Christ is the Body, "the Body-Christ"

[Trapped]

Quote from Lee’s ministry:

"Verse 12 says, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is the Christ" (Gk.). In this verse Paul brings in the concept that Christ is the Body. You may be familiar with the fact that in verse 12 we see the Body-Christ, the corporate Christ, not the individual Christ. Yes, we are the corporate Christ. However, if we are dumb when we gather together in the meetings, Christ has no way to come forth. He cannot come forth when we are silent. But when we are spiritual, speaking and functioning in the meetings, Christ comes out. When you speak for Christ, Christ comes forth in your speaking. If we all speak forth Christ, then the corporate Christ, the Body-Christ, will come forth. This is Christ as the Body. In order to have the Body-Christ, we all need to speak."

Lee makes a leap here that I just don't see, although maybe it is legitimate, in which case I welcome an explanation. I don't read 1 Cor. 12:12 and get the concept that "Christ is the Body". I read it and get that many members of the human body are one, and in like manner all the members of Christ's Body are one, including with Christ Himself, the Head.

Using a term like “the corporate Christ” or “the Body-Christ” seems unnecessary and like they could easily lead to a misunderstanding of the concept. It’s as if we are Christ without Him, or as if there are two Christs......the Head-Christ and the Body-Christ, or Christ and the corporate Christ. We have the Biblical phrase “the Body of Christ".......why torque it into “the Body-Christ”??

The verse, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” does come to mind, when of course in reality Saul was persecuting the believers, the Body. In the LC this was always explained as persecuting the believers is persecuting the Lord Himself, with the example given that if someone punches your arm, you don’t say “Ow, why did you punch my arm?” you say “Ow, why did you punch ME?”

But other Bible commentaries on this verse say things like “Christ speaks of Himself as persecuted by Saul, because ‘in all the affliction of his people he is afflicted’ (Isaiah 63:9), and ‘whoso toucheth them, toucheth the apple of his eye’ (Zechariah 2:8).” This kind of explanation seems to me to provide one healthy degree of removal......kind of emphasizing how great the Lord’s love is for us that persecuting us is like persecuting Him, rather than, essentially, we = Christ.

Another thought is that in the analogy, where punching my arm is punching ME, and that my body = ME, well.......our body ISN’T actually us. Our body just “houses” us. What is “us” continues on after death and ever after the body has decayed away. So in that sense, it’s like the body is what contains and carries out the functions of us, and in the same way the Body is what contains and carries out the functions of Christ, and in this way persecuting the Body is persecuting Christ, but the body doesn’t EQUAL Christ. After all, how could Christ marry Christ?

I may be off here and am happy to be enlightened. Maybe this is mysterious and has to remain that way. Just thinking out loud mostly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Another thought is that in the analogy, where punching my arm is punching ME, and that my body = ME, well.......our body ISN’T actually us. Our body just “houses” us. What is “us” continues on after death and ever after the body has decayed away. So in that sense, it’s like the body is what contains and carries out the functions of us, and in the same way the Body is what contains and carries out the functions of Christ, and in this way persecuting the Body is persecuting Christ, but the body doesn’t EQUAL Christ. After all, how could Christ marry Christ?

Just another way Lee was in error. This belongs in Lee's list of strikeouts. Of course the Body isn't Christ, anymore than we are becoming God. It's another example of how if Lee had allowed his teaching to get vetted by the Body () this kind of nonsense would have been filtered out. But he was too proud for that. No one could tell him anything and he wouldn't listen to anybody.

Whenever he said the Body is Christ or the Church is Christ, that was just a pretext to teaching we should submit to the Church or Body like we submit to Christ, which was one more nail in the coffin of control. Lee was all about getting people in bondage to the Church, that is, his church. The more bondage the better as far as he was concerned. But since he was the MOTA, he was above it all. We minions, however, were expected to be.

Actually, he wanted everyone to be in bondage to him, so it's probably more accurate to say he thought he was the Church.

[Trapped]

On the "why do you persecute me" thing......I think the explanation is much more simple than Lee's "believers = Christ". In Acts 26:9 Paul says, "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."

It's just that the Lord knew what was in Saul's heart which is why He had grounds to ask why he was persecuting Him, because that really was Saul's motivation. Really, Saul WAS opposing Jesus. But Jesus isn't around to directly oppose. So he takes it out on Jesus's followers. He is persecuting Jesus, that's his driving force, but the only way he can practically do it is to inflict harm upon Christians. Like if someone was so angry at a former spouse they murdered their children......the ex-spouse could still ask "why did you do this to me?" even though the act was on someone else. It doesn't mean the children ARE the parent.

Sorry for the graphic example, but ahhhhhhhhh it is so wonderful to be able to pause at things that I have a hard time swallowing but never knew why, and actually figure out what's wrong with it.

"Strikeouts" also deal a big blow to the concept of this stuff being "the ministry of the age". Where are the "strikeouts" in the Bible (the real ministry of the age)?? They aren't there. But Lee's stuff has many. It is not "the" ministry. It's just one fallen man's ministry.

Man is it a lonely journey discovering this stuff surrounded by people who continually claim "it's all in the ministry!" "All our help can be found in the ministry!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

On the "why do you persecute me" thing......I think the explanation is much more simple than Lee's "believers = Christ".

I was deceived by this a long time, thinking that Christ is the body, and they are inseparable. It can almost make one a slave of the system. If Christ is the body, then one can serve hours on end thinking that the Lord is being served and is pleased. In the end, however, one becomes married to the church, and has neither the Lord nor a family.

All the serving to the church robs one of Christ, of one's personal relationship with Him. One is also robbed of one's family, since emdless hours were invested serving the church. Neither the Lord is pleased, nor is your wife happy. The bosses on top actually have an easier life than their lieutenants beneath them saddled with all the work.

[Truthseeker]

It's false christ. I read Lee's message for a long time. First, I was convinced that we were corporate Christ and we were Christ like Him. But Lord Jesus exposes me and Lee's teaching by confirming that Lee preached false Christs:

At that time if anyone says to you, Behold here is the Christ! Or, here! Do not believe it.
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders so as to lead astray, if possible even the chosen.
Behold, I have told you beforehand.
Therefore if they say to you, Behold, He is in wilderness, do not go forth; Behold, He is in the inner room, do not believe it.

(Matthew 24:23-26)


Lord Jesus's warning is precious. He enlightens me and brings me back to Him and saves me from Lee's false Christs.

[Cal]

In Matthew 25:40,45, Jesus says the "least of these" are "him" also. So does that mean each of us are Christ too in the way the Body is supposed to be Christ according to Lee? If so, does that mean people need to serve me night and day and neglect their families to do so. I don't recall that teaching by Lee.

Clearly the Bible uses metaphors and the like, and each one has to be interpreted in the context of the whole Bible. When Jesus said you did to me, he meant that figuratively. He meant that he takes personally how we treat others. To take it to mean that the Church really is Christ so we need to be at the meeting hall night and day is just missing it.

This is why you need a guiding principle to interpret everything. And the best one is in 1 Cor 13. Without love nothing means anything. Love what? A great ministry? The institution of the Church? The Recovery? No. We are to love God and love people. These are first and second commandments. If you interpret every verse from the standpoint that God loves us and loves people and we are to love God and people as well, it's hard to go too far wrong.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

On the "why do you persecute me" thing......I think the explanation is much more simple than Lee's "believers = Christ". In Acts 26:9 Paul says, "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."

It's just that the Lord knew what was in Saul's heart which is why He had grounds to ask why he was persecuting Him, because that really was Saul's motivation. Really, Saul WAS opposing Jesus. But Jesus isn't around to directly oppose. So he takes it out on Jesus's followers.

The principle of agency was widely understood and used by the writers of the NT, and it keeps us from conflating things that we shouldn't. The servant is the extension of the master. The emissary is the extension of the far-off king, and speaks for him. But the servant is not the master, nor the emissary the king. Yet the emissary can rightly say, "When you see me, you see the king", and the servant, "When I speak, the master speaks." Early NT readers would have understood this.

For example, see the message from the centurion to Jesus. The centurion represented, even personified, Caesar's will to the those under him. He was, "a man under authority" (Luke 7:8). Yet the centurion was not Caesar, ontologically speaking. One doesn't need an advanced degree to get this. Most of the audience would have been clear about what was being communicated, and what was not.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Trapped

"Verse 12 says, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is the Christ" (Gk.). In this verse Paul brings in the concept that Christ is the Body."

To me this verse is saying as the body is one and has many members, so also Christ has a body which has many members yet is one body.

There may be other verses that support "Christ is the Body", but this verse doesn't do it for me.

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

To me this verse is saying as the body is one and has many members, so also Christ has a body which has many members yet is one body.

There may be other verses that support "Christ is the Body", but this verse doesn't do it for me.

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

Trapped

If there are no more gentiles, then why does Paul write of "churches of the gentiles" in Roman's 16:4? If there is no more male or female, why does he then ask women to be quiet in church? If there is no longer slave or free, why does he advise slaves to obey their masters?

The danger is that we read too much into the "neither" of something and the "all" of something else. Paul's looking at our primary identification, our allegiance, our value sets. In these, Christ should supersede all. It doesnt mean that the other things no longer categorically exist, or that one category has swallowed all. In our behaviours, yes, we should "act as if" Christ were all in all. But as an ontological matter it makes no sense.

Paul said, Greeks love wisdom. Clearly they can love wisdom too much, and overthink the process.

One of my primary touchstones is Dorcas/Tabitha. Nothing is said of her theology, but of her good works, and the tears of the widows. So there is clear evidence of the love of Christ out-poured. Really, there is nothing else. To me, this is the "Christ as all and in all." If you get this, you get everything.

"Who is that servant, when the Master comes, he finds them so doing? Truly I tell you, the Master will place them over the whole house." The "so doing" here is not holding forth on declensions of Greek verbs but rendering real, practical care to those who cannot repay you in this age. This is love. This is what Christ did for us, and what he as the Master of the house expects of us.

Philosophical speculations are only the handmaiden to love and good works.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Trapped

To me this verse is saying as the body is one and has many members, so also Christ has a body which has many members yet is one body.

There may be other verses that support "Christ is the Body", but this verse doesn't do it for me.

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

Trapped

Below is a link to a Greek inter linear of 1 Cor 12. Read verse 12 and look for “The Christ”:https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/12.htm.

Right, there is no “The”, as Lee states.
The inter linear translation says “so also (is) Christ”, skipping “ho” because while it often is translated “which, what, or that”, none of those make any sense in English. “So also is which Christ”, “So also which Christ”, “so also is what Christ”, “so also what Christ, “so also is that Christ”, “so also that Christ”?
None of those translations make sense, so most English translations skip it, but also don’t add “The”, rather “is”: “So also is Christ”.
OK, so I’ve proved I’m not a Greek scholar.
The point is “The Christ” is an invention of Lee. So, let’s stop taking his word as “gospel”, and read scripture in various translations to “fact check”. When we do it just isn’t so.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

What about this verse: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

Christ IS ALL and in all. How do we interpret "Christ is all" in this case then?

It's in reference to the diverse types of people. So it's saying Christ is the all-important thing among these different people, and which makes them one.

Don't get tangled up in the metaphysics of Christ being "all." What it means is he is far and away the most important thing.

[Ohio]

We used to hear so often from Lee and the Blendeds just how much our individual or private decisions affected "The Body," and how much the individual LC's affected "The Body."

These teachings were 99% self-serving and manipulative. We were both individually and collectively robbed of our right and our responsibility to follow Jesus, the Head of the body, directly without an intermediary. Thus Lee kept us in fear, into believing that offending "The Body" was far more serious than offending "The Head." Actually, by keeping us in fear of offending "The Body," he in reality kept us obeying him, thus usurping the rightful place of Jesus, our ascended Head.

As others have said, "Any teaching taken to the extreme, can beome a falsehood."

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

The point is “The Christ” is an invention of Lee...

The "Body-Christ" is a fabrication, getting us to kow-tow to "the ministry of the age", which was the vehicle for the interests of a minister, his immediate family, and his non-profit publishing house (plus associated for-profit subsidiaries [Phosphorous, Daystar &c]). The "Body-Christ" was a lever to manipulate the gullible.

[Sons to Glory!]

In saying Lee has gone too far, we run the risk of falling into the old “dirty bathwater = dirty baby” syndrome and perhaps run too far the other way. In rejecting the organic aspect of the church’s union with Christ (i.e., the church is Christ) we then run the risk of thinking of the church as a mere organization, which is way too far low a perspective.

It is impossible to make the argument that the church isn’t filled with the Spirit and life of Christ, because I can find many verses that say this. His purpose was to become one with us, and bring this oneness into the Father. The whole John 17 discourse is too high, wonderful and mysterious to say this isn’t an organic/life union!

Is Christ not in us? Did Saul not get the answer directly from the Lord that he was persecuting the Lord Himself when he attacked the believers? Are we not told in Ephesians that we are to be filled with all the fullness of God? Is the body a separate entity from the Head?

I welcome a dialogue if anyone wants to explore the myriad of verses that speak of this great mystery – Christ and the church. In doing so, I think we all may see that our vision of the church is far too low and shallow . . .

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In saying Lee has gone too far, we run the risk of falling into the old “dirty bathwater = dirty baby” syndrome and perhaps run too far the other way. In rejecting the organic aspect of the church’s union with Christ (i.e., the church is Christ) we then run the risk of thinking of the church as a mere organization, which is way too far low a perspective.

It is impossible to make the argument that the church isn’t filled with the Spirit and life of Christ, because I can find many verses that say this. His purpose was to become one with us, and bring this oneness into the Father. The whole John 17 discourse is too high, wonderful and mysterious to say this isn’t an organic/life union!

Is Christ not in us? Did Saul not get the answer directly from the Lord that he was persecuting the Lord Himself when he attacked the believers? Are we not told in Ephesians that we are to be filled with all the fullness of God? Is the body a separate entity from the Head?

I welcome a dialogue if anyone wants to explore the myriad of verses that speak of this great mystery – Christ and the church. In doing so, I think we all may see that our vision of the church is far too low and shallow . . .

The body is not a separate (I would say separated is a good word here) entity from the head, but even given that, no one would say that the body IS the head, though. The body and the head are two separate things, not in that they are separated, but they are two distinct things that are not equal to each other or interchangeable.

I agree that there is a high, mysterious relationship going on between the Lord and His body, He wants to be in us and us in Him, but the very fact that one can be in the other means they aren't each other. To say the son is the father and the son is the spirit and the body is christ.....it leaves too much of a blurred stroganoff of entities that ends up being meaningless.

Just my opinion. Don't have time to get into verses at the moment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In saying Lee has gone too far, we run the risk of falling into the old “dirty bathwater = dirty baby” syndrome and perhaps run too far the other way. In rejecting the organic aspect of the church’s union with Christ (i.e., the church is Christ) we then run the risk of thinking of the church as a mere organization, which is way too far low a perspective.

It is impossible to make the argument that the church isn’t filled with the Spirit and life of Christ, because I can find many verses that say this. His purpose was to become one with us, and bring this oneness into the Father. The whole John 17 discourse is too high, wonderful and mysterious to say this isn’t an organic/life union!

Is Christ not in us? Did Saul not get the answer directly from the Lord that he was persecuting the Lord Himself when he attacked the believers? Are we not told in Ephesians that we are to be filled with all the fullness of God? Is the body a separate entity from the Head?

I welcome a dialogue if anyone wants to explore the myriad of verses that speak of this great mystery – Christ and the church. In doing so, I think we all may see that our vision of the church is far too low and shallow . . .

Of course we agree with what you wrote here. But Lee went a step further, discussing the "sense of the body, or the feeling of the body." This is dangerous, and 100% dirty bathwater. I'll explain.

When elders prayed and had leading from the Lord for their church, LSM would often overrule claiming that only they know, "the feeling of the body." Elders who insisted they were following the Head, were then marginalized and shamed from the podium. LSM would pull out some quote from Nee, "when there are differences of interpretation, someone is not holding the Head." Obviously that was not the Blendeds. LSM thus has powerful manipulative tactics to lord it over the LC's. Think "group-think."

Hence the endless talk about the "Body-Christ," which only the Blendeds could possibly know.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hence the endless talk about the "Body-Christ," which only the Blendeds could possibly know.

I've said it over and over. It's all about control. It's all about power. It's all about intimidation.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course we agree with what you wrote here. But Lee went a step further, discussing the "sense of the body, or the feeling of the body." This is dangerous, and 100% dirty bathwater. I'll explain.

When elders prayed and had leading from the Lord for their church, LSM would often overrule claiming that only they know, "the feeling of the body." Elders who insisted they were following the Head, were then marginalized and shamed from the podium. LSM would pull out some quote from Nee, "when there are differences of interpretation, someone is not holding the Head." Obviously that was not the Blendeds. LSM thus has powerful manipulative tactics to lord it over the LC's. Think "group-think."

Hence the endless talk about the "Body-Christ," which only the Blendeds could possibly know.

And this business, that you wrote about here, would be going too far, resulting in a weird tangent! Thanks for the clarification.

[Cal]

The problem with most LR teachings about the corporate Christian life is that they are based on fundamentally wrongheaded views of authority.

If you ever get that feeling that you are "doomed" because you must go along with the Church or Body and have no choice, rest assured this is not the Lord. The Church has no such ultimate authority.

If God himself is telling you to do something, you should do it. But if the Church or Body is, you have discretion of conscience. This by definition must be true, because only our conscience or spirit would tell us to go along with the Church, so it must also be respected when it has a problem with doing so. Therefore, personal discretion must always be valid.

Now, if what we are talking about is a practical issue that affects the rights of a particular Christian group--for example, if they tell you to not speak during certain parts of a meeting, or to not park your car in certain areas on their property--that's different. Certainly they are within their purview on those kinds of issues.

But if they are saying things like: don't participate on Internet sites that discuss our group in any negative fashion, or don't watch sports on TV, or don't leave our group or you'll leave God--all those kinds of things are way out of line.

Within these general parameters, we cooperate and feel the leading of the Spirit in corporate life--in churches, ministries and other Christian groups. But we always have ultimate discretion of conscience on any "Body" issues.

If the group you meet with does not feel that way, consider it a red flag that you should find other fellowship.

In general, besides common sense practical issues, Christian groups only have as much authority over us as we choose to give them. Ultimately, ANY authority they have over us is based on our VOLUNTARY decision to lend it to them, and which we can rescind at any time based solely on our conscience and personal leading from the Lord. Period.

Thus, most LR talk about things like "the feeling of the Body" are irrelevant and meaningless bloviating.

[Cal]

Again, ironically, no "recovery" of truth ever would have occurred if the Christians used to recover it had observed the LR principle of following "the feeling of the Body." By definition, recovery requires pushing against the status quo, going against the conventional wisdom, rocking the boat. So to call the Local Church Movement "the Recovery" is really a contradiction, and what should be to them an embarrassing hypocrisy.

As I've satirized in the MOTA comics, before Nee and Lee came along, "the recovery" was just God inspiring various people in various places to see more and more from the Bible. When Nee, and especially when Lee, came along, the idea was transmuted by them into a movement which they controlled. But in doing so it lost its ability to recover anything, because it totally squelches that which is essential to recovery, the freedom to disagree--to the extreme that they now can't even bring themselves to disagree with a dead man.

So "the Recovery" is not at all a valid name for the movement. It should more accurately be called "the Conformity."

[aron]

When the disciples gathered to decide "the feeling in the Body" it was in mutuality. There was "much discussion", in Acts 15:7; yes there was divergence of opinion (some of the church were believing Pharisees [v.5]), but everyone got to talk. Nobody got shamed for being "divisive" or "twisted" or "darkened" or "ambitious". In the LC by contrast we had an Oriental Satrap who decided the "feeling in the Body" by fiat. It was always, and I stress always, presented as a done deal. God has spoken through our brother the humble bondslave. End of discussion.

In the Church our Head, is Jesus. Only the Head knows the Body. The rest of us, all the rest of us, should look to one another for mutual guidance, support, comfort, and encouragement. There's no one Grand Poobah of the Church except Jesus Christ. He alone is beyond the veil.

The Body-Christ is this week's ministry pitch, brought by the same folks who felt that Witness Lee was the Fourth of the Trinity (I heard that floated, once).

[Sons to Glory!]

Good thoughts Aron & Igzy! When anything supplants the speaking of the Anointing within, it becomes a man-made attempt at authority. In my thinking, three things need to line-up: the Anointing, the Word and fellowship (and sometimes outward circumstances). Does that sound right?

Any centralized authority (other than Christ) tends to dampen this, to the point that the "Church" becomes the main speaking to follow. The biggest example is, of course, the Church in Rome. But this is just man's natural tendency to move away from faith to what he can see. The so called "Recovery" is no exception (even though they profusely pointed it out elsewhere).

[Cal]

The LR authority model is a web which really victimizes everyone in the movement, including the leaders. They are all ensnared by it, and all suffer by it. Oh, they wax noble about "the cross" and "faithfulness" and "the vision," but really they all secretly chafe under the oppressing yoke Nee and Lee affixed upon them.

This authority model is now running on autopilot, like a mindless machine. It controls them all and no one dare defy it. Only Lee's disembodied words speak, and they speak the same thing, over and over, mindlessly, without context, without discretion, without regard, without room for improvement.

As in the Star Trek episode "Return of the Archons," the LR is being run by an unattended computer, which none can control, and none dare turn off. Lee/Landru speaks from the grave, ever-reassuring, ever-dominating, ever selling hopelessness as hope.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx...VhVQ0J6OHlBTjA

[Sons to Glory!]

So I'm reading a book by Bill Freeman called, "The Church is Christ." It was written in 1993 from messages Bill gave, partially as a reaction to the LC taking other Christians to court. One of the main points is that since the church is constituted with Christ and is His body on the earth, we should not be suing other believers. This is what the world does, but the deeper truth is we are all one spirit with the Lord and with other believers and should not be doing such carnal things. To involve another believer in Caesar's legal system is wrong, a poor testimony of the one life, and is not an outflow of God's love through us.

Bill outlines a myriad of scripture showing that the church is not a human organization, but an organism of the Lord's life (a true "mystery"). (Does the left foot sue the right hand because it doesn't like the way the hand is scratching it?)

So, as per the title of Bill's book, is it wrong to say that the church is Christ? If so, please quote specific scriptures to support this.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good thoughts Aron & Igzy! When anything supplants the speaking of the Anointing within, it becomes a man-made attempt at authority. In my thinking, three things need to line-up: the Anointing, the Word and fellowship (and sometimes outward circumstances). Does that sound right?

More or less. Just realize that sometimes the Lord's leading is going to contradict so-called "fellowship." As I've said, no advancement could ever occur if we all simply followed each other around in circles. Wise brothers will eventually defer to your inner leading. Foolish brothers will try to impose their opinion/religion on you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

More or less. Just realize that sometimes the Lord's leading is going to contradict so-called "fellowship." As I've said, no advancement could ever occur if we all simply followed each other around in circles. Wise brothers will eventually defer to your inner leading. Foolish brothers will try to impose their opinion/religion on you.

Yes. I've sorta come to a 2 out of 3 rule, if it comes to that - with the Anointing and Word taking the higher priority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So I'm reading a book by Bill Freeman called, "The Church is Christ." It was written in 1993 from messages Bill gave, partially as a reaction to the LC taking other Christians to court. One of the main points is that since the church is constituted with Christ and is His body on the earth, we should not be suing other believers. This is what the world does, but the deeper truth is we are all one spirit with the Lord and with other believers and should not be doing such carnal things. To involve another believer in Caesar's legal system is wrong, a poor testimony of the one life, and is not an outflow of God's love through us.

Bill outlines a myriad of scripture showing that the church is not a human organization, but an organism of the Lord's life (a true "mystery"). (Does the left foot sue the right hand because it doesn't like the way the hand is scratching it?)

So, as per the title of Bill's book, is it wrong to say that the church is Christ? If so, please quote specific scriptures to support this.

It's like the verse that says, "IF any man is in Christ, he is a new creation."

Any time we say "the Church is Christ," what do we do about failures? And sin? Are they also Christ? What happens when leaders are not "in Christ?"

Man should never be elevated above other men to the point that they are above accountability.

I grew up being indoctrinated that Peter was the first Pope, the vicar of Christ, who had the keys of the Kingdom. Yet when he came to Antioch, he was rebuked by Paul over eating food. Had he not seen the great vision about eating food?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LR authority model is a web which really victimizes everyone in the movement, including the leaders. They are all ensnared by it, and all suffer by it. Oh, they wax noble about "the cross" and "faithfulness" and "the vision," but really they all secretly chafe under the oppressing yoke Nee and Lee affixed upon them.

This authority model is now running on autopilot, like a mindless machine. It controls them all and no one dare defy it. Only Lee's disembodied words speak, and they speak the same thing, over and over, mindlessly, without context, without discretion, without regard, without room for improvement.

As in the Star Trek episode "Return of the Archons," the LR is being run by an unattended computer, which none can control, and none dare turn off. Lee/Landru speaks from the grave, ever-reassuring, ever-dominating, ever selling hopelessness as hope.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx...VhVQ0J6OHlBTjA

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's like the verse that says, "IF any man is in Christ, he is a new creation."

Any time we say "the Church is Christ," what do we do about failures? And sin? Are they also Christ? What happens when leaders are not "in Christ?"

Man should never be elevated above other men to the point that they are above accountability.

I grew up being indoctrinated that Peter was the first Pope, the vicar of Christ, who had the keys of the Kingdom. Yet when he came to Antioch, he was rebuked by Paul over eating food. Had he not seen the great vision about eating food?

I once bought so fully into “the church is Christ” that I lost track of who the head is and that we are His body. While Jesus asked Saul why he was persecuting Him, and we know he was wreaking havoc on the church, he was also blaspheming Jesus Christ while he was doing it. And, After describing members of the human body and how they relate, then saying “So also Christ”, scripture doesn’t say “the church is Christ”, it does say the many members are out from Christ. It is always dangerous to add to or take away from scripture. It says exactly what it says for good reason.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

...per the title of Bill's book, is it wrong to say that the church is Christ? If so, please quote specific scriptures to support this.

The title does not use scripture but logic. The Body has a life, and a Head, and a Person, all of which are Christ. Ergo, the Body is Christ.

So I will use logic to refute it. The Body has many members, therefore the many members are Christ. And since I quarreled with my wife yesterday, Christ is a sinner.

It just doesn't stand up. I put it with the "Jesus is the Father" and "Mary is the Mother of God" arguments. Nice try but no dice.

[Cal]

The problem with saying the Church is Christ is deciding what exactly that implies and what its limits are. No one really knows, so it is ripe for misunderstanding and abuse.

I don't see that the teaching serves any purpose, other than to make us feel about ourselves "more highly than we ought to think" and to subjugate us to a human organization as to Christ.

When the LR talks about the Church, they are not talking about anyone but themselves. So to them, "the Church is Christ" means the Recovery is Christ. Since LSM runs the Recovery, that means LSM is Christ. And since the LSM leaders boil down to a handful of people, effectively they and they alone are Christ. Dare you defy Christ? That's what they want you to fear. The net result is there is now a large group of people who are restricting themselves to the teachings of a long-dead, imperfect Bible teacher as if his words were the Bible itself. That's the fruit. By their fruit you will know them.

If there is an interpretation which is not clearly stated in the Bible, and it can be seen to be problematic, it should be avoided. That's just common sense. This goes for "becoming God," "ground of locality," "minister of the age," "the Lord's Recovery," and "the Church is Christ," among others.

If the teaching can be damaging and the Bible doesn't clearly state it, why go there? "Bruther Lee said" or "Bill Freeman said" don't cut it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If the teaching can be damaging and the Bible doesn't clearly state it, why go there? "Bruther Lee said" or "Bill Freeman said" don't cut it.

Bill Freeman (like every other brother who has been quarantined from the LR) was a staunch defender of W. Lee. Many things he taught were edifying, but when he says "the church is Christ," he is going beyond what has been written, and his teaching can be used to abuse others.

[Cal]

Everyone has to see that the LR teachings have been systematically developed to subjugate people to their particular organization and leaders. They are not a coincidence

Whether that was done consciously from the very beginning or not is hard to say, but it didn't just "work out that way." The whole system is optimized to limit choice and instill subservience to the organization. To this end the LR created and features a set of fundamentally distinctive but warped teachings to support and enforce this control. As I've said these include, "ground of locality," "Lord's Recovery", "minister of the age," "deputy authority," "Church is Christ," "one ministry," "one flow from the throne," "one move of God," etc.

Other minor teachings also serve this attempt to characterize themselves as the one true way, e.g. "man-child," "144,000," "outside the camp," "Jerusalem vs Babylon." The list is practically endless and it all serves one purpose, "We are IT and you better SUBMIT. or else!"

[Cal]

LR teachings generally fall into four categories:

• Those that genuinely edify.
  
  
• Those that are used to make them seem special.
  
  
• Those that are used to discredit other groups or people.
  
  
• Those that are used to control people.

Whenever you hear or read any of the LR's teachings, ask yourself the following: How does this teaching lift them up, put down others, or exert control over people. If it does none of those, it might, MIGHT, be healthy. But otherwise it most likely should be trashed.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bill Freeman (like every other brother who has been quarantined from the LR) was a staunch defender of W. Lee. Many things he taught were edifying, but when he says "the church is Christ," he is going beyond what has been written, and his teaching can be used to abuse others.

This seems like a vacuous statement - couldn't that be said of about anyone's teachings? I did not know Bill personally, but I can say everything I've been exposed to from him has led me into a fresher relationship with Christ and richer fellowship. Of course, he had his foibles too, to be sure. As I stated in a earlier post, this book (The Church is Christ) was written largely as a response to why believers shouldn't take other believers to court - would you call that being a "staunch defender of WL?"

And regarding the church, what is it and how is it produced?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This seems like a vacuous statement - couldn't that be said of about anyone's teachings? I did not know Bill personally, but I can say everything I've been exposed to from him has led me into a fresher relationship with Christ and richer fellowship. Of course, he had his foibles too, to be sure. As I stated in a earlier post, this book (The Church is Christ) was written largely as a response to why believers shouldn't take other believers to court - would you call that being a "staunch defender of WL?"

And regarding the church, what is it and how is it produced?

It isn't necessary to say the Church is Christ to make the case that we shouldn't take other believers to court. Like Ohio said, it goes beyond what is written and manifestly can be misused, so why use it?

You are falling for typical mistake. "I got something good from so-and-so so I should trust what he says about everything." That's not very wise. Whatever good they did, Bill Freeman and his wife were controllers like Lee. We have witnesses to that.

As to what the Church is and how it is produced, this is something you surely already know. I don't understand why you are asking the question. Are you making a rhetorical point?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This seems like a vacuous statement - couldn't that be said of about anyone's teachings? I did not know Bill personally, but I can say everything I've been exposed to from him has led me into a fresher relationship with Christ and richer fellowship. Of course, he had his foibles too, to be sure. As I stated in a earlier post, this book (The Church is Christ) was written largely as a response to why believers shouldn't take other believers to court - would you call that being a "staunch defender of WL?"

And regarding the church, what is it and how is it produced?

Bill Freeman was a co-plaintiff with Lee and LSM for the "God-man" lawsuit. Glad to see Bill changed his ways on lawsuits against other Christians.

The biggest complaint I (and many others) have with Bill Freeman was concerning his wife Patsy. She arranged, manipulated, and destroyed many marriages and families. Was her version of "church" really Christ? Hardly.

No doubt Brother Bill was a gifted teacher of the word, but he allowed his wife to destroy much of what he had built up in every church he was a part of. I have met Bill, and still hold him in high regard, but regardless of what he has written, I Timothy 3.4-5 et. al. basically disqualifies him and what he has accomplished.

[Sons to Glory!]

See my comments.

Originally Posted by Igzy

It isn't necessary to say the Church is Christ to make the case that we shouldn't take other believers to court. Like Ohio said, it goes beyond what is written and manifestly can be misused, so why use it? I think the point the book is making is if our realization is that other believers are truly of Christ, then it would be much more difficult to beat them up and otherwise seek to do damage to them. And I, too, have a very cautious approach to extra-biblical phrases, but extra-biblical phrases get used all the time (you could probably think of several offhand . . .). I'm not saying they are necessarily right, but they're also not necessarily wrong either.

You are falling for typical mistake. "I got something good from so-and-so so I should trust what he says about everything." That's not very wise. Whatever good they did, Bill Freeman and his wife were controllers like Lee. We have witnesses to that. May I respectfully say that this is a strawman? I certainly don't think one equals or results in the other. I don't necessarily or automatically agree with something ANYONE says all the time (my experience in the LC helped teach me that!). Why? Because we're currently humans with a fallen flesh.

As to what the Church is and how it is produced, this is something you surely already know. I don't understand why you are asking the question. Are you making a rhetorical point? It's in the title of this discussion, so I thought it might be a good point to make.

I certainly understand the abuses that can often result when the church as an infallible ORGANIZATION is promoted (i.e., Rome Church, denominations, LC, and about any other human produced gathering). But the ekklesia is something very high and mysterious, purchased by the blood of Christ, and is produced and is being built by God. (Colossians 1:27 is better translated, "Christ in you-all.") So He is in us as the called-out gathering. "As He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) The One Grain died to produce many grains - us! Again, the point is if we really had the heavenly vision of what and who the church is, we wouldn't take other members of the one body to court.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bill Freeman was a co-plaintiff with Lee and LSM for the "God-man" lawsuit. Glad to see Bill changed his ways on lawsuits against other Christians.

The biggest complaint I (and many others) have with Bill Freeman was concerning his wife Patsy. She arranged, manipulated, and destroyed many marriages and families. Was her version of "church" really Christ? Hardly.

No doubt Brother Bill was a gifted teacher of the word, but he allowed his wife to destroy much of what he had built up in every church he was a part of. I have met Bill, and still hold him in high regard, but regardless of what he has written, I Timothy 3.4-5 et. al. basically disqualifies him and what he has accomplished.

Yes, I am close to brothers whose marriages were either destroyed or seriously hurt by Patsy. You can certainly "disqualify" Bill for that, but the aforementioned brothers don't, and neither do I. We're not sticking our head in the sand - very aware of what happened - but . . . onward with Christ and His forgiveness we go!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, I am close to brothers whose marriages were either destroyed or seriously hurt by Patsy. You can certainly "disqualify" Bill for that, but the aforementioned brothers don't, and neither do I. We're not sticking our head in the sand - very aware of what happened - but . . . onward with Christ and His forgiveness we go!

Amen and amen!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The ekklesia is something very high and mysterious, purchased by the blood of Christ, and is produced and is being built by God. (Colossians 1:27 is better translated, "Christ in you-all.") So He is in us as the called-out gathering. "As He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) The One Grain died to produce many grains - us! Again, the point is if we really had the heavenly vision of what and who the church is, we wouldn't take other members of the one body to court.

My thought is, if we look at Jesus, then we are the church. If we look at the church, we are either in, or perilously close to ruin. It's the equivalent to Peter looking down as he walked toward Jesus on the Sea of Galilee. Love God and Love your neighbour and Jesus will build his ekklesia.

If we gaze at Christ we get transformed, "beholding and reflecting as a mirror we are all changed into the same likeness, from glory to glory", and if we gaze at the church we are in peril of becoming mystery babylon. The enemy's ability to enchant us with fanciful notions is almost limitless.

I'm quite interested in Christ's corporate expression, which is why my attention remains fixed on Christ. "Until we all arrive..."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

My thought is, if we look at Jesus, then we are the church. If we look at the church, we are either in, or perilously close to ruin. It's the equivalent to Peter looking down as he walked toward Jesus on the Sea of Galilee. Love God and Love your neighbour and Jesus will build his ekklesia.

If we gaze at Christ we get transformed, "beholding and reflecting as a mirror we are all changed into the same likeness, from glory to glory", and if we gaze at the church we are in peril of becoming mystery babylon. The enemy's ability to enchant us with fanciful notions is almost limitless.

I'm quite interested in Christ's corporate expression, which is why my attention remains fixed on Christ. "Until we all arrive..."

Exactly! Not long ago I was lamenting to a bro about how messed-up the church looks. He pointed out that I was right - that's how it looks. But he said how it is, from the heavenly perspective, is everything is just right! That got me seeing that yes, it is all good. "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH!" Is Christ deficient? Is He unable? Did He not know exactly what He was getting Himself into (literally)? Me thinkest not!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

See my comments.

Originally Posted by Igzy
It isn't necessary to say the Church is Christ to make the case that we shouldn't take other believers to court. Like Ohio said, it goes beyond what is written and manifestly can be misused, so why use it? I think the point the book is making is if our realization is that other believers are truly of Christ, then it would be much more difficult to beat them up and otherwise seek to do damage to them. And I, too, have a very cautious approach to extra-biblical phrases, but extra-biblical phrases get used all the time (you could probably think of several offhand . . .). I'm not saying they are necessarily right, but they're also not necessarily wrong either.

You are falling for typical mistake. "I got something good from so-and-so so I should trust what he says about everything." That's not very wise. Whatever good they did, Bill Freeman and his wife were controllers like Lee. We have witnesses to that. May I respectfully say that this is a strawman? I certainly don't think one equals or results in the other. I don't necessarily or automatically agree with something ANYONE says all the time (my experience in the LC helped teach me that!). Why? Because we're currently humans with a fallen flesh.

I certainly understand the abuses that can often result when the church as an infallible ORGANIZATION is promoted (i.e., Rome Church, denominations, LC, and about any other human produced gathering). But the ekklesia is something very high and mysterious, purchased by the blood of Christ, and is produced and is being built by God. (Colossians 1:27 is better translated, "Christ in you-all.") So He is in us as the called-out gathering. "As He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) The One Grain died to produce many grains - us! Again, the point is if we really had the heavenly vision of what and who the church is, we wouldn't take other members of the one body to court.

I don't want to make this about you or me or Bill Freeman, but let me just make clear that I don't mind extra-biblical phrases unless they lead to dangerous conclusions, and I think "the Church is Christ" does, for reasons I've stated--specifically that it leads to manipulation. As to the relevance of pointing out the failures of Bill Freeman, the reason I did that was because he liked the phrase "the Church is Christ" and he was one who manipulated people or at least allowed it. So I see a potential connection there.

You have to realize that my pet peeve about the "Recovery" is the way it controls and manipulates people. I see that as almost the whole problem with it. As I've said, take away that and you have some nice, quirky Christians who dress badly. So please forgive me hammering that point, but that is my whole reason for being here.

Actually, I don't see that saying "the Church is Christ" really helps people not abuse members because the LR says it and they abuse. In fact, it may make things worse, because instead of establishing that members have value in themselves before God as his precious creations and objects of redemption, it suggest they only have value when they "are Christ."

In short, saying "the Church is Christ" depersonalizes people out the equation. It makes us less important, not more important. It says love the Church because it is Christ, not because it is made up of people he loved and died for. This is typical LR error.

Just learn to love people like he does and you'll be fine. You shouldn't need a reason to value people other than that he values them.

Of course, Jesus said whatever we do to "the least of these" we do to "him." So there is that side to it. But I don't think that statement is literal, I think he is saying he takes personally what we do to those he loves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Exactly! Not long ago I was lamenting to a bro about how messed-up the church looks. He pointed out that I was right - that's how it looks. But he said how it is, from the heavenly perspective, is everything is just right! That got me seeing that yes, it is all good. "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH!" Is Christ deficient? Is He unable? Did He not know exactly what He was getting Himself into (literally)? Me thinkest not!

W. Lee loved to have "overcomers" fill his trainings so he could boast of smiling faces in blue jackets and white shirts/blouses.

But that's not the "church." That's organization. Not even the Twelve, hand-picked by Jesus, looked so orderly. How about the lovely choirs standing behind ministers in mega-churches? Yup, almost perfection. So, why can't my church ever get it right?

Perhaps we are not looking with the right set of eyes.

During the Dark Ages, the "perfect-looking" church of Rome could boast of gothic cathedrals and colorfully-robed attendants, priests, altar boys, and choirs. Compare that to the peasant Albigensian believers hiding out in mountain hamlets.

I was an altar boy for four years. Just put on that full length black cassock robe with pressed white surplice, and even I cleaned up rather well. Give me a few canned Latin responses and a bell, and I appeared almost holy. Almost. That my friends are "nice, quirky Christians who dress badly."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Actually, I don't see that saying "the Church is Christ" really helps people not abuse members because the LR says it and they abuse. In fact, it may make things worse, because instead of establishing that members have value in themselves before God as his precious creations and objects of redemption, it suggest they only have value when they "are Christ."

In short, saying "the Church is Christ" depersonalizes people out the equation. It makes us less important, not more important. It says love the Church because it is Christ, not because it is made up of people he loved and died for. This is typical LR error.

YESSSSSSSSS

One Christian apologist said it well (paraphrase): Every person, whether they believe in God or not, is created in the image of God and therefore has infinite value and inherent worth.

Remember, God loved us even BEFORE we were saved. He doesn't love us because we are saved and are now Christ. He loved us so much He saved us.

I was struck that this is why He emphasizes so much how we treat each other. Not calling each other raca, leaving your gift at the altar to go and reconcile before actually offering your gift, clothing uncomely members with honor, being meek, patient, kind, forgiving, etc. It is an affront to God when we mistreat people because you are mistreating someone that God has made in His own image.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

YESSSSSSSSS

One Christian apologist said it well (paraphrase): Every person, whether they believe in God or not, is created in the image of God and therefore has infinite value and inherent worth.

Remember, God loved us even BEFORE we were saved. He doesn't love us because we are saved and are now Christ. He loved us so much He saved us.

I was struck that this is why He emphasizes so much how we treat each other. Not calling each other raca, leaving your gift at the altar to go and reconcile before actually offering your gift, clothing uncomely members with honor, being meek, patient, kind, forgiving, etc. It is an affront to God when we mistreat people because you are mistreating someone that God has made in His own image.

I'm old enough to have been in trainings in Anaheim with Witness Lee Live!

I remember he regularly discouraged close relationships, labeling them "natural." At one point he flatly stated "no affection," meaning we weren't to have any warm, human feelings for each other.

Judges, can I get a ruling on this?

There are four basic relevant Greek words for love.

• Storge - Affection, as affection for a child or pet or something else you value, such as music or a hobby.
  
• Phileo - Brotherly love. The love you have for family members or friends.
  
• Agape - Unconditional love. Loving others because they have value in themselves. Sacrificial love.
  
• Eros - Romantic/sexual love. Although highly valued by us, there is an element of getting something from the other in this love. This word is actually never used in the Bible.

Romans 12:10 says "love one another tenderly with brotherly affection." The Greek there actually combines the words phileo and storge into a unique term, "brotherly affection."

So much for Lee's baseless and damaging "no affection" teaching.

Lee clearly tried to break down personal, human relationships so that group relationships would take precedence. This is a tactic of all abusive religious groups. Contrary to his error, we are to value and even have affection for each other.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm old enough to have been in trainings in Anaheim with Witness Lee Live!

I remember he regularly discouraged close relationships, labeling them "natural." At one point he flatly stated "no affection," meaning we weren't to have any warm, human feelings for each other.

Judges, can I get a ruling on this?

There are four basic relevant Greek words for love.

• Storge - Affection, as affection for a child or pet or something else you value, such as music or a hobby.
• Phileo - Brotherly love. The love you have for family members or friends.
• Agape - Unconditional love. Loving others because they have value in themselves. Sacrificial love.
• Eros - Romantic/sexual love. Although highly valued by us, there is an element of getting something from the other in this love. This word is actually never used in the Bible.

Romans 12:10 says "love one another tenderly with brotherly affection." The Greek there actually combines the words phileo and storge into a unique term, "brotherly affection."

So much for Lee's baseless and damaging "no affection" teaching.

Lee clearly tried to break down personal, human relationships so that group relationships would take precedence. This is a tactic of all abusive religious groups. Contrary to his error, we are to value and even have affection for each other.

In his last known letter, Paul describes Christians in the last days using the expression "without natural affection." -- 2 Timothy 3.1-5

This verse caused me to reject Lee's teaching about "natural affection." I knew a new parent in the LC who actually felt guilty about loving his newborn too much.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Of course, Jesus said whatever we do to "the least of these" we do to "him." So there is that side to it. But I don't think that statement is literal, I think he is saying he takes personally what we do to those he loves.

Originally Posted by Trapped

It is an affront to God when we mistreat people because you are mistreating someone that God has made in His own image.

My analogy is that saying you love God but disrespect His children is like saying you respect Joe Smith down the street but you despise his wife, his parents, his cousins, his friends, his kids and his dog. Well how much do you really like the guy? Not much, it seems.

As you interact with his family you're touching him by proxy, because they're his close extension. But "Joe" and "his wife" are not the same thing. For that matter, didn't Paul call Onesimus "my very heart" in the epistle to Philemon? And nobody got confused by that, did they, and tried to conceptually fuse two distinct things? Illustrations serve a purpose but they can be misused to infer what was not meant.

On a related note, I found it odd that Witness Lee respected Luther but despised Lutherans. He held up Wesley as a hero of the faith, but said the Methodists were Harlot Babylon. How much did he really like Luther and Wesley, then? Just like "the Church", the figures "Luther" and "Wesley" were props, or constructed figments, in the Grand Narrative of the Seer of the Divine Revelation.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

W. Lee loved to have "overcomers" fill his trainings so he could boast of smiling faces in blue jackets and white shirts/blouses.

But that's not the "church." That's organization. Not even the Twelve, hand-picked by Jesus, looked so orderly. How about the lovely choirs standing behind ministers in mega-churches? Yup, almost perfection. So, why can't my church ever get it right?

Perhaps we are not looking with the right set of eyes.

During the Dark Ages, the "perfect-looking" church of Rome could boast of gothic cathedrals and colorfully-robed attendants, priests, altar boys, and choirs. Compare that to the peasant Albigensian believers hiding out in mountain hamlets.

I was an altar boy for four years. Just put on that full length black cassock robe with pressed white surplice, and even I cleaned up rather well. Give me a few canned Latin responses and a bell, and I appeared almost holy. Almost. That my friends are "nice, quirky Christians who dress badly."

Hallelujah He has taken us beyond all that!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't want to make this about you or me or Bill Freeman, but let me just make clear that I don't mind extra-biblical phrases unless they lead to dangerous conclusions, and I think "the Church is Christ" does, for reasons I've stated--specifically that it leads to manipulation. As to the relevance of pointing out the failures of Bill Freeman, the reason I did that was because he liked the phrase "the Church is Christ" and he was one who manipulated people or at least allowed it. So I see a potential connection there.

You have to realize that my pet peeve about the "Recovery" is the way it controls and manipulates people. I see that as almost the whole problem with it. As I've said, take away that and you have some nice, quirky Christians who dress badly. So please forgive me hammering that point, but that is my whole reason for being here.

Actually, I don't see that saying "the Church is Christ" really helps people not abuse members because the LR says it and they abuse. In fact, it may make things worse, because instead of establishing that members have value in themselves before God as his precious creations and objects of redemption, it suggest they only have value when they "are Christ."

In short, saying "the Church is Christ" depersonalizes people out the equation. It makes us less important, not more important. It says love the Church because it is Christ, not because it is made up of people he loved and died for. This is typical LR error.

Just learn to love people like he does and you'll be fine. You shouldn't need a reason to value people other than that he values them.

Of course, Jesus said whatever we do to "the least of these" we do to "him." So there is that side to it. But I don't think that statement is literal, I think he is saying he takes personally what we do to those he loves.

I can appreciate that. In our gathering we don't dwell much on the negative taint of the LC (it seems so long ago to most of us - and yes, the Lord is still healing some of that in some of us), so I don't think my reading of this book (The Church is Christ) is clouded very much with that kind of thing.

Here's an interesting thing to consider - in 1st Corinthians chapter one, Paul is exhorting them regarding divisions. He concludes this thought by asking, "Is Christ divided?" It strikes me as very interesting . . . he is referring to the believers as the church, but he does not ask, "Is the church divided?" No, he asks is Christ divided?

Anyway, there are a ton of passages that equate Christ with His called-out gathering, but I understand how you think this is abused by some - however, it certainly does not negate the truth of the heavenly vision!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Anyway, there are a ton of passages that equate Christ with His called-out gathering, but I understand how you think this is abused by some - however, it certainly does not negate the truth of the heavenly vision!

Just take care not to take it too far. The Bible equates husband and wife, but that doesn't mean the wife is the husband in the way some want to believe the Church is Christ. Be careful not to read something into it that really isn't there just for the sake of some metaphysical wowie-kazowies.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Just take care not to take it too far. The Bible equates husband and wife, but that doesn't mean the wife is the husband in the way some want to believe the Church is Christ. Be careful not to read something into it that really isn't there just for the sake of some metaphysical wowie-kazowies.

Good point - husband and wife are one, yet individuals. The picture of oneness is the triune God (one of those extra-biblical terms). If one reads John 17 they can really get confused exactly where the lines of demarcation are (vs 21-23): "that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us . . . I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one. I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united . . ."

So what did you think of this from my previous post: Here's an interesting thing to consider - in 1st Corinthians chapter one, Paul is exhorting them regarding divisions. He concludes this thought by asking, "Is Christ divided?" It strikes me as very interesting . . . he is referring to the believers as the church, but he does not ask, "Is the church divided?" No, he asks is Christ divided?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So what did you think of this from my previous post: Here's an interesting thing to consider - in 1st Corinthians chapter one, Paul is exhorting them regarding divisions. He concludes this thought by asking, "Is Christ divided?" It strikes me as very interesting . . . he is referring to the believers as the church, but he does not ask, "Is the church divided?" No, he asks is Christ divided?

Imagine a football team having a players-only meeting in which they are trying to address the problem of some players not giving it their all and quitting during games.

One of the team captains stands in front of the team and shouts the rhetorical question, "Is Coach a quitter?!"

Now, he doesn't mean the team is the coach. He means the team should reflect the coach.

Likewise, Paul was saying that Christ is not divided in himself, so we should not reflect division either. He didn't mean we are Christ.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Imagine a football team having a players-only meeting in which they are trying to address the problem of some players not giving it their all and quitting during games.

One of the team captains stands in front of the team and shouts the rhetorical question, "Is Coach a quitter?!"

Now, he doesn't mean the team is the coach. He means the team should reflect the coach.

Likewise, Paul was saying that Christ is not divided in himself, so we should not reflect division either. He didn't mean we are Christ.

Okay. How about this one in Acts 9: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” 5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.… (the football analogy could possibly be applied here too, I guess.)

But what about the phrase "In Christ" which appears nearly 100 times in the NT - what is the significance of the Holy Spirit using this so many times? Could the football team say, "We're in coach?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

what about the phrase "In Christ" which appears nearly 100 times in the NT - what is the significance of the Holy Spirit using this so many times?

The problem with this phrase is that those who use it (not the NT writers but the followers) may or may not be "in Christ", and the using doesn't make the reality. Those who say "we are the church" may be the Synagogue of Satan, and those who don't say anything of the sort may be the "church".

People being hearers of the word (and even speakers) are different from the doers of the word. Not that saying "in Christ" isn't true or real, but saying it doesn't make you "it". Mouthing platitudes does not equate to reality.

Now I base this on 2 verses. One where Jesus said, "I was sick and you cared for me" etc. Jesus is sick? I thought he was in glory?!? But his members are sick. They are lonely. They are hurting. They are in prison. And when Jesus sees them, he says, "This is me". So as you treat them, you treat him. But saying, "Be warm and be filled" as you walk by on your way to your church meeting doesn't mean you are in the reality, and are "dispensing" reality to them. So are you in Christ? I dunno. But I daresay that mouthing phrases doesn't do it.

Then, when Dorcas was helping the widows, she was helping Christ. She was "in Christ". But there is no record of her saying anything at all. No evidence of the phraseology she used. But it says she was full of good deeds toward others. This is the ticket to Jesus, helping others. Of course she had faith, but not just faith but a living that followed.

So "in Christ" may be true and real, and I daresay it is. But "in Christ" of itself is only words. Does your living reflect it? Does mine? What words we use hardly matter compared to what we do. And I speak for myself. All my posts mean very little in the scheme of things. All they really mean is that I'm not so easily caught by persuasive speakers as I once was. It's not hearing words that saves. Only Jesus saves. And the saving is in the doing. Confessing is good, necessary even. But living shows the confessing is real.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. How about this one in Acts 9: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” 5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.… (the football analogy could possibly be applied here too, I guess.)

But what about the phrase "In Christ" which appears nearly 100 times in the NT - what is the significance of the Holy Spirit using this so many times? Could the football team say, "We're in coach?"

When the Bible says we are "in Christ" it means we are identified with him. What he has accomplished is now ours.

When the Bible says what is done to us is done to Christ it means he identifies with us. He takes personally what happens to us.

It's all about relationships. It isn't about literally being "in" something or being someone. Focusing too much on the metaphysics of it can totally miss the point.

I used to get all caught in how I could live, yet not I, but Christ. We don't have to figure it out. I live now because Christ lives in me. He is my life. I don't need to imagine I've vanished or something. That's taking the whole thing too far by getting caught up in the literal words, and thereby actually missing the reality of it.

[aron]

Sons to Glory,

I apologize if my dismissals of your proposals have been too curt, even denunciations. Antagonism has never suited me well. If my responses have seemed adversarial I apologize.

I think that "in Christ" and "in the Body (which is Christ)" are not untrue, but they simply have no meaning in and of themselves, and should not be held as if they did.

Let me illustrate by two examples. There may be a Bible expositor who puts out a book on "being in Christ", or holds a conference with many messages on the subject. Hundreds or thousands gather, and buy the books, and claim enlightenment. Then the minister appoints his non-spiritual son as office manager, which son begins horribly abusing church members. The minister says, ''This is a personal affair" and, "My ministry is my business", and stonewalls. Now, is that minister "in Christ"? I don't know, but the teachings clearly mean nothing. They may in fact be a smokescreen for evil. "I don't care about right and wrong, I just care about being 'in Christ.'"

Now suppose there's another person who struggles all his life with his moods, or his behaviour. Being a Christian, this just makes him feel guilty and frustrated. What is he missing? Then one day he gets a revelation that he's "in Christ", and struggling to be good or to resist sin is already over! Christ has won, and in his victory placed this failed but now redeemed sinner "in Himself", so that all the believer needs to do is enjoy the clear fact of his transfer from one realm to another.

From that moment of revelation on, the believer experiences a new dimension of living. The awareness and appreciation of "being in Christ" makes all the difference to him.

Now, my point is this: one could have just as easily found some other biblical truth to afford some transformative release from darkness. It is wonderful, what happened, but that doesn't mean that "in Christ" has some necessary wider scope. It could just as well be justification, or righteousness or holiness or the resurrection from the dead. Sons of God. A nation of priests and kings. Wonderful. But not necessary in the same scope as a universal crucial truth.

We don't know Dorcas' conceptual schema, but we know what she did, and what happened. And we know some ask, "When did this occur" and they are told, "When you did it to the least of these." Their schema needs adjusting but their behaviours are acceptable.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for your replies, Igzy and Aron. According to the light each of us has been given - whatever being "in Christ" means, may we just enjoy this fact! I just want to behave as a humble sheep in His pasture (John 10:9) & not get all wrapped-around-the-axle about anything . . .

[JB482]

Very interesting conversation on the Body of Christ.I know it's not a good practice to use words and phrases that are not in the Bible.because it leads to error and confusion. We only need the word of God and the words that are in it,and then we are doing good if we can just scratch the surface of the magnitude of the revelation contained in it of God and His eternal counsels and purpose concerning Christ and the Church which is His Body.

We must pray for a spirit of wisdom and revelation to see. And our mind should be renewed by the Holy Spirit or we may have the tendency to explain things away with our mind. Eph.5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Eph.1:22-23 And has put all things under his feet,and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,which is his body,the fulness of him that filleth all in all. One thing I've enjoyed seeing about the Church is when Christ says to Peter Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee,that thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church;and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And then in 1 cor. 3:10-17 here Paul says that he is the wise masterbuilder,and that he has laid the foundation,and others build thereon. And that Christ is the only foundation. And then warns to every man to take heed how he builds. The recommended materials are gold silver and precious stones,but many will and have built with wood hay and stubble,some will have a reward and some will suffer loss,for the Day will declare it. So in Matthew Christ builds His Church and it is perfect,the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. It's built by Christ with living stones as Peter's epistle also speaks of. But in 1 Cor. 3 what Paul is saying has to do with man's responsibility to build something.

And that is where failure can come in, when the Lord let's man have some responsibility in the work. Everything God ever set up new with man has always ended in failure when man has had some responsibility in it. The only exception is The Second Man The Last Adam The Lord from Heaven Jesus Christ He never fails Amen! Adam failed in Eden,Noah planted a vineyard and got drunk,the children of Israel failed at Sinai with the golden calf,and the Church as set up by Christ on the day of Pentecost perfect and glorious,after a relatively short time because of failure in responsibility by men,the outward form of the Church went into ruin as Church history shows,and Gods word also predicted. But Christ throughout all these centuries has been building His Church and will present it to Himself a Glorious Church without spot or wrinkle regardless of all of our failures. Christ is going to have a perfect Bride.There is a spiritual reality of the Church that Christ builds Himself that has never suffered ruin or decay,and it will be that Glorious Bride at the wedding feast of The Lamb. And that Holy Temple In the Lord.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. How about this one in Acts 9: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” 5“Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.… (the football analogy could possibly be applied here too, I guess.)"

Have you considered 1 Timothy 1:13
https://biblehub.com/blb/1_timothy/1.htm

In his own words Saul was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent. We lock in on him persecuting the church as if that was his only offense to Christ.

There is something very mysterious about Christ that involves the church who are members of His body. I too am in awe and wonder about this and appreciate
it’s reality and practicality. So, I don’t want to take that away or play it down.

[Sons to Glory!]

I read this recently. What do you think about it?

The church - Christ's Person and work

"And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head
over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him
who fills all in all." EPHESIANS 1:22-23

The church is not an entity separate from the Person and work of
Christ. We should not think of the church as something
different from His Person and work. The church is a description of
Christ with the fullness of His Person in His Body resulting in' a
testimony of all that He has accomplished in His work to produce us
as His expression. So the church is simply a manifestation, an
extension, of Christ's Person and Christ's work.

Coming from various backgrounds, we may have different ideas
of what "church" means. The church is a building, or the church is
an assembly of people, or the church is what we experienced for
years and maybe were disappointed with. "Church" could mean
many different things to us. But we need to see a simple and clear
revelation of the church - it is nothing less and nothing more than
the Person and the work of Christ embodied and expressed through
His people. This is the way we need to consider the church.

Properly speaking, the church is an extension of Christ's Person
and His work. When the Bible says that we are His Body, it adds,
"the fullness of Him who is filling all in all." This is how we are
Christ's extension. It is by His filling us. As we are being filled,
there is an expression of all His riches. Look at His Person, look
at His work. Then you know the church. The church is simply Christ
Himself and all that He is dispensed into all of us, with all the riches
of His Person and His work flowing from each one of us to express
His' fullness. What a marvelous realization of what the church is.
It is just Christ and more of Christ filling all His organic members.

[UntoHim]

Interesting piece Sons to Glory. For the sake of clarity, could you please cite the source of this quote?

There is some good stuff in here, but I must tell you there are some things to be cautious of as well. I'll just touch upon a few of them:

to produce us as His expression.

I do not believe that "produce" is a biblical word. Of course I'm probably a little jaded from Witness Lee's use of this term. Maybe this person is using it in a larger context that is not apparent in what you have posted.

So the church is simply a manifestation, an extension..

Well, the church is not "simply" anything. This church is a great mystery (Eph 5:32), and as such, she cannot be summed up in such a shorthand fashion. I'm not saying that there is no truth in saying the church is a manifestation or even extension of the Person and work of Christ, only that it is incomplete.

But we need to see a simple and clear revelation of the church - it is nothing less and nothing more than the Person and the work of Christ embodied and expressed through His people.

There's that word "simple" again. Then this person goes from the frying pan to the fire with "clear revelation of the church". When someone tells me that they have "a clear revelation" of anything, my antenna goes up, and I wait for what comes next - is it some newfangled, "recovered truth" or "original teaching in the New Testament" that we all have been missing for 2,000 years? Sorry, been there, done that. Bought the T-shirt. Fool me once.....

Properly speaking

Proper to who? So we are left to assume that much of the speaking we've been hearing for years is somehow "improper"? Has this person submitted his "proper speaking" to other members of the Body of Christ for some kind of peer review? I noticed that this person is not quoting from any other source. That is cause for caution, and even for worry as far as I'm concerned.

The church is simply Christ Himself and all that He is dispensed into all of us

There's another unbiblical word: "dispensed". I'm not saying that the word dispensed is heretical per se, but it certainly is not within the bounds of orthodox teaching, at least within the greater protestant church. Maybe one could take this concept from the Eastern Orthodox teachings?
-
***It just occurred to me, Sons to Glory, that the author of this little piece might be you! If that's the case, I don't mean to be overly critical or come across with a harsh spirit. But since you asked "what do you think".
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for responding, UntoHim! I will tell you I am not the author of this (but actually am a little flattered that you might think that! - is that a fleshly thought? )

You keyed in on certain extra-biblical words, and I am sympathetic to that. These kinds of words can lead us into areas we shouldn't go. And I too, had a little similar reaction when it said, "properly speaking" - it really doesn't add anything that useful and seems more an attempted support of an opinion.

But with that said, I still enjoyed the piece. I am of the mind that the ekklesia is so much more than we realize. I think there is a special attack of Satan - probably his main attack - to keep us from seeing who we really are in Him. The life, authority and power given to the "church" (a poor anglo substitute word for the "called-out gathering" in my opinion) is unprecedented in the history of the universe. It is a new creation never seen before. Truly a great mystery.

One thing bro Lee did was to promote a high vision of the church, in the face of a much widespread degradated view of it. (I likely will catch flack for saying that, but so what) But then he, of course, went too far and developed a prideful, elitist, and fleshly attitude which caused separation in the body - an attitude that still continues in the LC. Did Lee cross the line on how much we are made partakers of the divine nature? Maybe, but here again I don't really care to pursue hashing-out the sins of WL at this point in my life. I don't read much of Lee's stuff anymore, but if someone presents something of his (it happens on rare occasions) that my spirit can say "amen" to, then wonderful!

Anyway, I didn't really mean to get into a WL discussion here, and have no stomach for that. My cardinal rule these days is this: If something helps me have a fresher new covenant relationship with Christ and other believers, then I'm all for it. And if it's anything else, the Anointing lets me know. (BTW - the writing I quoted is not from WL either.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

One thing bro Lee did was to promote a high vision of the church, in the face of a much widespread degradated view of it. (I likely will catch flack for saying that, but so what)

Oh my!

If WL really had a "high vision of the church," then how could he allow his sons and his businesses to cause so much pain and damage to the church?

The Pharisees and Jewish leaders of their day also held a "high vision" of God's word, God's people, God's Temple, and the promised Messiah. It would be absolutely impossible for them to collude with the evil Romans to commit a public crime of murder on their Passover. Right?

Oops. What day is today?

[Sons to Glory!]

It is a mystery, isn't it bro Ohio!? And how could I have an incredible, lofty, supernatural experience of Christ one day, then go out and do shameful things I knew I shouldn't a couple days later? (hint - it's called the fallen flesh)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It is a mystery, isn't it bro Ohio!? And how could I have an incredible, lofty, supernatural experience of Christ one day, then go out and do shameful things I knew I shouldn't a couple days later? (hint - it's called the fallen flesh)

The Bible exhorts us to "test all things," and to "prove the will of God."

Hence, some of the "incredible, lofty, supernatural" talks, are merely that, and not the genuine "experience of Christ."

This forum has numerous examples of this.

[Sons to Glory!]

I'm missing your point here, Ohio. Can you please restate?

[JB482]

Head of the body https://stempublishing.com/authors/F..._Christ12.html

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Quote from Lee’s ministry:
"Verse 12 says, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is the Christ" (Gk.). In this verse Paul brings in the concept that Christ is the Body. You may be familiar with the fact that in verse 12 we see the Body-Christ, the corporate Christ, not the individual Christ. Yes, we are the corporate Christ. However, if we are dumb when we gather together in the meetings, Christ has no way to come forth. He cannot come forth when we are silent. But when we are spiritual, speaking and functioning in the meetings, Christ comes out. When you speak for Christ, Christ comes forth in your speaking. If we all speak forth Christ, then the corporate Christ, the Body-Christ, will come forth. This is Christ as the Body. In order to have the Body-Christ, we all need to speak."

As far I have a quick search on 1 Corinthians 12:12 and Acts 9:4 from some good commentaries. I know of no theologian or pastor who has used that interpretation before. I guess it's more on an Eastern Orthodox leaning.

by-Verse Commentary 1 Corinthians 12:12

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm missing your point here, Ohio. Can you please restate?

Can you clarify this post?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It is a mystery, isn't it bro Ohio!? And how could I have an incredible, lofty, supernatural experience of Christ one day, then go out and do shameful things I knew I shouldn't a couple days later? (hint - it's called the fallen flesh)

That's better than burning testimonies in the meetings while abusing young daughters at home, like one brother in the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, that was revealed by the daughters when grown up. And I really liked the brother.

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's better than burning testimonies in the meetings while abusing young daughters at home, like one brother in the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, that was revealed by the daughters when grown up. And I really liked the brother.

Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Bro Awareness Great must be the darkness of doing that while
declaring the wonderfulness of Christ and the church. Was he ever
Called to account for this?

[Sons to Glory!]

Jesus said that He was the vine and we are the branches. Are the branches not the vine or the vine the branches? No. They are all part of the one and same vine. They all share the same life and juices. Even the fruit is part of the vine. It's very hard to separate one from the other without causing death. The vine is one example and the human body is another example - in both examples it is impossible to separate one part from another without causing a cessation of function and death.

We are in Christ and He is in us. According to the Bible, how can it be shown that the ekklesia is not Christ?

[Ohio]

And, following your logic, how can it be shown that the MOTA is not Christ?

Is not this what happened to the "Shouters" in China?

[Trapped]

The church makes mistakes, hurts people, is degraded, is full of sinful people. If the church IS Christ, are you saying Christ does these things?

I have been lied to and betrayed by people in the church. Am I to say that Christ has lied to me and betrayed me?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The church makes mistakes, hurts people, is degraded, is full of sinful people. If the church IS Christ, are you saying Christ does these things?

I have been lied to and betrayed by people in the church. Am I to say that Christ has lied to me and betrayed me?

All metaphors, types, figures, and inferences in the Bible have limitations.

With Lee and the Blindeds, these limitations were exceeded long ago.

For me personally, these limits are God's righteousness and love. Even Matt 18 informs us that those in violation should not be treated as brothers, or as "the church," but as heathen.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And, following your logic, how can it be shown that the MOTA is not Christ?

Is not this what happened to the "Shouters" in China?

Not everything is about the MOTA bro.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The church makes mistakes, hurts people, is degraded, is full of sinful people. If the church IS Christ, are you saying Christ does these things?

I have been lied to and betrayed by people in the church. Am I to say that Christ has lied to me and betrayed me?

Of course not. There is always the two-foldness in this life - what is seen and what is unseen; the earthly and the heavenly vision. We see the church divided, corrupted and all messed up. But He said, "I will build My church."

The Vine is the vine. That is the picture in faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not everything is about the MOTA bro.

But the MOTA may be the ultimate source of your "Body-Christ" claims, and that's why this thread has addressed them. The MOTA often took these claims to an extreme, casting off normal limits and unbalancing the scriptures, for his own gains.

If it is taught that "Christ is the body," where do we draw the line? This statement is not in the Bible, so it is subject to misuse and abuse. If this never happened in LC history, then we would not be talking about it.

In China, one offshoot chants Lee's name, which is pretty extreme don't you think? In many US LC's, brothers were actively taught to trust the MOTA above their own conscience and the Bible. Pretty extreme, eh? All because we were taught "you can't separate Christ and the church."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But the MOTA may be the ultimate source of your "Body-Christ" claims, and that's why this thread has addressed them. The MOTA often took these claims to an extreme, casting off normal limits and unbalancing the scriptures, for his own gains.

If it is taught that "Christ is the body," where do we draw the line? This statement is not in the Bible, so it is subject to misuse and abuse. If this never happened in LC history, then we would not be talking about it.

In China, one offshoot chants Lee's name, which is pretty extreme don't you think? In many US LC's, brothers were actively taught to trust the MOTA above their own conscience and the Bible. Pretty extreme, eh? All because we were taught "you can't separate Christ and the church."

I know you tend to see all things according to the filter of how they have been (or potentially could be) abused . . . If you will, answer this: Are the branches the vine?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are the branches the vine?

Depends on what you mean by "vine." If you mean the whole plant, then yes. If you mean the main vine from which all the branches grow, then no.

You don't know for sure which the Lord meant. That being the case, I think good sense says don't say things like "we are Christ" without undeniable explicit teaching.

Honestly, I think he meant the latter. I don't think in any way he meant for us to think we are Christ. I'm betting if he had, he would have said, "I am the vine and so are you." But he clearly distinguished vine and branches.

Ironically, being branches in the vine is supposed to produce good fruit. From what I've seen, saying we are Christ produces no good fruit we couldn't have otherwise, and also produces some bad fruit. Case closed for me.

There is a difference between the Bible saying something and you inferring something from what it says. To me it's reckless to infer things like we are Christ or we are becoming God without the Bible saying them clearly.

I honestly do not see the point of believing such things.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Depends on what you mean by "vine." If you mean the whole plant, then yes. If you mean the main vine from which all the branches grow, then no.

You don't know for sure which the Lord meant. That being the case, I think good sense says don't say things like "we are Christ" without undeniable explicit teaching.

Honestly, I think he meant the latter. I don't think in any way he meant for us to think we are Christ. I'm betting if he had, he would have said, "I am the vine and so are you." But he clearly distinguished vine and branches.

Ironically, being branches in the vine is supposed to produce good fruit. From what I've seen, saying we are Christ produces no good fruit we couldn't have otherwise, and also produces some bad fruit. Case closed for me.

There is a difference between the Bible saying something and you inferring something from what it says. To me it's reckless to infer things like we are Christ or we are becoming God without the Bible saying them clearly.

I honestly do not see the point of believing such things.

And we're back to the aspect of mystery, aren't we!? "This is a GREAT mystery, but I speak of Christ and the church." So we can go around and around, but it is a revelation that the mind itself can't produce and certainly can't come close to grasping..

The trouble with saying "We are Christ" (quoting you above) is that it might imply all of us - including the flesh. Of course the body is dead due to sin and being crucified, but in practice here on the earth it is active! So we in no way could say that the church is our flesh, right?
Of course not! The ekklesia, here and now IS contained in vessels of flesh, just as our spirit is. But we can't equate flesh with spirit.

Now I can certainly agree with Ohio and others that some could take this (and any other teaching) too far to try and use it to prop up their imagined & fabricated authority. The danger is, as has been pointed out several times, throwing the whole chicken out just because there are some bones.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The danger is, as has been pointed out several times, throwing the whole chicken out just because there are some bones.

The question is: Just what is the whole chicken? And simply saying "the Church is Christ" over and over doesn't answer that question. That's really the problem.

It's one thing for something to be a mystery, it's another for you to have no clue what it really means.

[Cal]

The Church cannot be Christ because Christ existed before we did. He's was already there. We cannot become him because that would mean more Christ has been made, which is impossible because he is eternal.

When the Bible says "one spirit" or "one flesh," it's talking about one in relationship, it isn't talking about one in person.

When the Bible seems to identify us with Christ, it is saying that we are so close to him in relationship that we are like him and correspond to him in uncanny ways. But it doesn't mean we are him.

The Bible says the husband and wife are one flesh. It never says they are one person. Likewise with being one in spirit. We are very, very closely related to Christ. But we are not him.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

According to the Bible, how can it be shown that the ekklesia is not Christ?

Well, probably in the same way that it can be shown that man is not becoming God (not even in life and nature.). I think you may want to restate your question. As it stands, you are asking us to prove a negative. You are also asking us to assume that the Bible states that "the church is Christ", which it clearly does not state that the church is Christ.

If we are going to use John 15:5 as a proof text of sorts, then the "proof" breaks down rather quickly in the very next verse:
If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. (15:6)
So it seems that the branches are not the vine per se, which is the provider and supplier of life to the branches, but are wholly and totally dependent upon the vine. At the risk of carrying the analogy too far - just as we are not becoming the divine nature, but "partakers of the divine nature", neither are we becoming the vine, but are partaking of the life and life-supply of the vine.

Finally, let's look at the very end of the Bible in the book of Revelation. "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God." (Rev 21:3) Does this show us that we are becoming God or becoming Christ? Or does it clearly say we "will be his people" and that he will still be our God. God is going to "dwell with man" and be their God. Yes, we will be his blood washed, redeemed and glorified people, but we will still be subjects, and God will still be our King.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yes, we will be his blood washed, redeemed and glorified people, but we will still be subjects, and God will still be our King.

Again, the oneness and identification is a phenomenon of relationship and love, not of mutual absorption.

Think of a couple in love. They look into each other's eyes and feel, somehow, they are one. But this is the result of love, not the dissolution of two people into one new "person."

In fact, it is the tension between being two and yet feeling one that makes the experience work. It is in knowing you are still two, yet feeling you are one which gives the experience its kick. That's love.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well, probably in the same way that it can be shown that man is not becoming God (not even in life and nature.). I think you may want to restate your question. As it stands, you are asking us to prove a negative. You are also asking us to assume that the Bible states that "the church is Christ", which it clearly does not state that the church is Christ.

If we are going to use John 15:5 as a proof text of sorts, then the "proof" breaks down rather quickly in the very next verse:
If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. (15:6)
So it seems that the branches are not the vine per se, which is the provider and supplier of life to the branches, but are wholly and totally dependent upon the vine. At the risk of carrying the analogy too far - just as we are not becoming the divine nature, but "partakers of the divine nature", neither are we becoming the vine, but are partaking of the life and life-supply of the vine.

Finally, let's look at the very end of the Bible in the book of Revelation. "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God." (Rev 21:3) Does this show us that we are becoming God or becoming Christ? Or does it clearly say we "will be his people" and that he will still be our God. God is going to "dwell with man" and be their God. Yes, we will be his blood washed, redeemed and glorified people, but we will still be subjects, and God will still be our King.
-

Great points!

Oneness is an interesting thing to discuss, is it not!?

And this whole thing is God's "fault" is it not? That is, if we had merely been legally adopted it would all be much simpler to grasp. The difficulty for us to understand, I think, is His sharing His life with us. So we don't just get the legal and positional standing, although that is more than amazing, but we also get regenerated to be a whole new creature!

Attributes of the life He's shared with us:

1. Makes us Jesus' brothers
2. Makes us sons (not just adopted)
3. Makes us a new creation
4. Makes us partakers of the divine nature
5. He gives us His glory
6. We are placed into His death
7. We are placed into His resurrection
8. We are in Christ
9. We become one with Him and each other
10. His Spirit indwells us
11. We become His called-out gathering
12. We become a dwelling place of God
13. We become His bride
14. We are His body one with the Head

And what else can we say? "Eye has not seen, not ear heard, nor has it even entered into the heart of man what God has in store for them that love Him!"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I know you tend to see all things according to the filter of how they have been (or potentially could be) abused . . . If you will, answer this: Are the branches the vine?

Technically, no, bro.

John 15.1 says . . . "I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman."

Romans 11.17-21 says . . .

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do boast, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Right. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

SonsToGlory, there is a sober warning from Apostle Paul in this section to the Gentile "branches," like some who were/are in the LC's, not to be arrogant, or they too like Israel will also be cut off.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The trouble with saying "We are Christ" (quoting you above) is that it might imply all of us - including the flesh. Of course the body is dead due to sin and being crucified, but in practice here on the earth it is active! So we in no way could say that the church is our flesh, right? Of course not! The ekklesia, here and now IS contained in vessels of flesh, just as our spirit is. But we can't equate flesh with spirit.

In his final days, Apostle Paul stated that in the church, God's great house, there were vessels unto honor and vessels unto dishonor. (2 Timothy 19-22)

Please note that Paul does not say that our spirit is a vessel of honor within our flesh, which is a vessel of dishonor. Rather he distinguishes honorable members of God's house from dishonorable members, calling the former "gold and silver," and the latter "wooden and earthen."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Great points!

Oneness is an interesting thing to discuss, is it not!?

Attributes of the life He's shared with us:

1. Makes us Jesus' brothers
2. Makes us sons (not just adopted)

Not to take away from your great post here, but we have discussed this matter of ADOPTION at some length.

Lee's teaching on "adoption" was extremely naive and misleading. It would greatly increase your faith to understand the depth of the riches of God's love to further investigate Apostle Paul's great use of the Roman legal system of adoption.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not to take away from your great post here, but we have discussed this matter of ADOPTION at some length.

Lee's teaching on "adoption" was extremely naive and misleading. It would greatly increase your faith to understand the depth of the riches of God's love to further investigate Apostle Paul's great use of the Roman legal system of adoption.

Yes, the Roman system of adoption was remarkable and I think what God has done with us far surpasses even that!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Technically, no, bro.

John 15.1 says . . . "I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman."

Romans 11.17-21 says . . .
SonsToGlory, there is a sober warning from Apostle Paul in this section to the Gentile "branches," like some who were/are in the LC's, not to be arrogant, or they too like Israel will also be cut off.

Yes, and we are in the New Covenant, so TODAY if we hear His voice, we do not harden our hearts, but rather - seeing He has prepared and cleared the Way completely - TODAY let us come boldly to the throne of GRACE!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, the Roman system of adoption was remarkable and I think what God has done with us far surpasses even that!

I think you missed the point. Let me explain a little.

Natural born biological children had no rights in the Roman legal system. They could be disowned. Adopted children could not be disowned, since they were *chosen* by their parents. They also could be heirs. Hence adopted children had more rights than biological children.

Read up on it. Sounds like you only got a half-salvation, and are still stuck in the old Lee deceptions. That's too bad, since only *adopted* children had real *assurance* of all the promises of the Father.

Sounds like you have forsaken the assurance of salvation, and the right to become an heir of God, and joint-heir of Christ.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like you have forsaken the assurance of salvation, and the right to become an heir of God, and joint-heir of Christ.

I don't get this kind of thought at all from what Sons to Glory! has posted. In fact, probably just the opposite.

Here's the problem brothers and sisters. Those of us who sat under the ministry of Witness Lee for any length of time probably picked up the notion that these two aspects of our full salvation in Christ - receiving the eternal life of God through belief and faith, and our adoption as sons, are somehow "competing" biblical notions of how God has provided for our full salvation. These are not competing teachings regarding our full salvation, rather they are two aspects, or essential parts, as it were, which compose our total salvation. Of course there are other aspects, such as justification and sanctification, but for the purposes of our discussion on this thread, I think we can just stick with receiving the life of God and our adoption as sons.

To be clear, our adoption as sons is in no way an inferior or incomplete understanding of God's full salvation. Needless to say, neither is our receiving and partaking of the divine nature and life of God an inferior nor incomplete understanding of God's full salvation. They are simply two aspects, or parts, of the very same wonderful, marvelous, glorious full salvation provided for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think you missed the point. Let me explain a little.

Natural born biological children had no rights in the Roman legal system. They could be disowned. Adopted children could not be disowned, since they were *chosen* by their parents. They also could be heirs. Hence adopted children had more rights than biological children.

Read up on it. Sounds like you only got a half-salvation, and are still stuck in the old Lee deceptions. That's too bad, since only *adopted* children had real *assurance* of all the promises of the Father.

Sounds like you have forsaken the assurance of salvation, and the right to become an heir of God, and joint-heir of Christ.

We seem to be missing each other's point! Yes, I know these things about the Roman adoption system - it has been shared a bit here a couple years ago.

[JB482]

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Heb. 2:11

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don't get this kind of thought at all from what Sons to Glory! has posted. In fact, probably just the opposite.

Here's the problem brothers and sisters. Those of us who sat under the ministry of Witness Lee for any length of time probably picked up the notion that these two aspects of our full salvation in Christ - receiving the eternal life of God through belief and faith, and our adoption as sons, are somehow "competing" biblical notions of how God has provided for our full salvation. These are not competing teachings regarding our full salvation, rather they are two aspects, or essential parts, as it were, which compose our total salvation. Of course there are other aspects, such as justification and sanctification, but for the purposes of our discussion on this thread, I think we can just stick with receiving the life of God and our adoption as sons.

To be clear, our adoption as sons is in no way an inferior or incomplete understanding of God's full salvation. Needless to say, neither is our receiving and partaking of the divine nature and life of God an inferior nor incomplete understanding of God's full salvation. They are simply two aspects, or parts, of the very same wonderful, marvelous, glorious full salvation provided for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
-

Well said! A brother I know frequently talks about the "two fold aspect" of spiritual things. I think it's because there is always the earthly view and the heavenly view. Paul was very good to present the spiritual side of things, but also not neglect the earthly view - which is our experience.

[Sons to Glory!]

Some verses I read in Daily Light this week I thought to share:

"But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2

"because as He is, so are we in this world." 1 John 4:17

"When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory." Col 3:4

"the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Eph 1:23

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Some verses I read in Daily Light this week I thought to share:

"But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2

"because as He is, so are we in this world." 1 John 4:17

"When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory." Col 3:4

"the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Eph 1:23

These are some pretty amazing verses Son to Glory. But to pour a little cold water on this: each is but one verse or a part of a verse in which the point is not for us to come away with “gee, aren’t I really something”, but something entirely different.

Re 1 John 3:2 the next verse is “And everyone having this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”

1 John 4:17 is in the middle of a discourse on God being love, his love being perfected in us because he first loved us, and the one hating his brother not loving God.

Col 3:4 is in the middle of the exhortation to set our mind on the things which are above and putting to death our members which are on the earth

Ephesians 1:23 concludes a verse about all lordship being given to Christ who is the head...

I say this not because I know what your “takeaways” from these verses is, nor know anything about The Daily Light. But, TLR leaders did a lot of selecting verses from different texts to make or support different points I later learned aren’t completely true (because context was missed or the real point(s) the author was making were in the preceding, next, or subsequent verse(s).

Once bitten, twice shy

And, lest we get too lifted up, all of these point to what we shall be someday. And if we really compare ourselves to the Jesus Christ revealed in the gospels, we will see how much work He needs to do in us as well as where our real focus should be such as personal holiness, serving, and helping others, etc.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

And, lest we get too lifted up, all of these point to what we shall be someday. And if we really compare ourselves to the Jesus Christ revealed in the gospels, we will see how much work He needs to do in us as well as where our real focus should be such as personal holiness, serving, and helping others, etc.

That last part really made sense, about serving and helping others etc. It seems to me that the Jewish religion held some attraction to the world, if you look at the frequent reference to "God-fearers" in the NT, in the Acts and gospels. The Roman Centurion was presented as a man that feared God, with his whole household.And Paul's synagogue gospel speeches usually made reference to "those of you who fear God", along with "you men of Israel".

Now, what attracted the Gentiles to the synagogues? Referents to ceremonies that they couldn't see (temple sacrifices)? Or a manner of living? Not just, "don't steal" and "don't kill". But also to remember the poor and the widow and the stranger among you. Not just "a fair weight and measure", but even forgiveness. I mean, what Iron-Age ethic would have a Jubilee?! But the Jews had it.

Now in this light we can consider Jesus' ethical teachings of mercy, love, compassion, forgiveness. Of giving generously and not hoarding for oneself.

And in this light we can remember his word that, "if you do it to the least of these, you do it to me." Jesus is not sick. Jesus is not in prison. But if we lower ourselves, humble ourselves, and consider others as better than we, even - gasp - the poor, the weak, the widows, the outcast, then Christ's spirit will meet us there, and testify that we are surely his disciples.

In this sense the "body" of collective of members is Christ and can be considered such. The worse off they are, and the less chance they will repay us in this age, the more we should pursue them. This is the testimony of the Son of God, now raised to glory, that we should care for those who by rights nobody should care for. But God cares. That is the core of the Jewish ethic and Jesus as God's Incarnate Word personified it. And now we endeavour to follow.

To me, the power of the "body" is that it invites, even compels me to consider my "neighbour"... yes, that one. The unlovable one. The unlovely one. The dreaded "other". To love them as I love myself. Because Christ has promised that he would meet me there. So I pursue.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by aron

That last part really made sense, about serving and helping others etc. It seems to me that the Jewish religion held some attraction to the world, if you look at the frequent reference to "God-fearers" in the NT, in the Acts and gospels. The Roman Centurion was presented as a man that feared God, with his whole household.And Paul's synagogue gospel speeches usually made reference to "those of you who fear God", along with "you men of Israel".

Now, what attracted the Gentiles to the synagogues? Referents to ceremonies that they couldn't see (temple sacrifices)? Or a manner of living? Not just, "don't steal" and "don't kill". But also to remember the poor and the widow and the stranger among you. Not just "a fair weight and measure", but even forgiveness. I mean, what Iron-Age ethic would have a Jubilee?! But the Jews had it.

Now in this light we can consider Jesus' ethical teachings of mercy, love, compassion, forgiveness. Of giving generously and not hoarding for oneself.

And in this light we can remember his word that, "if you do it to the least of these, you do it to me." Jesus is not sick. Jesus is not in prison. But if we lower ourselves, humble ourselves, and consider others as better than we, even - gasp - the poor, the weak, the widows, the outcast, then Christ's spirit will meet us there, and testify that we are surely his disciples.

In this sense the "body" of collective of members is Christ and can be considered such. The worse off they are, and the less chance they will repay us in this age, the more we should pursue them. This is the testimony of the Son of God, now raised to glory, that we should care for those who by rights nobody should care for. But God cares. That is the core of the Jewish ethic and Jesus as God's Incarnate Word personified it. And now we endeavour to follow.

To me, the power of the "body" is that it invites, even compels me to consider my "neighbour"... yes, that one. The unlovable one. The unlovely one. The dreaded "other". To love them as I love myself. Because Christ has promised that he would meet me there. So I pursue.

What you say here sounds like a return to Judaism,I don't say it with any mean spirit,but in love. It doesn't sound like the Gospel of the glory of Christ to me. I know it's good to help the poor and disenfranchised and we should. But I don't see in the teaching of the Apostles what you are saying is the central theme of the new testament revelation and God's purpose.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JB482

What you say here sounds like a return to Judaism,I don't say it with any mean spirit,but in love. It doesn't sound like the Gospel of the glory of Christ to me. I know it's good to help the poor and disenfranchised and we should. But I don't see in the teaching of the Apostles what you are saying is the central theme of the new testament revelation and God's purpose.

By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.

Not only is this the gospel but it is also the most effective way to preach the gospel. How is this not a glory to the Lord? How is this not the Gospel of glory of Christ?

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

I don't see in the teaching of the Apostles what you are saying is the central theme of the new testament revelation and God's purpose.

Thank you for the challenge. I don't take it as anything but "in love". We all should test what is put out by others.

Hebrews 10:24 says to exhort one another to "love and good works". Yes verse 25 says, don't forsake the assembling together, but simply assembling in and of itself is not a good work. There should be some issue, some demonstration that you are saved. A 'sign', if you will. Notice how the two are put together in Heb 10:24: "love" paired with "good works". The second proves the reality of the first. Think of Dorcas and the widows. You knew one was there (love) because of the issue (the good works). The shirts and tunics were a 'sign' of the love within her heart.

When Peter went to the Gentiles, and told them of Jesus Christ, he characterized him in this way, "You yourselves know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee with the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him. We are witnesses of all that He did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem." (Acts 10:37-39)

Peter was a witness for 3+ years of Jesus' life, and this was his summary: "Jesus went around, doing good". So I say it is indeed the "central theme of the New Testament", as you put it. Yes, we are saved by grace, not by works. It is by faith, not by works lest any man should boast. Then, what? Follow Jesus. (And look what Jesus was doing).

Lastly, as far as a return to Judaism, that was clearly settled in Acts 15. But note what they told Paul to do: "And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews. They only asked us to be mindful of the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal 2:9,10) The only specific request from the "pillars" to Paul was to remember the poor, which he said he was "eager to do". Why? Because it is "God's economy!" It is the "central lane of the divine revelation", as LSM President BP likes to put it.

Just some thoughts from a fellow pilgrim along the way.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by aron

Just some thoughts from a fellow pilgrim along the way.

Thanks for your thoughts fellow pilgrim aron. One thing,we no longer know Christ according to the flesh, He died to the flesh under the load of our sins,and is risen in a glorified state. And as exalted to the Majesty on high,He is now a Heavenly Christ who we behold and reflect and are changed into His Image. God bless!

[JB482]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.

Not only is this the gospel but it is also the most effective way to preach the gospel. How is this not a glory to the Lord? How is this not the Gospel of glory of Christ?

We should have brotherly love if we are real Christians. And good works are the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Who could argue with that? It was the jewish and synagogue references that aron had in his post that I was wondering about. The Church didn't evolve or morph out of Judaism. As Judaism is an earthly religion of the flesh. The Church was formed by Christ after He died and was risen in Glory at the right hand of God. The Church's origin is Heaven with a Heavenly calling it's members chosen by God before the foundation of the World. When Christ sent down the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost the sojourn of the Church on earth began. For a time the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved. A Jewish remnant was saved the Lord knowing the destruction of Jerusalem was coming in 70 A.D. But before that the Lord Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. And the Apostle to the Gentiles was arrested and converted,who only knew a glorified Christ. And to Paul were given the revelation of Christ and the Church which is His body.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

It was the jewish and synagogue references that aron had in his post that I was wondering about. The Church didn't evolve or morph out of Judaism. .... The Church's origin is Heaven with a Heavenly calling it's members chosen by God before the foundation of the World. ..the Apostle to the Gentiles was arrested and converted,who only knew a glorified Christ. And to Paul were given the revelation of Christ and the Church which is His body.

All valid points. I don't always frame my arguments carefully, and leave a lot that might be assumed, or not, as the case may be.

In my case I was noting that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, went into Jewish synagogues and addressed "men of Israel, and those of you who fear God" and I was asking, What were those non-Jewish people doing in a synagogue? What drew them? Even in Judaism, something of the marvel of God was seen. And Jesus was the apotheosis of that marvel.

Acts 10:2 He [the Gentile centurion] and all his household were devout and God-fearing. He gave generously to the people and prayed to God regularly.

Acts 13:16 Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: "Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!

Going back to Jewish ethics, and our Christian (Christ-like) living of generosity, compassion and mercy, I think the Greeks also had ethics. One could look up many books on the Stoic and Epicurean lines, among others. Many might seem arguably "superior" or enlightened compared to the desert Semites... but God has raised this Jesus from the dead, and we are witnesses ~Acts 2:32. And something remarkable (so I surmise) drew these non-Jewish people into the synagogues.

And my reading is admittedly idiosyncratic, but it was formed in a crucible. I was in the LC for years, in many meetings per week, opening my mouth and yelling the slogans. But I was miserable. I was miserable in the Protestants, and came into the LC seeking purpose. I got love-bombed and stayed for a while, but the sense of purposelessness and frustration remained. Then after some years I left the LC, still miserable and frustrated, and after some years of wandering about aimlessly one day I got my purpose. It was to help people. Since that moment, a road-to-Damascus-blinding-light moment, my life has been different. It's not about me, it's about helping others. Suddenly I got it. "He who loses his soul-life will gain it." And, "It is better to give, than to receive". And, "invite those who cannot repay you..." &c

I was a Christian before that moment, and a Christian after it. But that was the moment that changed my life. Not a vision of the Body-Christ. Suddenly God gave me a purpose, and a meaning: to help others, to "love and good works" (Heb ch. 10. Whether or not I've been at all successful since then only the Lord knows. But until that point I was aimlessly beating at air, cf 1 Cor 9:26.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

Then after some years I left the LC, still miserable and frustrated, and after some years of wandering about aimlessly one day I got my purpose. It was to help people. Since that moment, a road-to-Damascus-blinding-light moment, my life has been different. It's not about me, it's about helping others. Suddenly I got it. "He who loses his soul-life will gain it." And, "It is better to give, than to receive". And, "invite those who cannot repay you..." &c

:
Hey Aron, don't mean to go off topic but can you explain what you mean in the bold? What exactly does "soul-life" refer to? Never heard that phrase before. ..

[JB482]

Originally Posted by aron

All valid points. I don't always frame my arguments carefully, and leave a lot that might be assumed, or not, as the case may be.

Oh aron I love the way you write and express your words. I fully understand what you are saying now. It makes perfect sense. Sometimes I may be to quick to take the bull by the horns. I also was in the LC many years (14) only the 1st year 1972-1973 was pleasant. Anyway that's water under the bridge. Isn't our Lord Jesus wonderful! And God our Father! Someday soon the Lord Jesus will have us all in the Father's House together. The Lord bless you brother!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

What exactly does "soul-life" refer to? Never heard that phrase before. ..

Matthew 16 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

The same word for "life" in verse 25 is used for "soul" in verse 26. Jesus just got done rebuking Peter for trying to argue with him. The word used is 'psu-keen' which is the basis of the word "psychology". It is the self, in toto: all the desires, plans, goals, self-image, emotions, values, understandings and thoughts. The LSM translation uses "soul-life" to try to catch the sense of the word. It is your "person" in its truest sense.

God knows more than we do, and often does things that conflict with our notions of "how things should be", and at that time do we deny the self and co-operate, or do we struggle against God? "It is hard for you, to kick against the goads."

Witness Lee and David Yonggi Cho are two public examples of men who wouldn't deny their soul-life and take the narrow path. In both cases, they caved in to their unspiritual progeny and let them feast on the flock. Disaster followed hard upon.

Of course we all fail, as did Peter and everyone else. Jesus alone, by definition, is without sin. Going back to topic, we, strictu sensu, are not Christ.

[Jo S]

Aron, so are you saying the term "soul-life" refers more to self-interests in our thoughts, emotions, ect or does the phrase encompass the entire quantity of the soul?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JB482

The Church didn't evolve or morph out of Judaism. As Judaism is an earthly religion of the flesh. The Church was formed by Christ after He died and was risen in Glory at the right hand of God. The Church's origin is Heaven with a Heavenly calling it's members chosen by God before the foundation of the World.

Witness Lee used the analogy of Judaism being the egg shell. When the egg is inside the egg shell it is certainly something of life, but once the chicken is hatched the shell just appears to be dead, lifeless piece of organic trash.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee used the analogy of Judaism being the egg shell. When the egg is inside the egg shell it is certainly something of life, but once the chicken is hatched the shell just appears to be dead, lifeless piece of organic trash.

The Church/Body of Christ didn't "hatch" out of Judaism. The origin of the Church is Heaven. When Christ died He died to everything of the old creation He was the Last Adam. He who knew no sin was made sin, He became sin in the flesh by taking our sin upon Himself even though He had no sin in Himself. And all of God's wrath and fury of judgment was put on the Lamb of God. He died under the full weight of our sin and was condemned as sin in the flesh. By doing so he glorified God. God's honor was restored. The first man Adam had dishonored God,the Last Adam Christ restored God's honor by His obedience to God by His death on the cross,as the first Adam dishonored God and had constituted all members of the adamic race sinners by his disobedience. When Christ was raised out from among the dead by the Glory of God He was the First born out from among the dead. He was the First Fruits of the New Creation,He was raised in a glorified state He was in an altogether new condition. The Firstborn of many son's. And God exalted Him to the Majesty on High and set Him at His right hand on His Throne. When Christ sent down the promised Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost to form the Church it is entirely out from Heaven. The Church is from Heaven it only sojourns on Earth until Christ has gathered all the sheep that the Father has given Him and then Christ will come and take the Church up to Heaven to the Father's House. It is true that Christ sprang from the Tribe of Judah according to the flesh but once Christ died and was risen we can no longer know Him after the flesh because He died to the flesh. And the Veil has been rent.

[Ohio]

Perhaps better to say that Christ and the church "hatched" out of Israel, not Judaism?

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps better to say that Christ and the church "hatched" out of Israel, not Judaism?

Christ is eternal without beginning without end. The Church is wholly out of Christ,as Eve was wholly out of Adam.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JB482

Christ is eternal without beginning without end. The Church is wholly out of Christ,as Eve was wholly out of Adam.

Verses like Romans 1.3 make it clear that, "His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, came out of the seed of David according to the flesh."

To insist that Christ and the church only come out from heaven is to deny half of the scripture.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JJ

These are some pretty amazing verses Son to Glory. But to pour a little cold water on this: each is but one verse or a part of a verse in which the point is not for us to come away with “gee, aren’t I really something”, but something entirely different.

I say this not because I know what your “takeaways” from these verses is, nor know anything about The Daily Light.

FYI: "Daily Light" is a small daily devotional of just scripture. It was originally put together in 1794 by Samuel Bagster (a forerunner of the Marshall Pickering publishing house), and recently edited in modern language (mostly NKJV) by Ann Graham Lotz (Billy's daughter). It's so good as it's just the word, and the Spirit clearly moved Bagster to put the different verses together for each day, to address a particular topic. Highly recommended!

Find it here: https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Light-D.../dp/0849954061

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Verses like Romans 1.3 make it clear that, "His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, came out of the seed of David according to the flesh."

To insist that Christ and the church only come out from heaven is to deny half of the scripture.

I don't deny that Christ has come in the flesh,He is God manifested in the flesh born of a woman true Man the Son of Man,but when He became flesh He didn't cease to be the eternal Son of God which He always was and will be. When Jesus was here in the flesh He refered to Himself as the Son of Man who is in Heaven when He was on earth. The Church is on the earth as a sojourner. But the Church is not of this World even as Christ is not of this World. Christ said they are not of this World even as I am not of this World. It's a great mystery Christ and the Church as the Apostle Paul says. We need a spirit of wisdom and revelation to get some understanding of it and that mixed with faith.

[Sons to Glory!]

In Ephesians 1:9 Paul says, "Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself." What is this mystery? Then in 5:2 he says, "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

In Matthew 16:16 Peter answers the Lord's question of, "Who do men say I am?" and says, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replies immediately by saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." This was a HUGE revelation given to Peter of who Christ is - and then immediately Jesus refers to the church.

Christ is the chief cornerstone and Peter says we are living stones (same substance). Why did Christ come? As the One Grain He came to fall into the ground to die to produce many grains - the church. (Jn 12:24) So the church is inexplicably linked to Christ in a mysterious, living and organic way.

No one is saying (at least I'm not) that believers are God or Lord or the King of Kings . . . but is the church not in a mysterious organic union with Christ?

[JB482]

We don't become part of the God Head but we partake of the Divine nature and posess that Life that was from the beginning the eternal life as members of Christ's body.

[JB482]

Here is a good link on Christ and the Church Sons of Glory it's long but very good. https://www.stempublishing.com/autho...r/PPOPS05.html

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JB482

Here is a good link on Christ and the Church Sons of Glory it's long but very good. https://www.stempublishing.com/autho...r/PPOPS05.html

Thanks. I think I'll print this out to read and will get back with you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JB482

Here is a good link on Christ and the Church Sons of Glory it's long but very good. https://www.stempublishing.com/autho...r/PPOPS05.html

So I've read about half of it (full paper is 22 pages). It is a very good discussion of Christ and the church!

My takeaway so far is a pretty simple thing. So my name is Tery and I have a head and a body. Together they make up who I am - Tery. It would be impossible to separate my head and my body and still have my being. If someone pointed to my head and asked, "Is this Tery?" It would be answered in the affirmative. If someone pointed to my body (with the head still attached) and asked the same question, the answer would still be the same.

People would not usually say, "Yes, but that is just Tery's head," or "Yes, but that is just Tery's body." And they wouldn't say, "Yes, that is Tery's body, but that's not actually Tery . . . Tery is only his head."

Get the point? Christ's body cannot be separate from His head. You can't say the body of Christ is something apart from Him, or a different entity than Christ, can you? Of course not!

Now, just as my head is the controlling part of my body, so also is Christ. The body will never become the head. So the leading part of the organism is certainly the head. But one cannot say that my body isn't me, just as you can't say that the church is not Christ.

(And yes, a branch that does not bear fruit can be cut off. We might liken that to a cancer in the body that has to be cut out. But the body is still that person.)

[JB482]

Amen brother,the Church which is His body. When the Lord Jesus was risen and glorified and ascended He sent down the Spirit and the Church which is His body came into existence. Our Head is in Heaven but we are one with Him as we are on earth through the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus said Saul Saul why dost thou persecute me,we are His body. As a side note William Trotter the brother who gave that message went to be with the Lord in 1865. The Holy Spirit has given many precious saints as gifts for the building up of the body of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JB482

As a side note William Trotter the brother who gave that message went to be with the Lord in 1865.

Not to take away anything from Trotter, surely a most beloved brother by all accounts, but the background of this article was Darby's excommunication of Mueller, Newton, and others on spurious grounds.

Note that the article begins with the following, "The responsibilities and the doom of Christendom were what last occupied us." That should be a red flag to all of us.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not to take away anything from Trotter, surely a most beloved brother by all accounts, but the background of this article was Darby's excommunication of Mueller, Newton, and others on spurious grounds.

It might not hurt if you did more thorough research on the topic that you mentioned Ohio. Benjamin Newton was a heretic. If you read his theology he said blasphemous things about the Deity and Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they were vindicated to separate from that kind of evil.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by JB482

It might not hurt if you did more thorough research on the topic that you mentioned Ohio. Benjamin Newton was a heretic. If you read his theology he said blasphemous things about the Deity and Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they were vindicated to separate from that kind of evil.

https://www.stempublishing.com/autho.../NEWTONBW.html
Benjamin Newton's doctrine. By William Trotter.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not to take away anything from Trotter, surely a most beloved brother by all accounts, but the background of this article was Darby's excommunication of Mueller, Newton, and others on spurious grounds.

Note that the article begins with the following, "The responsibilities and the doom of Christendom were what last occupied us." That should be a red flag to all of us.

The vast organized system of Christendom is corrupt and it is doomed to judgment from the Lord Jesus. The Apostles Paul,Peter,John,Jude all warn of it in their epistles,of the apostate Church. We are instructed to follow righteousness faith love peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

People would not usually say, "Yes, but that is just Tery's head," or "Yes, but that is just Tery's body." And they wouldn't say, "Yes, that is Tery's body, but that's not actually Tery . . . Tery is only his head."

Get the point? Christ's body cannot be separate from His head.

Yes, I get the point. The point is you are shoehorning your interpretation into a metaphor that doesn't truly support it. You are ignoring interpretations of the metaphor which say exactly the opposite of what you claim. Such as, when you die your body goes into the ground and YOU go.... somewhere, without your body. A body is just shell which contains the person. It is not the person in any ultimate sense. Even people at a funeral know the difference between a body and the person who once inhabited it.

The metaphor actually just means we contain Christ and he moves us in a coordinated way like a person moves his own body to accomplish works on his behalf. It also means each of us are a "member of the body" with different gifts and functions, much like the members of a body.

That's all it need mean to do the job it was meant to do. No teaching in the Bible was meant to convey that we are God or Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JB482

The vast organized system of Christendom is corrupt and it is doomed to judgment from the Lord Jesus.

Statements like that are right out of the LR playbook and mentality.

Us vs. Them. The Pure vs. the Great Unwashed. The Remnant vs. the Outsiders. The Recovery vs. the Opposers.

Of course, no one who makes such statements ever thinks they are in the latter group. Someone else is. They look out with clarity and discernment about who and what is Christendom, and who and what is God's Kingdom.

“Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like the other men—swindlers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes of all that I receive.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance, unwilling even to lift up his eyes to heaven. Instead, he beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner!’

I tell you, this man, rather than the Pharisee, went home justified. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:10-14

Better worry about your own judgment and that of those whom the Lord has placed on your heart.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Better worry about your own judgment and of those whom the Lord has placed on your heart.

Why should I worry about my judgment? The one sacrifice of Christ has purged me from my sins once and for all. There is no more sacrifice for sin,Christ can only die once according to Hebrews chapter 10: 12 &14 and 1 John 3:2 Beloved now are we the sons of God,and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:but we know that,when He shall appear,we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is. Being that Christ can only die once either all our sins were taken away by His one sacrifice or they never can be. When I stand before Christ at the Bema I will be changed and conformed into His likeness. The judgment seat of Christ is for whether or not we get a reward. He that hath the Son hath eternal Life.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JB482

Why should I worry about my judgment?

I meant the judgement seat of Christ, oh pure one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JB482

It might not hurt if you did more thorough research on the topic that you mentioned Ohio. Benjamin Newton was a heretic. If you read his theology he said blasphemous things about the Deity and Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they were vindicated to separate from that kind of evil.

Not so! A little knowledge for you is dangerous indeed!

The Plymouth censure by Darby was a "political hit job!" No doubt about it. It was a power struggle. Do your research. And definitely don't just read the "Exclusive" history reports. That's like reading Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux on John Ingalls et. al. You need to read Coad, Neatby, Lang, Ironside, etc. You will never get an accurate history from STEM Publishers. That's like asking LSM about Ingalls, Dong, or Titus Chu.

Proof: Read about Darby's ardent supporters in 1866, some 20 years after Newton's "heresy." Specifically William Dorman, Capt Percy Hall, Thomas Newberry, Joseph Stancomb, and many other notable Brethren.

Initially they were with Newton in Plymouth, the most fruitful Brethren assembly, then over months of oppression, Darby's sheer force of nature convinced them to trust him over Newton. B. W. Newton, who was recently widowed, basically decided to "surrender." After the dust had settled these scholars began to compare Darby's teachings about the "sufferings of Jesus under the federal headship of Adam" and discovered that both Darby's and Newton's teachings on the subject were "almost identical." (See Chief Men among the Brethren by Pickering page 57 and numerous other books)

Darby lied about many events. Case in point: Read about his last meeting with George Mueller. Sound like WL?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Statements like that are right out of the LR playbook and mentality.

Us vs. Them. The Pure vs. the Great Unwashed. The Remnant vs. the Outsiders. The Recovery vs. the Opposers.

Of course, no one who makes such statements ever thinks they are in the latter group. Someone else is. They look out with clarity and discernment about who and what is Christendom, and who and what is God's Kingdom.

“Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like the other men—swindlers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes of all that I receive.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance, unwilling even to lift up his eyes to heaven. Instead, he beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner!’

I tell you, this man, rather than the Pharisee, went home justified. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:10-14

Better worry about your own judgment and that of those whom the Lord has placed on your heart.

Thanks for this reply. You said it much better than I could. With more grace! And a fitting example.

These kinds of generalizations, though they sound convincingly "spiritual" especially for those in the LC, only produce one thing: Laodicean pride.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JB482

https://www.stempublishing.com/autho.../NEWTONBW.html
Benjamin Newton's doctrine. By William Trotter.

If Trotter is correct, then Darby should be doubly judged for heresy. First for condemning Newton, and subsequently Mueller, and secondly for teaching the same things as Newton.

Read what Newton taught. Don't read what others taught that he taught.

Same goes for Muller, Craik, Chapman, and millions of other "Open" Brethren all condemned mercilessly by Darby and company. The worst btw was G. V. Wigram.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, I get the point. The point is you are shoehorning your interpretation into a metaphor that doesn't truly support it. You are ignoring interpretations of the metaphor which say exactly the opposite of what you claim. Such as, when you die your body goes into the ground and YOU go.... somewhere, without your body. A body is just shell which contains the person. It is not the person in any ultimate sense. Even people at a funeral know the difference between a body and the person who once inhabited it.

The metaphor actually just means we contain Christ and he moves us in a coordinated way like a person moves his own body to accomplish works on his behalf. It also means each of us are a "member of the body" with different gifts and functions, much like the members of a body.

That's all it need mean to do the job it was meant to do. No teaching in the Bible was meant to convey that we are God or Christ.

When I use a shoehorn, it's not because my foot DOESN'T fit my shoe!

Well I suppose that's one way to look it it. But your last sentence seems to be a little of a stawman to me. No one (at least I think) is saying we are God, or am I missing something? (and yes God is God, but Christ is the God-Man . . .)

Look, we could dance a long time around the head of this pin, but there is a reason Paul calls it a "great mystery." That means it's not easy for the human mind to grasp . . . nay impossible. Sometime back I realized that conversations trying to nail down the exact nature of the Triune God were futile. I mean it's like what John Locke is reputed to have said: "I cannot fathom the mystery of a single flower; Neither was it intended that I should!"

So now to this mystery is added the church. Part of God or becoming God? No, that seems too far. But I don't think it's as easy to delineate as you might think. This is because when you start talking about life, which only God can create, things get sorta messy don't they? So He gave us His life and calls us "sons" -- To the point that Jesus is not ashamed to call us brothers! (Hebrews 2:11)

In any case, it's all by revelation . . . and I certainly don't think I've seen the fullness of this mystery!

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Statements like that are right out of the LR playbook and mentality.

Us vs. Them. The Pure vs. the Great Unwashed. The Remnant vs. the Outsiders. The Recovery vs. the Opposers.

Of course, no one who makes such statements ever thinks they are in the latter group. Someone else is. They look out with clarity and discernment about who and what is Christendom, and who and what is God's Kingdom.

“Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like the other men—swindlers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes of all that I receive.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance, unwilling even to lift up his eyes to heaven. Instead, he beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner!’

I tell you, this man, rather than the Pharisee, went home justified. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:10-14

Better worry about your own judgment and that of those whom the Lord has placed on your heart.

The epistles of the Apostles and Revelation clearly state the coming judgement on the apostate church. But it happens after the Lord Jesus has taken the real Christians up to be with Him. After the wheat is gathered into the barn. The Tares who were gathered into bundles prior to the Wheat being taken to be with the Lord with be burned. Christendom is filled with mere professors of Christ who don't possess His Life. But there are many many true believers also,but they will already be taken up to be with the Lord before the Lord judges the corrupt system

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I meant the judgement seat of Christ, oh pure one.

Your attitude is terrible.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by JB482

Your attitude is terrible.

Guess we gotta love 'em any ways!

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so! A little knowledge for you is dangerous indeed!

The Plymouth censure by Darby was a "political hit job!" No doubt about it. It was a power struggle. Do your research. And definitely don't just read the "Exclusive" history reports. That's like reading Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux on John Ingalls et. al. You need to read Coad, Neatby, Lang, Ironside, etc. You will never get an accurate history from STEM Publishers. That's like asking LSM about Ingalls, Dong, or Titus Chu.

Proof: Read about Darby's ardent supporters in 1866, some 20 years after Newton's "heresy." Specifically William Dorman, Capt Percy Hall, Thomas Newberry, Joseph Stancomb, and many other notable Brethren.

Initially they were with Newton in Plymouth, the most fruitful Brethren assembly, then over months of oppression, Darby's sheer force of nature convinced them to trust him over Newton. B. W. Newton, who was recently widowed, basically decided to "surrender." After the dust had settled these scholars began to compare Darby's teachings about the "sufferings of Jesus under the federal headship of Adam" and discovered that both Darby's and Newton's teachings on the subject were "almost identical." (See Chief Men among the Brethren by Pickering page 57 and numerous other books)

Darby lied about many events. Case in point: Read about his last meeting with George Mueller. Sound like WL?

I guess you are the end all be all when it comes to Church history. I hope your blood pressure isn't getting to high.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JB482

The Church/Body of Christ didn't "hatch" out of Judaism. The origin of the Church is Heaven. When Christ died He died to everything of the old creation He was the Last Adam. He who knew no sin was made sin, He became sin in the flesh by taking our sin upon Himself even though He had no sin in Himself. And all of God's wrath and fury of judgment was put on the Lamb of God. He died under the full weight of our sin and was condemned as sin in the flesh. By doing so he glorified God. God's honor was restored. The first man Adam had dishonored God,the Last Adam Christ restored God's honor by His obedience to God by His death on the cross,as the first Adam dishonored God and had constituted all members of the adamic race sinners by his disobedience. When Christ was raised out from among the dead by the Glory of God He was the First born out from among the dead. He was the First Fruits of the New Creation,He was raised in a glorified state He was in an altogether new condition. The Firstborn of many son's. And God exalted Him to the Majesty on High and set Him at His right hand on His Throne. When Christ sent down the promised Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost to form the Church it is entirely out from Heaven. The Church is from Heaven it only sojourns on Earth until Christ has gathered all the sheep that the Father has given Him and then Christ will come and take the Church up to Heaven to the Father's House. It is true that Christ sprang from the Tribe of Judah according to the flesh but once Christ died and was risen we can no longer know Him after the flesh because He died to the flesh. And the Veil has been rent.

Judaism did not originate with Adam, it originated with Abraham, one of the hall of famers in Faith.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Judaism did not originate with Adam, it originated with Abraham, one of the hall of famers in Faith.

I never said Judaism originated with Adam.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so! A little knowledge for you is dangerous indeed!

The Plymouth censure by Darby was a "political hit job!" No doubt about it. It was a power struggle. Do your research. And definitely don't just read the "Exclusive" history reports. That's like reading Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux on John Ingalls et. al. You need to read Coad, Neatby, Lang, Ironside, etc. You will never get an accurate history from STEM Publishers. That's like asking LSM about Ingalls, Dong, or Titus Chu.

Proof: Read about Darby's ardent supporters in 1866, some 20 years after Newton's "heresy." Specifically William Dorman, Capt Percy Hall, Thomas Newberry, Joseph Stancomb, and many other notable Brethren.

Initially they were with Newton in Plymouth, the most fruitful Brethren assembly, then over months of oppression, Darby's sheer force of nature convinced them to trust him over Newton. B. W. Newton, who was recently widowed, basically decided to "surrender." After the dust had settled these scholars began to compare Darby's teachings about the "sufferings of Jesus under the federal headship of Adam" and discovered that both Darby's and Newton's teachings on the subject were "almost identical." (See Chief Men among the Brethren by Pickering page 57 and numerous other books)

Darby lied about many events. Case in point: Read about his last meeting with George Mueller. Sound like WL?

Who appointed you to be my judge?

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If Trotter is correct, then Darby should be doubly judged for heresy. First for condemning Newton, and subsequently Mueller, and secondly for teaching the same things as Newton.

Read what Newton taught. Don't read what others taught that he taught.

Same goes for Muller, Craik, Chapman, and millions of other "Open" Brethren all condemned mercilessly by Darby and company. The worst btw was G. V. Wigram.

You could be the Church history Guru,of this forum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JB482

I guess you are the end all be all when it comes to Church history. I hope your blood pressure isn't getting to high.

Originally Posted by JB482

Who appointed you to be my judge?

Huh? Judge you? Because I corrected Trotter's account?

All I ask is that you evaluate history without prejudice or partiality.

Initial perceptions are often inaccurate, misleading, or just plain wrong.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take my hypertension meds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JB482

You could be the Church history Guru, of this forum

I do like church history more than theology. I learn more. One time I was laid up sick for a few days and read Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I found it real hard to complain about petty things after that.

After the "Phoenix Accord" came out ~2002, I knew that a division was coming between Anaheim and Cleveland. It was signed by all the key brothers from both places. I mean really, all of these "mature" men of God had to sign a document that they would "play nice" with each other?

Then the Lord put a desire in me to study Brethren history, focusing on their first major division, since we were their spiritual "descendants." It was a real eye-opener. Like they say, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. And we did. That's when I knew it was time to leave.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JB482

Your attitude is terrible.

I'll take that as a compliment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'll take that as a compliment.

Love endures all things.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Guess we gotta love 'em any ways!

You'd better love me because you've been commanded to and I'm lovable anyway!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Love endures all things.

Yes indeed.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You'd better love me because you've been commanded to and I'm lovable anyway!

Oh well, okay!

I was listening to a brother recently who said, "Not only does God love you without measure - He even likes you!" It's sometimes hard to fathom (no, actually it's always hard to fathom) that kind of love/like for me! Give me more of that!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh well, okay!

I was listening to a brother recently who said, "Not only does God love you without measure - He even likes you!" It's sometimes hard to fathom (no, actually it's always hard to fathom) that kind of love/like for me! Give me more of that!

Yes! It's all good!

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I do like church history more than theology. I learn more. One time I was laid up sick for a few days and read Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I found it real hard to complain about petty things after that.

After the "Phoenix Accord" came out ~2002, I knew that a division was coming between Anaheim and Cleveland. It was signed by all the key brothers from both places. I mean really, all of these "mature" men of God had to sign a document that they would "play nice" with each other?

Then the Lord put a desire in me to study Brethren history, focusing on their first major division, since we were their spiritual "descendants." It was a real eye-opener. Like they say, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. And we did. That's when I knew it was time to leave.

Amen Bro drive on,I'm glad you like Church history. I've liked it too for over 40 years. I'm not offended it's good to be lively sometimes. God bless you!

[JB482]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'll take that as a compliment.

Good! That's the best way to take it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee used the analogy of Judaism being the egg shell. When the egg is inside the egg shell it is certainly something of life, but once the chicken is hatched the shell just appears to be dead, lifeless piece of organic trash.

I can't find the quote by JB482, but will use this one.

If the church is entirely heavenly, why is Jesus called the king of Israel? If it were not to be so, he would have refuted it. But he repeatedly accepted the term as spoken, without comment. See John 1:49, Acts 1:6; cf John 19:3.

If there are no more Jews and Greeks, why did Paul write the gentiles that they owed the Jews, and not figuratively but in cash? (Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 8:1- 9:15) If we think Paul was doing this begrudgingly then why did he say he was eager to? (Gal 2)

Why did Paul bring alms to his nation? (Acts 24:17)

Do we wave all this off as irrelevant? Was Paul mistaken, along with John, Peter, and James? Then we must have a re-written NT. Similar to the one Jefferson used - he took out all the objectionable parts. Just believe the parts that align with your doctrine. Ignore the rest.

(I do NOT say this of JB or others writing here, but that was the experience I had in the LC. We were the "new Israel" and could freely ignore or re-write what had come before, to suit our present [selfish and myopic] needs).

[JB482]

Originally Posted by aron

I can't find the quote by JB482, but will use this one.

If the church is entirely heavenly, why is Jesus called the king of Israel? If it were not to be so, he would have refuted it. But he repeatedly accepted the term as spoken, without comment. See John 1:49, Acts 1:6; cf John 19:3.

If there are no more Jews and Greeks, why did Paul write the gentiles that they owed the Jews, and not figuratively but in cash? (Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 8:1- 9:15) If we think Paul was doing this begrudgingly then why did he say he was eager to? (Gal 2)

Why did Paul bring alms to his nation? (Acts 24:17)

Do we wave all this off as irrelevant? Was Paul mistaken, along with John, Peter, and James? Then we must have a re-written NT. Similar to the one Jefferson used - he took out all the objectionable parts. Just believe the parts that align with your doctrine. Ignore the rest.

(I do NOT say this of JB or others writing here, but that was the experience I had in the LC. We were the "new Israel" and could freely ignore or re-write what had come before, to suit our present [selfish and myopic] needs).

Aron my original post on that comment can be found. You need to scroll up futher. I don't think it's right to use someone's post with out my original comment attached to it and assume something I said.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

We should have brotherly love if we are real Christians. And good works are the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Who could argue with that? It was the jewish and synagogue references that aron had in his post that I was wondering about. The Church didn't evolve or morph out of Judaism. As Judaism is an earthly religion of the flesh. The Church was formed by Christ after He died and was risen in Glory at the right hand of God. The Church's origin is Heaven with a Heavenly calling it's members chosen by God before the foundation of the World. When Christ sent down the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost the sojourn of the Church on earth began. For a time the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved. A Jewish remnant was saved the Lord knowing the destruction of Jerusalem was coming in 70 A.D. But before that the Lord Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. And the Apostle to the Gentiles was arrested and converted,who only knew a glorified Christ. And to Paul were given the revelation of Christ and the Church which is His body.

For my reply, see post #154. Other comments have been made on this thread as well and I'm not sure I encapsulate all of them. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

My point is that culture is what makes us what we are. We are "the nations". Paul was the apostle to the nations. When we say, "No culture but heavenly culture" I remember that in the LC, which became a back door to "Only Chinese culture". So I say, let all the different tribes and tongues and nations come to Zion. Jesus is Lord. No one is saying or suggesting here that we return to the law. But if we want to understand the NT we have to understand how these people thought. They were steeped in a certain culture, and they didn't think it was gone. They didn't ignore Moses. They claimed him. See Stephen to the Sanhedrin. "If you listened to Moses, you would have received Jesus, because Moses prophesied concerning him".

[JB482]

Thanks Aron, God bless

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

Thanks Aron, God bless

Thanks for having the grace to consider my points. I agree completely that the Church didn't evolve or morph out of Judaism and that it is 100% heavenly (in its true state, or 'self'). But the more we understand the nuances of the cultures that formed the back-drop for the written discourse we see in the NT, the more meaning we can draw from the words. And the true meaning is indeed to point us into heaven.

A few notes: I don't know how to write expositions even after many many posts. I still argue past my references. I think most of us do, to some extent. It's like the person trying to re-create the argument with his father or his older brother, year after year, with everyone he meets. Any unresolved issues, fear, shame, frustration, anger, come out in our writings and it's not really about Local Church Discussions or Witness Lee teachings or the LC "church life" but about our present unhappiness. We just use all that as an excuse to vent. Surely I'm not free from online posturing.

Second, my own reading is mine, it's not "truth" per se. It's an opinion, held in time. An opinion often lately formed, and due to change with more experience.

Third, I still don't know how to write. I assume things that are not said in my rush to chime in (see the first point), and I can be very disrespectful to things I don't agree with. The Bible says the first value is love, or 'charity', or respect. I don't like what I perceive to be bad ideas, and what happens to people when they hold them. But that's no excuse to disrespect others.

Lastly, the bottom line isn't agreement but faith. Either God exists or not. Either God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day and gave him glory or not. The NT is quite clear on this, and I believe the witness of scripture. The rest is really just "window dressing". The other things (i.e. the utility of understanding culture and history) are good, and arguably necessary, but without the "window" of Jesus Christ as Lord, nothing really matters.

Peace & God bless to one & all (as Dickens' Tiny Tim would say).

[JB482]

Originally Posted by aron

I can't find the quote by JB482, but will use this one.

If the church is entirely heavenly, why is Jesus called the king of Israel? If it were not to be so, he would have refuted it. But he repeatedly accepted the term as spoken, without comment. See John 1:49, Acts 1:6; cf John 19:3.

If there are no more Jews and Greeks, why did Paul write the gentiles that they owed the Jews, and not figuratively but in cash? (Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 8:1- 9:15) If we think Paul was doing this begrudgingly then why did he say he was eager to? (Gal 2)

Why did Paul bring alms to his nation? (Acts 24:17)

Do we wave all this off as irrelevant? Was Paul mistaken, along with John, Peter, and James? Then we must have a re-written NT. Similar to the one Jefferson used - he took out all the objectionable parts. Just believe the parts that align with your doctrine. Ignore the rest.

(I do NOT say this of JB or others writing here, but that was the experience I had in the LC. We were the "new Israel" and could freely ignore or re-write what had come before, to suit our present [selfish and myopic] needs).

Jesus was the earthly Messiah to the Jewish Nation. When He came (born as a babe conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb) He came as their Messiah,He was the fulfillment of all the promises which were given to Abraham and the Father's. The Jews were looking for an earthly Messiah. But when Jesus began His Ministry He told them My Kingdom is not of this World,He came announcing the Kingdom of Heaven. So there was always friction between Jesus and the Pharisees. What the Jews failed to realize in the prophetic writings about the Messiah was that they show two comings of Christ. After the Jews rejected Christ and collaborated with the Romans to crucify Him,all the Jewish promises concerning the earthly Messiah were suspended by God until in the future when they will say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. But in the interim after Christ's death and resurrection is the Church age. When Christ returns publicly with all the saints with Him at the end of the great tribulation He will save a Jewish remnant and then Christ will reign as King of Israel and all the promises to the Jewish Nation will be fulfilled. Does this make sense? Anyway this is how I see it in the word.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by aron

Thanks for having the grace to consider my points. I agree completely that the Church didn't evolve or morph out of Judaism and that it is 100% heavenly (in its true state, or 'self'). But the more we understand the nuances of the cultures that formed the back-drop for the written discourse we see in the NT, the more meaning we can draw from the words. And the true meaning is indeed to point us into heaven.

A few notes: I don't know how to write expositions even after many many posts. I still argue past my references. I think most of us do, to some extent. It's like the person trying to re-create the argument with his father or his older brother, year after year, with everyone he meets. Any unresolved issues, fear, shame, frustration, anger, come out in our writings and it's not really about Local Church Discussions or Witness Lee teachings or the LC "church life" but about our present unhappiness. We just use all that as an excuse to vent. Surely I'm not free from online posturing.

Second, my own reading is mine, it's not "truth" per se. It's an opinion, held in time. An opinion often lately formed, and due to change with more experience.

Third, I still don't know how to write. I assume things that are not said in my rush to chime in (see the first point), and I can be very disrespectful to things I don't agree with. The Bible says the first value is love, or 'charity', or respect. I don't like what I perceive to be bad ideas, and what happens to people when they hold them. But that's no excuse to disrespect others.

Lastly, the bottom line isn't agreement but faith. Either God exists or not. Either God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day and gave him glory or not. The NT is quite clear on this, and I believe the witness of scripture. The rest is really just "window dressing". The other things (i.e. the utility of understanding culture and history) are good, and arguably necessary, but without the "window" of Jesus Christ as Lord, nothing really matters.

Peace & God bless to one & all (as Dickens' Tiny Tim would say).

Beautiful,very well said Aron.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JB482

...what the Jews failed to realize in the prophetic writings about the Messiah was that they show two comings of Christ. After the Jews rejected Christ and collaborated with the Romans to crucify Him, all the Jewish promises concerning the earthly Messiah were suspended by God until in the future when they will say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. But in the interim after Christ's death and resurrection is the Church age. When Christ returns publicly with all the saints with Him at the end of the great tribulation He will save a Jewish remnant and then Christ will reign as King of Israel and all the promises to the Jewish Nation will be fulfilled. Does this make sense?

This is certainly the 'standard reading' and it isn't untrue, nor mutually exclusive of my reading. What I've been doing is stressing an aspect that's been helpful to me personally. But I think everyone's view has a chance to profit from others'.

Witness Lee would have had much more utility had he allowed other voices in the room. As it was his expository work, unbalanced, became a stumbling block to many.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JB482

Jesus was the earthly Messiah to the Jewish Nation. When He came (born as a babe conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin's womb) He came as their Messiah,He was the fulfillment of all the promises which were given to Abraham and the Father's.

One aspect of that fulfillment was the genealogy in both Matthew and Luke. These directly and solidly connect Jesus to the OT, the Jews, and the promises of God made to the forefathers.

Originally Posted by JB482

The Jews were looking for an earthly Messiah. But when Jesus began His Ministry He told them My Kingdom is not of this World,He came announcing the Kingdom of Heaven. So there was always friction between Jesus and the Pharisees. What the Jews failed to realize in the prophetic writings about the Messiah was that they show two comings of Christ.

Not only so they also show the church. See Paul's exposition in Galatians.

Originally Posted by JB482

After the Jews rejected Christ and collaborated with the Romans to crucify Him,all the Jewish promises concerning the earthly Messiah were suspended by God until in the future when they will say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

According to Paul there are those who are born according to the Flesh, those are Hagar, and there are those who are born according to Promise. They are all sons of Abraham, so calling all the sons of Abraham "Jews" is confusing. We have those according to the promise and those according to the flesh.

Originally Posted by JB482

But in the interim after Christ's death and resurrection is the Church age. When Christ returns publicly with all the saints with Him at the end of the great tribulation He will save a Jewish remnant and then Christ will reign as King of Israel and all the promises to the Jewish Nation will be fulfilled. Does this make sense? Anyway this is how I see it in the word.

I think your interpretation equates Jews with those according to the flesh. I don't see that in the NT. I see the epistle of James as written specifically for Jews having difficulty with this major turn in God's move. If God's grace was suspended to the Jews then there would be no basis for James to write to "the 12 tribes in the dispersion". The fact that they still saw themselves as the tribes of Israel can indicate a lack of vision of what the Lord accomplished, but the gospel is about the Lord calling us out of darkness. If being in darkness was cause for a 2,000 year suspension of grace no one would be saved. At the very least Paul wouldn't have been saved.

[JB482]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One aspect of that fulfillment was the genealogy in both Matthew and Luke. These directly and solidly connect Jesus to the OT, the Jews, and the promises of God made to the forefathers.



Not only so they also show the church. See Paul's exposition in Galatians.



According to Paul there are those who are born according to the Flesh, those are Hagar, and there are those who are born according to Promise. They are all sons of Abraham, so calling all the sons of Abraham "Jews" is confusing. We have those according to the promise and those according to the flesh.



I think your interpretation equates Jews with those according to the flesh. I don't see that in the NT. I see the epistle of James as written specifically for Jews having difficulty with this major turn in God's move. If God's grace was suspended to the Jews then there would be no basis for James to write to "the 12 tribes in the dispersion". The fact that they still saw themselves as the tribes of Israel can indicate a lack of vision of what the Lord accomplished, but the gospel is about the Lord calling us out of darkness. If being in darkness was cause for a 2,000 year suspension of grace no one would be saved. At the very least Paul wouldn't have been saved.

Thank you I appreciate your thoughts and comments

[Sons to Glory!]

Pursuant to the main topic of this thread, I read something this morning in a daily devotional, "The Supplied Life" by Bill Freeman.

As Rod Serling would say, "We offer for your consideration . . ."

[Sons to Glory!]

Pertinent to this thread's original topic, we've been enjoying two "sister" verses while going through Galatians.

Galatians 4:6 & Romans 8:15:
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

In one verse it is the Son crying out, but in the other we are crying out. So is it Christ crying to the Father or us?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Pertinent to this thread's original topic, we've been enjoying two "sister" verses while going through Galatians.

Galatians 4:6 & Romans 8:15:
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

In one verse it is the Son crying out, but in the other we are crying out. So is it Christ crying to the Father or us?

Probably the purpose of the two different verses dictates that one is Christ (or the Spirit, depending on how you punctuate "S/spirit") and the other is us. In the first, Christ is declaring something in us that causes us to have a realization of God as Father. In the second we are crying out to God as those who have been adopted into the best family by the best Father. The key is the purpose of the statements within the passage that includes it. While they seem related because of the fact that we are there for both, the first is about something/someone being sent into our hearts with a declaration to the Father while the second is a spiritual fact that should cause us to make a declaration. Trying to merge the two into some kind of same-same experience is to miss the specific importance of the two separate passages.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Pertinent to this thread's original topic, we've been enjoying two "sister" verses while going through Galatians.

Galatians 4:6 & Romans 8:15:
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

In one verse it is the Son crying out, but in the other we are crying out. So is it Christ crying to the Father or us?

Originally Posted by OBW responding to above

Probably the purpose of the two different verses dictates that one is Christ (or the Spirit, depending on how you punctuate "S/spirit") and the other is us. In the first, Christ is declaring something in us that causes us to have a realization of God as Father. In the second we are crying out to God as those who have been adopted into the best family by the best Father. The key is the purpose of the statements within the passage that includes it. While they seem related because of the fact that we are there for both, the first is about something/someone being sent into our hearts with a declaration to the Father while the second is a spiritual fact that should cause us to make a declaration. Trying to merge the two into some kind of same-same experience is to miss the specific importance of the two separate passages.

Was rereading this thread - what a great discussion and back & forth regarding this great mystery of Christ and the church!

When I came to this last post by OBW (Mike), I read it a few times. Sorry Mike, but your point doesn't hold water and I can't agree that there's no connection between the two verse - there's something much more going on here than what you allude to!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was rereading this thread - what a great discussion and back & forth regarding this great mystery of Christ and the church!

When I came to this last post by OBW (Mike), I read it a few times. Sorry Mike, but your point doesn't hold water and I can't agree that there's no connection between the two verses - there's something much more going on here than what you allude to!

Here's two more passages I ran across this morning for consideration, regarding the Head and His body:

"And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." "And He is the head of the body, the church . . . For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him . . ." (Ephesians 1:22-23 & Colossians 1:18-19)

What is this!?!? Is the fullness just in the Head, or also the body?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Was rereading this thread - what a great discussion and back & forth regarding this great mystery of Christ and the church!

When I came to this last post by OBW (Mike), I read it a few times. Sorry Mike, but your point doesn't hold water and I can't agree that there's no connection between the two verse - there's something much more going on here than what you allude to!

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The two passages might have a connection, but that connection does not make what they are saying the same thing.

Related? Maybe or even probably.

The same? No.

Why not the same? Because the mere presence of the word "spirit" does not make it about the same thing. Neither does the reference to crying "Abba, Father" make both passages simply the same.

In the first verse, the word spirit is clearly a reference to the Holy Spirit (and the translators agree because they render it as "Spirit"), and therefore about God himself, in the Spirit, being sent into our hearts and crying out. But in the second instance, the word spirit makes an unspecific reference to something about our being without direct reference to the Spirit or Christ. It is more like a statement about our attitude, sense, feeling, etc. Of course the kind of attitude that would cry "Abba Father" does not simply arise in us from nowhere.

So there is a connection because it is our regenerated being — however you want to describe it — that has any desire or ability to call God "Father" or "Abba." And it might be that Paul simply made a similar reference in two different places in two different ways. But even if that is so, the contexts of the two passages are making different overall statements, therefore these cannot simply be presumed to be the same just because of similarities. My point was not to refuse any connection of thought, but to look at the passages in their separate contexts and see what overall statement was being made rather than just rushing to make them simply the same. Having a lot of "more of the same" is not necessarily an important (or good) thing. Instead, seeing the complex revelation of God is.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The two passages might have a connection, but that connection does not make what they are saying the same thing.

Related? Maybe or even probably.

The same? No.

Why not the same? Because the mere presence of the word "spirit" does not make it about the same thing. Neither does the reference to crying "Abba, Father" make both passages simply the same.

In the first verse, the word spirit is clearly a reference to the Holy Spirit (and the translators agree because they render it as "Spirit"), and therefore about God himself, in the Spirit, being sent into our hearts and crying out. But in the second instance, the word spirit makes an unspecific reference to something about our being without direct reference to the Spirit or Christ. It is more like a statement about our attitude, sense, feeling, etc. Of course the kind of attitude that would cry "Abba Father" does not simply arise in us from nowhere.

So there is a connection because it is our regenerated being — however you want to describe it — that has any desire or ability to call God "Father" or "Abba." And it might be that Paul simply made a similar reference in two different places in two different ways. But even if that is so, the contexts of the two passages are making different overall statements, therefore these cannot simply be presumed to be the same just because of similarities. My point was not to refuse any connection of thought, but to look at the passages in their separate contexts and see what overall statement was being made rather than just rushing to make them simply the same. Having a lot of "more of the same" is not necessarily an important (or good) thing. Instead, seeing the complex revelation of God is.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but sorry, this still still sounds like a complication . . .

In my experience, if something sounds too complicated it means one or two things: That I am making (the simplicity in Christ) overly complicated; and/or I just need to seek Him to reveal it to me. (He's been very faithful to do His part!)