Indwelling Christ in our Human Spirit - who emphasizes this now besides LC?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So no, you may be right in that there is no verse which seems to say that He specifically is IN our spirit, but from these verses above, I think one can draw that conclusion pretty easily, don't you think?

I have learned, mostly from experience with the LC, that reading into the scripture (eisegesis (sp?) may ultimately be correct, but is seldom a basis for strongly-stated doctrine, or even "really-ought-to-believe-it" teachings. I have no problem with the idea. Or with the possibility that it might be correct.

But one verse saying that what is born of Spirit is spirit does not definitively mean that it places Jesus in our spirit. I am born of my father, but he does not "live in me" in a way that warrants the kind of thought that could be a metaphorical (or even literal) comparison. Yes, I have some of his DNA, as well as my mother's.

Maybe you see my reluctance on this issue. It could be true. But that is insufficient to warrant emphasis, complete with songs heralding its alleged truth. I find it much better to understand the actual importance of what was being referred to when Jesus made his statement(s). It wasn't about stirring us into the Christian equivalent of a beer-hall song. It was to make a spiritual comparison of physical eating of nourishment to the spiritual benefits of hearing (and heeding) what He was speaking (and what had been written in the scriptures).

The LC was long on hooks to get us and keep us. We were the chosen generation. The ones who returned from Babylon (unlike the rest of Christianity). We found the talisman for the proper name of a church — and it was all tied up in the legally registered name of a city/town. We had the better lexicon, using the highest wording, especially when concatenated into almost meaningless, over-adjectivized banners at trainings.

And when some of us left (including me) we took some of it along with us. We thought it was actually somehow important. Like needing to pray more like a LC prayer meeting than like the Lord's prayer (or disciple's prayer). I have spent many years getting rid of what I have found to be "simply" wrong. (Lee was fond of the word "simply.") And I have tended to take what was not necessarily wrong and lowered it at least one or two notches in my book of importance. Mostly, I have sought to learn what really is in the the Bible and hold to that regardless of where I heard it.

I would never say that there was nothing good to come from it. But to the extent that there is, it is mostly just for me, not as something to spread around like it is manna hidden from the mooing cows in Christianity. That is the way the LC would look at it.

BTW, there are some aspects of both Calvinist and Arminian theologies that are based on using their own special glasses (like "God's economy" was to Nee and Lee) all over the Bible to reinterpret things to say what they do not. It is a problem for everyone. I see some of the problems, and I am sure that I do not see others. I have found some in myself, and know that I will never find it all because I tend to like my "glasses."

But after 32 years, I no longer like the LC glasses.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The LC was long on hooks to get us and keep us. We were the chosen generation. The ones who returned from Babylon (unlike the rest of Christianity). We found the talisman for the proper name of a church — and it was all tied up in the legally registered name of a city/town. We had the better lexicon, using the highest wording, especially when concatenated into almost meaningless, over-adjectivized banners at trainings.

I've come to feel that the LC glasses were not only to get us to read things into the text that weren't plainly stated, but they also prevented us from seeing things that were plainly stated. On this forum we were discussing "pray-reading" as a means of "eating Jesus" and I asked for scriptural support. A whole host of verses came out, but none of them said that pray-reading was eating Jesus. It was a set of conflations.

But I also noted that some verses were not brought out as well. Like the one where Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Obedience to the Father's will is Jesus' food. Now, using that verse, Jeremiah's "Thy words were found and I did eat them" intimates Jesus obeying the Father's expressed will. Now, if you look at "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" you can see the man Jesus obeying every word of the Father. Etc.

But John 4:34 was not cited in the idea of "eating Jesus", so when he said, "He who eats me shall live because of me" nobody saw the possible relation to obedience, "As I obey the Father's commands, so shall you obey my commandments". And nobody mentioned the warning against "locutional mania" - "when you pray, don't pray like the gentiles do, babbling words".

Rather, let your yes be yes and your no be no, and obey my commandments. The gospel in this manner is simple: repent, believe, and obey. Pray-reading is not forbidden but it no longer seems like a "crucial truth unveiled in these last days." And avoiding dependence on largely manufactured esotericism - the proverbial hooks - allows us to see the things that are plainly stated, such as Jesus' obedience and his expectations for his disciples to follow.

I noticed the same thing about the "Spirit/spirit". Forcing verses together to manufacture meaning then precludes a whole host of other verses that might suggest, or even plainly state, other meanings.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

But I also noted that some verses were not brought out as well. Like the one where Jesus said, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me". Obedience to the Father's will is Jesus' food. Now, using that verse, Jeremiah's "Thy words were found and I did eat them" intimates Jesus obeying the Father's expressed will. Now, if you look at "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" you can see the man Jesus obeying every word of the Father. Etc.

But John 4:34 was not cited in the idea of "eating Jesus", so when he said, "He who eats me shall live because of me" nobody saw the possible relation to obedience, "As I obey the Father's commands, so shall you obey my commandments". And nobody mentioned the warning against "locutional mania" - "when you pray, don't pray like the gentiles do, babbling words".

Rather, let your yes be yes and your no be no, and obey my commandments. The gospel in this manner is simple: repent, believe, and obey. Pray-reading is not forbidden but it no longer seems like a "crucial truth unveiled in these last days." And avoiding dependence on largely manufactured esotericism - the proverbial hooks - allows us to see the things that are plainly stated, such as Jesus' obedience and his expectations for his disciples to follow.

I amend my responses on that pray-reading thread to "What Aron said!"

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have learned, mostly from experience with the LC, that reading into the scripture (eisegesis (sp?) may ultimately be correct, but is seldom a basis for strongly-stated doctrine, or even "really-ought-to-believe-it" teachings. I have no problem with the idea. Or with the possibility that it might be correct.

But one verse saying that what is born of Spirit is spirit does not definitively mean that it places Jesus in our spirit. I am born of my father, but he does not "live in me" in a way that warrants the kind of thought that could be a metaphorical (or even literal) comparison. Yes, I have some of his DNA, as well as my mother's.

Maybe you see my reluctance on this issue. It could be true. But that is insufficient to warrant emphasis, complete with songs heralding its alleged truth. I find it much better to understand the actual importance of what was being referred to when Jesus made his statement(s). It wasn't about stirring us into the Christian equivalent of a beer-hall song. It was to make a spiritual comparison of physical eating of nourishment to the spiritual benefits of hearing (and heeding) what He was speaking (and what had been written in the scriptures).

The LC was long on hooks to get us and keep us. We were the chosen generation. The ones who returned from Babylon (unlike the rest of Christianity). We found the talisman for the proper name of a church — and it was all tied up in the legally registered name of a city/town. We had the better lexicon, using the highest wording, especially when concatenated into almost meaningless, over-adjectivized banners at trainings.

And when some of us left (including me) we took some of it along with us. We thought it was actually somehow important. Like needing to pray more like a LC prayer meeting than like the Lord's prayer (or disciple's prayer). I have spent many years getting rid of what I have found to be "simply" wrong. (Lee was fond of the word "simply.") And I have tended to take what was not necessarily wrong and lowered it at least one or two notches in my book of importance. Mostly, I have sought to learn what really is in the the Bible and hold to that regardless of where I heard it.

I would never say that there was nothing good to come from it. But to the extent that there is, it is mostly just for me, not as something to spread around like it is manna hidden from the mooing cows in Christianity. That is the way the LC would look at it.

BTW, there are some aspects of both Calvinist and Arminian theologies that are based on using their own special glasses (like "God's economy" was to Nee and Lee) all over the Bible to reinterpret things to say what they do not. It is a problem for everyone. I see some of the problems, and I am sure that I do not see others. I have found some in myself, and know that I will never find it all because I tend to like my "glasses."

But after 32 years, I no longer like the LC glasses.

Thoughtful response and I hear ya. It is a topic those of us in Scottsdale are mindful of. That is, are we just accepting man's speaking on something (this could be LC speaking - often is - or other)? In any case, better to focus on the pure word than commentaries, etc. I put away my Recovery version with footnotes long ago for that reason, and haven't referred to a WL footnote for some time. I don't even use the RV without footnotes any more, although I did think it a pretty decent translation. However, there were still a few little "agenda" driven things in the translation of various verses (of course there always is with any translation). And now I consult the Greek more.

So pursuant to your post above, in John 17 there are some verses to consider, where Jesus says, "You Father are in me." Is this the Father, as Jesus says, or just the Father's life? Then Jesus says He will be in us, etc. And then we have the verses in Romans 8:9-11 "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." This is certainly a mystery which only He can reveal clearly to us!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So pursuant to your post above, in John 17 there are some verses to consider, where Jesus says, "You Father are in me." Is this the Father, as Jesus says, or just the Father's life? Then Jesus says He will be in us, etc.

Not sure how to answer your question.

But related to this (and I'm not referring to a Bible directly at this moment, and am generally not much of a memorizer of precise details) I recall that at one point in John (in or around chapter 17) he is praying to the Father and says something like "you are in me and I am in you . . . that they may be one as we are." When I recently read this, it was an eye opener since our oneness with each other is not like you are in me and I am in you. Yet it was by reference to Jesus in the Father and the Father in Jesus that our "prayed-for" oneness would be understood. There is clearly nothing simple (or "simply") here. Yet it also seems to indicate that there is something about the oneness of God that is not so "simply One" as Lee would have us understand. The more standard trinitarian understanding of oneness that does not negate separateness and separateness that does not negate oneness seems more meaningful.

While I definitely changed the specific thing being discussed (at least for a minute), I think that even as interesting as this potentially new view of oneness is, it is less important to get caught up in what it really means than it is to learn to actually express oneness with our Christian brothers and sisters. To stop finding nuances in doctrines as a basis to disagree with others.

And sometimes, noting how something is not talked about in certain terms by "others" is an attack on the idea of being one. Not saying that there is no room for discussion and debate over actual doctrines. We should always be ready to both learn and help others learn. And then walk away still as one body when neither is convinced by the other.

I was raised (through most of high school) in the Assemblies of God (pentecostal, dispensational, Arminian) then the LC (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 14 years) then Bible churches (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 32 years almost to the day). But I find that I am not a good Calvinist, not pentecostal, but not cessationist, and don't think much of dispensationalism. Yet I continue to meet with Bible churches. And I know that I give Ohio conniptions over this, but outside of the predeliction for Mary worship, I have much less disagreement with the RCC than I used to. I do not see it as some harlot that happens to have a few good Christians held hostage. I'm not saying I have any desire to convert. But they, as a group, not just as ad hoc individuals, are among the body of Christ with which we are to be one. That is more important than our doctrinal differences and differences in worship style.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have much less disagreement with the RCC than I used to. I do not see it as some harlot that happens to have a few good Christians held hostage. I'm not saying I have any desire to convert. But they, as a group, not just as ad hoc individuals, are among the body of Christ with which we are to be one. That is more important than our doctrinal differences and differences in worship style.

Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately. And that happened to the RCC, when they became the state religion.

But all Christians, even Protestants, owe a debt of gratitude to the RCC. They produced the Canon of the Bible.

And like OBW, and his non-attachment to :"I am not a good Calvinist, not pentecostal, but not cessationist, and don't think much of dispensationalism," I'm not too much with Eusebius, who put it together. He must have been a cessationist, cuz he never referenced the Spirit to do it. I'm not with that because it means that, maybe the scripture is inspired, but not the development of the Canon of the scripture.

Still, in spite of her whoring around, and much worse, the RCC put together the Canon used by all Christians.

Bro OBW, isn't that also something that makes all Christians one?

[OBW]

Harold,

I think you've taken a little too much of the evangelical position on the RCC to heart. I don't disagree with many of the faults of the organization. And they have recently been showing their tendency toward getting directly involved in government and politics (4th verse, same as the first on that count).

But we gloss over the tremendous stability of teaching and doctrine. (A trait that has been both good and bad — hard to bring in error, but once it is there, hard to eradicate.) It took them some time (centuries) yet they now agree with Martin Luther on most of his theses.

And while they are not likely to ever move to an evangelical mode of "salvation," that is such a late-comer to the dance that we should understand it less as the God-ordained way and more like another way to come to faith.

Learning for a life-time and somewhere along the way realizing that you have come to believe has been the way for most of Christian history. No, it was not as common in the first days since there was no opportunity to learn. But they also baptized the whole family when the head of the house believed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

I think you've taken a little too much of the evangelical position on the RCC to heart. I don't disagree with many of the faults of the organization. And they have recently been showing their tendency toward getting directly involved in government and politics (4th verse, same as the first on that count).

But we gloss over the tremendous stability of teaching and doctrine. (A trait that has been both good and bad — hard to bring in error, but once it is there, hard to eradicate.) It took them some time (centuries) yet they now agree with Martin Luther on most of his theses.

And while they are not likely to ever move to an evangelical mode of "salvation," that is such a late-comer to the dance that we should understand it less as the God-ordained way and more like another way to come to faith.

Learning for a life-time and somewhere along the way realizing that you have come to believe has been the way for most of Christian history. No, it was not as common in the first days since there was no opportunity to learn. But they also baptized the whole family when the head of the house believed.

interesting response bro OBW. But this thread is about the indwelling Christ in our spirit.

Essentially, early on that became a problem. Jesus said he would send the comforter to teach us, all of us, of everything.

The Paraclete, or those claiming to be inspired by it, became a problem for the established proto-orthodox, the church institution that had developed in the 2nd. c. Montanus and his two female colleagues, Priscilla, and Maximilla, claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The movement caught on. They claimed to be channeling the Paraclete, with fresh new prophesies. The established proto-orthodox condemned it as heresy. They won out. And such movements of claiming to channel the Holy Spirit were squashed out.

Come to think of it, Witness Lee had the same problem. He squashed movements of the Holy Spirit that sprang up, in his movement, like Elden hall, and like sending his man into a movement of the Spirit among brothers to start a LC in Tampa Florida.

Following the Spirit -- that's like the wind -- can cause a real disturbance to the establishment. It takes control away.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure how to answer your question.

But related to this (and I'm not referring to a Bible directly at this moment, and am generally not much of a memorizer of precise details) I recall that at one point in John (in or around chapter 17) he is praying to the Father and says something like "you are in me and I am in you . . . that they may be one as we are." When I recently read this, it was an eye opener since our oneness with each other is not like you are in me and I am in you. Yet it was by reference to Jesus in the Father and the Father in Jesus that our "prayed-for" oneness would be understood. There is clearly nothing simple (or "simply") here. Yet it also seems to indicate that there is something about the oneness of God that is not so "simply One" as Lee would have us understand. The more standard trinitarian understanding of oneness that does not negate separateness and separateness that does not negate oneness seems more meaningful.

While I definitely changed the specific thing being discussed (at least for a minute), I think that even as interesting as this potentially new view of oneness is, it is less important to get caught up in what it really means than it is to learn to actually express oneness with our Christian brothers and sisters. To stop finding nuances in doctrines as a basis to disagree with others.

And sometimes, noting how something is not talked about in certain terms by "others" is an attack on the idea of being one. Not saying that there is no room for discussion and debate over actual doctrines. We should always be ready to both learn and help others learn. And then walk away still as one body when neither is convinced by the other.

I was raised (through most of high school) in the Assemblies of God (pentecostal, dispensational, Arminian) then the LC (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 14 years) then Bible churches (cessationist, dispensational, Calvinist — 32 years almost to the day). But I find that I am not a good Calvinist, not pentecostal, but not cessationist, and don't think much of dispensationalism. Yet I continue to meet with Bible churches. And I know that I give Ohio conniptions over this, but outside of the predeliction for Mary worship, I have much less disagreement with the RCC than I used to. I do not see it as some harlot that happens to have a few good Christians held hostage. I'm not saying I have any desire to convert. But they, as a group, not just as ad hoc individuals, are among the body of Christ with which we are to be one. That is more important than our doctrinal differences and differences in worship style.

Good ruminations bro! Here's some more. Yes, that verse in John 17, "that they may be one as We are one" is a mind blower! We have a hard enough time figuring out how the Father and Son are one. Yet we know they are one in some intrinsic, mysterious way unknown to us humans inhabiting the flesh. We can get a taste in spirit . . . But then this is prayed by Jesus that this oneness would also apply to and experienced by us - MEGA WOW!!! What have we been called into!? (namely the fellowship of the Father and His Son)

And yes, the teachings of a particular group are not so important to me either. I think I'm finally, sorta, kinda not getting blown about by every wind of teaching these days, at least not nearly as much. And this has only come about by a knowledge of Him and His word, and experiencing His love and the genuine fellowship in Christ's body. I've been somewhat surprised and watered by what I've heard come out of Christians of different groups, and that even includes the Roman church. These are all just systems - some a little closer to the mark than others (that day will reveal it all).

So I'm not so quick on here to jump in on the bashing of all things WL & LC. The LC system has manifested itself as something self-serving - OK fine. It should be avoided and we can tell others about the pitfalls of that system. Personally, I don't find much peace to dissect all things LC. It is what it is, and I have moved on (although the Lord is faithful to show me the things still in me from the LC that are off the mark). Others seem to have a burden to dissect it all over & over, and I must trust that is of Him, so also fine.

In the end we are one with all those who have Christ in them, and it's all nothing apart from gaining Christ and knowing His love!