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

[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!