider. (This is why it's called a "block") Something like, "All I know is..." then a statement of their cued-in impressions.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

All I know is I can't hardly love those that actually do like me, let alone those who "spitefully use" me.

The statement isn't wrong, but is completely mis-oriented. The subject of the NT is Jesus. He loved us when we were yet sinners. Then he says, "As the Father sent me, I send you. As I do the Father's will, so you do mine. As I lived because of obedience to the Father's word, so you have life by "eating" me [obedience to my word]."

The Lee programme is to focus on self, and thus Jesus' obedience to God, and ours to him, is minimized... we're all sinners, right? So don't even try, we're just here to "enjoy Christ"...it's God's New Testament economy! When I went to my first LC meeting, the stress was, "YOU can exercise YOUR spirit!!!" The focus went off Jesus, what he had done, and was on what I could do (and not do). I could "exercise" (yell) and "enjoy" doing nothing and receiving everything. The poor? Too bad for them, we're not here for dead works of the flesh.

And I've seen this pattern continually since then. That's why all these extensive sections of Scripture are ignored, dismissed, explained away. Even when there's a clear and consistent pattern, possibly much stronger than the snippets - 1 Cor 15:45(b) - that are used to hold Lee's version together. Yet verse after verse after verse, many either directly from Jesus himself, or echoing him, or foreshadowing him in prophetic utterance, are set aside. Here are some from Psalms and Proverbs:

Originally Posted by ESV

“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.” Psalm 41:1-2

“Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will repay him for his deed.” Proverbs 19:17

“Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.” Proverbs 28:7

“For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.” Psalm 9:18

“Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:19

“The rich and the poor meet together; the LORD is the Maker of them all.” Proverbs 22:2

“All my bones shall say, ‘O LORD, who is like you, delivering the poor from him who is too strong for him, the poor and needy from him who robs him?'” Psalm 35:10

“‘Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,’ says the LORD; ‘I will place him in the safety for which he longs.'” Psalm 12:5

“Who is like the LORD our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down on the heavens and the earth? He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes, with the princes of his people.” Psalm 113:5-8

“A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge.” Proverbs 29:7

“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.” Proverbs 22:16

“Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” Proverbs 22:22-23

“The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose way is upright; their sword shall enter their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.” Psalm 37:14-15

“Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.” Proverbs 14:21

“Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” Proverbs 21:13

“Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor.” Proverbs 22:9

God cares for people. The world cares for people with money. Jesus clearly taught, be generous with the mammon that perishes, that you may be blessed in the eternal realms. This wasn't his invention, but rather his stress on what was a clear pattern in God's word. Then think about what Paul meant, when he wrote, "God's economy"; there's nothing, nothing in Scripture that shows it means what Witness Lee taught. The whole thing was a self-oriented, self-serving construction. And Jesus' clear teaching, and pattern (and Paul's 'eager assent', per Gal 2:10) was dismissed out of hand. "Not God's economy".

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Hey StG, just want to point something out here...

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

This is all 100% true.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

God said in eating of it they would die.

This, however... is not really accurate, at least I don't think it's accurate in the context you're espousing. Nothing is wrong with the act of eating and nothing was wrong with the fruit. God didn't say "in eating of it they would die". Nothing negative is ever said about the fruit itself, nor is the fruit of the TOTKOGAE ever called sin, disobedience, death, or whatever. The description given by God, as pointed out by others, was "was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise" (Gen 3:6). He said IN THE DAY they ate of it, they would die. That's a distinction, and for the purposes of this discussion a really important one, maybe. Here is the Hebrew itself, in interlinear form with the English translation. God said "בְּיוֹם֙", "in the day", i.e. there is clearly a temporal element to this. As for me I feel like this indicates that God knew it would happen already, so it was not only temporal but prophetic (He was telling them something that was already going to happen, after all, wasn't the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world for their sake?).

Trapped's "buffet" example is pretty good here. Another one I heard is in this video of one of David Pawson's sermons (I'm not necessarily saying I agree with 100% of what he says, but I do agree with his assessment, as in the book of James, that faith should be something we largely DO, not just believe). In that video he gives a great example that when a young, cocky man came up to him asking why he should believe in the Genesis story because it seemed silly - why would man have done something so stupid like eating from that ONE forbidden tree? - Pawson gave him an example of being put in a giant library with thousands or hundreds of thousands of books you could spend your whole life reading on every subject you could possibly find interesting and be happy with, and being told "there's only ONE book you can't read, that one on that shelf up there, that one is off limits". The young man thought about it briefly and then decided the Genesis story made perfect sense and he believed it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.

I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

[Trapped]

Just to add one more thing to this trees discussion: remember that Jesus came to take the punishment for the sin of the world.

Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.

And it makes all the sense in the world for The Book that speaks of this gospel would start out with a story that feeds right into why Jesus had to come for us.

The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient.

We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Adam and Eve disobeyed and were punished with death. Same with us. That is why Jesus had to come, obeying the Father, to take our death punishment upon Himself.

..The first Adam was disobedient. The last Adam was obedient. We were punished with death for our sins. He had to die; He had to take our punishment.

Because of his obedience, his righteousness in death was imputed as our propitiation. We believe this: we believe in his experience of obedience, not in our experience of eating.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

The original post asked a straightforward question:

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Simple question: What does the Local Church mean with the Lord's [sic] Economy?

In reviving this question on post #308, I tried to explain what the Local Church means with God's economy, why I find it unsatisfying, and I proposed an alternate reading. Then Awoken came in with Lee's Two Trees theory, which is part of it, and you've addressed the "eating" part.

Yet StG you never acknowledge my repeated remarks on what Jesus termed his "eating", and the accompanying NT texts stressing Jesus' obedience, and it seems you're trying to do an end-around back to Lee's pray-reading and "enjoyment" leading to some kind of metabolic transformation. Am I right?

But nowhere does Paul write, "I hope that when I return to Ephesus (or Laodicea or Thessalonika) I'll find you pray-reading scriptures". Instead he says, "Lay aside some money for the poor of Jerusalem", and he repeatedly points to other churches doing the same thing, or he says that other churches are noting the letter's recipients as an example of diligence in this matter. This, says Paul, is love, this is the giving as in Jesus' "Do unto others", this is our faith in action. This is fellowship with one another, this is what it means with remembrance of the hungry and weak and sick.

So I asked, if Paul is repeatedly teaching this in all the other churches, what's he asking Timothy to focus on as he remains in Ephesus? Something like "masticating God to become God [in life and nature]? Where is the connection of that, to any teaching or act of Paul?

Conversely, if his idea of metabolic transformation follows his idea of eating and organic assimilation, why did WL repeatedly place his ne'er-do-well sons where they could prey on the flock? Where's evidence of his own transformation? Instead, we see an untransformed man still in his fallen human culture - family (sinful or not) comes first. And closer to home, why did Bill Freeman's "Christ" allow Patsy Freeman to bulldoze the lives of the various church couples in their captive assemblies? How can we think that some kind of "enjoyment" trumps all that? Just because the Bible has food in it?

And then, saying that there are different equally valid aspects is another way of brushing it all off.

But the unrighteousness that we all repeatedly saw should not be brushed off. And many of us here have said that the failure of theology led to pretending that we didn't care for righteousness, only "enjoyment'' and "eating" and "exercising our spirit" and so forth. This is mere noisemaking, and suppression of thought, and eventually suppression of conscience, when evil is ignored. "Just be simple, drop your concepts, eat that tree." To me, you're perilously close to that world, if not still fully ensconced within it.

[Awoken]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the replies to my post(s) on here. We've been real busy with work this week and I do intend to respond accordingly, but wanted to consider some verses, pray and fellowship with someone else too regarding this.

I will say I suspect this may be a Calvinism/Armenian type thing where there are at least two valid aspects of the same thing . . .

Well, I do believe they are two aspects of the same thing but also believe that you can't separate them.

We fallible humans take up one side or the other and use it to try to condemn people who look at it imperfectly from another angle. Best to just believe the Bible, period.

Jesus said we COULD be condemned even after professing belief in Him and doing a lot of works in His name - the gospels make this plain, when He said those who eat/drink with the drunken and beat their fellow slaves will be "cut into pieces and have their portion with the hypocrites". That doesn't sound much like salvation, to me; it is reminder to us that we need to be humble and not take the matter of our walk lightly. I think we have a human responsibility to be humble and to walk out our faith, and that we could even lose our salvation if we don't. "Faith without works is dead", says James. You can't save yourself but that doesn't mean you can't do things resulting in judgment/punishment after you have professed faith, and the Bible never says God CAN'T take your salvation away if He chooses (saying God CAN'T do anything is a recipe for disaster, I believe we don't get to say some salvation prayer once and then we have a magical "gotcha" card against God's judgment - the Bible tells us plainly to fear Him who can destroy our very soul). This is where I believe in Arminianism/syncretism.

On the other hand I also believe God is sovereign and can elect to FULLY save somebody, eternally, by His power alone, and that we can have faith that He knows all our weaknesses and our failings and is fully able to get us through them and even save us unto eternal salvation. How could He do that if we need to depend on Him eternally but we can fail and depend on so many other things? I don't know - I just believe the answer is God Himself. I believe He knew us before time itself was created and elected us and it wasn't up to us, in that sense. This is where I believe in Calvinism/fatalism.

Here's a simple way to look at it. You are drowning in the ocean with a 1,000 pound dead goat you really loved in the past chained to your leg and no way to get it off. A man in a huge boat comes along. You have NO way to save yourself and no way to get the dead goat off your leg. Only the man in the boat can save you. He tosses you the key and says "get rid of the dead goat and come on my boat, I want to save you but I don't allow dead goats on my ship". You now have a choice, take off the dead goat and climb on the boat, or not. If you don't take off the dead goat (repent), you will die in the ocean. If you DO get on the boat, the man will tell you - okay, you are totally safe here; just STAY on the boat until it reaches land and do what I say. I'm the captain. When we reach land you'll be totally safe and in my kingdom forever, but if you get off the boat and don't repent and ask me to come back and get you back on the boat, you will die and have your portion with those who didn't take off the dead goat.

So stay on the boat, listen to the Captain and do what he says (live out your faith, don't be a hypocrite), and realize you couldn't do a single thing to accomplish your salvation at ALL. That was totally up to the Captain. He did not take your free will away and you can still jump off the boat if you are still so stupidly/stubbornly inclined, so be afraid and ask Him for His help/wisdom so you don't do that.

(Here's a nice picture that I believe helps to fully explain the gospel truth given by Jesus.)

I believe we have both a true free will and a totally sovereign God. The Bible doesn't lie. Rather, men take up their doctrinal interpretations and love them more than the truth and that's where we run into trouble.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Question: do you believe in 'God's economy' as taught by Lee? Were you ever influenced by it? If so, have you dropped, modified it? Or just sort of ignored it, let it sit quietly on the shelf?

I ask this for three reasons: first, that when I left the LC physically I continued to promote WL-sourced interpretations/teachings like this; second, Tomes' essays on this forum don't include this subject, which makes me wonder; and third, it was one of WL's most referenced notions and becomes a kind of bellwether for his lingering influence.

I asked this on another thread, but was probably in danger of side-tracking the thread, so move it here. I wanted to bring this over because I forgot the most important reason to talk about 'oikonomea theou' - because Paul told Timothy remain in Ephesus and to teach things that resulted in this 'oikonomea theou'. So then what is meant by this, and what teachings result in this?

First off, there's nothing in the surrounding text that suggests that 'oikonomea theou' is the 'Processed Triune God in us as life and everything' or 'God becoming flesh becoming intensified Spirit' or 'God becoming man to make man God' or anything similar. In fact, it's hard to believe that Paul taught intensification, as it doesn't appear in his written works - so how could he charge Timothy to teach it?

What then is 'oikonomea theou', which is said to be 'in faith'? My guess is that the answer is found in the line of Paul's letter to the Galatians: "remember the poor", which Paul says that he's eager to do. This is the sending charge of the Jerusalem leaders to Paul the Gentile apostle. When Jesus had said, "Feed my sheep" to Peter, what do we see Peter doing afterward? In the early chapters of Acts Peter and the Twelve were feeding the widows in Jerusalem. There was no Salvation Army, no Homeless Shelter, no Medicaid, no Social Security. If you were a widow, you starved. So the disciples gave food to the poor, as Jesus had asked them to.

Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you and it will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous." Isn't this "in faith" as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:4? If you give, "in faith", believing in the resurrection and hoping in the reward of the righteous, isn't this following Jesus' command to trust and to give, and his promise of reward?

Then what do we see Paul writing continually, in his epistles? "Store up something and lay it aside, that when I come I may have something to bring to the poor of Jerusalem". Then Acts closes with Paul coming "bringing alms for my nation". Now, is that God's economy? I don't know for certain. But it's more in line with the actual text of the NT that Paul was associated with. I don't see Paul associated with sevenfold intensification at all. Textual support for that concept came considerably later.

Then what do we see James teaching? If you have food, share with those who don't have food. That kinda sounds like this 'oikonomea theou'.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, are we treating the TOTKOG&E as if it was a completely good thing? I hope not! There was a reason God told them not to eat of it, that is, it wasn't just some sort of test to see if they would obey or fail. God said in eating of it they would die. There was something He wanted them not to eat and this was pointed out clearly to them. And the enemy knew it would cause problems, so he wanted them to eat it.

Also, it was food --> that is, it gets into a person. It is one of the many things man can eat and take into his being which becomes part of him. Food is all over the Bible: eat the lamb; Jesus is the bread of life, the living water, "If you don't drink My blood & eat My flesh, you have no life in you," etc. So why food? It shows it is something man takes in that becomes part of his make-up, just like physical food is assimilated into, and becomes part of, our bodies.

So I get that there's an aspect of the shear disobedience that happened, but the fact that the disobedience resulted in something being eaten and assimilated needs to be accounted for too, right?

I'll add that, yes, somehow when we eat of the tree of life we keep living, and when we eat of the TOTKOGAE we get the knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge is not a bad thing in scripture, and neither is discerning good/evil. So I continually do not see any evidence for "what they took in" being bad.....possibly just premature (since discerning good/evil is a characteristic of mature believers, as shown in Hebrews).

[Awoken]

Hosea 4:6 is pretty explicit about that: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Kinda drastically different from what we were taught in the LCs - "Knowledge, good, and evil all come from the same tree!"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Awoken

Hosea 4:6 is pretty explicit about that: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Kinda drastically different from what we were taught in the LCs - "Knowledge, good, and evil all come from the same tree!"

I was looking at the quote from WL on this:

"Both our goodness and our badness belong to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Whether you are moral or immoral, whether you are honest or dishonest, whether you steal or do not steal, whether you are a robber or a gentleman, whether you are quarrelsome or peaceable, whether you are a shrewd woman or a virtuous woman, all belong to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Someone should have cued in that poor angel that spoke with Cornelius in Acts, who said that Cornelius' good works had ascended as a memorial before God.

Acts 10:1-4 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God."

According to WL, being devout and God-fearing is from the wrong tree. Helping poor people is from the wrong tree. But Cornelius was not yet a Christian. He was just trying to do the right thing. Was this vain? Did the angel (and Luke the storyteller) err?

It seems that WL trafficked in our ignorance and lack of knowledge as the quote from Hosea 4 above shows. And then our ignorance was reinforced by the saying, "Don't think. You will only be confused". I was told this repeatedly. "Just exercise your spirit", i.e. shout a lot. Preferably, shout WL slogans.

At some point, everything seemed to circle back to that, or the "ground of oneness". Why do we shout simplistic, made-up slogans? Why, because it's God's economy, that's why! Of course, how silly of me to ask.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'll add that, yes, somehow when we eat of the tree of life we keep living, and when we eat of the TOTKOGAE we get the knowledge of good and evil. But knowledge is not a bad thing in scripture, and neither is discerning good/evil. So I continually do not see any evidence for "what they took in" being bad.....possibly just premature (since discerning good/evil is a characteristic of mature believers, as shown in Hebrews).

Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?

I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.

I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?

I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.

I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.

Knucklehead Who Won't Read Scriptur-----I mean, Sons to Glory,

The result of their sin was death. The result of their disobedience, the offense, the transgression was death.

The wages (what we are due, what we are paid, what we EARN) of sin ("the offense") is death. Not "the wages of what we eat is death".

It couldn't be more explicit in Genesis where death came from. From their being cut off from the tree of life. There is no verse, no record, no statement that says death came from what they ate. None. There is an explicit verse that says they were cut off from the tree of life SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER LIVE FOREVER -- i.e DIE.

As to what the result of eating is, it is in Genesis 3:22:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

When God named the trees, He didn't name them deceptively. If you eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you get -- the knowledge of good and evil! And this very verse shows us that: "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil", just like God said.

If it was the tree of "allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes", then God would have called it that.

I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again. I've written plenty on this topic and have no intention of banging my head against a wall that won't put eyes on the verses. I'm showing you verses, scripture, explicit references, explicit words, and you keep responding with things Witness Lee taught that have no basis in scripture. Other posters have grasped the concepts right away, so I know the issue is not the way I'm explaining things.

Trapped

P.S. this is going to sound frustrated, and it is a little bit, but can you tell me - in all the discussion about this topic, have you gone back and actually re-read Genesis 2-3? Or are you simply speaking from what you know of the story? If the latter, I would ask you to go back and read Genesis 2-3, with the intention of actually looking for proof of what Lee taught (which is what you seem to still espouse).

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wasn't the result of that eating bad as God had said, that is --> death?

I see the knowledge of good and evil tree as allowing man to take control of matters for his own purposes. That is, man could independently decide for himself whether he should pursue something or not, rather than seeking the Lord and following His choices - as Jesus demonstrated in His actions that He sought His Father's will and did not act in His independent knowledge of things.

I think it comes down to what the source of the knowledge is.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't "allow" man to do anything. It's a tree. GOD gave man the "freedom to independently decide for himself"...not the tree. God is not a puppet-master...or a tree. He gave us a free will. Man has the freedom to seek the Lord or not. Witness Lee's ministry was to take away the freedom of believers to choose for themselves.

What is our freedom? Obey or disobey. Mankind isn't still eating of that tree, are they? Is much of mankind still living a life of disobedience?

What they consumed in the garden that day was pooped away...3000 years ago. But man still lives in obedience or disobedience. Mankind lives with the consequences of decisions to choose God or not.

Who decides what the source of knowledge is? You? Witness Lee?

I prefer blockhead to knucklehead.

Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't "allow" man to do anything. It's a tree. GOD gave man the "freedom to independently decide for himself"...not the tree. God is not a puppet-master...or a tree. He gave us a free will. Man has the freedom to seek the Lord or not. Witness Lee's ministry was to take away the freedom of believers to choose for themselves.

What is our freedom? Obey or disobey. Mankind isn't still eating of that tree, are they? Is much of mankind still living a life of disobedience?

What they consumed in the garden that day was pooped away...3000 years ago. But man still lives in obedience or disobedience. Mankind lives with the consequences of decisions to choose God or not.

Who decides what the source of knowledge is? You? Witness Lee?

I prefer blockhead to knucklehead.

Nell

Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.

Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?

(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.

Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?

(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)

I didn’t say it was just a tree. You did.

You also said a tree “allows” as though it was some sort of “sentient being”. Trees don’t “allow”.

You are shortchanging the effect of disobedience.

It was disobedience that resulted in spiritual death, not food.

How did sin get into the flesh? Disobedience. Again, disobedience.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Saying it's just "a tree" is simplistic and short-changes its effect. It was a fruit-bearing tree and its fruit was eaten in disobedience. It was food and had the result of death. Does man largely live independent of God now, by constantly making choices of what they see as either good or bad? Sure. Sounds like that fruit is still having an affect.

Roman's 7:17 says sin dwells in the flesh - how did it get there? What is born of flesh is flesh, so we were all born into this world with sin in the flesh. Again, how did it get there?

(and I don't know what you mean by the "blockhead/knucklehead" comment)

You are trying to ascribe some kind of responsibility to the fruit as the cause for mankind's continued disobedience against God. Really? Do you really think that our sin nature came from a piece of fruit? That death came from a piece of fruit from a tree that God Himself described as "good for food" as well as "makes you like God"? Can you see how those things (what you are claiming plus what scripture says) cannot go together without contradiction or without creating a false or malicious God?

You surely recognize that Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them, do you not?

No one is short-changing the tree's effect. You are creating an effect that isn't there and telling others who disagree that they are shortchanging what is actually your unscriptural overlay onto the text.

Before you write any more posts about this topic:

Pleeeeeeease go back and read Genesis 2&3. Where did death come from in Genesis? From the fruit or from God cutting them off from the tree of life? Give me specific verses, please.

Pleeeeeeease go back and read Romans 5. Does it say sin entered "through the offense/trespass/disobedience" or does it say sin entered "through the fruit"? Give me specific verses, please.

Hi Trapped,
you pointed out that "Adam & Eve disobeyed God BEFORE the fruit got into them".
Helpful to me.
Did you learn this from somewhere? Pls refer me to it.
Or, the enlightenment came while you were arguing in this discussion?

[Awoken]

Or, as Jesus put it...

Matthew 15:8-20 NKJV
"'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "

When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

Then His disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch." Then Peter answered and said to Him, "Explain this parable to us."

So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."