Quotes and Quips

[JJ]

I’ve often had a reaction to the Quotes and Quips post of the day on these boards.

Today’s Witness Wednesday quote really got me riled up because I used to believe this stuff. Here’s the quote:

“Our spirit is connected to the heavens by God as the Spirit. In spirit we are therefore in the heavens, in ascension. To live in ascension requires that we live, act, move, and do everything in our spirit. Thus, we must learn how to discern our spirit. If we do not know our spirit, if we do not know how to discern our spirit from our soul, we cannot be a spiritual person. When we live in our spirit, we are in ascension as the new creation in resurrection. We are a new person living in a new universe.”

I have a number of problems with the part in bold:

1. It makes us work for something “being ascended with Christ” that is already a given (see Ephesians 2 where we have been raised up together with Christ and seated together with Him in the heavens). What a waste of time!
2. It ends up being so self centered (I count eight “we”s) instead of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit centered.
3. This type of thinking leads to comparing oneself to other believers (“I know my spirit better than you” or “I don’t know my spirit like he or she does”) which leads to division.
4. What has this type of ministry produced in 50 years that makes us think there isn’t a problem with it, and head back into scripture instead of reading this stuff?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by JJ

3. This type of thinking leads to comparing oneself to other believers (“I know my spirit better than you” or “I don’t know my spirit like he or she does”) which leads to division.

Good point. Lee commonly made statements like his one about how we need to learn to do everything "in our spirit." I guess maybe it sounds good, but when people attempt to practice it, the first thing they look for is an example. Who knows how to live by their spirit? Who doesn't? Such considerations arise and everyone gets categorized accordingly.

[JJ]

Right. When I read the end of 1 Corinthians 2 in which Paul talks about what it is to be spiritual, he says the spirit of man knows the things of man, but The Spirit knows all things, and that we have the mind of Christ. I don’t see a place for Lee’s type of thinking in it. http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/2.htm

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Right. When I read the end of 1 Corinthians 2 in which Paul talks about what it is to be spiritual, he says the spirit of man knows the things of man, but The Spirit knows all things, and that we have the mind of Christ. I don’t see a place for Lee’s type of thinking in it. http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/2.htm

There are reasons why Lee's minions elevated him above all. Part of it was teaching the impossible, e.g. "Living the god-man life for the building of the one body of Christ without opinion consummating in the New Jerusalem by being absolutely one with God's New Testament Economy." gasp!

Another part was his constant condemnation of all things Christian. In others words, Lee was supposedly living in the stratosphere and everyone else was a dismal failure. Then I learned about all the corruption at LSM, and the Wizard behind the curtain got exposed by a dog.

The lesson to learn is that all of us are accountable, and righteousness is the foundation of His kingdom.

[JJ]

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

You need both. When I was in High School my brother and I decided to put a new stereo into the family car. We installed it ourselves and for hours could not get it to work. We went over the instructions repeatedly. Finally I asked my brother "what is this wire here?" He said "oh that is just the ground wire". I said "well let's attach it anyway, what do we have to lose?" Immediately the car filled with music.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

I agree, Ohio. TLR is a good example of the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Lee’s saying that “we need to discern our spirit” usurps the role of God’s word and of God himself that penetrate and divide soul from spirit and judge the thoughts and intentions of our heart (i.e. discern). At least that’s the way I read Hebrews 4:12-13. http://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/4.htm

Or am I misinterpreting here?

Lee made it scientific. Remember all of his talk about "flipping the switch" of our spirit? His methodology needed neither God nor our faith, just open your mouth and shout.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

2. It ends up being so self centered (I count eight “we”s) instead of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit centered.

I completely agree with the point. This has been one of my biggest problems with Lee the expositor. His message is self-focused. And he tries to get you to focus on self, on 'making it'.

Only Jesus Christ 'made it'. Lee's grave is with us to this day (cf Acts 2:29).

The unwavering core of the gospel is about ''this Jesus'' being raised to life (Acts 2:32). If we focus on this Jesus we get the Father. The Holy Spirit testifies about him, not about the 'NT believer enjoying grace'. If you focus on this Jesus you'll enjoy grace. If you focus on enjoying grace you'll delude yourself; you'll seek vain sensations, and get entangled in theoretical cobwebs, flipping imaginary "switches".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I completely agree with the point. This has been one of my biggest problems with Lee the expositor. His message is self-focused. And he tries to get you to focus on self, on 'making it'.

Good observation.

I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.

Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observation.
I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.
Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

In spite of the lack of tongue-speaking and healings, the LC is experientially charismatic: it whips members into an excited and altered state. Initially this provides some transformation as the participant's consciousness & behaviours are altered by the subjective orientation. Suddenly, heaven isn't far away but is in the next church meeting!

But eventually it becomes a dry cycle of meetings, training and conferences, and recruiting others for the same cycle. And the transformation process tails off.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In spite of the lack of tongue-speaking and healings, the LC is experientially charismatic: it whips members into an excited and altered state.

I had a few memorable "charismatic" experiences before contacting the LC, and many after. If they are truly of the Lord, then they will be life-changing and transformational. I wish every believer's experience was filled with these.

Unfortunately, like tongue-speaking and other charismatic experiences, it becomes our tendency to replicate them without the Lord. This can be very dangerous to our faith, because as soon as we face fiery trials, we may only know feelings, and before we know it, can have become spiritually bankrupt.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I had a few memorable "charismatic" experiences before contacting the LC, and many after. If they are truly of the Lord, then they will be life-changing and transformational. I wish every believer's experience was filled with these.

Unfortunately, like tongue-speaking and other charismatic experiences, it becomes our tendency to replicate them without the Lord. This can be very dangerous to our faith, because as soon as we face fiery trials, we may only know feelings, and before we know it, can have become spiritually bankrupt.

Another thing that is interesting about the development of thought in the LC: I notice that they're not terribly interested in the actual person of Jesus Christ. Instead, "Christ" is some feeling like "peace" or "joy". So they chase sensations, hoping that it brings transformation and eternal reward.

Secondly, and related, are abstract concepts like "consummation" and "processed". Like if you jump up and down excitedly, wave your arms, and shout today's theology you'll make it.

And the person of Jesus, the person that Peter knew so well, the "This Jesus" that Peter saw suffering and triumphant in Acts 2:36, the actual person who Peter said "went around doing good works" in Acts 10:38, slowly recedes from view.

Instead, they'll sit in a circle in someone's living room and go over today's theological template. Instead of a person they get a concept.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observation.
I remember my early days in the church in Cleveburg, I marveled how much the Lord was doing in my life, with just a little cooperation.
Compare that to my final years, when I often wondered why so little was happening with so much hard work.

I felt like Jesus failed me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I felt like Jesus failed me.

Based on my decades of experience, I think your feelings are failing you, not the Lord Jesus. Sometimes it seems like you are badmouthing Him, and perhaps you hurt His feelings.

[Trapped]

UntoHim: beautiful pairing of the Quotes and Quips today on the right with the verse on the left!

So Lee can have opinions and speak up about what he has seen, heard, and experienced in the light of God's Word and call it "the moving of the Spirit", but when others do it it is death, dissension, negative, rebellious!



From the Preface Of Reconsideration Of The Vision

Not to have an opinion and to keep silent cannot be accepted by this writer. To do so would be unfaithful to the moving of the Spirit. The writer must record what he has seen, heard and experienced in the light of God's Word and Nee's original vision in his book. Those who read can come to their own conclusions.

New International Version
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Freedom]

Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the "four-in-one God".
These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated
or confused.

Whenever I see statements like this one Lee made, I have to ask whether the intention was to convey some Biblical truth or to deliver something for shock value. All too often it was the latter.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Whenever I see statements like this one Lee made, I have to ask whether the intention was to convey some Biblical truth or to deliver something for shock value. All too often it was the latter.

If it was just for "shock value," then did Lee really believe what he was saying?

Remember the conversation Don Rutledge recorded about a ranking brother who just returned from Taipei back in the 80's? Basically, "The Father is first, then the Son, then the Spirit, then Witness Lee." One of the startled hearers then asked, "and who then is #5?"

Whether Lee believed what he taught or not, many of his followers did. Some of them even believed that Philip Lee was #5. Imagine that! By all accounts the guy was unsaved, profligate, and totally obnoxious, yet he was considered by those senior-Blendeds-to-be as Lee's must "loyal and faithful co-worker." Crazy!

Was Philip then mingled, blended, and incorporated into the Triune God like his dad?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

For years in the Midwest region we were taught that Witness Lee was Titus Chu's "spiritual father" and that all the goofs surrounding him in Anaheim or Taipei during his last 30 years just "messed things up" and distorted his message because they were all "childish boys."

That was as foolhardy as these teachings themselves.

[Freedom]

That's the thing though, I think it's more a question of whether or not they are afraid to express disagreement with something. Did they really believe that Philip Lee was #5, or were they too afraid to say otherwise? Certainly they believe some of it. It's just the more outlandish things I tend to look at as a question of why it's being said rather than if it's even something legitimate.

For example, I remember being in a meeting where they were making people stand up one by one and declare "I am a godman." I didn't do it, but most others did. As far as I was concerned, what was really going on was the elders were testing people's compliance. Maybe some of them really do believe what they declare or hear others say. I just don't know that everyone really does.

[Trapped]

I'mmmmmm not sure I agree with G.K. Chesterton's quote on the side of the LCD main page today:

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance."

The ones hearing accusations against elders are charged to be impartial, which certainly is the appropriate thing to do. Maybe Chesterton is speaking of remaining impartial even in the face of facts? I suppose impartiality is the correct way when hearing the details of a situation, but once you know the facts, it's THEN that continued impartiality is indifference? But in that case, if you are still impartial in the face of facts, then that seems by default to actually be PARTIAL, because rather than side with the truth you are remaining "impartial", which is de facto siding with the lie, which is by definition partiality. In that case impartiality is actually partiality, which to the victim's side is experienced as indifference. Which means I do partially agree with GKC. Maybe.

Not sure if I thought myself off a cliff there or if that sounds right.

[OBW]

I see this thread was created a few years ago to track through comments on the general Quotes and Quips. So I'm bringing it forward to comment on today's quote by J.I. Packer:

Adoption is the highest privilege of the gospel. The traitor is forgiven, brought in for supper, and given the family name. To be right with God the Judge is a great thing, but to be loved and cared for by God the Father is greater.

Adoption. One item that Lee seemed determined to eliminate from the record of the NT. But a term that carries very important information about our relationship with God. And isn't that what the Bible is — the revelation of God and his relationship with man?

There is much to be said for the aspects of salvation that describe us as obtaining the life of Christ. That we are actually "blood brothers" in a sense. And those aspects cannot be described by reference to adoption. But in the same way, adoption tells us a lot that simply being blood brothers cannot.

For starters, no one chooses who is part of the family in terms of the natural progression of things. If you are born to Bill and Nancy Jones, you are a Jones. No choices on the part of the child or the parents. They can't predetermine gender, hair color, ultimate height and physique, etc. Yes, the DNA of the parents provides much of what will be, but it is still not evident because of all the possibilities from those joined DNA sequences and the fact that they don't get to decide which will prevail. In short, blood birth is what it is.

But with adoption, someone starts elsewhere, the child of other parents. He/she (they) may not be entirely the adoptive parents want. If the child's history is known, it might be that they are the offspring of a conquering army that destroyed the family home of the adoptive parents, or even was responsible for the death of one or more of their extended family.

Yet at this moment, all of that is ignored and the child is intentionally brought in to be a full part of the family. All the rights and privileges of a blood birth.

Adoption is a very informative descriptor for the relationship of God with man. He not only put his life into us, but he also did it despite the fact that without it we were already his enemy. Yet he chose to take us anyway.

To miss or dismiss this aspect of our relationship with God would be a travesty.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Adoption is a very informative descriptor for the relationship of God with man. He not only put his life into us, but he also did it despite the fact that without it we were already his enemy. Yet he chose to take us anyway.

To miss or dismiss this aspect of our relationship with God would be a travesty.

Excellent point, one that I never considered. Thank you.

[UntoHim]

Romans 9:4 - They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.
vr8 - This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
11:17 -But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree..

According to the apostle Paul, this concept of adoption was not a new concept at all, but goes back to what God wanted to accomplish in and for his people from the beginning. As gentiles, we were "grafted in", and as a result we not only gained a "share in the nourishing root", we were adopted as sons by God himself. In a very real sense, this adoption is just as significant as "the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises."

As J.I. Packer has pointed out, this adoption is not just some dry and sterile "doctrine", but a "privilege of the Gospel". Witness Lee downplayed, and at times even mocked this notion of adoption. Lee claimed that receiving God's life was "the higher gospel", and relegated adoption to "the lower gospel". It took me decades and being away from this unbiblical and absurd notion to come to a proper understanding and appreciation of our adoption as sons. Praise God for brothers like J.I. Packer that the Lord has provided to the Body of Christ!
-

[OBW]

Helen Keller, 6/8/2021

I do not want the peace that passes understanding, I want the understanding that brings peace.

(modernized)

Sounds nice. I initially thought this was really kind of a big idea.

Then I looked at verses about peace. There is one that says something about the peace that passes (or transcends) understanding (Phil 4:7). But no verse concerning peace indicates that understanding brings peace.

A person that can only be held in high esteem in today's way of thinking says something that sounds holy and spiritual but not mentioned in the scripture while essentially despising something actually stated in the scripture. Is this a good way to make a point? Seems almost Lee-like. State the unsupportable and argue that it is superior to what is fully supported.

In this case we have an appeal to a false authority because the status of Hellen Keller as a significant person of intellect and learning does not qualify her as a person of theological intellect or authority. Yet I am sure that there is more than one list of spiritual quotes that includes this one.

Do we grab this with gusto take it to our next Bible study? I'm sure she meant well. I don't think she was anti Christ or religion.

But are we sure that understanding brings peace? It seems that we are prone to studying the scripture with the goal of finding eternal life but failing to actually turn to the One that is eternal life. The one that the scriptures testify of. (John 5:39-40) The same could be said of peace. I realize that this is no more clearly stated in the scripture than what Ms. Keller said — which is not at all in plain words. But I believe it is consistent with what is found there.

In any case, while I cannot say with certainty that understanding simply does not bring peace, I would be hesitant to highlight such a statement as an important spiritual concept since its proponent is holding it out as superior to what the scripture actually states. That seems to diminish its importance to me.

[UntoHim]

Thanks Mike for your input. At least I know you're paying attention!

To Mike and everyone: Please take special note that the title of the module is "Quotes and Quips" and not "Biblically sound and theologically correct Quotes and Quips". Most of the time I do try to put up a quote or quip that is indeed biblically sound and theologically correct, but sometimes I like to break up the monotony with something that is simply thought provoking (in the sense of provoking a novel view or way of interpreting a biblical or spiritual concept or passage) Sometimes I like to thrown in a little humor as well.

Also, in quoting any mortal human being, I am not promoting or even recommending all their views and understanding of the Bible, their interpretation of the Bible, their overall worldview, or approve or condone everything they have ever said or done throughout their lifetime. This should go without saying.....but I guess I need to say it anyway.

I consider Helen Keller to be one of the most amazing human beings in recent history. She also happened to be a believer. To be sure, she was not a "conventional" Christian. She apparently was a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, who was anything but a conventional Christian. That being said, the fact that she was blind, deaf and mute since 2 years old, and became one of the most renown lecturers and writers of the 20th century, and was a believer, makes her quoteworthy in my view.

Finally, I think the quote in question should be taken as it was given - no more or no less than her own personal interpretation and take on Philippians 4:7.
-

[OBW]

I had my suspicions.

[Trapped]

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - G.K. Chesterton

Has this concept of "original sin" been discussed anywhere here on the forum?

I'm not sure what Chesterton means by original sin.....but I'm also not sure how much I agree with it either. I believe it means things like:

1) we inherited Adam's sin nature and thus cannot help but sin
2) we are guilty of Adam's sin

But neither of these make sense to me in light of a just God. If we were born with an inherent sin nature and are thus unable to not sin, then how can we say God is just for judging us for things we could not help but do?

If we are guilty of Adam's sin (in the local church I heard things like "well if you were there, you would have done the same thing, therefore we are all guilty") then, again, God is not just for pronouncing guilt upon party B for what party A did thousands of years prior. And we cannot accept "you are guilty because you WOULD HAVE done it too".....even our messed up courts don't pronounce guilt for "would have" crimes!

The Bible is clear that "all have sinned" and thus death spread to all men. In other words, we are judged because we truly have all committed a sin. But I'm not sure if I agree that we are born into a situation in which we cannot help but sin. After all, for example, in the Old Testament God is patient for centuries, admonishing His people to turn back and cease from their sins......this makes no sense if God didn't expect them to be able to do it in the first place. God sending destruction upon them isn't reasonable if He knows they are born with a nature that makes them incapable of obeying.

Not sure how popular my thoughts here will be. But I think this is another important topic because there are some very angry people out there who grew up in a Christian church who hate God because he condemns people to hell for eternity for having them born in a condition where they could not help but commit sins in the first place. It's a legitimate issue to wrestle with, and I'm not sure there is much support for it.

Things like David lamenting that "in sin did my mother conceive me" are the exclamations of a man swimming in the guilt of his horrific actions and overwhelming shame......they are not defined teachings.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - G.K. Chesterton

Has this concept of "original sin" been discussed anywhere here on the forum?

I'm not sure what Chesterton means by original sin.....but I'm also not sure how much I agree with it either. I believe it means things like:

Original sin is a Catholic concept, namely that sin was passed down genetically to all newborns. That's why they rush to baptize infants when young, so they will not perish due to "original sin."

[UntoHim]

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
G.K. Chesterton


My goodness, I would never have imagined that such a light-hearted quip would cause such a stir! I like to occasionally throw in a quote from people like Chesterton, who was not a trained theologian per se (He was a Christian philosopher/critic/comedian) because sometimes it really helps to look at Biblical/theological concepts and ideas from a more pragmatic, even cynical, point of view.

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car! Sometimes it takes a little standing back from the actual black and white of Scripture, and then combine scriptural concepts and ideas with our common human experiences and observations, and thereby come up with an axiom that expresses a biblical truism, and at the same time matches our human experience.

Whether or not the term "original sin" is a Catholic concept is not as relevant, I believe, as the fact that it is based upon a scriptural/historical event - the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their abject disobedience to God. The apostle Paul clearly and strongly teaches that the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin were as devastating as they were enduring - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Coming back to Chesterton, he was simply making a claim based upon his human experience and observation.
-

[UntoHim]

One's orthodoxy cannot be purchased, finessed, or teased out. Neither can it be demonstrated by sleight of hand, where some cards are shown while others are cleverly withheld. Someone will always discover and trumpet the rest of the story. Given the Movement’s continued efforts to get attention though, eventually investigators will discover its errors and begin to write about them. They will not merely deal with alleged mistakes in Trinitarian doctrine, but with the appalling arrogance and sectarian spirit that exist inside of LC environs.
John Myer
A Future and A Hope
Excerpts from A Future and A Hope Chpt 15 Church Life Beyond the Movement

-----------------------------------------------------------

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
G.K. Chesterton


My goodness, I would never have imagined that such a light-hearted quip would cause such a stir! I like to occasionally throw in a quote from people like Chesterton, who was not a trained theologian per se (He was a Christian philosopher/critic/comedian) because sometimes it really helps to look at Biblical/theological concepts and ideas from a more pragmatic, even cynical, point of view.

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car! Sometimes it takes a little standing back from the actual black and white of Scripture, and then combine scriptural concepts and ideas with our common human experiences and observations, and thereby come up with an axiom that expresses a biblical truism, and at the same time matches our human experience.

Whether or not the term "original sin" is a Catholic concept is not as relevant, I believe, as the fact that it is based upon a scriptural/historical event - the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their abject disobedience to God. The apostle Paul clearly and strongly teaches that the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin were as devastating as they were enduring - "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Coming back to Chesterton, he was simply making a claim based upon his human experience and observation.
-

I didn't mean for my one post to be considered a stir, but I have been thinking about this topic since then.

Serious question: where do people point to in the Bible to justify the belief that Adam's nature changed from whatever it was prior to sinning to whatever it was after sinning? That Adam acquired a sin "nature"? I mean, specifically, is there a place that references a kind of change in "nature" of Adam and Eve when they sinned against God? Or were they simply people who's nature did not change, but who chose of their own free will to disobey God's word......nature unchanged?

Death spread to all men because all sinned doesn't mean "all sinned in Adam", or any kind of guilt by lineage like that. Death spread to all men because we all actually sinned, as in....committed a sin.

The problem with some kind of inherent or inherited sin nature is that it is typically paired with the thought that we are already guilty or that we "cannot help but sin"......which means to the careful listener, we are speaking of a God who is just and holy, and who yet finds no problem judging man for acts that he cannot help but commit through no fault of his own, and through no role he had in his own creation. This doesn't work in the light of a righteous God. I think the issue is with the concept of an in-born sin nature. If there is already a thread on this topic, well, I couldn't find it.

Trapped

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Another favorite Chesterton quote of mine: Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car!

Did he really say this? Or is this something that fits into his thoughts without actual connection? Like when we make some comment about the internet and attribute it to Abraham Lincoln.

[UntoHim]

Upon further review, it looks like this quote was originally attributed a contemporary of Chesterton, evangelist Billy Sunday.

https://www.facebook.com/G.K.Chester...0907815561143/

-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Original sin is a Catholic concept, namely that sin was passed down genetically to all newborns. That's why they rush to baptize infants when young, so they will not perish due to "original sin."

That makes no sense to me....to believe that an infant with absolutely no awareness of right and wrong and who, ostensibly, would not have actually committed a sin, would perish/be judged by God. For what exactly? What offense did they commit? Being born? That's not a just God....but that concept of God is what fuels some of the anger of some people who reject Him.

Additionally, it makes no sense to me that we would be born with an inherent sin nature, a tendency or drive to sin that we have no control over, and then Jesus, who is supposed to be like us in every way, has a completely different human nature than us....one without inherent sin. This is not "like us in every way"; this is, rather, a massive leg up on the problem! His not ever committing a sin, given his distinct advantage in that regard, ends up being more of a cop out than an encouragement or amazing feat. It's only if His and our human natures are the same that His being sinless is actually meaningful. If His and our human natures are the same, then either He had a sin nature like us, or we do not have a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He not only did not have a sin nature, He also did not commit acts of sin, so the former option goes out the window. So......that leaves the latter, and this puts the thought that WE have an inherent sin nature up for question.

(Note: in case it is not clear, I am making a distinction between a sin nature versus actually committing acts of sin.)

I think, honestly, that we are the same as Adam and Eve, pre-fall. They had a human nature that was granted free will to sin or not sin, to obey or disobey. And we have the same choice. I don't recall some kind of "nature change" of Adam and Eve in the Bible, or a "nature change" that ever came over me when I willfully sinned for the first time.

As an aside, I get a kick out of the fact that Jesus making a whip and driving them all out of the temple and overturning tables.......was not a sin! In the local church you end up apologizing for intangible things like being "too much"!

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

That makes no sense to me....to believe that an infant with absolutely no awareness of right and wrong and who, ostensibly, would not have actually committed a sin, would perish/be judged by God. For what exactly? What offense did they commit? Being born? That's not a just God....but that concept of God is what fuels some of the anger of some people who reject Him.

Additionally, it makes no sense to me that we would be born with an inherent sin nature, a tendency or drive to sin that we have no control over, and then Jesus, who is supposed to be like us in every way, has a completely different human nature than us....one without inherent sin. This is not "like us in every way"; this is, rather, a massive leg up on the problem! His not ever committing a sin, given his distinct advantage in that regard, ends up being more of a cop out than an encouragement or amazing feat. It's only if His and our human natures are the same that His being sinless is actually meaningful. If His and our human natures are the same, then either He had a sin nature like us, or we do not have a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He not only did not have a sin nature, He also did not commit acts of sin, so the former option goes out the window. So......that leaves the latter, and this puts the thought that WE have an inherent sin nature up for question.

(Note: in case it is not clear, I am making a distinction between a sin nature versus actually committing acts of sin.)

I think, honestly, that we are the same as Adam and Eve, pre-fall. They had a human nature that was granted free will to sin or not sin, to obey or disobey. And we have the same choice. I don't recall some kind of "nature change" of Adam and Eve in the Bible, or a "nature change" that ever came over me when I willfully sinned for the first time.

As an aside, I get a kick out of the fact that Jesus making a whip and driving them all out of the temple and overturning tables.......was not a sin! In the local church you end up apologizing for intangible things like being "too much"!

Trapped

I think this post is “too much!” lol

And we in the Midwest were at one time quarantined for the intangible sin of being “ambitious.” Yikes! To which one brother replied, “without a healthy dose of ‘ambition’ I would not even get out of bed in the morning.”

But back to the topic. It seems there is a definite connection between the Catholic error of “original sin” and WL’s of being “poisoned” by eating the forbidden Tree. Both emphasize inheriting a corrupted human nature rather than defining sin resulting from free will and disobedience.

[Paul Vusik]

I had this quote saved for a while, and figured that I’ll go back and find the actual link to it. Well, I did find it, but it has been edited by LSM to read different than it was before. I guess they just keep modifying their statements, as soon as they get caught.

This is the original one:

“We do not need the Bible study classes; we need the weeping classes to weep for the spiritual poverty and deadness.* We must listen to the Spirit--not just read what is written.* We must listen to the present, instant speaking of the living Spirit.
Why have Christians been divided?* It is simply because of the different teachings and doctrines.* The more teachings there are, the more divisions there will be.* All the various teachings and opinions have done much damage to the recovery of the church.* I fear that some of us are still under the influence of the Babylonian doctrines.* May the Lord have mercy upon us that we may forsake all of those teachings, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.* Le us go back to Jerusalem with the Spirit.* We all must have our "heads cut off."

And this is the new version of it:

“Instead of Bible study classes, we need weeping classes to weep for the spiritual poverty and deadness. We must listen to the Spirit—not just read what is written. We must listen to the present, instant speaking of the living Spirit. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” To read the writings is not sufficient. The age has been turned to the Spirit.
Why have Christians been divided? It is simply because of the different teachings and doctrines. The more teachings there are, the more divisions there will be. All the various teachings and opinions have done much damage to the recovery of the church. I fear that some of us are still under the influence of the Babylonian doctrines. May the Lord have mercy on us that we may forsake all those teachings, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Let us go back to Jerusalem with the Spirit. Our mentality has done much damage to the Lord's recovery. We simply need to turn to the Spirit.”


https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=3A56CFEF28