Watchman Nee

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's called letting God be God and not judging another man's servant.

That's still pretty much not being honest with your own theology. It doesn't require you to be God to say you believe there is one way in, this is the way in, and everyone else is at the mercy or judgement of God. Your way is either right or it's not. If you truly believe it's the only way for salvation, then the very implication would be that those who haven't done it the way you believe aren't saved. It's as easy as that.

[Socialite]

Blume, thanks for the clarifications.

So you agree that intellectualism is not how we get to the "deeper things." They are "revealed" through various mediums. Do you think Paul's larger argument, that talks about "deep things" is really the message and his point though? Is he really trying to tell these Corinthians that what they think is deep is actually quite shallow (the ever-present Gospel paradox)?

The Story is simple, in that it doesn't require intellectual excellence. In fact, most can understand it. It's mysterious, in that those drawn by, and led by the Spirit believe and "get it" while others don't. But the Story in itself, is quite simple, though we can make it as complex as we'd like (because there certainly are conversations from the Story than can spawn off to other conversations, such as the one we are having right now).

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by dedicated mind

Bro. Blume, thanks for your insight. I was wondering what was your opinion about actually dividing the soul and spirit. Is it a matter of denying the flesh and focusing on prayer, fasting and reading the word or is dividing accomplished by an event of brokeness where God breaks our soul with an event, like the loss of a loved one or the betrayal of a friend etc?

I think it is accomplished by making a conscious decision to spend more time on activating our spirits and paying more attention to the things of the Spirit. It is not giving into the fleshly urges to do whatever our flesh wants, and instead breaking the trend by seeking God in prayer and exercising the part of us that believes, which goes against everything the flesh is striving for. Since it involves the sword of the Spirit, the Word, it is applying the WORD to our lives by obeying it when it tells us to deny self, etc.

I love the picture Hebrews 4 gives in all of this.

There is a sword at the entrance to the Garden, and it is the Word. That Word must be mixed with our faith, and since our HEARTS/SPIRITS are the parts of us that believe, we mix the word with faith as though we plunge the sword into our hearts. When the sword gets in there, it cuts away the carnality of overly focusing on anything other than the things of God, including the need to SEE before we believe, etc. (I say that, since this chapter is focusing on entering a REST by FAITH, and faith is trust in what there is no physical evidence for).

Notice that Be 4 says we must labour to enter this rest. I picture the rest as the GARDEN. And the LABOUR we exert is mixing the word with faith. And Heb says that we need to do this with the word because the word is alive (Heb 4:12) and successfully can divide the soul from the spirit like whittling away the crud of things that oppose us from focusing on the things of the spirit, when it separates the soul from the spirit. This removes all the fleshliness we too many times focus upon in our lives, so that our hearts CAN BELIEVE AND REST!

We do not abandon our souls, but DENY their DESIRES TO focus on self and everything else before God. So I picture it as cutting away the caking of carnal and overwhelming thoughts that smother our spirits and their abilities to focus on the things of God and thereby direct our lives.

So it is a definite and conscious effort we must exert (labour) in order to see the WORD cut away all the carnal emphases in our hearts.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's still pretty much not being honest with your own theology. It doesn't require you to be God to say you believe there is one way in, this is the way in, and everyone else is at the mercy or judgement of God. Your way is either right or it's not. If you truly believe it's the only way for salvation, then the very implication would be that those who haven't done it the way you believe aren't saved. It's as easy as that.

I simply do not think we should be the type of people who JUST HAVE TO know what is the fate of someone. There are too many variables involved aside from correct doctrine in the fray. I think we presume too much on either side of the issue, whether we claim so and so must be saved or cannot be saved. I just preach what I know the bible says to preach, and leave the mopping up for God to do.

I am not either right or wrong. Again, that is part of the wrong perspective in any of this, I think. People do not realize that it is judging people to say they KNOW certain folks are saved whom others KNOW are not.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Blume, thanks for the clarifications.

So you agree that intellectualism is not how we get to the "deeper things."

Yes, and I cannot emphasize that enough.

They are "revealed" through various mediums.

They are revealed by revelations from the Spirit of God. As with Peter. Peter had no flesh and blood show Him who Jesus was. Peter heard from God. His SPIRIT picked that up when his intellect would otherwise have learned it from men. Jesus wanted their spirits active.

Do you think Paul's larger argument, that talks about "deep things" is really the message and his point though? Is he really trying to tell these Corinthians that what they think is deep is actually quite shallow (the ever-present Gospel paradox)?

No, since he ends up saying he simply has to deal with shallow things in order to help them out. Partisan tendencies, taking brothers to court, HAIR (!!!!), communion, abuse of gifts, physical resurrection. They're all outward things.

So he is simply telling them he cannot deal with them about deep things, not that what they think is deep is actually shallow. They were likely quite intellectual people!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I simply do not think we should be the type of people who JUST HAVE TO know what is the fate of someone. There are too many variables involved aside from correct doctrine in the fray. I think we presume too much on either side of the issue, whether we claim so and so must be saved or cannot be saved. I just preach what I know the bible says to preach, and leave the mopping up for God to do.

I am not either right or wrong. Again, that is part of the wrong perspective in any of this, I think. People do not realize that it is judging people to say they KNOW certain folks are saved whom others KNOW are not.

So if I say Jesus is the Only Way, and that outside of Him there is no salvation. Am I presuming to be God or am I declaring the exclusivity of Christ, and the hope of the Gospel?

Everything you've said is commendable, but again, spoken or not spoken, your theology comes with its own conclusions and judgments. You can choose not to say them, because you realize the gravity of the claims -- but it's still an implication of your theology.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

So if I say Jesus is the Only Way, and that outside of Him there is no salvation. Am I presuming to be God or am I declaring the exclusivity of Christ, and the hope of the Gospel?

You are simply repeating things the Gospel stated. You are being SIMPLE in the gospel,. because Jesus is the ONLY way amongst many assumed ways. THAT is what simplicity in Christ means.

Everything you've said is commendable, but again, spoken or not spoken, your theology comes with its own conclusions and judgments. You can choose not to say them, because you realize the gravity of the claims -- but it's still an implication of your theology.

Sure. I accept that. But I simply see no other conclusions, and I cannot propose anything else until I honestly do see other conclusions.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, and I cannot emphasize that enough.



They are revealed by revelations from the Spirit of God. As with Peter. Peter had no flesh and blood show Him who Jesus was. Peter heard from God. His SPIRIT picked that up when his intellect would otherwise have learned it from men. Jesus wanted their spirits active.



No, since he ends up saying he simply has to deal with shallow things in order to help them out. Partisan tendencies, taking brothers to court, HAIR (!!!!), communion, abuse of gifts, physical resurrection. They're all outward things.

So he is simply telling them he cannot deal with them about deep things, not that what they think is deep is actually shallow. They were likely quite intellectual people!

It's interesting you think 1 Corinthians 1-2 is related to the other problems addressed. Many don't see the letter that way -- they see natural breaks in the letter where Paul switches gears and addresses situations. This first half is a defense of his own ministry and the folly of Grecco-Roman thought (worldiness) as it relates to the Gospel. Sure, there is a relationship somewhat, but I'd have to say I don't see these first couple chapters directly related. There are natural breaks, separate general and universal arguments and applications given for the other parts of the letter (or letters depending on what you believe about the writing of Corinthians).

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are simply repeating things the Gospel stated. You are being SIMPLE in the gospel,. because Jesus is the ONLY way amongst many assumed ways. THAT is what simplicity in Christ means.

I wasn't referring to "simplicity in Christ" -- nor have I disputed the exegesis of the given verse you provided.


Sure. I accept that. But I simply see no other conclusions, and I cannot propose anything else until I honestly do see other conclusions.

Well, there it is. I appreciate the honesty.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

It's interesting you think 1 Corinthians 1-2 is related to the other problems addressed. Many don't see the letter that way -- they see natural breaks in the letter where Paul switches gears and addresses situations. This first half is a defense of his own ministry and the folly of Grecco-Roman thought (worldiness) as it relates to the Gospel. Sure, there is a relationship somewhat, but I'd have to say I don't see these first couple chapters directly related. There are natural breaks, separate general and universal arguments and applications given for the other parts of the letter (or letters depending on what you believe about the writing of Corinthians).

I will keep in mind the reasons you mention that may be why Paul said what he did in the start of the letter. Thanks!