Originally posted by sonshipThe Christain Creeds are not more important than scripture itself, but they provide guidance in rightly dividing the word of truth so we don't fall into heresy.Bingo! We need to stay with the narrative, always comparing scripture with scripture, because the Word of God interprets itself for us.
So it is OK if I say the Son given is to be called the Eternal Father? I hope so because it really lifts my enjoyment of Christ and God up.
Is it OK for me to stand upon this utterance? I can believe ...[text shortened]... creeds close. But keep your Scripture closer" to borrow from the " God Father " (pun intended).
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The Christain Creeds are not more important than scripture itself, but they provide guidance in rightly dividing the word of truth so we don't fall into heresy.
Now your saying pretty much what I have been saying for post after post.
Some with you progress perhaps.
Now even MORE a safe guard against falling into heresy is receiving the pure utterances of Scripture and abiding in the experience of the Bible's God.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV)
Amen. We agree here. Study the creeds too. Not the ones on Mary worship or other errors.
But study the Word firstly, cutting it straight and going for the healthy teaching.
By the way Paul said to be NOURISHED UP On the words of the faith. (First Timothy 4:6)
Nourishment implies EATING. We study and we EAT the word of God, every line, every utterance to receive nourishment.
Witness Lee spoke volumes about being "nourished" up on the pure word oft the bible.
Funny, I rarely here some YEC brothers talk about eating the word of God and being "nourished" up on the words of the faith. They seem to nourish themselves on science.
It is to many of them "the bible is inspired only if it agrees with modern science."
Some OEC are like this too. I get like this occasionally. Then I repent.
Originally posted by sonshipYou keep trying to associate the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church with the Universal (Catholic) Creeds of the early Christian Church. Another "quilt by association" game?The Christain Creeds are not more important than scripture itself, but they provide guidance in rightly dividing the word of truth so we don't fall into heresy.
Now your saying pretty much what I have been saying for post after post.
Some with you progress perhaps.
Now even [b]MORE a safe guard against falling into heresy is re ...[text shortened]... th modern science."
Some OEC are like this too. I get like this occasionally. Then I repent.[/b]
I speak against science so-called when they contradict the words of scipture, just as I speak against Witness Lee when he contradicts scripture.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
You keep trying to associate the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church with the Universal (Catholic) Creeds of the early Christian Church. Another "quilt by association" game?
I speak against science so-called when they contradict the words of scipture, just as I speak against Witness Lee when he contradicts scripture.
You keep trying to associate the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church with the Universal (Catholic) Creeds of the early Christian Church. Another "quilt by association" game?
We are associated with the RCC. She is the oldest kind of organized Christianity and the mother of the denominations which all came out of her.
And coming out they took parts of her errors with her in different degrees.
That is why most of the denominations still do not practice the priesthood of every believer. Rather most of them have kept the clerical system and the hierarchy of professional spiritual class who is to be spiritual instead of all the "secular" laity.
So the lesson is that it is one thing to leave Babylon. It is not so easy for Babylon to leave us though.
I speak against science so-called when they contradict the words of scipture, just as I speak against Witness Lee when he contradicts scripture.
Thousands saved through his ministry. Perhaps millions in Mainline China nourished by his ministry meeting in the underground.
Scores of churches raised up through his books and messages on five continents.
How many churches have your messages raised up ?
It is stupid for you to criticize Witness Lee as a bondservant of Jesus Christ. By their fruits you shall know them (the true prophets of God).
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYou seem to be ignorant of the following:You keep trying to associate the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church with the Universal (Catholic) Creeds of the early Christian Church. Another "quilt by association" game?
We are associated with the RCC. She is the oldest kind of organized Christianity and the mother of the denominations which all came out of her.
And coming out ...[text shortened]... s a bondservant of Jesus Christ. By their fruits you shall know them (the true prophets of God).
The Split that Created Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Catholics
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-split-that-created-roman-catholics-and-eastern.html
First of all, early on leaders noticed the difference and discrepancies that language brought. The Eastern Church spoke and wrote Greek, while the West began to speak and write in Latin. This was perhaps the first sign that there was division within the church. Several additional developments enhanced the linguistic and geographical separation. First, when Pepin made his donation of land in central Italy to the papacy in 756, he caused the pope to fix his attention more to the West and basically ignore the East. The pope was now the largest landholder in Italy, with an annual income of over one million dollars, and a recognized secular as well as religious leader. Second, Pepin’s son, Charlemagne, came to Rome and on Christmas Day, 800, was formally crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III. This act symbolized the division of East and West.
A doctrinal development further intensified the obvious East-West division. The issue centered on the question of who sent the Holy Spirit–the Father or the Father and Son? The great 5th century theologian Augustine (354-430) argued strongly that the Spirit was sent (“proceeded from” ) both the Father and the Son. In 589, at Western council that met in Toledo, Spain, Western theologians added to the Nicene Creed of 381 the language that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (in Latin, filioque, “and from the Son” ). This controversy is hence called the filioque controversy. The Eastern theologians strongly protested this addition. Another theological controversy separating East and West was the dating of Easter. During the first several centuries of the church, Eastern Christians celebrated Easter on Passover. The West always celebrated Easter on a Sunday. At the 325 Council of Nicea, the Eastern practice was condemned, thereby marking another divergence. By the 4th century, Easter was being celebrated on different Sundays all over Christendom. During the 6th century, a monk named Dionysius Exiguus, worked out a formula for dating Easter and created the B.C.-A.D. system for numbering years. The West accepted his system; the East did not. For Western Christians, Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after 21 March (vernal equinox). In the East, Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday following the full moon after vernal equinox, but also the Sunday following Passover. For that reason the East normally celebrates Easter about a week later. The final break came in 1054 in what is known as the Great Schism. On 16 June of that year, Pope Leo IX excommunicated Orthodox Patriarch Michael Cerularius for “trying to humiliate and crush the holy catholic and apostolic church.” The Patriarch then excommunicated Pope Leo. This mutual excommunication marks the formal break between Eastern and Western Christianity. That break has never been healed. The hostility and split were intensified when, during the 1204 Crusade, the crusaders sacked and pillaged Constantinople on Good Friday. So horrific and inexcusable was this event that the break between Eastern and Western Christianity was final and complete.
http://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/08/11-08-20-2/
3 edits
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:16 King James Version (KJV)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26King James Version (KJV)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:26 King James Version (KJV)
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:7 King James Version (KJV)
Jesus clearly says that He would pray or ask the Father to give ANOTHER comforter or advocate, which is the Holy GHost that PROCEEDS from the Father and is SENT by both the Father and the Son.
So the apostasy that began the doctrinal differences between the West and the East was the addition by the West of adding "and the Son" to the Creed which the East did not agree with because this addition makes it appear that the Holy Ghost orginates or proceeds from both the Father and the Son. There seems to be some confusion between the difference in meaning of PROCEEDS and SEND between the Latin speaking West and the Greek speaking East.
To get a better understanding of what Jesus meant by this word we can look how he uses it in another case.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 edits
In Christian experience we cannot detect any difference between the Son of God and the Father. And we cannot detect any difference between the Son and the Holy Spirit though they be co-equal, co-eternal, and simultaneously existing.
Let RJHinds explain to us how he discriminates in his subjective experience of God (assuming he has those experiences), that he can tell any difference between - the indwelling Father or Son or Holy Spirit -
1.) The Father within him according to Ephesians 4:6 - "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
2.) The Son within him according to 2 Cor. 13:5 - "Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, ... ?"
3.) The Holy Spirit within him according to John 14:17 - " Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold HIm or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you."
We Christians, in our experience of the Triune God, cannot tell of any separation of the Three of the Godhead.
Paul, in writing of experience, to the Christians in Rome, moves seamlessly between titles he uses in an interchangeable way to show that One God indwells the believers, though He be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit distinctly.
"But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. (v.9)
Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, He is not of Him. (v.9)
But if Christ be in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. (v.10)
And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you. (v.11)
The Spirit of God dwells within the believer.
The Spirit of Christ dwells within the believer.
Christ Himself dwells within the believer.
The Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in the believer.
Christ is at the right hand of God (Romans 8:34).
Christ is also indwelling the believers (Romans 8:10).
So critics, stop condemning Witness Lee because he affirms - "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
And stop opposing Witness Lee for affirming "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
And stop fighting against Witness Lee for affirming that "a son given ... shall be called ... Eternal Father" (See Isaiah 9:6)
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI said before that I have no problem with Witness Lee repeating the words that are translated in the various Bible versions. It is only his interpretations of what those verses mean that I disagree with. If it does not bother you, then don't worry about what I say, because I am a nobody.
In Christian [b]experience we cannot detect any difference between the Son of God and the Father. And we cannot detect any difference between the Son and the Holy Spirit though they be co-equal, co-eternal, and simultaneously existing.
Let RJHinds explain to us how he discriminates in his subjective experience of God (assuming he has those experienc ...[text shortened]... for affirming that "a son given ... shall be called ... Eternal Father" (See Isaiah 9:6) [/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell brother, I appreciate a sense of humility about it. But we have this thread now announcing the "cult" of Witness Lee. So I think I should write something.
I said before that I have no problem with Witness Lee repeating the words that are translated in the various Bible versions. It is only his interpretations of what those verses mean that I disagree with. If it does not bother you, then don't worry about what I say, because I am a nobody.
Actually, it saved me from writing a lot of rather insignificant posts and got me down to writing something that really is important.
Plenty of preachers you can disagree with. Putting the cult label on them can be over reaction. If you want to distance yourself from the "cult" accusation I will refrain from mentioning your name in this any more.
So if your tired of arguing I will perhaps respond to concepts without mentioning you by name. My purpose is not just to embarrass opposers to the local churches but honestly address their accusations.
Originally posted by sonshipThere are different kinds and degrees of cults. I do not put Witness Lee in with the extreme and dangerous cults. I put him just with those that teach doctrinal errors no worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses. Cult seems to be what is called any of those that deviate from orthodox teachings regardless of how little or how much.
Well brother, I appreciate a sense of humility about it. But we have this thread now announcing the "cult" of Witness Lee. So I think I should write something.
Actually, it saved me from writing a lot of rather insignificant posts and got me down to writing something that really is important.
Plenty of preachers you can disagree with. Putting the c ...[text shortened]... is not just to embarrass opposers to the local churches but honestly address their accusations.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
There are different kinds and degrees of cults. I do not put Witness Lee in with the extreme and dangerous cults. I put him just with those that teach doctrinal errors no worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses. Cult seems to be what is called any of those that deviate from orthodox teachings regardless of how little or how much.
Are you going to write anything substantial worth my time to reply to? Because if from here on out you just come back with little chit-chat remarks, I think you're just hanging on to have some stupid last word you think proves something.
You have proved no error.
You have said nothing about the many Bible expositors who have on their own study, found the identification of Christ with the Spirit indwelling Christians to be quite orthodox.
You blew it. So I don't need to answer every little remaining pout of a sore loser.
It must seem strange that in some passages Paul simply identifies the Spirit with Christ (1 Cor. 15:45; see 6:17; 2 Cor. 3:17). According to these passages the Spirit does not come through Christ; rather, Christ himself is this Spirit. Hermann Gunkel, The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul, translated by Roy A. Harrisville and Philip A. Quanbeck II (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 113
Let us bear in mind … that the Holy Spirit identifies Himself with the Lord Jesus and that the coming of the Comforter is just the coming of Jesus Himself to the heart. A. B. Simpson, When the Comforter Comes, 2nd day (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publishers, c1911)
The Lord, of course, is Christ, and the Spirit is that which Paul has already spoken of in the sixth verse. It is the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life under the new covenant. He who turns to Christ receives the Spirit…. Practically, therefore, the two may be identified…. Here, so far as the practical experience of Christians goes, no distinction is made between the Spirit of Christ and Christ Himself…. James Denney, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1894), pp. 133-134
Hence it comes that the Spirit and Christ are sometimes identified, as in the sentence, "The Lord is the Spirit," and the expression, "The Lord the Spirit." As a matter of subjective experience the two indwellings cannot be distinguished; to consciousness they are one. The Spirit is the alter ego of the Lord. Alexander Balmain Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), p. 254
But Paul not only identifies the Spirit of God with that of Christ, he identifies both with the very Person of Christ. "The Lord is the Spirit," we read; and again, "we are changed into the same image by the Lord, the Spirit." …in the thought of the apostle, "Christ," the "Spirit of Christ," and "the Spirit of God" are practically synonymous. At the Resurrection Christ became a Life-giving Spirit to mankind… David Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897), pp. 117-118; see also pp. 121, 122
'But the Lord, to whom their heart thus turns, is the Spirit.' Many artificial explanations have been given of this verse. Without noticing those attempts which have been in direct contradiction to the meaning of the words and the scope of the context…we find here such an identification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, that the Lord, to whom the heart turns, is in no practical respect different from the Holy Spirit received in conversion. John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical, translated and edited by Philip Schaff, Volume 10, "The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians" (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 58
Originally posted by sonship"No one ever pointed out to you that Jesus prayed that WE the Christian church,.."No, I am not going to get scissors to cut out the verses. I am just going to cut out Lee's "unholy" interpretations. Four in One is just another way to deny the Trinity Doctrine. Why can't you see this guy is a false teacher?
You have not pointed out any falsehood with [b]John 17 in Christ's mighty prayer for the fulfillment of God' ...[text shortened]... you should patiently and prayerfully consider the words of the New Testament in John 17.[/b]
The problem with the above statement is this: Jesus' prayer could not have been for the Christian church, since the church the Body of Christ, of which I'm certain you are referring to, did not even exist at that time, and was in fact unprophesied of in the scriptures prior to the revelation of the church and the body of doctrine associated with it as was revealed to the Apostle Paul.
Throws a monkey wrench in everyone's theology.
Originally posted by sonshipI have already proved my point. You can believe it or not. However, I believe the establishment of the Christian Creeds was to prevent the gates of Hell from prevailing against the Christian Church by damnable heresies.There are different kinds and degrees of cults. I do not put Witness Lee in with the extreme and dangerous cults. I put him just with those that teach doctrinal errors no worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses. Cult seems to be what is called any of those that deviate from orthodox teachings regardless of how little or how much.
Are you goin ...[text shortened]... ul to the Corinthians" (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 58 [/quote][/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI can keep repeating as long as you can.
I have already proved my point. You can believe it or not. However, I believe the establishment of the Christian Creeds was to prevent the gates of Hell from prevailing against the Christian Church by damnable heresies.
sonship's bolding
Explicitly Demanding Use of Creedal Language as Proof of Orthodoxy
Geisler claims to have sent a letter to Ron Kangas, editor-in-chief of the Living Stream Ministry publication Affirmation & Critique.4 This letter is attached to the article posted by Geisler and Rhodes criticizing CRI’s reassessment of the teachings of the local churches. In his letter, Geisler criticized the following excerpts from a statement of faith printed near the front of the journal:
Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate.
and:
We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God.5
In the following statements Geisler makes the explicit use of the word "person(s)" in reference to the Trinity a requirement for orthodoxy:
First, if you desired to be considered orthodox in your "Statement of Faith," then why did you leave out the word "person" of the three members of the Trinity. To be orthodox you should have said "three [persons] being distinct" and "we confess the third [person] of the Trinity."
Judged by Geisler’s standard, the Bible itself is not orthodox, and neither are the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, as none of them use the word "person" when speaking of the three of the Trinity. Furthermore, in Geisler’s letter to Ron Kangas, Geisler proffers the following definition of heresy: [/b]
Based on biblical usage, the word heresy refers to a divisive teaching or practice that is contrary to the historic Christian Faith as based on the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.
This definition is itself absurd. How could the "biblical usage" of the term "heresy" refer to something as "expressed in the early Christian creeds," which did not even exist at the time of the completion of the writing of the Bible? Geisler’s criticism exhibits a preoccupation with formulaic expressions rather than a proper discernment of biblical truth, and it supplants the words of the Bible with those of the creeds.
2 edits
Originally posted by josephw
The problem with the above statement is this: Jesus' prayer could not have been for the Christian church, since the church the Body of Christ, of which I'm certain you are referring to, did not even exist at that time, and was in fact unprophesied of in the scriptures prior to the revelation of the church and the body of doctrine associated with it as was revealed to the Apostle Paul.
If you are speaking as I think, of John 17 it is for the Christian church. And the answer to that mighty prayer is the New Jerusalem at the conclusion of human history seen in Revelation 21 and 22..
How can you possibly reason that Jesus is not praying for the church? Would that not be exactly who is indicated by these words:
"I ask concerning them; I do not ask concerning the world, but concerning those whom You have given Me, for they are yours." (v.9)
Who else but the EKKLESIA - the "called out one" - the church, could the Son of God be praying for.
"And I am no longer in the world, yet they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are." (v.11)
Who else could the Son of God possibly be refering to but His EKKLESIA, kept by the Holy Father. They are in the world but they are kept from the world by consecration to the Holy Father.
Of course He is praying for the church though He has not breathed into them the Holy Spirit until after His resurrection. From God's transcendent viewpoint Christ could only be praying for the church.
"I do not ask that You take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."(v.14)
Joseph, this "they" has to be the EKKLESIA, the church, who is on earth today but is not of the world. Her source is God the Father who keeps them in the name, in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Who else could Jesus mean when He speaks of the Father sanctifying them besides the new covenant church ?
"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (v.17)
The Apostle Paul said that the church, the house of the living God is "the pillar and base of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)
The prayers of Jesus Christ are exceedingly powerful and cannot go unanswered by the Father. And the full consummation of this prayer will result in the holy city New Jerusalem in eternity future.
Though the gates of Hades will fight against the church all throughout the church age, from within and from without, they will not prevail.
Throws a monkey wrench in everyone's theology.
Not at all.
While I might agree that from our human standpoint the church had not been formed until the resurrection of Christ, from the transcendent viewpoint of God He was praying for the church.
The prayer is for those whom He has given Himself as eternal life -
"These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You.
Even as You have given Him authority over all flesh to give eternal life to all whom You have given Him.
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ." (vs.1-3)
Who would you say the Son is praying for if He is not praying for His church ?