How Much To Throw Out?

[NewManLiving]

While I totally agree with your reasoning we are after all human. We do sense things. When we pray many times we sense the Lord's presence. If we should sin we generally loose this peace and have a sense of being uncomfortable until sincere repentance is made and forgiveness is obtained. So I will not argue the terminology employed by the LC. In the early days it simply meant fellowship or lack of fellowship with the Lord. He is our Life and we do sense it. We also sense when we are disobedient. Call it what you will it exists. This is normal. But we all agree that the LC has given a new manipulative twist on the whole concept.

[Cal]

I've long maintained that the pressure to conform to Lee/LSM/"the brothers"/the Vision/etc is so great in the LC movement that true discernment of the Lord's leading by LCM members is emotionally impossible. Does anyone think that someone indoctrinated to believe that leaving the LCM will result in judgment by God could hear God telling them otherwise? I don't see how it's possible without distancing oneself from the emotional threat of not conforming.

LCMers are trained to be suspicious of and even fear any sense of God's leading which goes against their indoctrination. True freedom to follow the Spirit does not exist there. Kangas's "sense of life" is thus by definition tainted and unreliable.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

While I totally agree with your reasoning we are after all human. We do sense things. When we pray many times we sense the Lord's presence. If we should sin we generally loose this peace and have a sense of being uncomfortable until sincere repentance is made and forgiveness is obtained. So I will not argue the terminology employed by the LC. In the early days it simply meant fellowship or lack of fellowship with the Lord. He is our Life and we do sense it. We also sense when we are disobedient. Call it what you will it exists. This is normal. But we all agree that the LC has given a new manipulative twist on the whole concept.

True story:

Once upon a time I was driving my car and there were 3-4 saints with me. We were on a trip from Houston to New Orleans I think. One was an obnoxious young brother who sat in the back seat bellowing out "Oh Lord Jesus". On and on it went. I was getting nervous in traffic and was totally distracted by both the brother and the traffic.

Finally, during a pause in the action, I said to the brother with the kindest tone I could muster under the circumstances and said sweetly: "Now that you're in your spirit, would you mind lowering the volume?"

I don't know who was more shocked by my request...him or me. Where was the "sense of life" in this case? Would the "sense of life", if genuine, clue this brother in that he needed to show some concern for others and the situation at hand? He was totally absorbed in the ritual he had learned in the LC and didn't care about anyone but himself.

We do "sense things", but is the Holy Spirit obnoxious? Rude? Clueless as to how his actions were affecting others? The "sense of life" teaching is too subjective...that's my point. This brother was "sensing life" and I was "sensing death" at the same time and in the same situation.

Another true story:
Way back in Houston, a sister visited the meeting. She was paraplegic and confined to a wheel chair. She was very sweet and a bunch of us single sisters went to Ray Graver and told him we wanted to invite her to move in to the sisters house. Sense of life, right?

What was Ray's response? "You're not that good." Blunt? Rude?

"Life" or "death"? The correct answer is "truth". He was right. We sisters were in no way prepared to take care of this sister's special and demanding needs. We loved this new sister. Our "sense of life" wanted to help her. It would have been a disaster. As good as our intentions were, we would have ended up in a huge mess. We didn't pray about it. We didn't "fellowship" about it. We just went by our feelings.

The "sense of life" is based on emotions and is not something you can live by.

Nell

[Cal]

I understand what you are saying, Nell. But in the case of apprehending the leading of the Holy Spirit, just what is that experience like to you? Some people say He matches the Bible. Yes, but which interpretation of the Bible? Calvinism or Arminianism? Covenant or Dispensational Theology? So ultimately the Spirit's leading is not just a logical deduction of the Bible's meaning. It's more than that. Ultimately it is a real and subjective experience of God himself guiding us.

A "sense of life" in the the most positive meaning is just a sense of the Spirit's leading. The Bible does say that to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Rom 8:6). I think "life" there is something that is experienced. To me a "sense of life" is just that sense of the presence and approval of the Holy Spirit. I don't use the term "sense of life" anymore, though. I just say "I sensed the Spirit" or "felt the Spirit" or something else more mainstream. But the experience is real and of course it is subjective. Every personal experience of God we have is subjective.

So I think you are going a bit far calling a "sense of life" just emotion. However, I do agree in the case of the LCM, the "sense of life" is often nothing more than a code word for the sense of what you'd better do to stay out of the doghouse with the leading ones. It's another way they bully people.

Again the thread topic is "what to throw out." Throwing out a subjective experience of the Lord's leading is going too far, even if someone wants to call it "the sense of life." Any idea can be abused by the LCM or anyone else, so just because someone abused it doesn't make it bathwater.

But I'm with you to say that those in the LCM often don't know the sense of life from indigestion, which may explain why Ron Kangas, Minoru Chen and the rest always look so dyspeptic when then are "sharing."

[NewManLiving]

Well put! To a normal Christian a sense of Life is simply following the Holy Spirit. This brings a sense of Life and Peace. The LC rote chanting that Nell describes has nothing to do with it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand what you are saying, Nell. But in the case of apprehending the leading of the Holy Spirit, just what is that experience like to you? Some people say He matches the Bible. Yes, but which interpretation of the Bible? Calvinism or Arminianism? Covenant or Dispensational Theology? So ultimately the Spirit's leading is not just a logical deduction of the Bible's meaning. It's more than that. Ultimately it is a real and subjective experience of God himself guiding us.

A "sense of life" in the the most positive meaning is just a sense of the Spirit's leading. The Bible does say that to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Rom 8:6). I think "life" there is something that is experienced. To me a "sense of life" is just that sense of the presence and approval of the Holy Spirit. I don't use the term "sense of life" anymore, though. I just say "I sensed the Spirit" or "felt the Spirit" or something else more mainstream. But the experience is real and of course it is subjective. Every personal experience of God we have is subjective.

So I think you are going a bit far calling a "sense of life" just emotion. However, I do agree in the case of the LCM, the "sense of life" is often nothing more than a code word for the sense of what you'd better do to stay out of the doghouse with the leading ones. It's another way they bully people.

Again the thread topic is "what to throw out." Throwing out a subjective experience of the Lord's leading is going too far, even if someone wants to call it "the sense of life." Any idea can be abused by the LCM or anyone else, so just because someone abused it doesn't make it bathwater.

But I'm with you to say that those in the LCM often don't know the sense of life from indigestion, which may explain why Ron Kangas, Minoru Chen and the rest always look so dyspeptic when then are "sharing."

I guess I didn't explain what I mean very well. Of course, I don't believe the genuine leading of the Holy Spirit is "just emotion". I believe I said "based on" emotion, but I was talking about the LC "sense life" teaching...not the leading and guidance by God Himself. Unless someone can provide verses to the contrary, I believe that the LC "sense of life" teaching is not based on the clear teaching of the Word but relies on what folks like RK tells you is "life".

I gave two examples in my post below which to me illustrate that "sense life" is not reliable as the LC teaches it. In the LC context, "life" is what the leadership says it is.

In my experience, Jesus is my best friend. I talk to him often every day. He talks to me. He takes care of me. He is a real person to me. Lately I have had quite a few experiences where I realized that He had answered my prayers. I had asked for His help in a certain part of my life and I realized, even today, that He was taking care of me more completely than I could imagine or ask. I would take this over a "sense of life" any day.

Nell

[OBW]

. . . but I was talking about the LC "sense life" teaching...not the leading and guidance by God Himself. Unless someone can provide verses to the contrary, I believe that the LC "sense of life" teaching is not based on the clear teaching of the Word but relies on what folks like RK tells you is "life".

That is probably a good way to describe it.

For me the real question comes down to what kind of "sense of life" should we rely on that is not the guidance of God himself (however it is that he does it)? I mean, if I am getting some kind of sense that is not from God, then what is it really? Probably either some kind of emotion, or me thinking that I've figured something out on my own without the need of God's input.

I guess that seems a lot like me deciding what is good and evil without God's input via the Spirit or the word.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is probably a good way to describe it.

For me the real question comes down to what kind of "sense of life" should we rely on that is not the guidance of God himself (however it is that he does it)? I mean, if I am getting some kind of sense that is not from God, then what is it really? Probably either some kind of emotion, or me thinking that I've figured something out on my own without the need of God's input.

I guess that seems a lot like me deciding what is good and evil without God's input via the Spirit or the word.

OBW,

I know you know this, but this is my take on the topic. We walk by faith. By faith, we always have God's input whether we hear it or not. Good and evil are defined in the Word. The more time we spend reading the Word, the more often we may receive a "timely word" to confirm what direction it seems the Lord is leading. Actually that could be confirm or deny. Our goal is to listen to the voice of our Shepherd..."my sheep hear my voice and they follow me." Is that a "sense"? Not to me.

Many times I have prayed something like "Lord, I WANT to do this...I think it's you, but I'm not sure. Please slow me down or stop me if I'm wrong. I want you more than I want "this". I messed up plenty. That was as helpful as getting it right. I learned that walking by faith involved "trust and obey". When I messed up, I repented. Asked for forgiveness and continued to walk.

I've been having this conversation with Him for my entire life. My entire "walk". I got saved when I was a very young child. I don't remember a time that He wasn't real to me. I didn't always recognize that it was Him, but in hindsight, I recognize his hand in my life.

How many times has the LC "sense of life" teaching provided options on a direction for your walk or encouraged you to seek the Lord's guidance ahead of theirs? You are TOLD where to go, what to do, when to do it, what to read, what to think, and NEVER to ask questions. And THIS gives you the LC "sense of life". You march, in step, OR ELSE.

It may sound like semantics, but I know what I mean! :-) Sorry I can't pass it on better. Bottom line I guess is that Jesus didn't say his sheep would "sense life". He said his sheep "hear his voice", and to me that means WORDS. I've never heard an audible but I've heard words in my heart, my soul, my mind.

Sorry --
Nell

[aron]

The Key is the Word. God has spoken to us in the Son, whom He made Heir of all things.

The Word of Scripture testifies of the Incarnate Son, Crucified for us, and now Glorified in Heaven, in Whom are found all dominions, thrones and lordships. There is no other name by which to be saved. None.

The Word of Scripture does not testify to the Church, or God's Deputy, or Ages of Grace and Law and so forth. The Word of Scripture does not testify of God's Current Move on the Earth, or of some hidden and now recovered Truth. The Word of Scripture testifies of the Son. The Holy Spirit reveals the Son, and the Son is the Way to the Father. There is nothing else. Don't be tricked, or waylaid by smooth talkers and teachers.

The Apostles' job was to point to the Prophets and declare, "They foresaw the Coming Christ". See Peter on the Day of Pentecost, for example. Everything else reinforces this; any seeming additional "detail" which tends to cause us to look away, is to be held very carefully, if at all. Our job as believers who follow the Apostles is to point to them (the Apostles), who are pointing to the Prophets pointing to Jesus. There is one, unified Word.

As Nell wrote, "My sheep hear My voice." There is One Voice, that of Jesus Christ. None other are trustworthy. All voices point to the One Voice, or should.

The so-called Ground, and then the so-called Deputy Authority; these were deviations, distracting us from the Voice from Heaven. Eventually we were swirled into the maelstrom.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

It may sound like semantics, but I know what I mean! :-) Sorry I can't pass it on better. Bottom line I guess is that Jesus didn't say his sheep would "sense life". He said his sheep "hear his voice", and to me that means WORDS. I've never heard an audible but I've heard words in my heart, my soul, my mind.

I'm with you, Nell. I'm on record as saying that one of Lee's biggest blunders was to separate "life" from the Person of Christ. (Remember Lee contrasting "taking Christ as your life" with "taking Christ as your person?" The irony is not only was splitting them wrong, both individually as defined by Lee were wrong.)

Yes, we are in relationship with a Person, he speaks to us as a person. We should never forget that God is always a Person, metaphorical descriptions of him (food, water, life, power, etc.) notwithstanding. The fact is Lee used the term "Christ" in a depersonalized way, almost as if he was speaking of a substance rather than a person. I remember a brother I lived with commenting that "Christ" was a kind of "stuff," like a protein drink or something, to be imbibed to gain it's benefits directly, without needing a real personal relationship.

A depersonalized God is an error that leads to more errors.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand what you are saying, Nell. But in the case of apprehending the leading of the Holy Spirit, just what is that experience like to you? Some people say He matches the Bible. Yes, but which interpretation of the Bible? Calvinism or Arminianism? Covenant or Dispensational Theology? So ultimately the Spirit's leading is not just a logical deduction of the Bible's meaning. It's more than that. Ultimately it is a real and subjective experience of God himself guiding us.

Without reference to the rest of your post where you discuss other aspects of a sense of the Spirit's leading, I note that most of the Spirit's leading is not about Calvinism or Arminianism, Covenant or Dispensational Theology, etc. In other words, not really much about doctrines.

Instead, the leading of the Holy Spirit is with regard to our living. It is not about whether I can or cannot lose my salvation. But it will lead me to repentance where that is required no matter whether you think you may or may not have lost your salvation. (And there is something to be said for — or maybe against — a common Calvinist position of skipping the real repentance and just claiming the blood, or claiming grace, or whatever is the formula of the particular day or group.) I lean Calvinist but do not entirely discount the Arminian view. I am less enamored with Dispensationalism though that is the primary theology of my assembly of choice.

But none of those are the things that the Spirit speaks to me about. More like my anger when driving in rush hour traffic. Or my wasting of too much of my evenings. And so forth. Nothing Calvinist or Arminian in either of those.

The only place where there might be some problem is when we come to the Bible with a mindset that the kinds of commands to deal righteously with everyone is set aside because of false teachings. Or biblical justice for the widow, orphan, homeless, sojourner, etc., is for the liberals and the soup kitchens because we are no longer under the law. But that is not a problem of Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenant theology or Dispensational theology. It is simply ignoring the Bible because it suits us.

I think the only sense we typically get about doctrines is a sense of pride in thinking ours is the better way to think about it. But let's get real. If you need to repent, you need to repent. Doesn't matter whether you think about it from a Calvinist or Arminian viewpoint. And whatever you think will happen in the end times, what actually happens will be what actually happens. It really won't matter if you expected it or thought it would be different. And it shouldn't affect whether or not you believe in Jesus. What might make a difference, if any, is whether I believe (present tense, not past tense) in the Son of God. That means I should be living as if I believe (not just believed on date X after having the Roman Road shown to me by someone doing evangelism on a campus).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But none of those are the things that the Spirit speaks to me about. More like my anger when driving in rush hour traffic. Or my wasting of too much of my evenings. And so forth. Nothing Calvinist or Arminian in either of those.

I get your point. But there are plenty of practical living issues that--apparently given current thinking--are hard to determine by simply reading the Bible. For example:

Is gay marriage valid?

Is abortion permitted?

Can married couples divorce?

Can we sue other Christians?

There are arguments on both sides of these questions, and Christians line up both ways. So without some kind of direct guidance from God, simply knowing the Scriptures seems inadequate.

Thoughts?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I get your point. But there are plenty of practical living issues that--apparently given current thinking--are hard to determine by simply reading the Bible. For example:

Is gay marriage valid?

Is abortion permitted?

Can married couples divorce?

Can we sue other Christians?

There are arguments on both sides of these questions, and Christians line up both ways. So without some kind of direct guidance from God, simply knowing the Scriptures seems inadequate.

Thoughts?

There are "questions", but some questions you don't need to ask. The Scriptures are totally adequate. Disobedience of Scriptures is sin. Questioning the Scriptures today is about political correctness. Political correctness in the church is a blight. It's an offense to God's work on the cross and His Holiness.

Jesus bore our sins on the cross and he died that we might be saved from our sins. Sin is sin. You have to call it what it is because of what Jesus did.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all unrighteousness."

The Bible hasn't changed. It's dangerous to think that "simply knowing the Scriptures is inadequate." "The Word of God is absolute and is not subject to man's relationship to it." W. Nee

In a society driven by political correctness---not to mention the church being driven by political correctness, your list above is about as controversial as it gets. The answer is still Jesus. Jesus died on the cross to save his people from their sins. We pray that the church will be the glorious church that can be presented to Him as his bride...without spot or wrinkle. We pray that the church will wake up and return to the Word and its authority. From here, we pray for leading to respond to the questions you list, speaking the truth in love.

This is where you have to start. You cannot waver from the authority of the Word because it's not MY word. It's HIS word and it has not changed and will not change at the whim of today's fallen social culture.

The earth is the Lords. He created it. The land is His. The man he created has dominion over it. This man failed and fell into sin. Our loving God and Father made a way for the man he created to be redeemed from the fall. In many ways this man is still falling. Yet redemption is still available to all who repent and believe.

The darker the church becomes, the greater is our need for perspective...a "God's eye view" of what He has done for us. As He said to Job "Where were YOU when the foundation of the world was laid?"

Igzy, I don't mean to poke my finger in your eye without a poke in my own. There are my thoughts. In my Christian life my "go to" is "Some questions you don't need to ask."

Nell

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

Igzy, I don't mean to poke my finger in your eye without a poke in my own. There are my thoughts. In my Christian life my "go to" is "Some questions you don't need to ask."

Nell

My point was simply that mentally knowing the Scriptures is not enough because without the leading of the Holy Spirit we cannot really know them. Obviously God knows exactly what each verse means and what the whole means. But none of us do, not completely anyway. So there is disagreement. Two people might each think they know the Scriptures, but what if they disagree? At least one of them has to be wrong.

My point was some people equate "knowing the Scriptures" with knowing God, or knowing truth. But if your interpretation is wrong that can't be true. The question is, whose interpretation is correct?

Ultimately we each have to be "fully persuaded in our own minds." That's really the best we can do.

When you think about it, this is the only way it could be. If we really believed the Scriptures were so cut and dried that total agreement on them by everyone was possible there would be no personal freedom in the Church, toeing the line would be expected. This, in fact, is the LCM error. They think they have the Bible so figured out that any disagreement with them is evidence of error or worse.

As for "some questions you don't need to ask." That might work for you, but it can't work for a group, because it's pretty similar to "don't rock the boat." You have a level of inquisitiveness that your are comfortable with. That's doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I get your point. But there are plenty of practical living issues that--apparently given current thinking--are hard to determine by simply reading the Bible. For example:

Is gay marriage valid?

Is abortion permitted?

Can married couples divorce?

Can we sue other Christians?

There are arguments on both sides of these questions, and Christians line up both ways. So without some kind of direct guidance from God, simply knowing the Scriptures seems inadequate.

Thoughts?

I have begun listening to some of the podcasts generated by Dallas Theological Seminary. They are not entirely toe-the-line Dispensational, Calvinist, anti-(whatever) pabulum, although you do know where they are coming from.

For example, one of the Professors at DTS was the guest on the podcast discussing women in ministry. She (yes, she) is a member of a Bible church in the area that made headlines for allowing women to preach from their pulpit. (So a seminary that generally holds to no women preaching ahs a woman professor attending a Bible church that allows women to preach.) And the discussion was in no way anti-women preaching.

But in another, the guest was a preacher in a very different tradition who recently wrote a book on the issues of LGBT and the church. His perspective is from having his parents divorce when he was young because his mom was lesbian. He discovered later that his dad was also gay but kept it secret. Despite the distress of his mother when he decided to go to seminary and become a preacher, he took on an assistant pastorate. One day when he was scheduled to preach he invited his mother to come. Much to his surprise, she did. But after the service the church leadership took him aside and requested that he never invite such people to their church again. So he resigned. His views on the subject, while never stated in a black-and-white way, were what you might expect of a "good Christian" with one exception. He believes that salvation is for everyone, and that like so many besetting sins that are struggled with over one's lifetime, having same-sex attractions is among them. And God deals with each of us on these things. That does not mean that churches should not have standards or positions, but that they should reflect love for those in need of Christ and in need of perfecting their walk with Christ.

In other words, while many of us are certain that we have the right answer on these things, at some level it is not my job to purify the assembly, but rather to love everyone, both within and without it.

And while these are items of dispute from reading the same Bible, I have never had any "sense of the Spirit" concerning these kinds of issues. I have had a lot of mental thought on the subjects. And have current positions (mostly like the ones I have always had). But they are not really derived from some sense of the leading of the Spirit. Or even a "sense of life."

The leading of the Spirit with respect to any of these issues seems to lead me more in terms of how I deal with the people who are on either side of the debate. Or on neither side because they aren't Christian and don't think about it. That is where I find leading. I am convicted of my callousness toward the gay guy in the office. Or the unmarried woman (divorced with 2 kids) who is living with her boyfriend. Or the guy who just pulled out of the side street into the only lane with any traffic in it (right in front of me). Or the Pakistani who owns and operates the deli downstairs and has no pork of any kind on the menu (hint, hint. probably Moslem). And so on.

There really isn't much real interpretation issue when it comes to these things. I don't need to stand firm for the "right position on [x]" to have interactions with people with differing opinions on the same issue(s) and therefore have a requirement to treat them as I would have them treat me.

I am not saying that doctrinal positions on both theological and moral positions is not important. But I am not sure that it should be what we spend much of our time studying about, praying about, and even seeking the guidance of the Spirit. Surely I believe that it is important that some do that for the sake of the rest of us. And I do hope that we are astute enough to decide between competing thoughts on each subject. But those should not be the primary reason that we study, pray, and live. And they should not be the main things in which we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

These may be more worthy than debates about angels and pin heads (pin-heads??) but they are not the things that we were charged concerning in places like the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did not say to hold to the best position on the sins of others, but to seek righteousness and to apply it to yourself more stringently than even the 10 commandments demanded. So where does the Spirit begin speaking to us when we find ourselves having too many non-work-related conversations with that guy/gal in the office? Where is the line between making legitimate friendships and becoming attracted in an improper way (even if nothing ever comes close to "happening")?

Have a good position on those moral issues. And apply them to ourselves thoroughly. But be merciful with respect to others. Not just those who toe your/my moral stances. I think the Spirit speaks here much more often than on what specific nuance of the range of positions on abortion, LGBT, divorce, or even suing other Christians we should hold. More likely on how we think about followers of Mohammed. How we refer to them. What derogatory monikers we use for them. Same for our attitudes toward all kinds of Christian and non-Christian sinners.

I am not denying enlightenment with respect to the reading of scripture on other issues. But when we are talking about the issues you raise, the clearer answers are found when we block out our knee-jerk reactions and start the inquiry as freshly as possible. There is a lot of mental work to be done on these. But even when we think we have an answer, there is also the consideration on how to apply it. To ourselves. To others.

The kind of "sense of the Spirit" that is mostly mentioned is almost always concerning life and living. It is seldom about doctrinal inquiry. That does not mean there is no sense of the Spirit in those things. But I note that when such things were brought to the church in Jerusalem, a number of people spoke from different angles. And then the took time to consider and pray. And from that, it "seemed good" to the group and to the Holy Spirit (assuming that the attribution is appropriate — and I do) concerning the answer. And that answer still took stances that were not necessarily going to stand forever as stated. Yet it seemed good.

The thing to me here is that when it came to external points of teaching, it was not a matter of one person's "sense of the Spirit" on the matter. It was a combination of what was sensed by many persons. And I suspect that each would have generated a slightly different edict if it had been up to them. Yet when they, as a group, were finished, they could all say that it "seemed good." In today's terminology, I think what they said was "we can live with that."

As for gay marriage, it is a fact legally. In many ways there is a lot about it that the church has nothing to say about. But in terms of what it means spiritually, there is much to say. But it should be more about the church saying it than just me. So there needs to be a group that takes the nuances of the whole issue and comes to a "it seems good to us" position. I can live with that. It is not my decision to make. Not shirking my responsibility. Just stating it in the way I think is appropriate.

And in all of this, I have no problem with your position on any of these issues, or on whether a "sense of the Spirit" on them is important to the individual Christian or should be what is keeping them up at night. I just may think about it differently.

[Cal]

I understand your point, but my point was that without the Holy Spirit we can be all over the map about even "life and living" instructions from the Bible. I agree that we should view both the Bible and the Spirit's leading as instructions to each of us personally, and not look to be meddling in the lives of others.

At the same time some are called to teach to others. Without some personal leading from the Holy Spirit (which may be termed a "sense of the Spirit") the Bible is a dangerous book to wield, whether seeking clarity on doctrine or personal living.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I'm with you to say that those in the LCM often don't know the sense of life from indigestion, which may explain why Ron Kangas, Minoru Chen and the rest always look so dyspeptic when then are "sharing."

I don't know what to make of it.
Maybe they don't believe the LSM hype they're selling?
Maybe they know speaking at all those conferences is just for a paycheck?
Maybe they just need to drink more coffee?
Maybe those unlawful users of the internet has them figured out?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't know what to make of it.
Maybe they don't believe the LSM hype they're selling?
Maybe they know speaking at all those conferences is just for a paycheck?
Maybe they just need to drink more coffee?
Maybe those unlawful users of the internet has them figured out?

I was talking to one of my sons this week and told him that "Christ is life, but life is not Christ" because there are many types of life; plant, animal, human, demonic, angelic, and divine. When a blended brother says he is following "life" which life is he talking about? To follow Christ is to follow His word, to follow the sense of life could mean following any number of types of life. Some of the elders and blendeds don't know the difference between their own human life and feelings and the divine life of Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by HERn

. . . to follow the sense of life could mean following any number of types of life. . . .

Such as the life of the spicy taco I ate an hour ago.

[HERn]

"The bread that you store up belongs to the hungry; the coat that lies in your chest belongs to the naked; the gold that you have hidden in the ground belongs to the poor."

Sometimes it's difficult for me to know how to respond to Christian hyperbole like the above current quote. The implied teaching of generosity is a greatly needed virtue that I think my Lord would for like me to practice. But, after reading the above I could become "absolute" and decide not to have any cans of soup or other food in the pantry, clothes hanging in the closet or savings in the bank. I'm ok with Christ's and the apostles' hyperbole, but I'm learning to throw out the hyperbole of men.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by HERn

To follow Christ is to follow His word, to follow the sense of life could mean following any number of types of life. Some of the elders and blendeds don't know the difference between their own human life and feelings and the divine life of Christ.

After years of being out of TLR and meeting only when visiting my parents, I've reached the point "how much to throw out" begins with the publications. They have got to go.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Terry

After years of being out of TLR and meeting only when visiting my parents, I've reached the point "how much to throw out" begins with the publications. They have got to go.

I still have a box of RcV NT with footnotes. Do u think I should throw them away, give to habitat for humanity, or to a LC Saint?