Christ or faith the Savior?

[Evangelical]

The early church's idea of salvation was firmly rooted in the person of Christ the Savior. They did not quibble over the meaning or role of faith and works, or question whether one's faith was "real faith" or not, on the basis of a person's understanding on the relationship between faith and works, as many evangelicals do today.

It can be said that in history, Catholicism contributed the idea of salvation by faith and works. Calvin gave us salvation by faith alone, Arminius gave us salvation by faith with man's responsibility, and Luther gave us salvation by faith which is never alone which is somewhere between Arminianism and Calvinism.

Unfortunately the majority of Christianity has been pre-occupied with theories about salvation rather than the Savior Himself. They often confuse salvation itself with theories of how we are saved. Nee, Lee and others contributed or recovered rather, to Christianity the idea and more importantly, the practice of salvation by the Person of Christ, the Savior.

Catholicism's view of salvation is rooted in James 2:14-26 about faith and works. Protestant/evangelical Christianity's view of salvation is rooted in John 3:16, that salvation is by faith alone. Pentecostals take this one step further and put even more emphasis on faith being extended to the physical realm to accomplish miracles, signs and wonders. Unfortunately these approaches place too much emphasis on either faith and works. Catholics, Protestants and Pentecostals often argue over these things and miss the more important matter of Christ's Person.

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15). This is why a view of salvation based only on belief ("I believe in Christ") or knowing Christ ("a personal relationship with Christ") is inadequate. I think Christians outside of the recovery recognize this too. They know that not everyone who says "I believe in Christ" is really saved, and that not everyone who claims a "personal relationship" with Christ really has one. But their approach I think is wrong - they introduce other terminology such as "genuine faith" and "genuine relationship" to distinguish the true from the false. They start demanding proof and evidence, or apply a list of rules about how to tell if someone's faith is genuine or not. I think a better approach is to place the emphasis on Christ's Person - a person has either gained Christ and is in Him or they haven't.

An example from the bible that illustrates this is Peter versus Judas Iscariot. Both Peter and Judas knew Christ and had a personal relationship with Him. They both gave up everything to follow Christ. But the difference was during the 3 years of spending time with Christ, Peter had "gained Christ" and Judas hadn't.

For these reasons a better view of salvation is found in Phil 3:9:

and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

Calvinists, Arminians, Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics and Pentecostals only see this part of Pauls words: "the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith". In this, they might even place more emphasis on the faith rather than the "righteousness that comes from God". They usually don't acknowledge the first part which is to "gain Christ (vs 8) and be found in Him". A typical evangelical gospel tract mentions none of this.

A more comprehensive definition of salvation and something which cannot apply to devils can be taken from Phil 3:8-9 to say "Salvation is to gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of our own, but the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.".

While most of Christianity is preoccupied with faith and works, i.e. whether they have enough faith, whether their faith is in the right thing, whether their faith is genuine or not, whether their faith can be affected by sin and "lose their salvation", or whether they have done enough works, it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him.

The English Bishop Joseph Hall (1574-1656) wrote in "Christ Mystical"

The loss of one's all in this world (St. Paul echoes the sacred words) is as nothing; all things put together are but as dung, compared with the one thing which St. Paul so longed to gain, Christ himself - his presence in the soul, spiritual union with the Lord. "To gain Christ is to lay fast hold upon him, to receive him inwardly into our bosoms, and so to make him ours and ourselves his, that we may be joined to him as our Head, espoused to him as our Husband, incorporated into him as our Nourishment, engrafted in him as our Stock, and laid upon him as a sure Foundation"..

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The early church's idea of salvation was firmly rooted in the person of Christ the Savior. They did not quibble over the meaning or role of faith and works, or question whether one's faith was "real faith" or not, on the basis of a person's understanding on the relationship between faith and works, as many evangelicals do today.

They didn't quibble???

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but whole books in the Bible were written on the subject of faith and works -- Galatians for one.

Having listened to LSM's teachers for years, they have great confusion over the matter of works in the scripture. Unless we can clearly delineate between works of the law, works of the flesh, dead works, and good works, you are wasting your time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15).

At this point I'm not sure I get the point of this thread. But looking into this so far, I was gobsmacked. It hit me, and I busted out laughing out loud : no matter what I know, the devils know more. So knowing doesn't distinguish me from them. Do I know God? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Christ? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Paul? Well of him. So do they, better than me. So forth and so on.

So can I be certain that I won't suffer the same fate as the devils? If their greater knowledge than mine doesn't save them, it most certainly won't save me.

Without divine intervention I have no hope. The devils know that too ... and shudder.

So brother Evan, are you saying it's not enough to know Jesus, but to have Jesus, (or should I call it Christ, in all it's come to mean)?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

At this point I'm not sure I get the point of this thread.

I am guessing that "real" salvation is never assured until you join the LC.

"Home, home in the church, Here we ended our search."

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They often confuse salvation itself with theories of how we are saved. Nee, Lee and others contributed or recovered rather, to Christianity the idea and more importantly, the practice of salvation by the Person of Christ, the Savior.

In otherwords, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism within Christianity. Mysticism being the practice of gaining a spiritual experience through contemplative prayer and these subjective experiences being the confirmation of salvation in an individual. This is no different from practices of Buddhism or New Age mysticism or even charismatic faiths. Salvation in the Christian's life isn't a work, a practice, or a theory.

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15). This is why a view of salvation based only on belief ("I believe in Christ") or knowing Christ ("a personal relationship with Christ") is inadequate.

If I were to sum this entire post in the simplest way possible it is this; Christians who hold to the truth that salvation comes through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different then Satan's demons.

It's interesting how that can be said in such an indirect way through bad hermeneutics.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

While most of Christianity is preoccupied with faith and works, i.e. whether they have enough faith, whether their faith is in the right thing, whether their faith is genuine or not, whether their faith can be affected by sin and "lose their salvation", or whether they have done enough works, it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him.

Evan, you wouldn't know what "most of Christianity is preoccupied with" anymore than the man on the moon. You are in the Local Church of Witness Lee, which is one of the most insular and isolated Christian sects around. Witness Lee was decidedly ignorant regarding what God was doing in Christianity in general, but he was especially clueless when it came to what great and marvelous things were happening among evangelical Christians, especially an entire generation of seeking young Americans. What's most ironic is the fact that all this was happening right there in Southern California, where Witness Lee set up camp in Los Angeles, and later in Anaheim. Now if the Blended Brothers are any indication, nothing has changed in the Local Church since Lee's death over 20 years ago. The group is just as insular and isolated as ever.

You can set aside anything that I've posted above (and you probably will) but the real reason I'm taking a few minutes to reply to one of your posts is this little ditty here:

it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Should I list the problems in numerical or alphabetical order?

Gaining Christ? I'm afraid you're going to have to decode this terminology for us Mr E. I mean, I know what it meant to the apostle Paul. He was willing to suffer evil, beatings, hunger and nakedness to show others what it really is to gain Christ. Christian martyrs throughout the ages have given their blood, sweat and tears to give us the Scriptures in our native languages, thus allowing us to gain the Christ that is found in those hallowed pages.

It seems that Witness Lee has come along with another definition, another understanding of what it is to gain Christ. Oh, don't bother telling me about how wonderful and glorious it is to gain Christ by calling on the Lord, pray-reading and eating Jesus. Been there - Done that. What I want to hear from you, my friend, is just exactly how has all the calling, pray-reading, eating, pumping fists in the air and shouting slogans enabled you to gain Christ? Even more importantly, how have all these things helped you to help others to gain Christ?
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

At this point I'm not sure I get the point of this thread. But looking into this so far, I was gobsmacked. It hit me, and I busted out laughing out loud : no matter what I know, the devils know more. So knowing doesn't distinguish me from them. Do I know God? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Christ? Yes. And so do they. Do I know Paul? Well of him. So do they, better than me. So forth and so on.

So can I be certain that I won't suffer the same fate as the devils? If their greater knowledge than mine doesn't save them, it most certainly won't save me.

Without divine intervention I have no hope. The devils know that too ... and shudder.

So brother Evan, are you saying it's not enough to know Jesus, but to have Jesus, (or should I call it Christ, in all it's come to mean)?

Yes, I think you got the point of thread, or at least were able to see some light in it, and even make a very insightful observation - it is not enough to know Jesus, but to have Jesus.

And the goal of gaining and having Jesus rather than merely knowing or knowing about Him is one of the distinguishing features of the recovery. Regardless of how may say "Lee did this, Lee did that", I don't think anyone can argue that the recovery did not turn their attention away from knowing Christ (as in general Christianity) but to gaining Him.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In otherwords, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism within Christianity. Mysticism being the practice of gaining a spiritual experience through contemplative prayer and these subjective experiences being the confirmation of salvation in an individual. This is no different from practices of Buddhism or New Age mysticism or even charismatic faiths. Salvation in the Christian's life isn't a work, a practice, or a theory.

That's right, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism which is to gain Christ. As opposed to the norm in Christianity at the time which was merely to know things about Christ or even to know Him at a personal level , but not gain Him. I agree that salvation is not a work, practice, or theory, but rather to gain the person of Christ. Many things in Christianity are similar to other religions, even paganism, Viola and Barna's book make clear. But I would not say that Christian prayer or its various forms are anything Buddhist or New Age. A key point of difference is that Christians believe in and pray to Christ and that is enough to make any kind of prayer that is about Christ very much Christian. Even if a Buddhist or New Age person starts praying to Christ in their prayers while they are in their temple, then technically they are no longer a Buddhist or New Ager, are they? Even Muslims have found Christ through their own prayers and religious practices. I don't know who said it, perhaps it was Billy Graham, but they said something similar to there being many different paths to accepting Christ as personal Lord and savior.

Originally Posted by Jo S

If I were to sum this entire post in the simplest way possible it is this; Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different then Satan's demons.

It's interesting how that can be said in such an indirect way through bad hermeneutics.

I did not mean that. Awareness put it rightly when he said it is not enough to know Jesus but to have Jesus.

Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ could be no different than Satan's demons, if they have never gained Him like Paul did.

A good example of this is Judas Iscariot. He was a Christian who believed in Christ by faith (he followed Christ as a believing disciple for many years), but unlike Peter and the other disciples (particularly John) did not gain Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evan, you wouldn't know what "most of Christianity is preoccupied with" anymore than the man on the moon. You are in the Local Church of Witness Lee, which is one of the most insular and isolated Christian sects around. Witness Lee was decidedly ignorant regarding what God was doing in Christianity in general, but he was especially clueless when it came to what great and marvelous things were happening among evangelical Christians, especially an entire generation of seeking young Americans. What's most ironic is the fact that all this was happening right there in Southern California, where Witness Lee set up camp in Los Angeles, and later in Anaheim. Now if the Blended Brothers are any indication, nothing has changed in the Local Church since Lee's death over 20 years ago. The group is just as insular and isolated as ever.
-

Regarding your first paragraph, I am a relative late comer to the recovery with a long history in denominations, so I know something. I never had the chance to know Lee personally but I am acquainted with the issues in Christianity. With the exception of individuals and their works like Madame Guyon, I believe broad Christianity fits the description as I stated, of not really seeking to gain Christ or even knowing what it means. I think a typical response for a person when asked if they have gained Christ might be "huh?", even though it is straight from the words of Paul.

In born again Christianity, many have seen that a personal relationship with Christ is necessary for salvation. They see that there is some sort of inadequacy there in understanding how we are saved. They might typically ask someone "do you have a personal relationship with Christ" as opposed to "do you believe in Christ?". A Judas or a demon could answer yes to both of those questions. Lee takes this one step further to ask the question "have you gained Christ?" which I think is better.

Many evangelical preachers for example, Ray Comfort, simply add more rules and more laws to their preaching, to try and sift through those who claim to know Christ and those who "really know Him". I think Comfort knows that simply getting someone to say "I believe in Christ" is not adequate, so he uses the method of law-preaching to make "true converts". A better way is probably to just preach about gaining Christ which implies not only a genuine knowledge of Christ, but also to have or gain Him as someone of worth.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. Should I list the problems in numerical or alphabetical order?

Gaining Christ? I'm afraid you're going to have to decode this terminology for us Mr E. I mean, I know what it meant to the apostle Paul. He was willing to suffer evil, beatings, hunger and nakedness to show others what it really is to gain Christ. Christian martyrs throughout the ages have given their blood, sweat and tears to give us the Scriptures in our native languages, thus allowing us to gain the Christ that is found in those hallowed pages.

It seems that Witness Lee has come along with another definition, another understanding of what it is to gain Christ. Oh, don't bother telling me about how wonderful and glorious it is to gain Christ by calling on the Lord, pray-reading and eating Jesus. Been there - Done that. What I want to hear from you, my friend, is just exactly how has all the calling, pray-reading, eating, pumping fists in the air and shouting slogans enabled you to gain Christ? Even more importantly, how have all these things helped you to help others to gain Christ? [/COLOR]
-

I appreciate you taking some time. I think it highlights that I did not explain very well what gaining Christ is or means, I only gave examples.

As for the meaning of gaining Christ, Darby says it best - "to gain Christ is to have Christ as gain". Others interpret it to mean "we must suffer loss so we may gain Christ" which I disagree with, it's not about suffering to gain Christ. To gain Christ we do not have to perform some work or become a martyr, but there is an element of self-denial and not loving the world, because if we love something more than Christ it will be very hard to gain Him (it is harder for a rich man...). Regardless of anyone's experiences, praying, pray-reading and "eating Jesus" are ways we can gain Christ, but those practices themselves are not gaining Christ. To gain Christ means to have Christ as gain which implies to see and know Christ as someone of value more than other people or things.

To only see Christ but not gain Him is to only appreciate Him. Judas Iscariot saw Christ every day, he had a personal relationship with Christ, he knew Christ and no doubt appreciated him as his master and teacher, but unlike the disciples John and Peter, did not see Christ's worth. He was easily led to betray Christ for silver. Judas knew Christ but he gained silver. He had silver as his gain, not Christ. Peter and John however knew Christ and gained Christ.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, Nee/Lee recovered mysticism which is to gain Christ. As opposed to the norm in Christianity at the time which was merely to know things about Christ or even to know Him at a personal level , but not gain Him. I agree that salvation is not a work, practice, or theory, but rather to gain the person of Christ. Many things in Christianity are similar to other religions, even paganism, Viola and Barna's book make clear. But I would not say that Christian prayer or its various forms are anything Buddhist or New Age. A key point of difference is that Christians believe in and pray to Christ and that is enough to make any kind of prayer that is about Christ very much Christian.

I did not mean that. Awareness put it rightly when he said it is not enough to know Jesus but to have Jesus.

Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ could be no different than Satan's demons, if they have never gained Him like Paul did.

If you are needing mystical practices in order to gain Christ, you're gaining a different Christ. Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works. He's gained the moment you have faith in him.

Demons are unredeemable, they're already judged by God. To equate the type of belief demons have toward Christ to the faith available to people is just wrong and also bad hermeneutics.

A good example of this is Judas Iscariot. He was a Christian who believed in Christ by faith (he followed Christ as a believing disciple for many years), but unlike Peter and the other disciples (particularly John) did not gain Christ.

What would be your evidence to justify the belief that Judas actually had faith in Christ? Is your reasoning because he was following him around? How then do you explain the part where Judas betrayed him? That's evidence against the idea that Judas had faith in Jesus. What I read is that he was a thief and liked to take from the money bag. He followed Christ because he was an opportunist and just like any wolf in sheep's clothing they perceive kindness and humility as weakness and take advantage of that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone in Christ could be no different than Satan's demons, if they have never gained Him like Paul did.

A good example of this is Judas Iscariot. He was a Christian who believed in Christ by faith (he followed Christ as a believing disciple for many years), but unlike Peter and the other disciples (particularly John) did not gain Christ.

There's no verse that affirms that Judas ever believed. Sorry, but you are assuming that. We know little of Judas' heart. He also was the only disciple from Judah, where the Lord spent very little time. There is no evidence that Judas had believed or repented before he met John or Jesus, while he followed Jesus, or after he betrayed Him. John 6.68-71 makes it very clear that the Lord tested His disciples as to whether they believed in Him. Peter spoke for them that Jesus had the words of eternal life. Jesus, however, clarified the situation. He had chosen all of them, yet He knew that one of them was a devil.

Biblical faith is not mental assent. The Bible says "believe into Him," and real faith is substantiates our hope and is the conviction of the unseen. That's why Biblical faith is often accompanied by other descriptors like repent, turn your heart to God, be baptized, be born anew, etc.

Since the fall of man, salvation unto righteousness is only by faith in God's promised Messiah/Christ. From Adam forward they had to believe in the coming One. While Jesus walked the earth, they had to believe into Him. Since His ascension, we all must believe in His finished work. He alone and faith alone is the way to the Father.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you are needing mystical practices in order to gain Christ, you're gaining a different Christ. Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works. He's gained the moment you have faith in him.

When you say "Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works" I think you are putting conditions on how Christ comes to people. Usually some kind of work precedes the faith (such as praying, or reading the Bible, or attending an evangelical crusade).

For example the woman who was healed by touching His garment - her work was to touch Jesus's garment, it was a work on her part, and Jesus came to her. That woman might say to you "you are wrong, Jesus did not come to me when I had faith in him, but after I touched his garment".

Also consider Judas, he had faith in Christ, he was a disciple, but he did not gain him. He exchanged Christ for silver. Silver was his gain.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Demons are unredeemable, they're already judged by God. To equate the type of belief demons have toward Christ to faith available to people is just wrong and also bad hermeneutics.

Actually when I wrote about demons, I was thinking more of Judas Iscariot who Christ called "a devil", but I have tried to think about this from the perspective of a spiritual being.

"Type of belief" - how many types of belief are there? I think there is only belief, and unbelief. We either believe, or we don't. I can't say, I "50% believe in Christ and 50% don't". I can't say "my belief is of an apple type and yours is of an orange type". It's just common sense really. Of course, demons don't "believe in Christ" as their savior, they cannot, but as spiritual beings in the spiritual world they probably have met Christ face to face more than some Christians. They believe in Him as Lord because they must do what He says, but not Savior.

Originally Posted by Jo S

What would be your evidence to justify the belief that Judas actually had faith in Christ? Is your reasoning because he was following him around? How then do you explain the part where Judas betrayed him? That's evidence against the idea that Judas had faith in Jesus. What I read is that he was a thief and liked to take from the money bag. He followed Christ because he was an opportunist and just like any wolf in sheep's clothing they perceive kindness and humility as weakness and take advantage of that.

It gets tricky because we could go around in circles about whether he was a genuine believer, or had genuine faith, and could even get into Calvinism vs Arminianism and the gnostic gospels. We just can't know for sure what was in Judas's heart from the time Christ chose him to the time he betrayed Christ. Arguments have been made anywhere from Judas being the devil incarnate , to him being a Christian in "name only", to a full and genuine disciple of Christ who let his guard down and suffered the consequences.

The evidence to justify my belief is that he followed Christ because Christ chose Him. That's why I think he had belief. Why would Christ choose a non-believer to follow him - he wouldn't be a true disciple. To accomplish His plan, Jesus needed 12 true disciples, and one who would betray him. Not 11 true disciples and a fraud.

The Old testament indicates that Judas was Jesus's close friend:

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me.

So I think Judas being a true disciple fits Psalm 41:9 better than him being the devil incarnate.

Even though he was a thief, they were all sinners, tax collectors etc, yet did not betray Christ. I don't think it was because he was a thief, but because he loved money.

I see Judas as a believer, a close friend of Christ, who had his shortcomings as a thief (as they all did), who probably did believe in and love Christ (he regretted, at the end), but unfortunately loved money more. It is hard for me to believe that Judas stayed with the disciples because of the money, I hardly think it would have been a profitable venture. It seems that whether he gained Christ or not determined his eternal fate.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's no verse that affirms that Judas ever believed. Sorry, but you are assuming that. We know little of Judas' heart. He also was the only disciple from Judah, where the Lord spent very little time. There is no evidence that Judas had believed or repented before he met John or Jesus, while he followed Jesus, or after he betrayed Him. John 6.68-71 makes it very clear that the Lord tested His disciples as to whether they believed in Him. Peter spoke for them that Jesus had the words of eternal life. Jesus, however, clarified the situation. He had chosen all of them, yet He knew that one of them was a devil.

Biblical faith is not mental assent. The Bible says "believe into Him," and real faith is substantiates our hope and is the conviction of the unseen. That's why Biblical faith is often accompanied by other descriptors like repent, turn your heart to God, be baptized, be born anew, etc.

Since the fall of man, salvation unto righteousness is only by faith in God's promised Messiah/Christ. From Adam forward they had to believe in the coming One. While Jesus walked the earth, they had to believe into Him. Since His ascension, we all must believe in His finished work. He alone and faith alone is the way to the Father.

Scripture does not really refer to him as "the fraud" and considers him part of the 12, it doesn't really talk about the "11 + 1". They even replaced his position after Judas died.

He was a disciple, he was chosen by Christ, the Psalms call him one of Jesus's closest friends. From the point of view of an external observer, he was a believer. We cannot know his heart, I agree, and that's why I prefer to see him as a believer, outwardly, it's easier to explain.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When you say "Jesus Christ doesn't come to you through works" I think you are putting conditions on how Christ comes to people. Usually some kind of work precedes the faith (such as praying, or reading the Bible, or attending an evangelical crusade).

For example the woman who was healed by touching His garment - her work was to touch Jesus's garment, it was a work on her part, and Jesus came to her. That woman might say to you "you are wrong, Jesus did not come to me when I had faith in him, but after I touched his garment".

Also consider Judas, he had faith in Christ, he was a disciple, but he did not gain him. He exchanged Christ for silver. Silver was his gain.

You could pray all your life or memorize the bible but salvation will never come through these things otherwise the Pharisees would have had nothing to worry about.

The error in your argument is that you're trying to tie this all in by equating a Christian (regenerated believer with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) to a women that was not yet have received the Holy Spirit. The spirit was not yet given because Christ hasn't yet ascended at that point in time.

She wouldn't have touched Christ's garment unless she had faith that it would heal her. Her faith preceded her action. We know this because before she even touched him she said "If I only touch His clothes, I will be healed" (Mark 5:28). Even then, this account of healing does not in any way equate to salvation.

A born again Christian already has the Holy Spirit. You do not need to regain Christ over and over by mysticism or any other means as if he is off a short distance as he was in the eyes of that women.

Actually when I wrote about demons, I was thinking more of Judas Iscariot who Christ called "a devil", but I have tried to think about this from the perspective of a spiritual being.

"Type of belief" - how many types of belief are there? I think there is only belief, and unbelief. We either believe, or we don't. I can't say, I "50% believe in Christ and 50% don't". I can't say "my belief is of an apple type and yours is of an orange type". It's just common sense really. Of course, demons don't "believe in Christ" as their savior, they cannot, but as spiritual beings in the spiritual world they probably have met Christ face to face more than some Christians. They believe in Him as Lord because they must do what He says, but not Savior.

Take a look into the Greek. The words for the belief of the demons and the faith available to us have a totally different meanings. You're making an assumption in your argument and equating them in the verses you gave earlier.

It gets tricky because we could go around in circles about whether he was a genuine believer, or had genuine faith, and could even get into Calvinism vs Arminianism and the gnostic gospels. We just can't know for sure what was in Judas's heart from the time Christ chose him to the time he betrayed Christ. Arguments have been made anywhere from Judas being the devil incarnate , to him being a Christian in "name only", to a full and genuine disciple of Christ who let his guard down and suffered the consequences.

Sure you can, you yourself gave the prophesy of Psalms 41:9. If we can't know for sure, how did David know his heart fourteen generations before hand?

The evidence to justify my belief is that he followed Christ because Christ chose Him. That's why I think he had belief. Why would Christ choose a non-believer to follow him - he wouldn't be a true disciple. To accomplish His plan, Jesus needed 12 true disciples, and one who would betray him. Not 11 true disciples and a fraud.

The Old testament indicates that Judas was Jesus's close friend:

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me.

So I think Judas being a true disciple fits Psalm 41:9 better than him being the devil incarnate.

Even though he was a thief, they were all sinners, tax collectors etc, yet did not betray Christ. I don't think it was because he was a thief, but because he loved money.

I see Judas as a believer, a close friend of Christ, who stayed with Christ to gain money, not to gain Him. Whether he gained Christ or not determined his eternal fate.

To fulfill scripture. But the real question is, why did Judas choose to go along with Jesus? We don't have evidence of Judas doing any good works to show his intention in following Jesus were good, but we do have accounts that record his bad deeds showing his intentions to being one of the twelve were opportunistic in nature.

Judas followed along with Christ but this is not sufficient evidence he trusted or had faith in him. Or just because Jesus loved Judas doesn't mean Judas loved him back.

[Kevin]

Judas repented. He was in sorrow, he made restitution; by returning the money. But he was not saved.

So how do we understand this?

His repentance was not "from above" as John (I think it was John) says.

It was only an earthly sorrow, though genuine, that was not of genuine faith and given by God.

Peter on the other hand, was given by God, a repentance unto life.

As Christians, we live by faith and not by sight, seeing these spiritual realities that do not line up with visible realities.

For example, Christ said that if you are not with him, you are against him. This does not appear to be so with the eyes, but it is so, and can be seen, with the eyes of faith.

Its the same kind of dichotomy, where we are the visible shows one thing, but the supernatural reality is different.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Judas repented. He was in sorrow, he made restitution; by returning the money. But he was not saved.

So how do we understand this?

His repentance was not "from above" as John (I think it was John) says.

It was only an earthly sorrow, though genuine, that was not of genuine faith and given by God.

Peter on the other hand, was given by God, a repentance unto life.

As Christians, we live by faith and not by sight, seeing these spiritual realities that do not line up with visible realities.

For example, Christ said that if you are not with him, you are against him. This does not appear to be so with the eyes, but it is so, and can be seen, with the eyes of faith.

Its the same kind of dichotomy, where we are the visible shows one thing, but the supernatural reality is different.

Judas didn't repent of unbelief. He repented for betraying innocent blood. The question is why didn't he know he was betraying innocent blood before receiving the silver? Did he know the Jewish leaders were going to execute him by turning him in or if they were simply going to question and reason with Jesus? Perhaps it was the latter and he was outraged when he realized he was deceived by the Jewish leaders and returned the silver. At least that is one of the traditions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evan

it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him

Evan is right. I remember very well this mystical experience of gaining Christ in the LC, and those of all the other brothers and sisters I knew.

But it turned out to be like a delusion. It worked as long as I thought the Spirit was in control of the meetings. But it disappeared when I discovered that the meetings were human controlled ; either by the structure of the Life-Studies, or by the elders seeding the meetings, with brothers "being groomed for leadership."

Perhaps our brother Evangelical is still under this delusion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You could pray all your life or memorize the bible but salvation will never come through these things otherwise the Pharisees would have had nothing to worry about.

The error in your argument is that you're trying to tie this all in by equating a Christian (regenerated believer with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) to a women that was not yet have received the Holy Spirit. The spirit was not yet given because Christ hasn't yet ascended at that point in time.

She wouldn't have touched Christ's garment unless she had faith that it would heal her. Her faith preceded her action. We know this because before she even touched him she said "If I only touch His clothes, I will be healed" (Mark 5:28). Even then, this account of healing does not in any way equate to salvation.

A born again Christian already has the Holy Spirit. You do not need to regain Christ over and over by mysticism or any other means as if he is off a short distance as he was in the women's eyes.

If she did not touch his clothes, she would not have "gained Christ" for her healing. So belief and an action (or work) is necessary. If she merely believed that he could heal her, and never reached out to touch, she would not been healed. Physical healing and soul and spiritual healing (salvation) are from the same faith and same Christ, so we can relate the two, as the Bible does when it says "with his stripes we are healed" in Isaiah. That healing is comprehensive, body, soul and spirit.

By gaining Christ I am not talking about receiving the Holy Spirit in the past and neither was Paul. Paul's words in Phil 3:8

"I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ"

Are present tense, not past.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Take a look into the Greek. The words for the belief of the demons and the faith available to us have a totally different meanings. You're making an assumption in your argument and equating them in the verses you gave earlier.

We would need to elaborate on that from the Greek.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Sure you can, you yourself gave the prophesy of Psalms 41:9. If we can't know for sure, how did David know his heart fourteen generations before hand?

The verse says nothing about his heart. It says:

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me.

It says close friend, even someone Jesus trusted. Why would it say close friend and why would Jesus trust him if he knew he was an enemy or Satan?

Also the words "turn against me" proves that Judas was once for Christ. You cannot turn against someone or something unless you first were turned towards them.

Originally Posted by Jo S

To fulfill scripture. But the real question is, why did Judas choose to go along with Jesus? We don't have evidence of Judas doing any good works to show his intention in following Jesus were good, but we do have accounts that record his bad deeds showing his intentions to being one of the twelve were opportunistic in nature.

Judas followed along with Christ but this is not sufficient evidence he trusted or had faith in him. Or just because Jesus loved Judas doesn't mean Judas loved him back.

Psalm 41:9 as I quoted above is that old prophecy which was fulfilled. If Judas was an enemy and not a close friend, and if Judas did not "turn against" but was always for Christ, then Psalm 41:9 would not be fulfilled.

[Evangelical]

To make it clearer for everyone, this thread is really about "full salvation" rather than " John 3:16-only salvation". So to "gain Christ" does not mean "gain the indwelling of the Spirit", I use the term "gain Christ" as Paul did, in the present tense. I presented "a more comprehensive definition of salvation". I can see that we could think of justification by faith as gaining Christ in the past, sanctification as gaining Christ in the present, and glorification as gaining Christ in future.

I actually first encountered these ideas not in the recovery or from Lee but in Apostolic churches in the US and the teaching of John Wesley, whose history comes from the Welsh revival of 1904-1905 and the British revivals in the 1830s. Basically, John 3:16-only salvation is for forgiveness of sins, justification. Full salvation, is sanctification, transformation etc.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If she did not touch his clothes, she would not have "gained Christ" for her healing. So belief and an action (or work) is necessary. If she merely believed that he could heal her, and never reached out to touch, she would not been healed. Physical healing and soul and spiritual healing (salvation) are from the same faith and same Christ, so we can relate the two, as the Bible does when it says "with his stripes we are healed" in Isaiah. That healing is comprehensive, body, soul and spirit.

By gaining Christ I am not talking about receiving the Holy Spirit in the past and neither was Paul. Paul's words in Phil 3:8

""
Are present tense, not past.

Again, you are equating a healing to a Christian's salvation by receiving of the Holy Spirit. Her action of touching him did not result in her spiritual salvation at that moment because the spirit had not yet been given. You cannot compare the two things.

Also look at the rest of Paul's quote from Philippians. He says, "not having my own righteousness from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith"

No works are mentioned in gaining Christ here.

Paul could have meant gaining Christ as in seeing him again in Heaven and not as in an mystical fleeting experiential way of gaining Christ when one would have to do something like chant the Lord's name 5 times every Sunday in order to "gain" him. This is a different gospel.

We would need to elaborate on that from the Greek.

If you'd like to do the work, please feel free and we can discuss it. I already have.

The verse says nothing about his heart. It says:

Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me.

It says close friend, even someone Jesus trusted. Why would it say close friend and why would Jesus trust him if he knew he was an enemy or Satan?

Also the words "turn against me" proves that Judas was once for Christ. You cannot turn against someone or something unless you first were turned towards them.

Psalm 41:9 as I quoted above is that old prophecy which was fulfilled. If Judas was an enemy and not a close friend, and if Judas did not "turn against" but was always for Christ, then Psalm 41:9 would not be fulfilled.

Friendships can be one-sided. Jesus' friendship to Judas was based on love and trust. Judas' viewed the friendship opportunistically for his own selfish gain. Both are in a relationship with each other but with different motives.

The question is can you truly love someone while not trusting them simultaneously?

You don't have to be for someone to turn against them. You can be agnostic and latter decide to turn against them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Basically, John 3:16-only salvation is for forgiveness of sins, justification. Full salvation, is sanctification, transformation etc.

Sanctification and transformation are abstract symbols for how God views us because of the cross, not something that cures us from our human flaws, or turns us into Nietzsche's Übermensch.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Scripture does not really refer to him as "the fraud" and considers him part of the 12, it doesn't really talk about the "11 + 1". They even replaced his position after Judas died.

He was a disciple, he was chosen by Christ, the Psalms call him one of Jesus's closest friends. From the point of view of an external observer, he was a believer. We cannot know his heart, I agree, and that's why I prefer to see him as a believer, outwardly, it's easier to explain.

Yes, Judas was a friend, a close companion. When Jesus reclined at the Passover table with the disciples, John leaned against His breast. But who did Jesus lean on? Judas. This is why only John heard the conversation between Jesus and Judas in John 13.21-30.

Judas was His personal valet, a very close companion, to Jesus. The Father allowed His Son to be betrayed, as David also was in type, to initiate the Passion of His Beloved. Why did God design this extra affliction? In the wilderness Jesus battled the devil directly enduring multiple temptations after starving 40 days. Here at His final meal, the devil entered into His closest friend in order to betray Him.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Again, you are equating a healing to a Christian's salvation by receiving of the Holy Spirit. Her action of touching him did not result in her spiritual salvation at that moment because the spirit had not yet been given. You cannot compare the two things.

OK so a better verse relating to salvation is:

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Two conditions for salvation:
1) confession - that's a work
2) belief in the heart, that without 1) is only dead faith


Faith Without Works Is Dead - What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? James 2:14-26

It doesn't matter if the faith is for healing, salvation, or walking on water. It's just faith, and without some sort of corresponding expression, it's dead.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Also look at the rest of Paul's quote from Philippians. He says, "not having my own righteousness from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith"

No works are mentioned in gaining Christ here.

In Hebrews 11, Paul relates faith and works in the life of Abraham and others. It says by faith, Abraham offered Isaac. This is what faith is. Faith is belief with some sort of expression.

Even Luther and Calvin known for "saved by faith alone" did not believe in dead faith.

“We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” ~ Martin Luther.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Paul could have meant gaining Christ as in seeing him again in Heaven and not as in an mystical fleeting experiential way of gaining Christ when one would have to do something like chant the Lord's name 5 times every Sunday in order to "gain" him. This is a different gospel.

If it is as you say that Paul means a future thing in heaven, then it means salvation (i.e. forgiveness of sins) is a future, not present, reality.

The idea of "gaining Christ " is very much related to being "found in Him", and knowing God and being known by Him in Galatians 4:8 and Galatians 4:9. Verse 8 says "you did not know God" and verse 9 says "now that you know God". So clearly it is a present tense idea.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Friendships can be one-sided. Jesus' friendship to Judas was based on love and trust. Judas' viewed the friendship opportunistically for his own selfish gain. Both are in a relationship with each other but with different motives.

The question is can you truly love someone while not trusting them simultaneously?

You don't have to be for someone to turn against them. You can be agnostic and latter decide to turn against them.

What you say is possible however it is mostly your speculation, and my view is based on the Scripture Psalm 41:9 and the fact that the Psalm was fulfilled.

This psalm describes a close friend turning away or betraying David. It related to Ahithophel, an esteemed and cherished friend and trusted advisor of David (2 Sam. 16:23), who had a relationship with David similar to David's relationship with Jonathan. Ahithophel conspired with Absalom against David and took a leading role in the revolt of David's son Absalom. Ahithophel did this to David out of revenge for what David did to Bathsheba (Bathsheba was a relative). It is reasonable to assume that up until the time David sinned with Bathsheba, Ahithophel was a loyal and loving friend rather than someone who never loved him.

Now we can see why Jesus and Judas fulfilled this Psalm. Because Judas was an esteemed and cherished friend of Christ. Christ would not have entrusted him with the responsibility of holding the money if he wasn't.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, Judas was a friend, a close companion. When Jesus reclined at the Passover table with the disciples, John leaned against His breast. But who did Jesus lean on? Judas. This is why only John heard the conversation between Jesus and Judas in John 13.21-30.

Ohio, can you please clarify how you reached this conclusion? The only words I see that were directed specifically at Judas were, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

But then the next verse says "But no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. " Meaning the whole table heard this and not just John and Judas. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so a better verse relating to salvation is:

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Two conditions for salvation:
1) confession - that's a work
2) belief in the heart, that without 1) is only dead faith


Faith Without Works Is Dead - What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? James 2:14-26

It doesn't matter if the faith is for healing, salvation, or walking on water. It's just faith, and without some sort of corresponding expression, it's dead.

In order to correctly interpret scripture and use it for your argument, Evangelical, you have to first do proper exegesis rather than isolating a verse and making an entire argument from it like you have been doing consistently.

Luke 6:45

"for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

You see, faith first takes place in the heart then precedes to come from the mouth.

Faith always precedes good works. In the same way salvation comes first, then good works flow from that as evidence of faith.

In Hebrews 11, Paul relates faith and works in the life of Abraham and others. It says by faith, Abraham offered Isaac. This is what faith is. Faith is belief with some sort of expression.

Even Luther and Calvin known for "saved by faith alone" did not believe in dead faith.

“We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” ~ Martin Luther.

Anyone can do works but does that mean they have faith in Jesus Christ? The pharisees too had faith and works. They were known for doing works in God's name, even crossing distant lands to gain converts, but did that result in their salvation?

If it is as you say that Paul means a future thing in heaven, then it means salvation (i.e. forgiveness of sins) is a future, not present, reality.

That's what you assume, but it's not what scripture says.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (Romans 8:18)

The idea of "gaining Christ " is very much related to being "found in Him", and knowing God and being known by Him in Galatians 4:8 and Galatians 4:9. Verse 8 says "you did not know God" and verse 9 says "now that you know God". So clearly it is a present tense idea.

The mistake you make is equating "gaining Christ" as Paul says in Philippians to "gaining salvation". There is no scriptural basis for this argument.

If you think you have to continue "gaining" Christ by works such as mysticism through chanting, praying, or reading scripture and then equating this to "gaining salvation" then you have a faith cloaked in a works based salvation.

What you say is possible however it is mostly your speculation, and my view is based on the Scripture Psalm 41:9 and the fact that the Psalm was fulfilled.

This psalm describes a close friend turning away or betraying David. It related to Ahithophel, an esteemed and cherished friend and trusted advisor of David (2 Sam. 16:23), who had a relationship with David similar to David's relationship with Jonathan. Ahithophel conspired with Absalom against David and took a leading role in the revolt of David's son Absalom. Ahithophel did this to David out of revenge for what David did to Bathsheba (Bathsheba was a relative). It is reasonable to assume that up until the time David sinned with Bathsheba, Ahithophel was a loyal and loving friend rather than someone who never loved him.

This actually would be speculation.

Now we can see why Jesus and Judas fulfilled this Psalm. Because Judas was an esteemed and cherished friend of Christ. Christ would not have entrusted him with the responsibility of holding the money if he wasn't.

I have no issue with Jesus having considered Judas a friend and having trusted him. But that does not mean that Judas held the same sentiments toward Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In order to correctly interpret scripture and use it for your argument, Evangelical, you have to first do proper exegesis rather than isolating a verse and making an entire argument from it like you have been doing.

Luke 6:45

"for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

You see, faith first takes place in the heart then precedes to come from the mouth.

Faith always precedes good works. In the same way salvation comes first, then good works flow from that as evidence of faith.

In your first paragraph you said "do proper exegesis rather than isolating a verse and making an entire argument from it " and then you proceeded to do the same with a single verse Luke 6:45 and then make it a general rule.

So I will do exegesis on a number of passages that relate to each other. Here,
Romans 10:10 says:

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

See how the salvation is made conditional upon the confession following the belief? So the belief only and in and of itself is not the salvation.

Further, verses 13 and 14:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

So the order of steps in salvation from these verses is

1)preaching, 2) hearing, 3) belief, 4)calling(confession) and 5) salvation.

Verse 13 makes this even clearer as it puts the emphasis on calling for salvation, not belief.

Your view seems to contradict this as you are saying the salvation comes after belief and before confession/calling.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Anyone can do works but does that mean they have faith in Jesus Christ? The pharisees too had faith and works. They were known for doing works in God's name, even crossing distant lands to gain converts, but did that result in their salvation?

Pharisees weren't saved because they did not believe in Christ for salvation. So they stopped at step 3) of the previous "salvation steps" I listed.

Originally Posted by Jo S

That's what you assume, but it's not what scripture says.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (Romans 8:18)

How does Romans 8:18 help interpret Phil 3:8-9 ?

Originally Posted by Jo S

The mistake you make is equating "gaining Christ" as Paul says in Philippians to "gaining salvation". There is no scriptural basis for this argument.

If you think you have to continue "gaining" Christ by works such as mysticism through chanting, praying, or reading scripture and then equating this to "gaining salvation" then you have a faith cloaked in a works based salvation.

As I mentioned before, salvation is not only a one time belief but a life-long process of sanctification or "complete salvation".

Originally Posted by Jo S

This actually would be speculation.

Yes, but I am speculating from the Psalm which Jesus fulfilled. You are talking hypotheticals unrelated to the Psalm.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I have no issue with Jesus having considered Judas a friend and having trusted him. But that does not mean that Judas had the same sentiments toward Jesus.

If Judas was not His friend then the Psalm which says he was, would be a lie, and God's Word cannot lie. Jesus must have called Judas His friend because he was. If Scripture called Judas Jesus's friend then it would be a lie if he wasn't truly.

It's quite possible for Judas to love, believe in and follow Christ and still not be saved. This is not an example of "loss of eternal salvation" because remember this is before the Spirit was given, so none of the disciples were 'born again' at this stage, and while Judas was the only one to betray Christ, people forget that some of the other disciples were following Him as disciples in unbelief. They were all friends of Christ who stayed with Him for 3 years, some believed, others didn't, one in particular would eventually betray Him. But gaining Christ (having Christ as gain) is something they could all do, even though the Spirit was not yet and they weren't 'born again'. It seems that Judas gained money/silver but did not gain Christ.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In your first paragraph you said "do proper exegesis rather than isolating a verse and making an entire argument from it " and then you proceeded to do the same with a single verse Luke 6:45 and then make it a general rule.

Using the whole of scripture to validate an interpretation is exegesis. What you do is use one verse and then proceed your own interpretation without having another verse to support that view. I used Luke along with the one you gave to validate my position. Not the same thing.

So I will do exegesis on a number of passages that relate to each other. Here,
Romans 10:10 says:

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

See how the salvation is made conditional upon the confession following the belief? So the belief only and in and of itself is not the salvation.

Further, verses 13 and 14:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

So the order of steps in salvation from these verses is

1)preaching, 2) hearing, 3) belief, 4)calling(confession) and 5) salvation.

Verse 13 makes this even clearer as it puts the emphasis on calling for salvation, not belief.

Your view seems to contradict this as you are saying the salvation comes after belief and before confession/calling.

You're equating a repeated mantric practice of chanting the Lord's name five times in unison to an initial confession of Jesus' lordship. Two totally different things. Neither of which are required for salvation. To make the point, how then would the mute be saved if a literal vocal confession has to be made as a precursor to salvation?

Pharisees weren't saved because they did not believe in Christ for salvation. So they stopped at step 3) of the previous "salvation steps" I listed.

Paul was using this rhetoric to make a specific point and that was the need to spread the gospel. He was not laying out a linear "5 steps to salvation" list because it simply cannot apply to every person. For example, how would the deaf complete step two?

How does Romans 8:18 help interpret Phil 3:8-9 ?

It shows Paul is looking forward to a tangible event and not an inner subjective experience.

As I mentioned before, salvation is not only a one time belief but a life-long process of sanctification or "complete salvation".

Yes, sanctification is a life-long process done through faith.

"That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts 26:18.

If Judas was not His friend then the Psalm which says he was, would be a lie, and God's Word cannot lie. Jesus must have called Judas His friend because he was. If Scripture called Judas Jesus's friend then it would be a lie if he wasn't truly.

It's quite possible for Judas to love, believe in and follow Christ and still not be saved. This is not an example of "loss of eternal salvation" because remember this is before the Spirit was given, so none of the disciples were 'born again' at this stage, and while Judas was the only one to betray Christ, people forget that some of the other disciples were following Him as disciples in unbelief. They were all friends of Christ who stayed with Him for 3 years, some believed, others didn't, one in particular would eventually betray Him.

I have no issue with Christ regarding Judas as a friend, but that is not evidence that Judas trusted and had faith in Christ. The end result of his choices actually show otherwise.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Using the whole of scripture to validate an interpretation is exegesis. What you do is use one verse and then proceed your own interpretation without having another verse to support that view. I used Luke along with the one you gave to validate my position. Not the same thing.

I don't see how you can claim that I am not doing exegesis and you are, given that so far you have quoted only two verses. One in Luke and one in Romans. My posts are full of verses, particularly my first post. In fact let's review what you are doing, I can show that you are not doing exegesis yourself:

Your first post in this thread was a criticism of my interpretations (without scripture), and some unrelated assertions about mysticism, buddhism etc. As was your second. Both without scripture. I responded with scriptural quotes.

You took one verse, Luke 6:45, and then made a broad conclusion on how salvation "works" that "faith first takes place in the heart then proceeds to come from the mouth". You could have added Romans to prove your point, but I was the one to add Romans showing the order in which salvation occurs.

And the Romans verse you quoted had nothing to do with the one I quoted in Philippians, so I don't know what you were doing there. You seemed to be trying to show that because the verse in Romans was about the future, then the Philippians one was as well.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You're equating a repeated mantric practice of chanting the Lord's name five times in unison to an initial confession of Jesus' lordship. Two totally different things. Neither of which are required for salvation. To make the point, how then would the mute be saved if a literal vocal confession has to be made as a precursor to salvation?

If confession is not required for salvation then why does Paul say:

Romans 10:10 For in the heart is belief unto righteousness, and in the mouth is confession unto salvation.

It seems you want it to say:

"For in the heart is belief unto salvation and confession comes later"

And I could counter your "mute" example with a better one -what if a person is alive but brain dead in hospital and cannot believe? How can they be saved? It's pointless to argue from hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Paul was using this rhetoric to make a specific point and that was the need to spread the gospel. He was not laying out a linear "5 steps to salvation" list because it simply cannot apply to every person.

So why do you think Luke 6:45 applies to every person and Romans doesn't?

The steps seemed to be in order to me because they are a succession of "how can they unless..." statements, which implies order. Even if the order can be changed, it shows that Paul was not shy of stating that calling/confession comes before salvation.

Originally Posted by Jo S

It shows Paul is looking forward to a tangible event and not an inner subjective experience.

Paul gained Christ first at His dramatic conversion. Do you deny this? He gained Christ inwardly and had subjective experiences, right? OR was he just waiting to meet Christ in heaven?

It's present tense because "knowing Christ" in Phil 3:10 is in the present, not future. Paul was not merely waiting to know Christ in heaven.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see how you can claim that I am not doing exegesis and you are, given that so far you have quoted only two verses. One in Luke and one in Romans. My posts are full of verses, particularly my first post. In fact let's review what you are doing, I can show that you are not doing exegesis yourself:

Your first post in this thread was a criticism of my interpretations (without scripture), and some unrelated assertions about mysticism, buddhism etc. As was your second. Both without scripture. I responded with scriptural quotes.

At that point I wasn't making a scriptural argument. Exegesis didn't apply. I shouldn't even have to say that.

I think it's at the point, Evangelical, where you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You took one verse, Luke 6:45, and then made a broad conclusion on how salvation "works" that "faith first takes place in the heart then proceeds to come from the mouth". You could have added Romans to prove your point, but I was the one to add Romans showing the order in which salvation occurs.

And the Romans verse you quoted had nothing to do with the one I quoted in Philippians, so I don't know what you were doing there. You seemed to be trying to show that because the verse in Romans was about the future, then the Philippians one was as well.

The problem is if you use Paul's language in Philippians to justify a continual mystical experience of Christ in the present tense then Paul would have to continually lose all things over and over again. He says, "I consider everything a loss". What does Paul mean by the term "everything"? His old life. He cannot lose his old life over again in order to gain Christ on a daily basis as you interpret gaining, can he?

If confession is not required for salvation then why does Paul say:

Romans 10:10 For in the heart is belief unto righteousness, and in the mouth is confession unto salvation.

It seems you want it to say:

"For in the heart is belief unto salvation and confession comes later"

And I could counter your "mute" example with a better one -what if a person is alive but brain dead in hospital and cannot believe? How can they be saved? It's pointless to argue from hypotheticals.

That's not a valid example because many have testified of experiences after being pronounced legally dead. That's evidence that faculties are available even in situations where no measurable brain activity is occurring.

So why do you think Luke 6:45 applies to every person and Romans doesn't?

The steps seemed to be in order to me because they are a succession of "how can they unless..." statements, which implies order. Even if the order can be changed, it shows that Paul was not shy of stating that calling/confession comes before salvation.

In no way does Paul explicitly state here or anywhere else that a verbal confession is a requirement for salvation.

You are making that assumption.

Paul gained Christ first at His dramatic conversion. Do you deny this? He gained Christ inwardly and had subjective experiences, right? OR was he just waiting to meet Christ in heaven?

It's present tense because "knowing Christ" in Phil 3:10 is in the present, not future. Paul was not merely waiting to know Christ in heaven.

In Acts 9, it was an objective experience. He physically saw a light and was blinded. He also heard a voice as did his companions. It was certainly not an inner experience brought on by a mystical practice.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

At that point I wasn't making a scriptural argument. Exegesis didn't apply. I shouldn't even have to say that.

I think it's at the point, Evangelical, where you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

You said:

What you do is use one verse and then proceed your own interpretation without having another verse to support that view.

This is a false claim because in my first post I posted 3 verses (more than 1) to support the view that belief is not enough:

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15).

I also used Psalm 41:9 to support Judas being a friend of Christ. This is another example of one verse supporting another.

You post only two verses and then claim you are doing exegesis.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The problem is if you use Paul's language in Philippians to justify a continual mystical experience of Christ in the present tense then Paul would have to continually lose all things over and over again. He says, "I consider everything a loss". What does Paul mean by the term "everything"? His old life. He cannot lose his old life over again in order to gain Christ on a daily basis as you interpret gaining, can he?

Paul lived in a constant state of that loss and that is what is the present tense.
"I consider everything a loss" - that is present tense, not past.

Originally Posted by Jo S

That's not a valid example because many have testified of experiences after being pronounced legally dead. That's evidence that faculties are available even in situations where no measurable brain activity is occurring.

Salvation after death is not possible.

Originally Posted by Jo S

In no way does Paul explicitly state here or anywhere else that a verbal confession is a requirement for salvation.

You are making that assumption.

Time for some multi-verse "exegesis":

Psalm 116:13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Romans 10:13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Jesus said it was a requirement:

Matt 10:32 Therefore everyone who will confess in Me before men, I also will confess in him before My Father in the heavens.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

There are too many verses to deny that confession is important for salvation.

It is a Hebrew parallelism which means that the faith of the heart is united with the confession of the mouth, resulting in righteousness and salvation.

“With the faith of the heart is united the confession of the mouth to the result that one obtains righteousness and salvation.”

Originally Posted by Jo S

In Acts 9, it was an objective experience. He physically saw a light and was blinded. He also heard a voice as did his companions. It was certainly not an inner experience brought on by a mystical practice.

So he had no subjective inner experience at all is that what you are saying?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Ohio, can you please clarify how you reached this conclusion? The only words I see that were directed specifically at Judas were, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

But then the next verse says "But no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. " Meaning the whole table heard this and not just John and Judas. Maybe I'm missing something.

My understanding is that John 13.25-26 was a private conversation between Jesus and John. Peter was nearby so perhaps he heard more. Most of the disciples were unaware. (vv. 28-29)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You're equating a repeated mantric practice of chanting the Lord's name five times in unison to an initial confession of Jesus' lordship. Two totally different things. Neither of which are required for salvation. To make the point, how then would the mute be saved if a literal vocal confession has to be made as a precursor to salvation?

Paul was using this rhetoric to make a specific point and that was the need to spread the gospel. He was not laying out a linear "5 steps to salvation" list because it simply cannot apply to every person. For example, how would the deaf complete step two?

WL was famous for using scripture to promote his own ministry at the expense of others. The rank and file then were left to defend him. How many times was I interrogated by outsiders over Lee's declaration, "Just call on the Lord 3x and you're saved?"

The concept of "Gaining Christ," while true, can be taken to an extreme, and thus become a horrible deception. Many LC'ers understood "Gaining Christ" as exercising themselves to "take in the ministry." Nothing could be further from the truth. Where is love, obedience, faith, departing from unrighteousness, etc? Does not God look at the heart?

Case in point was during the Ohio quarantines. Bro/sis's were dividing from one another, filing lawsuits, verbal altercations, disrupting meetings, and in many cases behaving worse than the unbelievers, yet they were "gaining Christ" by adhering adamantly to "the ministry." Our Christian walk is not in this way. Compare this kind of behavior to the scribes and Pharisees.

Is this not the worst kind of deception? How do these ones expect to grow, really gain Christ, be sanctified, enter full salvation, etc. by violating all the other commands of scripture?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said:

What you do is use one verse and then proceed your own interpretation without having another verse to support that view.

This is a false claim because in my first post I posted 3 verses (more than 1) to support the view that belief is not enough:

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15).

I also used Psalm 41:9 to support Judas being a friend of Christ. This is another example of one verse supporting another.

You post only two verses and then claim you are doing exegesis.

The issue was you didn't do a critical examination of those verses, otherwise you'd have known the Greek term used for the only type of scriptural belief of demons (pisteuo) has multiple meanings depending on the context in which it's used. It could mean simply to think to be true or have a intellectual knowing that per James results in demons "shuttering or trembling" and then there's the pisteuo that is an entrusting which leads to salvation as John refers to.

James 2:19 didn't use the term pisteou in the context of salvation, John 3:16 however did. Therefore, applying the same meaning of pisteou to both verses is error.

Your initial argument didn't acknowledge this alternative as it was based on a presupposition using two unrelated verses in order to push the unscriptural agenda that those having the position of salvation coming through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different than demons because even demons can pisteou. Number one, that's equivocation, number two your approach would be considered eisegesis not exegesis, and number three your argument acts as a backhanded insult to those that hold the position that salvation is by faith (pistis) alone in Jesus Christ.

The other Greek word for "faith" in instances where scripture speaks about salvation is "pistis" and it's a term that connotes a conviction of truth. Nowhere in scripture do demons have pistis. By you equating the believing (pisteou) of demons to the entrusting and conviction (pisteou/pistis) required for salvation is fallacious.

Paul lived in a constant state of that loss and that is what is the present tense.
"I consider everything a loss" - that is present tense, not past.

The "considering" is present tense. The loss already happened, past tense.

Salvation after death is not possible.

I countered your hypothetical with the example of an NDE experience to show the error in your argument. I'm really not sure you're even concerned about it at this point, nevertheless I'll further clarify.

In an NDE, individuals obviously return back to life being given the opportunity of salvation otherwise we wouldn't have their testimonies. However my point is, while they were lifeless their minds still operate even though they were clinically dead. A condition of clinical death is when measurable brain activity stops, this usually happens within 20-40 seconds from the moment the heart ceases to beat.

My whole point was that even with individuals who are considered brain dead but alive, as in your example, is not grounds for their minds ceasing to function. Who's then to say in this physical state salvation is not a possibility when the mind's functionality is not confined to measurable brain activity as per NDE testimonies?

So then if according to you life + mind = the conditions for the opportunity of salvation then your example isn't a good one to argue against my position.

Time for some multi-verse "exegesis":

Psalm 116:13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Romans 10:13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Jesus said it was a requirement:

Matt 10:32 Therefore everyone who will confess in Me before men, I also will confess in him before My Father in the heavens.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

There are too many verses to deny that confession is important for salvation.

It is a Hebrew parallelism which means that the faith of the heart is united with the confession of the mouth, resulting in righteousness and salvation.

“With the faith of the heart is united the confession of the mouth to the result that one obtains righteousness and salvation.”

Simply posting multiple verses without a critical explanation for your argument doesn't constitute exegesis. You're listing verses that mention confession, but none of them explicitly say it's an absolute requirement for salvation.

Confession at the most can be evidence of faith however anyone can make a simple confession. Look at the example in Matthew 7:22. These people will also confess Jesus as "Lord" having done many things in his name yet the Lord will not grant them salvation. Perhaps it's because they only said "Lord" twice and not five times that the Lord rejected them. Of course I'm being sarcastic but the point is these verses certainly do not imply that we need to make some sort of mantric practice out of confession to receive salvation.

So he had no subjective inner experience at all is that what you are saying?

In Acts 9, no. This experience was witnessed by others. By definition this account cannot be considered subjective and Paul's experience was certainly not brought about by any sort of mystical practice or other work.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My understanding is that John 13.25-26 was a private conversation between Jesus and John. Peter was nearby so perhaps he heard more. Most of the disciples were unaware. (vv. 28-29)

I agree that only John understood why Jesus told Judas that, but I was more curious on how you concluded Jesus was leaning on Judas. Maybe in was a typo...?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The concept of "Gaining Christ," while true, can be taken to an extreme, and thus become a horrible deception. Many LC'ers understood "Gaining Christ" as exercising themselves to "take in the ministry." Nothing could be further from the truth. Where is love, obedience, faith, departing from unrighteousness, etc? Does not God look at the heart?

I agree and the extreme is turning the gaining of Christ into a work or practice such as chanting the Lord's name. This is certainly not the way to gain Christ.

Case in point was during the Ohio quarantines. Bro/sis's were dividing from one another, filing lawsuits, verbal altercations, disrupting meetings, and in many cases behaving worse than the unbelievers, yet they were "gaining Christ" by adhering adamantly to "the ministry." Our Christian walk is not in this way. Compare this kind of behavior to the scribes and Pharisees.

Is this not the worst kind of deception? How do these ones expect to grow, really gain Christ, be sanctified, enter full salvation, etc. by violating all the other commands of scripture?

It seems that the only thing this quarantining did was cause deep-seated trauma and grief. And I clearly see the effects of this in my LC friends. The most obvious being this constant suspicion toward others which prevents them from forming any meaningful bonds with other brothers and sisters in Christ. It's very sad indeed. I'm glad this forum is around to give those affected the opportunity to vent and seek more understanding through their healing process.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree that only John understood why Jesus told Judas that, but I was more curious on how you concluded Jesus was leaning on Judas. Maybe in was a typo...?

Years ago, while personally being betrayed by a loved one, the thought of Jesus being betrayed by Judas intrigued me. Why would God allow something so cruel? The prophetic in Jn 13.18 got me going, led me to Psalms 41.9 and to 55.12-14. I considered Judas to be one of Jesus' closest friends. (Somewhat contrary to the written Gospels which saw Judas in light of his betrayal.) Judas having "the money" made me consider that he was a valet or steward to the Lord arranging daily accommodations for Him and His entourage. I began to consider Judas not as a student or follower of the Lord, but as a close friend, a personal companion, as prophesied in Psalms.

The Passover supper, contrary to traditional pictures of a long straight table with chairs, had participants reclining as spokes around a central table or hub where the food was placed. According to ancient custom, each would face in the same direction on their left side on pillows with their heads closest to the table and their feet aiming away. (Which would also expedite the foot-washing.)

Jesus reclined just as "one of the guys." John was in front of the Lord, hence he could lean back on the Lord's breast. But who would be behind the Lord? Who could the Lord lean on? The private nature of Jn 13 and the fact that the Lord "dipped the morsel, giving it to Judas" led me to believe that Judas was adjacent and behind the Lord. Except for this unique Passover dinner, which enacted the New Covenant, for Judas to regularly recline by Jesus would facilitate regular discussions about His daily itinerary.

Does that make sense?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago, while personally being betrayed by a loved one, the thought of Jesus being betrayed by Judas intrigued me. Why would God allow something so cruel? The prophetic in Jn 13.18 got me going, led me to Psalms 41.9 and to 55.12-14. I considered Judas to be one of Jesus' closest friends.

If God's plan was for Jesus to die for the sins of the world, then turns out that Judas was the truest of the 12.

Jesus told him to go do it. They must have had a shared plan. And Judas did as he was told.

And he paid the highest price for it. While the other of the 12 ran off.

If the death of Christ was for the sins of the world, then we should all be thanking Judas.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

If God's plan was for Jesus to die for the sins of the world, then turns out that Judas was the truest of the 12.

Jesus told him to go do it. They must have had a shared plan. And Judas did as he was told.

And he paid the highest price for it. While the other of the 12 ran off.

If the death of Christ was for the sins of the world, then we should all be thanking Judas.

This is actually the premise the gnostic Gospel of Judas presents as well. It would be a good topic to discuss.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

It seems that the only thing this quarantining did was cause deep-seated trauma and grief. And I clearly see the effects of this in my LC friends. The most obvious being this constant suspicion toward others which prevents them from forming any meaningful bonds with other brothers and sisters in Christ. It's very sad indeed.

Exactly. Isn't that pathetic?


The system is designed to keep all members needy on their ministry and suspicious of all others.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The issue was you didn't do a critical examination of those verses, otherwise you'd have known the Greek term used for the only type of scriptural belief of demons (pisteuo) has multiple meanings depending on the context in which it's used. It could mean simply to think to be true or have a intellectual knowing that per James results in demons "shuttering or trembling" and then there's the pisteuo that is an entrusting which leads to salvation as John refers to.

James 2:19 didn't use the term pisteou in the context of salvation, John 3:16 however did. Therefore, applying the same meaning of pisteou to both verses is error.

Your initial argument didn't acknowledge this alternative as it was based on a presupposition using two unrelated verses in order to push the unscriptural agenda that those having the position of salvation coming through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different than demons because even demons can pisteou. Number one, that's equivocation, number two your approach would be considered eisegesis not exegesis, and number three your argument acts as a backhanded insult to those that hold the position that salvation is by faith (pistis) alone in Jesus Christ.

But a point of this thread is not to do critical examination of those verses about demonic belief vs a Christian's belief. I even inferred to the difference when I wrote about "genuine faith".

In fact I was comparing the demon's faith with the faith of a person who "only says" but does not truly believe here:

They know that not everyone who says "I believe in Christ" is really saved, and that not everyone who claims a "personal relationship" with Christ really has one.

So your claims are wrong that I am pushing some unscriptural agenda that "those having the position of salvation coming through faith alone in Jesus Christ are no different than demons because even demons can pisteou". I am not comparing genuine saved people to demons, rather, people who only have faith as demons do (and as James meant).

That is your unfounded assertion that cannot be found in my post in anyway. This thread is about full salvation not denying initial salvation of justification by faith alone.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree and the extreme is turning the gaining of Christ into a work or practice such as chanting the Lord's name. This is certainly not the way to gain Christ.

What you disrespectfully call chanting is prayer, and could be considered an insult to everyone who prays by calling on the name of the Lord.

You are essentially denying prayer as a way to gain Christ, and worse, claiming it is "not the way to gain Christ" when many people's experience says otherwise.

Perhaps you could state what you believe is a better way to gain Christ rather than merely criticizing which is unfruitful. Or is your view we "don't need to gain Christ".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you disrespectfully call chanting is prayer, and could be considered an insult to everyone who prays by calling on the name of the Lord.

Not really. Go back and watch the Whistler quarantine of Titus Chu.

They brought forth a litany of haters, and after about an hour of this nonsense, all the weary attendants were all instructed to stand up and call on the Lord 5x.

It was chanting. It was nonsense. It was not prayer. It was vain.

[Evangelical]

How can you make a determination that it "was not prayer"? Technically any form of address to a divine higher power is a prayer, and the genuineness of it can only be determined by knowing their hearts which only God knows.

[Ohio]

Then why would the Lord instruct us not to pray "vain babbling" like the Gentiles?

Paul also instructs us to call on the Lord "out of a pure heart," not vainly.

[Evangelical]

Obviously he told us that so we could judge who is vain babbling and who isn't. He certainly could not have meant it for ourselves. Anyone who says that their calling on the Lord in the Recovery was "vain babbling" must be talking from personal experience.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can you make a determination that it "was not prayer"? Technically any form of address to a divine higher power is a prayer, and the genuineness of it can only be determined by knowing their hearts which only God knows.

If you want to take the intellectual approach, just take a look at the definitions and then do a comparison.

Chant or prayer?

"Oh, Lord Jesus"

chant
CHant/Submit
noun
1.
a (1) repeated rhythmic (2) phrase, typically one (3) shouted or sung in (4) unison by a (5) crowd.

"Oh, Lord Jesus" (5x);

1) Check
2) Check
3) Check
4) Check
5) Check

Total = 5/5

Conclusion: Chant



prayer
prer/Submit
noun
noun: prayer; plural noun: prayers
a (1)solemn request for help or (2)expression of thanks (3)addressed to God or an object of worship.

"Oh, Lord Jesus" (5x);

1) N/A
2) N/A
3) Check?

Total = 1/3

Conclusion: Not a prayer

If you want to take the subjective "heart" approach. Well, scripture says "The heart is deceitful above all things". How then would you know you're not deceived? Do you base the validity and success of this certain practice on mere "feelings"? Well, so do Hindi's that chant "Hare Krishna".

Successful chanting within eastern mysticism results in an altered state of consciousness where one experiences peace, joy, bliss, and euphoria. In order to achieve this, one must not cause certain "offenses" that would hinder your success in achieving the desired effects.

Teaching a systematic approach to calling on the name of the Lord requires certain conditions. As per Witness Lee's teaching, one needs to call on the name of the Lord with the condition of a "pure heart" and with "pure lips" and must be done "corporately" to be "released from your self and filled with the Lord". Not having these specific prerequisites could also be considered "offenses" that hinder successful "calling".

In eastern practices, chanting is a means to reaching nirvana

In the LC, "calling on the name of the Lord" is a means to acheiving salvation;

"Why do we need to call on the name of the Lord? Men need to call on the name of the Lord in order to be saved" -Witness Lee

What then is the difference between the LC's practice and the yogic approach to spiritual liberation? What is the difference between "being filled with the Lord" and yogic euphoria? And how would you know either way? Both are inner subjective experiences.

If you prefer a specific scriptural approach, Jesus Christ provided his disciples with the outline to follow for prayer. When he demonstrated prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 and in John 17:20-23, it was not done in a repetitious manner. It was not sung nor was it shouted. Neither did he teach us that prayer should be preformed by crowds in unison.

God is a person. Who in solemn communication between each other expresses thanks or requests help by the use of short repetitious phrases? What then makes you think God wants to be communicated to in such a strange manner?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Obviously he told us that so we could judge who is vain babbling and who isn't. He certainly could not have meant it for ourselves. Anyone who says that their calling on the Lord in the Recovery was "vain babbling" must be talking from personal experience.

Here the Lord's instruction to "go to your closet" is quite fitting.

My original comment isolated vain calling or babbling to one particular event -- the farcical Whistler Kangaroo Court Quarantine of Titus Chu by the Blendeds. You then distorted this to include every case -- shame on you -- in order to win your case.

My suggestion, when it comes to prayerful worship such as calling on His wonderful name, is to do so privately and from the heart, as Jesus instructed the woman at the well -- in spirit and reality -- because the Father seeks such worship.

Public displays merely for show, energizing a bored and tired audience like the "seventh inning stretch" at a baseball game, have little to no spiritual value, and may even offend the Lord, not to mention the shame it brings to His name.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you disrespectfully call chanting is prayer, and could be considered an insult to everyone who prays by calling on the name of the Lord.

You are essentially denying prayer as a way to gain Christ, and worse, claiming it is "not the way to gain Christ" when many people's experience says otherwise.

Perhaps you could state what you believe is a better way to gain Christ rather than merely criticizing which is unfruitful. Or is your view we "don't need to gain Christ".

C'mon Evan, I remember calling on the name. I remember whole meetings of everyone calling over and over, with fists and neck veins popping.

I guess it could be prayer, but it was more like vain repetition.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If you want to take the intellectual approach, just take a look at the definitions and then do a comparison...

The difference? We call on the name of the Lord Jesus. They don't. Perhaps the name of Jesus is 'just another name' like Hare Krishna to you.

You seem to have a lot of manmade rules about prayer..such as corporate prayer being forbidden.
It seems you think of God as "just another person". So you must not think we can pray in our hearts? Do you believe prayer must be audible?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

C'mon Evan, I remember calling on the name. I remember whole meetings of everyone calling over and over, with fists and neck veins popping.

I guess it could be prayer, but it was more like vain repetition.

You must be speaking from personal experience re:vain prayer. If it is vain...who is being vain if not yourself? No one forced you to pray vainly.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here the Lord's instruction to "go to your closet" is quite fitting.

My original comment isolated vain calling or babbling to one particular event -- the farcical Whistler Kangaroo Court Quarantine of Titus Chu by the Blendeds. You then distorted this to include every case -- shame on you -- in order to win your case.

My suggestion, when it comes to prayerful worship such as calling on His wonderful name, is to do so privately and from the heart, as Jesus instructed the woman at the well -- in spirit and reality -- because the Father seeks such worship.

Public displays merely for show, energizing a bored and tired audience like the "seventh inning stretch" at a baseball game, have little to no spiritual value, and may even offend the Lord, not to mention the shame it brings to His name.

If you look back a few you were the one who used one instance of calling to discredit the practice of calling on the name of the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you look back a few you were the one who used one instance of calling to discredit the practice of calling on the name of the Lord.

Why do you keep defending that Whistler event and distorting what I said?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You must be speaking from personal experience re:vain prayer. If it is vain...who is being vain if not yourself? No one forced you to pray vainly.

You're right. No one forced us in our vain repetitions. We were bewitched. Nowhere in the NT did they go around repeating Oh Lord Jesus. The practice is extra-Biblical.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The difference? We call on the name of the Lord Jesus. They don't. Perhaps the name of Jesus is 'just another name' like Hare Krishna to you.

It seems you think of God as "just another person".

So do the disciples of the Hindu yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda, however they do not call themselves Christians. They do not believe Jesus Christ is the one and only Messiah yet also call on or recite his name through a practice called "Jesus prayer meditation". It is considered "practicing presence".

The issue is that scripture says there are many Jesus' (2 Corinthians 11:4) and along with accepting a different Jesus comes a different spirit.

Does merely reciting the name of Jesus validate the practice along with the resulting effects? How do you know you are communicating with the Jesus of scripture and not another "Jesus"?

So you must not think we can pray in our hearts? Do you believe prayer must be audible?

Does repeating a mantra in your "heart" then justify this practice?

Even so, the practice in question is the 5x "Oh, Lord Jesus" and it is an audible one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why do you keep defending that Whistler event and distorting what I said?

What else could you have meant other than calling in the recovery is chanting because of one example you gave. If you meant to say "calling may be chanting if it is done vainly" why not just say that?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

So do the disciples of the Hindu yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda. They also call on or recite the name of the Lord Jesus through a practice called "Jesus prayer meditation". It is considered "practicing presence".

The issue is that scripture says there are many Jesus' (2 Corinthians 11:4) and along with accepting a different Jesus comes a different spirit.

Does merely reciting the name of Jesus validate the practice along with the resulting effects? How do you know you are communicating with the Jesus of scripture and not another Jesus?

Does repeating a mantra in your "heart" then justify this practice?

Scripture does not say there are many Jesus's. It says there is only one:

1 Cor 8:6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

Because there is only one Jesus, if we use the name of Jesus only one Jesus will respond (if He wants to). The unique name of Jesus
became evident in Acts 19:17 "And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled."

Even a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or Muslim can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Remember that Abraham followed and called upon the Lord while technically still a pagan (he was called Abram at that time) (Joshua 24:2). Abraham could have been a yoga master for all we know, practicing yoga and chanting to "God" when the real God responded.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Scripture does not say there are many Jesus's. It says there is only one:

"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough." (2 Cor 11:4)

"Another" connotes more than one. Paul seems to think there is more than one Jesus' being proclaimed. Does Paul contradict himself against the rest of scripture?

Because there is only one Jesus, if we use the name of Jesus only one Jesus will respond

In Matthew 7:22, those individuals performed miracles using the name of Jesus Christ yet the Lord said he did not know them. If then Jesus didn't know them and they could not have had the Holy Spirit then by what spirit did they perform the miracles?

If a different spirit other than the Holy Spirit can respond to the name of Jesus, why then do you say only Jesus will respond by using his name when that's not scripture?

If a different spirit can respond to the name of Jesus, how then can you determine which spirit is responding to an individual through a practice like chanting the Lord's name?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough." (2 Cor 11:4)

"Another" connotes more than one. Paul seems to think there is more than one Jesus' being proclaimed. Does Paul contradict himself with the rest of scripture?

2 Cor 11:4 is in contradiction with 1 Cor 8:6 only if 2 Cor 11:4 means there is more than one Jesus. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to re-interpret 2 Cor 11:4 or 1 Cor 8:6, and I suggest that it is easier to re-interpret 2 Cor 11:4 than 1 Cor 8:6.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I suggest that it is easier to re-interpret 2 Cor 11:4 than 1 Cor 8:6.

How then would you interpret 2 Corinthians 11:4? What does Paul mean by "another Jesus"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

How then would you interpret 2 Corinthians 11:4? What does Paul mean by "another Jesus"?

In the Greek...

Another Jesus means the one and only Jesus but preached in such a way that it gives a different impression of the one and only Jesus. That is..it means a perversion of the only Jesus, not that there are more than one.

Also see Gal 1.6-7 where after Paul says 'another gospel' clarifies that there really is no other gospel.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Another Jesus means the one and only Jesus but preached in such a way that it gives a different impression of the one and only Jesus. That is..it means a perversion of the only Jesus, not that there are more than one.

I agree.

If the people that Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:4 were trying to give a false impression of the only one Jesus, it follows that they were still retaining the actual name of Jesus in their preaching of this different gospel.

Why would Paul be admonishing the Corinthians of receiving a different spirit if as you say "the only one Jesus will respond" when using his name? Doesn't this imply a different spirit other than the Holy Spirit is acting through the preaching done in the name of Jesus?

So then, if a different spirit can be imparted through the preaching of another Jesus, all while still using his name in the process, can't a different spirit respond and give a false subjective impression to an individual through a practice such as chanting when using the name of Jesus?

How would you know either way?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I agree.

If the people that Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:4 were trying to give a false impression of the only one Jesus, it follows that they were still retaining the actual name of Jesus in their preaching of this different gospel.

Why would Paul be admonishing the Corinthians of receiving a different spirit if as you say "the only one Jesus will respond" when using his name? Doesn't this imply a different spirit other than the Holy Spirit is acting through the preaching done in the name of Jesus?

So then, if a different spirit can be imparted through the preaching of another Jesus, all while still using his name in the process, can't a different spirit respond and give a false subjective impression to an individual through a practice such as chanting when using the name of Jesus?

How would you know either way?

It helps to consider what this "other Jesus" and "other spirit" actually was. Even though the Bible does not say explicitly it does give clues in 1 Cor 12:3 and Galatians 5:6, namely, that this perversion of the gospel was none other than to deny the Person and work of Christ on the cross, even to curse Him.

How would we know either way? By this test:

1 Cor 12:3 (NIV) Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 4:2 (NIV): This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

Paramahansa Yogananda would not be able to pass the test of 1 Cor 12:3 and 1 John 4:2.

Scripture tells us how to test the spirits. The method you use to test the spirits (by looking at how people pray) is unscriptural.

Based on 1 Cor 12:3 and 1 John 4:2 it seems that local church members would be accepted into the early church as fellow Christians, not as followers of another Jesus or another spirit.

I will illustrate why your test fails (besides being unscriptural):

I suggest that the percentage of "chanting" people in the recovery who can pass the test of 1 Cor 12:3 and 1 John 4:2 is higher, than those in a regular denomination who pray "dear God, it's me again... Amen" prayers. That is, in the recovery, it is very much encouraged to confess 1 Cor 12:3 or 1 John 4:2 and people will surely notice if you cannot. However in a denominational church service, many unsaved people attend, who cannot say "Jesus is Lord" because they have an evil spirit. And sometimes the unsaved person is the Priest or pastor who cannot say "Jesus is Lord". They can attend church for their whole life, and never be challenged by anyone to pass the test.

Another case of this is in Pentecostal churches. Have you ever noticed that in Pentecostal churches they usually say "Jesus" and "God", rather than "Lord Jesus" and "Abba Father"? And in liturgical churches they seem to avoid the name of Jesus. It is always "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and God or "Father God", and sometimes "Mother God" too.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How would we know either way? By this test:

1 Cor 12:3 (NIV) Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 4:2 (NIV): This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

Paramahansa Yogananda would not be able to pass the test of 1 Cor 12:3 and 1 John 4:2.

Scripture tells us how to test the spirits. The method you use to test the spirits (by looking at how people pray) is unscriptural.

My argument isn't about testing other people, I'm asking how do you determine for yourself if through your mystical practices of "gaining Christ" you are experiencing the Holy Spirit and not a different spirit?

In the case of the yogis of the SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship), the fact is they do pass the test as you present it. The mystic practice Yogananda's disciples use in gaining a subjective experience in Jesus' name is called "Jesus prayer meditation". It's also a chant using a short phrase similar to the LC's. The exception being the number of times the phrase is repeated. Instead of 5x as in "Oh, Lord Jesus" these yogis will chant, "Lord Jesus have mercy on me" 6x. The similarity however is the use of the title of "Lord Jesus".

These yogis also believe that Jesus came as an actual historical person. The difference between their beliefs and scriptural doctrine is that they teach Jesus became a spirit or "Christ consciousness" after his ascension into Heaven and that this consciousness is available to us on earth and gained through mystical practices. This is similar to the belief that's found in the LC's profession of faith that after Jesus' ascension, he became "a life giving spirit" and through "calling", Christ as a spirit can live in us. That's not scripture.

If as you argue, 1 John 4:2 and 1 Cor 12:3 was the absolute test in testing the spirits and not just "a" test, along with the argument that even demons believe, and the unsaved can confess Jesus as Lord (Matthew 7:21-23) then how would you test the validity of your own subjective mystical experiences through practices such as chanting when even non-Christian groups like the SRF do the same things and pass this test as well?

Should then the body of Christ accept all groups influenced by eastern mysticim that chant "Lord Jesus" and believe he came as a human being? If so, then I believe the papacy would have legitimate competition in Christian ecumenism.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

My argument isn't about testing other people, I'm asking how do you determine for yourself if through your mystical practices of "gaining Christ" you are experiencing the Holy Spirit and not a different spirit?

Well you've been testing me, and others in the recovery, and you have tested us, only according to your observation about the practice of calling on the Lord, relating that to chanting, and then further relating that to Eastern religions. This is not an effective method because we could find a false religion that relates to any Christian practice, even yours.

No where have you raised the matter of 1 John 4:2 and 1 Cor 12:3 which indicates to me you are unaware that these tests exist or can be applied to anyone. These are genuine tests because they are written for us, and were written for the churches at that time dealing with false converts in the church.

There are some more tests in Scripture:

We call God "Abba Father" as per Romans 8:15. Only those born of the Spirit can say that.

And there is also the guarantee of Matthew 7:9-11 that if we pray to God He won't give us a demon.

So far in this discussion you have not used or even proposed the tests of Scripture, rather only performed similarity comparisons in relation to your own observations and drawn conclusions based upon that.

Originally Posted by Jo S

In the case of the yogis of the SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship), the fact is they do pass the test as you argue. The mystic practice Yogananda's disciples use in gaining a subjective experience in Jesus' name is called "Jesus prayer meditation". It's also a chant using a short phrase similar to the LC's. The exception being the number of times the phrase is repeated. Instead of 5x as in "Oh, Lord Jesus" these yogis will chant, "Lord Jesus have mercy on me" 6x. The similarity however is the use of the title of "Lord Jesus".

These yogis also believe that Jesus came as an actual historical person. The difference between their beliefs and scriptural doctrine is that they teach Jesus became a spirit or "Christ consciousness" after his ascension into Heaven and that this consciousness is available to us on earth and gained through mystical practices. This is similar to the belief that's found in the LC's profession of faith that after Jesus' ascension, he became "a life giving spirit" and through "calling", Christ as a spirit can live in us. That's not scripture.

Everything you say about them makes them sound Christian to me. And if we believe a Mary-worshipping Catholic is a Christian then surely these people fit the bill as well. They may be like those in Acts 18:26 who needed explaining to them the way "more accurately". They probably could easily past the test of "belief" as well in any John 3:16-based gospel tract. I think they also believe that Jesus is the Son of God and they love Jesus. If they believe in and call on the name of the Lord then maybe they are saved. "Lord Jesus have mercy on me" sounds like the "kyrie eleison". The "Christ consciousness" may just be another name for the Holy Spirit. Compared to some Christians who say the Holy Spirit is merely a "power/force", they at least recognize that Christ left something of Himself on the Earth since he went to the Father.

Earlier in discussion of "brain dead" people you wrote:

Who's then to say in this physical state salvation is not a possibility when the mind's functionality is not confined to measurable brain activity as per NDE testimonies?

So you are open to the possibility of even a comatose person being saved. Why not Yogananda followers as well who, more obviously than a comatose person, display some sort of faith in Christ?

Originally Posted by Jo S

If as you argue, 1 John 4:2 and 1 Cor 12:3 was the absolute test in testing the spirits and not just "a" test, along with the argument that even demons believe, and the unsaved can confess Jesus as Lord (Matthew 7:21-23) then how would you test the validity of your own subjective mystical experiences through practices such as chanting when even non-Christian groups like the SRF do the same things and pass this test as well?

You seem to be doubting the tests of Scripture and leaning on your test which is to test genuine Christianity by comparing with other religions.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Should then the body of Christ accept all groups influenced by eastern mysticim that chant "Lord Jesus" and believe he came as a human being? If so, then I believe the papacy would have legitimate competition in Christian ecumenism.

You are asking whether or not the body of Christ should accept people who call the name of the Lord and believe He came as a human being, and I think the answer to that is yes because they sound like genuine Christians to me:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" (1 Cor. 1:2).

I would say those who don't call upon the name of the Lord are the ones who are not Christians, if they cannot confess/call upon His name, they are not truly saved, because the expression follows the genuine faith.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No where have you raised the matter of 1 John 4:2 and 1 Cor 12:3 which indicates to me you are unaware that these tests exist or can be applied to anyone. These are genuine tests because they are written for us, and were written for the churches at that time dealing with false converts in the church.

There are some more tests in Scripture:

We call God "Abba Father" as per Romans 8:15. Only those born of the Spirit can say that.

And there is also the guarantee of Matthew 7:9-11 that if we pray to God He won't give us a demon.

You have added additional tests along this discussion. Does someone get a pass by meeting the requirement(s) of just one test or all of them?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

You have added additional tests along this discussion. Does someone get a pass by meeting the requirement(s) of just one test or all of them?

I only added the test of sonship. But the first two are the best I think as they test the spirit from God or not. Tests of fruit or behavior are no where near as reliable. Paul could easily have proposed these sorts of tests for the Corinthians but he didnt. In their case..the Jews appeared to prophesy by the Spirit but they reviled Jesus so it was prophesy by demons. Behavior wise..both false and genuine may have appeared similar so the only reliable test was whether they honored Christ.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I only added the test of sonship. But the first two are the best I think as they test the spirit from God or not. Tests of fruit or behavior are no where near as reliable. Paul could easily have proposed these sorts of tests for the Corinthians but he didnt. In their case..the Jews appeared to prophesy by the Spirit but they reviled Jesus so it was prophesy by demons. Behavior wise..both false and genuine may have appeared similar so the only reliable test was whether they honored Christ.

What exactly do the first two tests prove? Hypothetically, if I say "Jesus is Lord, Jesus came in the flesh and is God, WL/LSM's teachings are very wrong", does it mean what I say is from spirit of God?

[Jo S]

The answer I've been looking for is; spiritual discernment.

Fruits are spiritual so of course they have to be discerned spiritually. The testing of the fruits through spiritual discernment can be found in Matt. 7:15-20.

Paul's and James' tests are important yet Jesus' was not worth mentioning?

Since you've been arguing the false dichotomy of 1 John 4:2 and 1 Cor 12:3 as being the only tests to know the spirits, your argument is invalid.

The danger here is, being ignorant to this particular scripture and also personally lacking in this gift results in a Christian having to place their trust in a leader's judgment and consequently also their interpretation of scripture.

It also puts you in the place of being naive toward other sects that can and do confess Jesus as Lord and also believe he came in the flesh yet are wolves in sheep's clothing ready to take advantage of your lack of discernment.

Scripture says if anyone comes to you but brings not the whole of his teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. That included the Yogi's from my previous example which preach a perverted gospel.

Tests of fruit or behavior are no where near as reliable

It's not your place to tell anyone that a gift from God is not reliable.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The answer I've been looking for is; spiritual discernment.

Fruits are spiritual so of course they have to be discerned spiritually. The testing of the fruits through spiritual discernment can of course be found in Matt. 7:15-20.

Paul's and James' tests are important yet Jesus' was not worth mentioning?

Since you've been arguing the false dichotomy of 1 John 4:2 and 1 Cor 12:3 as being the only tests to know the spirits, your argument is invalid.

The danger here is, being ignorant to this particular scripture and also personally lacking in this gift results in a Christian having to place their trust in a leader's judgment and consequently also their interpretation of scripture.

It also puts you in the place of being naive toward other sects that can and do confess Jesus as Lord and also believe he came in the flesh yet are wolves in sheep's clothing ready to take advantage of your lack of discernment.

Scripture says if anyone comes to you but brings not the whole of his teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. That included the Yogi's from my previous example which preach a perverted gospel.

It's not your place to tell anyone that a gift from God is not reliable.

We don't need a special "gift of spiritual discernment" to be able to discern spirits, we just need to apply the two tests in 1 John or Corinthians. John and Paul did not write "just use your special gift of discernment guys", he gave them a clear cut and simple way to test the spirit. Some Pentecostals claim a special "gift of spiritual discernment" or "word of knowledge" but it's more about spine tingles and superstition than real discernment I think. These same people who claim a gift of discernment or special spiritual knowledge also demand tongues as evidence of being filled with the Spirit.

I already gave the tests for "spiritual discernment". They are stated 1 John 4:

..., but test the spirits to see whether they are from God...

"test the spirit" means "discern the spirit". That's real spiritual discernment right there that doesn't depend upon subjective opinion.

Jesus's test cannot discern whether the spirit is of God or not. If it could, then don't you think John and Paul would have simply said "look at the fruit"? Jesus's test is designed, as He said, to discern false prophets. Discerning a false prophet is different from discerning the spirit of God.

Looking at the fruit is an outward test. The fruit of the Yogi's teaching - peace, love, happiness etc, could be considered good fruit. Therefore the "fruit test" alone could fail. Also, there were many good Pharisees who did many good works, their fruit could be seen as good, but they did not believe in Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

What exactly do the first two tests prove? Hypothetically, if I say "Jesus is Lord, Jesus came in the flesh and is God, WL/LSM's teachings are very wrong", does it mean what I say is from spirit of God?

The tests prove if someone has the Spirit of God. The tests are not a test of doctrine or teachings. If we meet those tests, we can be confident that we have God's Spirit, and we don't have to worry about attracting a demon that pretends to be Jesus or the Holy Spirit - we have God's protection and if we ask for the Spirit we won't get a stone. If we pray to and in the name of Jesus, God will not allow a demon to respond and pretend to be Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Jo S's teaching is misguided and wrong. So far they have claimed, corporate prayer is not allowed, cannot say the name of Jesus or same thing more than 3 times that is chanting= eastern religion, cannot sing or shout (what about worship?), short repetitious phrases not allowed, and be careful of doing that because you might get one of the many "other Jesus's" or "other spirits" if you do.

They wrote:
God is a person. Who in solemn communication between each other expresses thanks or requests help by the use of short repetitious phrases? What then makes you think God wants to be communicated to in such a strange manner?

When he demonstrated prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 and in John 17:20-23, it was not done in a repetitious manner. It was not sung nor was it shouted. Neither did he teach us that prayer should be preformed by crowds in unison.

In contradiction to the claims made, it is fairly easy to show from the bible various examples of corporate, short, and singing or shouting prayer:

Short prayer:

Acts 7:59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Loud prayer:

Acts 760 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Singing prayer:

Eph 5:19 Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord,

Corporate prayer:

Acts 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spiri

Matt 18:19-20
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Acts 12:5
So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer,

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The tests prove if someone has the Spirit of God. The tests are not a test of doctrine or teachings. If we meet those tests, we can be confident that we have God's Spirit, and we don't have to worry about attracting a demon that pretends to be Jesus or the Holy Spirit - we have God's protection and if we ask for the Spirit we won't get a stone. If we pray to and in the name of Jesus, God will not allow a demon to respond and pretend to be Jesus.

Did you wonder why you couldn't give a simple yes or no answer to my question? Because those "tests" you mentioned are not what you think. They are very specific to the situation the apostles were facing at their time. You have over-generalized them as if they apply to all situations.

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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


For example, if someone asked two questions:

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

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

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

Let's break it down :

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

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

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

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

Agree.

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Agree.

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

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

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

You must be thinking of this verse:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

For this we have Scripture:

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

and teachers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You must be thinking of this verse:

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

1 John 2:26 gives the context:
...
So in context, it means that we don't need anyone to teach us that Jesus is the Christ because we have the Holy Spirit. The anointing teaches about Christ. There is no reason to think it should teach about doctrine such as Calvinism or whether we should keep the Sabbath.

I am glad you have picked up the idea that some verses are specific to certain context. But what I have in mind is actually the next verse that you didn't mention:

1 John 2:27 And as for you, the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you; but as His anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, abide in Him.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For this we have Scripture:
...
and teachers:
...

I believe both the Holy Spirit and the Scripture are needed to teach us the truth. We need the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the truth in the Scripture, and we need the Scripture to check against false spirits. It is the basic scriptural principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. Or in simple words, checks and balances.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I am glad you have picked up the idea that some verses are specific to certain context. But what I have in mind was actually the next verse that you didn't mention:

1 John 2:27 And as for you, the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone teach you; but as His anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, abide in Him.



I believe both the Holy Spirit and the Scripture are needed to teach us the truth. We need the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the truth in the Scripture, and we need the Scripture to check against false spirits. It is the basic scriptural principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. Or in simple words, checks and balances.

In the context, "all things" means all necessary things relating to salvation. If "all things" meant everything, then he would not need to write to them as their teacher.

"you have no need that anyone teach you" is another way of saying "you already have what is essential for salvation so you don't need me to tell/remind you that Jesus is the Christ, and that whoever has the Son has the Father..."...but the purpose of John's writing is to that they may not sin (1 John 2:1) and to warn them about deception (1 John 3:7), not to teach them the elementary truths about Christ, of which they have an anointing that teaches them all necessary things about Christ.

I would say:
God's anointing teaches us the necessary things about Christ for our salvation such that no one can snatch us out of His hand (John 10:28). We can see that it is by the anointing which teaches us about all necessary things about Christ that we are protected from losing salvation. Teachers like John and Scripture are required to teach about things important, but not necessary for salvation. These teachings are not so that we can be saved or not lose our salvation, but so that we "may not sin" (1 John 2:1) and "not be ashamed at His coming" (1 John 2:28). But "if we do sin" (if we ignore John's teachings), then we have an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1).

The consequence of following false teachers for a believer is not that they are in danger of losing their salvation if they do (they have an anointing which prevents that) , but that they may be led astray into sin. A paraphrase of 1 John chapter 2 is this:
"I don't want you to sin and be ashamed at Christ's coming, that's why I am writing to you about these false teachers. If you do follow a false teacher you won't lose your salvation because you have the anointing which teaches you the truth about Christ for salvation, and you have an advocate by which your sins will be forgiven, but please abide in Christ so that you won't fall into sin".

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the context, "all things" means all necessary things relating to salvation. If "all things" meant everything, then he would not need to write to them as their teacher.

"you have no need that anyone teach you" is another way of saying "you already have what is essential for salvation so you don't need me to tell/remind you that Jesus is the Christ, and that whoever has the Son has the Father..."...but the purpose of John's writing is to that they may not sin (1 John 2:1) and to warn them about deception (1 John 3:7), not to teach them the elementary truths about Christ, of which they have an anointing that teaches them all necessary things about Christ.

I would say:
God's anointing teaches us the necessary things about Christ for our salvation such that no one can snatch us out of His hand (John 10:28). We can see that it is by the anointing which teaches us about all necessary things about Christ that we are protected from losing salvation. Teachers like John and Scripture are required to teach about things important, but not necessary for salvation. These teachings are not so that we can be saved or not lose our salvation, but so that we "may not sin" (1 John 2:1) and "not be ashamed at His coming" (1 John 2:28). But "if we do sin" (if we ignore John's teachings), then we have an advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1).

Sorry, it doesn't quite make sense to me.

Wasn't 1 John addressing believers who have received salvation? What's the point of the anointing to teach someone already saved about matters only related to their salvation? If we haven't received salvation already, will the Holy Spirit be in us as the anointing?

If 2:27 is in the same context, don't you think it should appear before 2:26 where John wrote "These things I have written to you..."?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The consequence of following false teachers for a believer is not that they are in danger of losing their salvation if they do (they have an anointing which prevents that) , but that they may be led astray into sin. A paraphrase of 1 John chapter 2 is this:
"I don't want you to sin and be ashamed at Christ's coming, that's why I am writing to you about these false teachers. If you do follow a false teacher you won't lose your salvation because you have the anointing which teaches you the truth about Christ for salvation, and you have an advocate by which your sins will be forgiven, but please abide in Christ so that you won't fall into sin".

I hope this is not the reason why you aren't worried about following the WL/LSM teachings - that you won't lose your salvation no matter what.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Sorry, it doesn't quite make sense to me.

Wasn't 1 John addressing believers who have received salvation? What's the point of the anointing to teach someone already saved about matters only related to their salvation? If we haven't received salvation already, will the Holy Spirit be in us as the anointing?

If 2:27 is in the same context, don't you think it should appear before 2:26 where John wrote "These things I have written to you..."?

The false teaching some believed was that Jesus did not come in the flesh (1 John 2:19). The necessary teaching for salvation is that Christ came in the flesh. Those who denied this about Christ also denied the Father ( 1 John 2:22). Some left because they were deceived that Jesus did not come in the flesh (1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:22-23) because they did not truly have the anointing. He means that he is confident that the rest who have not left won't be deceived and leave because they have the anointing which keeps them safe. The anointing gives them the right understanding of Jesus Christ as one who came in the flesh. It is in this sense that the anointing of the Spirit teaches them all necessary things about Christ and protects them from being deceived.

To put this in more practical terms - of those who have left the recovery, some might have denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and others continue to believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. The difference between the two is that one has the anointing and the other doesn't.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The false teaching some believed was that Jesus did not come in the flesh (1 John 2:19). The necessary teaching for salvation is that Christ came in the flesh. Those who denied this about Christ also denied the Father ( 1 John 2:22). Some left because they were deceived that Jesus did not come in the flesh (1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:22-23) because they did not truly have the anointing. He means that he is confident that the rest who have not left won't be deceived and leave because they have the anointing which keeps them safe. The anointing gives them the right understanding of Jesus Christ as one who came in the flesh. It is in this sense that the anointing of the Spirit teaches them all necessary things about Christ and protects them from being deceived.

I still do not quite understand your concept on salvation. What do you mean by "the necessary teaching for salvation"? Is knowing this teaching a necessary condition of salvation? If it is specifically on one teaching (Christ came in flesh), how comes it became all things in verse 27? What are the things?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To put this in more practical terms - of those who have left the recovery, some might have denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and others continue to believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. The difference between the two is that one has the anointing and the other doesn't.

For those who have left the recovery and have denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, are they not truly saved? Even though they have called "On Lord Jesus" a thousand times?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I would say:....

Rather shouldn't you say, "Gill would say"? Evangelical, I see rather than deferring to commentators with links, you are now plagiarizing their ideas and putting them in writing....This reminds me of those that Paul spoke about in 1 Timothy 1:7.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I believe both the Holy Spirit and the Scripture are needed to teach us the truth. We need the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the truth in the Scripture, and we need the Scripture to check against false spirits. It is the basic scriptural principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. Or in simple words, checks and balances.

Understand that in John's epistle he wrote to those people as a father figure addressing them as "children". He was not instructing them as a instructor or teacher of scripture would in an educational setting but he was doing so in love and gentleness just as a protective parent would their child.

Because there were many false apostles among them trying to deceive them, he had to bring them to remembrance of this truth. Just as in the testimonies of many that came out of the LC, they had forgotten how to rely on the Holy Spirit for truth and struggled to discern the spirits. I consider tests like John's and Paul's as elementary tests for those immature in Christ because that's who they were given to. While effective for whatever situation they were dealing with at that time, there is scripture (Matt 7:22, Mark 5:7) and real world examples to show that false apostles can work around such tests in the way they are generally interpreted. If you say the anointing only teaches you that Jesus is the Christ, then the man at the tombs in Mark 5:7 too must have had the "anointing". Of course this is not true.

To understand the context of 1 John 4:2, people believed (and still do) in a modalistic Christ. One that existed prior as a spiritual being, then incarnated as a man in the sense of eastern mystical incarnation like a Hindu avatar, and then resurrected as a spirit. They still believed that he was a physical being of flesh while on earth, but not a human as all humans are born. You'd be surprised how many churches actually teach such a thing in subtle ways through drawn out doctrine.

In 1 John 2:27, All things (Greek: pas) means all things. You don't get to redefine the meaning of that word. The specific context given in the text itself are only two things, truth and lies, but the application is to "all things". This means whether a teaching or a teacher is false or of the truth, spiritual discernment applies. The Holy Spirit may not be able to convey the flaws in the logic of doctrine or the exact psychology of an individual at that moment but concerning whether something or someone is from the spirit of truth or the spirit of error you can certainly know through spiritual discernment.

And this anointing is not limited to just grace or salvation like some theologians teach. That would require eisegesis to conclude such a thing. False teachers will try to teach you this so they can stand in place of the Holy Spirit as final authority on scripture. Turn away from such. It's no surprise theologians like John Gill would think in this way. Being himself a great teacher and scholar, people in his position could very possibly be tempted by the idea of people looking to them as the authority on scripture and so teach on the anointing in such a way. I would take any theologian's interpretation of the authority of the Holy Spirit specifically for teaching on scripture with a grain of salt and then do you're own study with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Here's the the issue with thinking that scripture alone is able to be used to discern spirits. If the only way you can discern spirits is by scripture then by who's interpretation of scripture are you going you to go by? That then begs the question, how can we know if a teacher has received the correct interpretation of scripture to understand what those specific verses concerning what the testing of spirits actually mean in their correct context? With scripture? That would be circular reasoning.

In the context of New Testament teachers, they were to be more like instructors by teaching how to apply the instructions of scripture in a practical way within the church and also to expound on scriptural doctrine. It is not possible for any man to convey the truth of doctrine to an individual. That's for Christ alone. Paul is a testament to this. Paul had great learning but it wasn't until Christ revealed himself did he truly understand what he knew. Christ is to be our only teacher to guide us to truth through the Holy Spirit. This is why the Greek term "kathegeses" (meaning a master teacher) is only applied to Jesus Christ (Matt 23:10) whereas the term for teachers in the NT letters is "didaskalos" (which means instructor) and is applied to all others. This is also why it's important to discern spiritually and not just to rely solely on another's understanding, no matter how confident they are, like some would lead you to believe. Christ is the final authority on all things in a Christian's life.

Someone's teachings or actions can show good fruit on the surface but how would you know the true intentionality of those individuals? Some will tell you this is impossible because only God knows the heart of man. While this is true, through discernment, he can convey which spirit an individual is teaching from. Yet they will tell you "knowing the spirit" and "knowing the heart" are the same things. Not true. Scripture cannot give you the ability to discern spiritually. Only through the gift of discernment can you truly know the spiritual fruits.

A little brother, don't let anyone ever tell you you don't need to practice spiritual discernment for all things or that it's not at all reliable. This is a lie. Turn away from such as they will not stop twisting scripture in attempts to confuse you through a spirit of confusion. Trust in God and Jesus Christ through his Holy Spirit alone for all things.

[Evangelical]

There must be some limits to the "all things", some things you wrote before about corporate prayer in unison seem incorrect when compared with scripture which shows examples of corporate prayer. It is possible you place too much reliance on your subjective spiritual discernment, rather like a mystic?

Can you prove I copied Gills ideas? If i did...
To ignore what Gill and others wrote is to say they are not taught by the Spirit as you claim you are. You have set yourself up as the discerner of truth by denying the chance for men like Gill to speak which is ironic because that is what people claim about Lee, that we only listen to Lee and dont allow to read anything else.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There must be some limits to the "all things", some things you wrote before about corporate prayer in unison seem incorrect when compared with scripture which shows examples of corporate prayer. It is possible you place too much reliance on your subjective spiritual discernment, rather like a mystic?

Can you prove I copied Gills ideas? If i did...
To ignore what Gill and others wrote is to say they are not taught by the Spirit as you claim you are. You have set yourself up as the discerner of truth by denying the chance for men like Gill to speak which is ironic because that is what people claim about Lee, that we only listen to Lee and dont allow to read anything else.

God bless you Evangelical. I'm finished here.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

God bless you Evangelical. I'm finished here.

Thankyou Jo S for your contributions, great discussion I think, may the Lord Jesus bless you as well.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I still do not quite understand your concept on salvation. What do you mean by "the necessary teaching for salvation"? Is knowing this teaching a necessary condition of salvation? If it is specifically on one teaching (Christ came in flesh), how comes it became all things in verse 27? What are the things?

The things are the necessary things they need to know for Salvation..ie that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God who came in the flesh. All these things. The meaning is "you already have what you need". Even though as Jo stated the word pas means all things, this doesn't prove anything, the context is what is important as I will illustrate below.

Here is a simple example:
Suppose you asked me to buy milk, bread and cheese from the shop, I bought it and came back. I said to you, "here a little brother, I bought you the milk, bread and cheese that you wanted, is there anything else you need?" and you replied to me "you have everything", am I then to interpret you as saying that I have literally bought everything in the shop? What you really mean, of course, is that "you have what I need".

Looking closer at the Greek ( I use an interlinear), the word for "all things" is pantōn and you can see the use of it here:

http://biblehub.com/greek/panto_n_3956.htm


If you want to interpret "all things" as literally everything, then you'd have to interpret the other verses to mean literally everything as well. For example, when Jesus said "you will be hated by all", he does not mean every single person will hate them.

Originally Posted by A little brother

For those who have left the recovery and have denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, are they not truly saved? Even though they have called "On Lord Jesus" a thousand times?

They must not have been truly saved if they have denied Jesus came in the flesh according to 1 John 4:2. If they called on the Lord Jesus it was not as a believer but as an unbeliever, as faith is necessary to calling (belief in the heart, with confession/calling with the mouth). Maybe their fruit is very good, they might help and encourage people and give to the poor, they are nice people overall. But if these people prophesied in the meeting I would know that they not of the Spirit because they deny Jesus came in the flesh even if they quoted the Bible or the morning revival word for word.

More than in any denomination, because everyone has the chance to speak and not just a denominationally-endorsed and authorized pastor/priest, we have to apply the scriptural tests like 1 John 4:2 in every meeting. So I think I know what I'm talking about and the effectiveness of these simple tests. They work effectively against Eastern Lightning in particular. In denominations these tests work against free-masons and illuminati. They don't work so well with Jehovah's Witnesses for them we need a different test.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

More than in any denomination, because everyone has the chance to speak and not just a denominationally-endorsed and authorized pastor/priest, we have to apply the scriptural tests like 1 John 4:2 in every meeting. So I think I know what I'm talking about and the effectiveness of these simple tests. They work effectively against Eastern Lightning in particular. In denominations these tests work against free-masons and illuminati. They don't work so well with Jehovah's Witnesses for them we need a different test.

Evan - I understand that you don't believe the LSM churches to be a denomination, but any other non-LSM church would be considered a "denomination", right? Are you not located in the US? The broad strokes that you paint of "denominations" don't line up with my experience.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Evan - I understand that you don't believe the LSM churches to be a denomination, but any other non-LSM church would be considered a "denomination", right? Are you not located in the US? The broad strokes that you paint of "denominations" don't line up with my experience.

I'd probably use the term "free group", not denomination. By denomination I'm thinking Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Evan - I understand that you don't believe the LSM churches to be a denomination, but any other non-LSM church would be considered a "denomination", right? Are you not located in the US? The broad strokes that you paint of "denominations" don't line up with my experience.

Evangelical is in Australia. He's not familiar with the US.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The things are the necessary things they need to know for Salvation..ie that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God who came in the flesh. All these things. The meaning is "you already have what you need". Even though as Jo stated the word pas means all things, this doesn't prove anything, the context is what is important as I will illustrate below.

I think all these things you mentioned are well covered by the gospel we preach already. Sounds like just a reconfirmation. So the anointing does not look as important as it is if these are the only teachings.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They must not have been truly saved if they have denied Jesus came in the flesh according to 1 John 4:2. If they called on the Lord Jesus it was not as a believer but as an unbeliever, as faith is necessary to calling (belief in the heart, with confession/calling with the mouth). Maybe their fruit is very good, they might help and encourage people and give to the poor, they are nice people overall. But if these people prophesied in the meeting I would know that they not of the Spirit because they deny Jesus came in the flesh even if they quoted the Bible or the morning revival word for word.

Here you have pointed out the fact that calling on Lord Jesus can be faked (without belief in the heart). It contradicts with your view on the "saying Jesus is Lord" test.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

More than in any denomination, because everyone has the chance to speak and not just a denominationally-endorsed and authorized pastor/priest, we have to apply the scriptural tests like 1 John 4:2 in every meeting. So I think I know what I'm talking about and the effectiveness of these simple tests. They work effectively against Eastern Lightning in particular. In denominations these tests work against free-masons and illuminati. They don't work so well with Jehovah's Witnesses for them we need a different test.

Again you are saying the test does not work for certain people?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I think all these things you mentioned are well covered by the gospel we preach already. Sounds like just a reconfirmation. So the anointing does not look as important as it is if these are the only teachings.

The importance of the anointing is not in the quantity of things it teaches (i.e. literally all sorts of doctrines) but the quality. The anointing is very important because it protects them from not believing false teachings about the essential Christ (such as that He did not come in the flesh) when there were many false teachers. If you've ever wondered, the anointing explains how people who live through Catholicism or some other false religion, even "brainwashing", and can maintain their faith in Christ in spite of it.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Here you have pointed out the fact that calling on Lord Jesus can be faked (without belief in the heart). It contradicts with your view on the "saying Jesus is Lord" test.

Any test can be faked. That's why Scripture gives us a plurality of tests. There is no contradiction in what I said but rather how you understood it - just as you should not naively think that "all things" means literally everything, you should not naively think that "no one (can call)" means "absolutely nobody ever".

I would add that it is difficult for someone to fake call on the Lord Jesus if they are not a believer. If they have a demon, it would surely prevent them and will be obviously insincere, and if they are an unbeliever, they would surely feel embarrassed or foolish.

This is also a reason why we call on the Lord a number of times. Maybe a person can fake call the Lord Jesus one or two times, but 10 or 20 times I am doubtful. If we follow Jo S's suggestion that we should not call on the Lord multiple times this would make it easier for fake callers to fool everyone.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Again you are saying the test does not work for certain people?

Like any test it only serves to confirm a certain thing. It cannot be used, for example, to confirm that a Jehovah Witnesses teaching is correct just because they can call on the Lord. As I explained before it is not for discerning teaching but testing the spirit.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is also a reason why we call on the Lord a number of times. Maybe a person can fake call the Lord Jesus one or two times, but 10 or 20 times I am doubtful. If we follow Jo S's suggestion that we should not call on the Lord multiple times this would make it easier for fake callers to fool everyone.

Quantity probably cannot assure quality. BTW, I think WL incorrectly did a lot of his logic backwards. I have no doubt that when someone is in the spirit, he/she can (not must) call on the Lord. WL reversed the cause and consequence saying that calling on the Lord can help us to be in the spirit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Like any test it only serves to confirm a certain thing. It cannot be used, for example, to confirm that a Jehovah Witnesses teaching is correct just because they can call on the Lord. As I explained before it is not for discerning teaching but testing the spirit.

Seems you agree the tests aren't perfect. Then, what is needed to more surely discern whether someone is in the spirit, and equally if not more importantly, that someone is acting according to the spirit and not following wrong teachings?

I hope you would agree there is no simple way to discern all these things. You mentioned about the scripture but scripture is up to different interpretations (otherwise, we won't have so much debate in this forum). That's why I proposed we need both the Spirit and the scripture. The Spirit/anointing plays a role in our discernment of truth and lie as part of the "all things" besides affirming Christ is our Lord and He came in flesh.

I pray that you would open your heart to the Lord to examine and re-examine everything you got from WL's teachings and everything you are so sure about, with the help from the Spirit and all of the scripture. I keep reminding myself to do the same as well.

I can testify I have learned so much more in the past few years when I closely examine the potential errors in the HWMR materials as I stayed in the LC - It actually helped me to undo many of the incorrect teachings I learned previously from WL/LSM. But then this is very personal experience and may be of little interest to you.

1 Thes 5:19-22 Do not quench the Spirit; Do not despise prophecies, But prove all things. Hold fast to what is good; Abstain from every kind of evil.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Quantity probably cannot assure quality. BTW, I think WL incorrectly did a lot of his logic backwards. I have no doubt that when someone is in the spirit, he/she can (not must) call on the Lord. WL reversed the cause and consequence saying that calling on the Lord can help us to be in the spirit.

It can go either way. Either we can call on the Lord because we are in the spirit, or we can call on the Lord to get in the spirit. The Bible shows both God approaching man, and man approaching God. Christ abides in us and Christ asks us to abide in Him.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Seems you agree the tests aren't perfect. Then, what is needed to more surely discern whether someone is in the spirit, and equally if not more importantly, that someone is acting according to the spirit and not following wrong teachings?

I hope you would agree there is no simple way to discern all these things. You mentioned about the scripture but scripture is up to different interpretations (otherwise, we won't have so much debate in this forum). That's why I proposed we need both the Spirit and the scripture. The Spirit/anointing plays a role in our discernment of truth and lie as part of the "all things" besides affirming Christ is our Lord and He came in flesh.

I pray that you would open your heart to the Lord to examine and re-examine everything you got from WL's teachings and everything you are so sure about, with the help from the Spirit and all of the scripture. That is something I keep reminding myself to do as well.

1 Thes 5:19-22 Do not quench the Spirit; Do not despise prophecies, But prove all things. Hold fast to what is good; Abstain from every kind of evil.

Paul and John did not really describe anything more to test the spirit other than the tests mentioned. They did not even refer to the "fruit test" that Jesus mentioned, I think because that applied more to false prophets/pharisees. They did not need any other tests - anyone who curses Christ does not have Christ, there is no need to test their fruit. The tests are simple, reliable, and accurate.
By the way, early Christian churches accepted people into fellowship only based upon their love and knowledge of Christ, not doctrine, creeds, or statements of faith. So a simple test about what they thought of Christ was enough to know if they should be accepted or not.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By the way, early Christian churches accepted people into fellowship only based upon their love and knowledge of Christ, not doctrine, creeds, or statements of faith. So a simple test about what they thought of Christ was enough to know if they should be accepted or not.

That was probably insufficient (otherwise, Jesus would have already came back long ago). We all know what problems happened to the early church. Many the epistles from Paul, John and others in the NT were to address the problems they saw.

This is a suitable time to go back to your original post:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem with a John 3:16-only view of salvation is that even the devils believe in Christ (James 2:19). Even a devil could agree with the first page of a gospel tract where it says "believe in Christ and you will be saved". A devil could even claim to know Christ (Acts 19:15). This is why a view of salvation based only on belief ("I believe in Christ") or knowing Christ ("a personal relationship with Christ") is inadequate. I think Christians outside of the recovery recognize this too. They know that not everyone who says "I believe in Christ" is really saved, and that not everyone who claims a "personal relationship" with Christ really has one. But their approach I think is wrong - they introduce other terminology such as "genuine faith" and "genuine relationship" to distinguish the true from the false. They start demanding proof and evidence, or apply a list of rules about how to tell if someone's faith is genuine or not. I think a better approach is to place the emphasis on Christ's Person - a person has either gained Christ and is in Him or they haven't.
...
While most of Christianity is preoccupied with faith and works, i.e. whether they have enough faith, whether their faith is in the right thing, whether their faith is genuine or not, whether their faith can be affected by sin and "lose their salvation", or whether they have done enough works, it seems that only the recovery and the local churches have a real interest in gaining Christ and being found in Him.

If I understand it correctly, your view is that faith (and examining true faith) is insufficient and we should put emphasis on gaining Christ. Are faith and gaining Christ different things? Or just that the "recovery" defines them differently so as to elevate its own position against "poor poor Christianity"? Based on what facts can you say the LC saints are gaining Christ while believers in general Christianity are not?

I am not rejecting the idea of gaining Christ, but I am afraid you have missed the point by separating it from faith. I think the answer can be as simple as examining what faith (emunah) means in original Hebrew thinking.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

That was probably insufficient (otherwise, Jesus would have already came back long ago). We all know what problems happened to the early church. Many the epistles from Paul, John and others in the NT were to address the problems they saw.

This is a suitable time to go back to your original post:
If I understand it correctly, your view is that faith (and examining true faith) is insufficient and we should put emphasis on gaining Christ. Are faith and gaining Christ different things? Or just that the "recovery" defines them differently so as to elevate its own position against "poor poor Christianity"? Based on what facts can you say the LC saints are gaining Christ while believers in general Christianity are not?

I am not rejecting the idea of gaining Christ, but I am afraid you have missed the point by separating it from faith. I think the answer can be as simple as examining what faith (emunah) means in original Hebrew thinking.

The topic Christ or faith the Savior does not mean "Christ versus faith", rather - are we merely stopping at our faith saving our spirit eternally or are going onward to gaining Christ for full salvation?

My post #19 answers most of your questions I think. Gaining Christ is more or less synonymous with denial of the self, and similar concepts may be known in Christianity as "process of sanctification". However I think this process is not usually associated with gaining Christ but of becoming a better person.

Phil 3:9 says:
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

The righteousness Paul is speaking about here is not the righteousness of justification, but the righteousness of sanctification. This should be obvious, because why would Paul write about his present or future righteousness if he was writing about justification by faith which occurred in the past? The meaning of righteousness here must not mean justified from sin, but having the right standing before God in our conduct and living.

To be clear, Lee called this kind of righteousness "subjective righteousness" and I think of it as sanctification as it relates to our condition. "objective righteousness" would be justification by faith which is irrespective of our condition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To be clear, Lee called this

Brother Lee, brother Lee, brother Lee. To be clear, this reveals where your faith is really placed.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The topic Christ or faith the Savior does not mean "Christ versus faith", rather - are we merely stopping at our faith saving our spirit eternally or are going onward to gaining Christ for full salvation?

Why do you think faith only have to do with saving our spirit eternally but not in gaining Christ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My post #19 answers most of your questions I think. Gaining Christ is more or less synonymous with denial of the self, and similar concepts may be known in Christianity as "process of sanctification". However I think this process is not usually associated with gaining Christ but of becoming a better person.

It's good that you see the similarities. I think WL's terminology/definition incorrectly makes gaining Christ and becoming a better person mutually exclusive by saying the later is from the natural man. In fact, it is not. Can somebody really becomes a better person without Christ?

Phil 2:13 For it is God who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Phil 3:9 says:
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

The righteousness Paul is speaking about here is not the righteousness of justification, but the righteousness of sanctification. This should be obvious, because why would Paul write about his present or future righteousness if he was writing about justification by faith which occurred in the past? The meaning of righteousness here must not mean justified from sin, but having the right standing before God in our conduct and living.

I agree it could be about the righteousness of santification. And haven't you noticed Paul mentioned faith twice in the verse?

Phil 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To be clear, Lee called this kind of righteousness "subjective righteousness" and I think of it as sanctification as it relates to our condition. "objective righteousness" would be justification by faith which is irrespective of our condition.

I would suggest not to get too much into Lee's terminology. He kept inventing terms and pretended they describe higher truth. In fact, it is not only unnecessary in describing the truth, it causes confusion and division in the body of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Why do you think faith only have to do with saving our spirit eternally but not in gaining Christ?

I never said that. Faith is necessary for everything. But it depends what we use that faith for and how we use it. Are we using it to only save our spirit, or are we using it to gain Christ and save our whole spirit, soul, body? We cannot gain Christ merely by believing it into existence, Paul wrote about how much he suffered and lost "for whose sake I have lost all things", as this is in proportion to how much he gained Christ - the more he lost, the more he gained.

The rest of your post is flavored by the misunderstanding of what I wrote or is your commentary which I don't disagree with, so I only respond to this first point here.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Lee, brother Lee, brother Lee. To be clear, this reveals where your faith is really placed.

Where is your faith placed then?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where is your faith placed then?

Jesus and Him alone!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Jesus and Him alone!

Amen Kevin!

The name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I never said that.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said. I just had to ask those questions to be sure.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Faith is necessary for everything. But it depends what we use that faith for and how we use it. Are we using it to only save our spirit, or are we using it to gain Christ and save our whole spirit, soul, body? We cannot gain Christ merely by believing it into existence, Paul wrote about how much he suffered and lost "for whose sake I have lost all things", as this is in proportion to how much he gained Christ - the more he lost, the more he gained.

I like your "are we using it (faith) to gain Christ and save our whole spirit, soul, body?". It is a hundred times better than "we gain Christ by eating and drinking Him".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Sorry if I misunderstood what you said. I just had to ask those questions to be sure.
I like your "are we using it (faith) to gain Christ and save our whole spirit, soul, body?". It is a hundred times better than "we gain Christ by eating and drinking Him".

A question for you (or anyone):

How do we know when we have gained Christ?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A question for you (or anyone):

How do we know when we have gained Christ?

When we can live out a life that is pleasing to God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where is your faith placed then?

I only have faith in God. All else has failed me. Lee, long, long, ago.

Thanks for asking brother ....

Originally Posted by Ohio

Having listened to LSM's teachers for years, they have great confusion over the matter of works in the scripture. Unless we can clearly delineate between works of the law, works of the flesh, dead works, and good works, you are wasting your time.

Pretty bold claim without substantiating evidence. Can you share some points that clearly show the confusion? I ask considering that this is "Apologetic Discussions" so we ought to be ready to substantiate everything we say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Pretty bold claim without substantiating evidence. Can you share some points that clearly show the confusion? I ask considering that this is "Apologetic Discussions" so we ought to be ready to substantiate everything we say.

Kindly register before I invest the time needed to discuss.

But I will give an opener. Before the Blendeds excommunicated Titus Chu, they condemned the Great Lakes Area Young People's Gatherings for introducing "dead works." What they were referring to was such services as visiting nursing homes.

Lee's teachings, followed exclusively by the Blended attackers of TC at LSM/DCP confused "dead works" and "good works." Titus 2.10-15 clearly displays the "goal of our salvation by His grace to be a people for His own possession zealous of good works. These things speak and exhort with authority. And let no one despise you," especially if they work for LSM.

Apostle Paul warned Timothy of folks like those at LSM.