Putting to Test the Recovery Version

OBW · 01-18-2016, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The Darby version uses the same terms "Not Yet". I for one do not believe that WL was modalistic and can certainly testify that in the number of churches I was involved in, no one else was modalistic either. I think WL over-emphasized or mis-interpreted certain versus.

I would agree that Lee was not modalistic in the sense that most theologians use the term. But he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."

He would make statements like "there is only one spirit, therefore if the last Adam becomes the life giving spirit, then that must mean the Holy Spirit" (paraphrased). While he would argue against modalism, he would insist that there was no real, meaningful three. He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside.

"There is only one spirit" is a false statement. There is only one with the name "Spirit" but God the Father is spirit. As are Jesus (the Son) and the Holy Spirit. But the reference to "spirit" is not about person, but about nature, or essence. When Jesus told the woman at the well that God is spirit, he did not say that God is the Holy Spirit. He said that God is not a singular being with a fixed location. God is of essence that is dispersed. There is no "here" or "there" with respect to God. No need to worship at this place because that is where he is. He is everywhere.

And Lee's oft-quoted question that went something like "is there more than one spirit that gives life?" is a misunderstanding of terms. Jesus gives life and he is spirit. But he is not the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit also gives life because God gives life. But the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, yet he is spirit and gives life. Same analysis for the Son and the Spirit.

Was Lee just that ignorant about what he was talking about? Or was he that deceitful? I am not sure that there are any other options. Either he really didn't understand or he was a manipulator of linguistics to arrive at conclusions that the words couldn't actually get to.

Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

ABrotherinFaith · 01-18-2016, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

... he seemed to depreciate, and even argue against any real "threeness."
... He focused so exclusively on the "One" aspects that he pushed the three almost completely aside....
Lee believed in the three, so not modalist in the normal sense. But he primarily believed and taught a kind of trinity in which the purpose of three was virtually meaningless. In which everyone but a near modalist was a tritheistic heretic.

Yeah, this makes it clearer...I remember hearing or reading about how the Father is the Son is the Spirit...or something like that. I never really got too much into the life studies or the HWFMR. I am sure some of you here could correct me. Is that what underpins the recovery version along with God's economy and our somewhat deification? And if so, what are the consequences that in the verse I mentioned, the Spirit was not yet. (John 7:39)

The following is the footnote for the word Spirit in John 7:39:
The Spirit of God was there from the beginning (Gen 1:1-2), but at the time the Lord spoke this word, the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:19), was not yet, because the Lord had not yet been glorified. Jesus was glorified when He was resurrected (Luke 24:26). After Jesus' resurrection, the Spirit of God became the Spirit of the incarnated, crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ, who was breathed into the disciples by Christ in the evening of the day on which He was resurrected (John 20:22). The Spirit is now the "another Comforter," the Spirit of Reality promised by Christ before His death (John 14:16-17). When the Spirit was the Spirit of God, He had only the divine element. After He became the Spirit of Jesus Christ through Christ's incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, The Spirit had both the divine element and the human element, with all the essence and realty of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Spirit is now the all-inclusive Spirit of Jesus CHrist as the living water for us to receive (John 7:38-39)

Pretty confusing to me.

OBW · 01-19-2016, 05:42 AM

I think the key to that verse is that as far as the experience of the people was concerned, the Spirit was not yet. He was poured out at Pentecost and has been with us ever since. So even the terse rendering that Lee favored so much was correct — just not in the way he taught it.

In terms of the sequence that God had ordained, God — the one who did so much but could not be looked upon — became flesh. Not the whole Godhead, but the Son. Yet because of the shared existence, the fullness of the godhead dwelt in Him. But the sequence required that the man, Jesus, fulfill certain things. He had to die, arise, and be taken away from this world as a physical person. Then the Spirit came to be with all of us, not just the ones in the right place at the right time.

Lee erred in making it into a sequence of "becomings." But the Trinity had decided that the Son would come to the earth as a man. Not to just any random group of people, but to one that was prepared to a sufficient extent to be looking for him and already following his ways (generally, as a people, not specifically in every way). From there he had a way to generate followers without coercion. Their life and testimony (heavily that life) would attract more followers. At that point, the group of followers would expand beyond what could go find the person Jesus within a few days of walking and so it was time to put the next phase in motion. The Spirit came which made the invisible God more closely connected with his people without sending prophets or signs.

Yes there was a process. But it was not really a processing of God as Lee would have it, but a preparation of the people. It was a preparing of the way. And one day the preparation was close to complete so a man came saying "prepare the way." Then he came as man. He changed their thinking from ritual that covered sin to redemption that forgave sin. Then the Spirit was poured out and we all have a better way than even the disciples did during Jesus' time on earth.

Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God.

aron · 01-19-2016, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Lee erred in making it into a sequence of 'becomings'... Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God.

I'm repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief. The one Spirit 'becoming sevenfold' to deal with the degraded church(es) makes no sense whatsoever to me. The record in scripture shows seven lamps of fire, burning before the mercy seat ever since Moses was commanded to "build all things according to the pattern which you have seen on the holy mountain". (Heb 8:5; Exod 25:40)

So when Lee considered the seven flames burning before the throne in Revelation 4:5, to him this was the one Spirit of Ephesians 4:4, now processed? What a stretch. Do we really think John meant that? No; John knew well the history of the tabernacle, the ark and the temple. John knew of seven lamps shining before the throne, at least since the time of Exodus 25, and arguably would be aware that this represented heavenly, i.e. eternal things; immutable, or nearly so, from our earthly and temporal perspectives.

Yet suddenly, five of the seven Asian churches showed degradation, and God needed to intensify the Spirit to overcome that? The more Lee tried to fit the scripture to his hermeneutic, the worse it looked; and his interpretative template disintegrated here, if it hadn't already, with the 'becoming intensified' idea. There had been seven lamps burning, all along. John knew that, and would expect his readers to know that.

And is God that mutable, needing to react to church degradation by processing and 'intensifying' Himself? I don't think this deserves serious and/or lengthy consideration; their recent A&C position paper, with the thinnest veneer of purported 'scholarship', supporting the intensification idea, is also largely posturing for the faithful. Another pamphlet to sell to the True Believers.

Ohio · 01-19-2016, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I'm repeating myself, so I'll try to be brief. The one Spirit 'becoming' sevenfold to deal with the degraded church makes no sense whatsoever to me.

And the Lord God looked at poor, poor Christianity, and decided that it needed a seven-fold intensified Spirit. Then He took a look at the LSM's Recovery and decided it needed seventy times seven.

testallthings · 01-20-2016, 08:07 PM

Mat. 3:4 Now this John had his garment of camel's hair and a leather girdle around his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey. (RcV)

Footnote 4.1, after saying what John (as a priest) should have eaten, wore, and lived, concludes in this way, “All this indicates that he had wholly abandoned the Old Testament dispensation...His intention was to introduce God's New Testament economy....”

Imagine John the Baptist wearing priestly garment of fine linen preaching repentance! Imagine the same person eating the best food and preaching repentance! How fit was for John to show by practice what he preached.
Was he abandoning the OTD? Was that his mission? Wasn't he called to prepare the way of the Lord?

“In his own person he embodied, so to speak, the Old Testament dispensation in its legal bearing, just as the Virgin Mary embodied and represented the evangelical aspect of the Old Testament as set forth in Abraham and the prophets. John was the personification of Old Testament righteousness according to the law; Mary was the personification of Old Testament faith in the promise, and of deep and earnest waiting for the promised salvation. Hence John appeared in Israel as the preacher of repentance, and the baptist.”

“In one respect, however, the baptism of John resembled the sacrificial services of the priests, as John administered the rite of submersion himself; whereas, in ordinary lustrations, the person to be baptized sprinkled himself with the water of baptism.”

Lange's Commentary on the NT

Without clear statements, from John or from others, it is too much to conclude that he was abandoning the OTD.

“had his raiment of camel's hair; not of camel's hair softened and dressed, which the Talmudists (z) call צמר גמלים "camel's wool"; of which wool of camels and of hares, the Jews say (a) the coats were made, with which God clothed Adam and Eve; and which being spun to a thread, and wove, and made a garment of, they call (b) חמילה, and we "camlet"; for this would have been too fine and soft for John to wear, which is denied of him, Mat_11:8 but either of a camel's skin with the hair on it, such was the "rough garment", or "garment of hair", the prophets used to wear, Zec_13:4 or of camels hair not softened but undressed; and so was very coarse and rough, and which was suitable to the austerity of his life, and the roughness of his ministry. And it is to be observed he appeared in the same dress as Elijah or Elias did, 2Ki_1:8 in whose spirit and power he came, and whose name he bore, Luk_1:17.”
John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible

If the fact that John living in a wilderness and not in Jerusalem, with the holy temple, implies that he was abandoning the OTD, if we apply the same logic, the fact that the Lord Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit, we have to conclude that they were going back to the OTD.

testallthings · 01-27-2016, 02:18 AM

A TEXT, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, IS A PRETEXT, FOR PROOFTEXT

Mat. 1:1 And when he saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. (RcV)

“When the new King sat down on the mountain, His disciples, not the crowds, came to be His audience. Eventually, not only the believing Jews but also the discipled nations (the Gentiles—28:19) became His disciples. Later the disciples were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Hence, the word the new King spoke on the mountains in chs. 5—7, concerning the constitution of the kingdom of the heavens, was spoken to the believers of the New Testament, not to the Jews of the Old Testament.” (footnote 1.2)

I am jumping to chapter 5 now. I have something to say about Jesus' baptism but it will take me a while before I post it.

So let's analyze this footnote. The first things we notice is the really small audience. If you ever watched a movie about Jesus then you got it all wrong. The sermon on the mountain was only for His disciples, maybe 12 or 70? and not for the crowds, too. Is it really so? In the previous verse it is stated that, “And great crowds followed Him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan” (Mat. 4:25, RcV). Great crowds followed Him. So the Lord Jesus without dismissing the crowds sat down on the mountain. The message was intended for His disciples (who sat closer to Him) and the crowds. And so, “28 And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astounded at His teaching, 29 For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes” ( Mat. 7:28-29, RcV). The crowds were astounded! Were they not part of His audience?

In Luke we have a clearer picture, “17 And He came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a great crowd of His disciples, and a great multitude of people from Judea and Jerusalem and of the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases...19And all the crowd sought to touch Him....20 And He lifted up His eyes to His disciples and said, Blessed are the poor....” (Luke 6:17-20). Even if some suggested that Luke's account describes a different occasion (see footnotes on Mattew 5:2 and Luke 6:20 in the Companion Bible), what is stated in Matthew is sufficient to prove our point. In any case at the end of His discourse it is stated, “After He completed all His words in the hearing of the people, He entered in Capernaum” (Luke 7:1, RcV). In the hearing of the people!

READING THE FUTURE INTO THE PAST

I have another point to make about the second part of this unbelievable footnote. It is about the contorted logic which has been used to “demonstrate” that the audience were Christians. If anyone today would dare to say that the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts), a series of punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1776 after the Boston Tea party, against the Thirteen Colonies were meant for todays 50 States of U.S.A. .....I better stop here.

01-19-2016, 05:42 AM	#3
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version I think the key to that verse is that as far as the experience of the people was concerned, the Spirit was not yet. He was poured out at Pentecost and has been with us ever since. So even the terse rendering that Lee favored so much was correct — just not in the way he taught it. In terms of the sequence that God had ordained, God — the one who did so much but could not be looked upon — became flesh. Not the whole Godhead, but the Son. Yet because of the shared existence, the fullness of the godhead dwelt in Him. But the sequence required that the man, Jesus, fulfill certain things. He had to die, arise, and be taken away from this world as a physical person. Then the Spirit came to be with all of us, not just the ones in the right place at the right time. Lee erred in making it into a sequence of "becomings." But the Trinity had decided that the Son would come to the earth as a man. Not to just any random group of people, but to one that was prepared to a sufficient extent to be looking for him and already following his ways (generally, as a people, not specifically in every way). From there he had a way to generate followers without coercion. Their life and testimony (heavily that life) would attract more followers. At that point, the group of followers would expand beyond what could go find the person Jesus within a few days of walking and so it was time to put the next phase in motion. The Spirit came which made the invisible God more closely connected with his people without sending prophets or signs. Yes there was a process. But it was not really a processing of God as Lee would have it, but a preparation of the people. It was a preparing of the way. And one day the preparation was close to complete so a man came saying "prepare the way." Then he came as man. He changed their thinking from ritual that covered sin to redemption that forgave sin. Then the Spirit was poured out and we all have a better way than even the disciples did during Jesus' time on earth. Yes God had a process and it was to prepare man, not to prepare God. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

01-20-2016, 08:07 PM	#6
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version Mat. 3:4 Now this John had his garment of camel's hair and a leather girdle around his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey. (RcV) Footnote 4.1, after saying what John (as a priest) should have eaten, wore, and lived, concludes in this way, “All this indicates that he had wholly abandoned the Old Testament dispensation...His intention was to introduce God's New Testament economy....” Imagine John the Baptist wearing priestly garment of fine linen preaching repentance! Imagine the same person eating the best food and preaching repentance! How fit was for John to show by practice what he preached. Was he abandoning the OTD? Was that his mission? Wasn't he called to prepare the way of the Lord? “In his own person he embodied, so to speak, the Old Testament dispensation in its legal bearing, just as the Virgin Mary embodied and represented the evangelical aspect of the Old Testament as set forth in Abraham and the prophets. John was the personification of Old Testament righteousness according to the law; Mary was the personification of Old Testament faith in the promise, and of deep and earnest waiting for the promised salvation. Hence John appeared in Israel as the preacher of repentance, and the baptist.” “In one respect, however, the baptism of John resembled the sacrificial services of the priests, as John administered the rite of submersion himself; whereas, in ordinary lustrations, the person to be baptized sprinkled himself with the water of baptism.” Lange's Commentary on the NT Without clear statements, from John or from others, it is too much to conclude that he was abandoning the OTD. “had his raiment of camel's hair; not of camel's hair softened and dressed, which the Talmudists (z) call צמר גמלים "camel's wool"; of which wool of camels and of hares, the Jews say (a) the coats were made, with which God clothed Adam and Eve; and which being spun to a thread, and wove, and made a garment of, they call (b) חמילה, and we "camlet"; for this would have been too fine and soft for John to wear, which is denied of him, Mat_11:8 but either of a camel's skin with the hair on it, such was the "rough garment", or "garment of hair", the prophets used to wear, Zec_13:4 or of camels hair not softened but undressed; and so was very coarse and rough, and which was suitable to the austerity of his life, and the roughness of his ministry. And it is to be observed he appeared in the same dress as Elijah or Elias did, 2Ki_1:8 in whose spirit and power he came, and whose name he bore, Luk_1:17.” John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible If the fact that John living in a wilderness and not in Jerusalem, with the holy temple, implies that he was abandoning the OTD, if we apply the same logic, the fact that the Lord Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit, we have to conclude that they were going back to the OTD.

01-27-2016, 02:18 AM	#7
testallthings Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 297	Re: Putting To Test The Recovery Version A TEXT, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, IS A PRETEXT, FOR PROOFTEXT Mat. 1:1 And when he saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. (RcV) “When the new King sat down on the mountain, His disciples, not the crowds, came to be His audience. Eventually, not only the believing Jews but also the discipled nations (the Gentiles—28:19) became His disciples. Later the disciples were called Christians (Acts 11:26). Hence, the word the new King spoke on the mountains in chs. 5—7, concerning the constitution of the kingdom of the heavens, was spoken to the believers of the New Testament, not to the Jews of the Old Testament.” (footnote 1.2) I am jumping to chapter 5 now. I have something to say about Jesus' baptism but it will take me a while before I post it. So let's analyze this footnote. The first things we notice is the really small audience. If you ever watched a movie about Jesus then you got it all wrong. The sermon on the mountain was only for His disciples, maybe 12 or 70? and not for the crowds, too. Is it really so? In the previous verse it is stated that, “And great crowds followed Him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan” (Mat. 4:25, RcV). Great crowds followed Him. So the Lord Jesus without dismissing the crowds sat down on the mountain. The message was intended for His disciples (who sat closer to Him) and the crowds. And so, “28 And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astounded at His teaching, 29 For He taught them as One having authority and not like their scribes” ( Mat. 7:28-29, RcV). The crowds were astounded! Were they not part of His audience? In Luke we have a clearer picture, “17 And He came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a great crowd of His disciples, and a great multitude of people from Judea and Jerusalem and of the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases...19And all the crowd sought to touch Him....20 And He lifted up His eyes to His disciples and said, Blessed are the poor....” (Luke 6:17-20). Even if some suggested that Luke's account describes a different occasion (see footnotes on Mattew 5:2 and Luke 6:20 in the Companion Bible), what is stated in Matthew is sufficient to prove our point. In any case at the end of His discourse it is stated, “After He completed all His words in the hearing of the people, He entered in Capernaum” (Luke 7:1, RcV). In the hearing of the people! READING THE FUTURE INTO THE PAST I have another point to make about the second part of this unbelievable footnote. It is about the contorted logic which has been used to “demonstrate” that the audience were Christians. If anyone today would dare to say that the Coercive Acts (Intolerable Acts), a series of punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1776 after the Boston Tea party, against the Thirteen Colonies were meant for todays 50 States of U.S.A. .....I better stop here.