|
| 07-27-2015 11:45 AM | ||||||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 07-27-2015 06:01 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Nope, says the LC apologist. We don't care for that. Because Witness Lee didn't care for that. So neither do we. WL was so keen to distinguish himself and his ministry from the rest of Christianity that he even separated himself and his ministry from the Bible. WL and the LC were so zealous to reject any orientation toward heaven as merely of darkened Christianity that they ended up ignoring the actual Bible, when it showed an orientation toward heaven. WL provided the LC with an alternative interpretational scheme, which included both implicit and explicit criticisms of Christian thought, and once that was set on the Bible, the LC could freely ignore the text. So how things should be "as in heaven" meant nothing, and the NJ descending "down from heaven" meant nothing. That didn't fit the scheme, so it didn't exist. Next time you talk to an LC'er, bring up a verse that isn't trumpeted in the LSM hermeneutic. You'll either get a blank stare, and silence, or they'll get uncomfortable and will redirect the conversation to one of "their" verses. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 04:43 PM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
And certainly this recent thought exercise of mine (of course I speak not for other posters) has been similar. My question might have been posed thus: In the parables of Jesus, what do we see of the connections between this life and the life to come? And my attempts to tease meaning out of details like "owing 50 measures of wheat versus 100 measures" and so forth really doesn't go anywhere definitive. There is of course a "big picture" which most readers sense anyway, however they articulate it. Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 02:45 PM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
Just like the examples about Samuel and the others, now adding Paul's comments about the possible end of his life soon, they do not speak to the nature of the "between" life (or time) — the time between death and resurrection — in a way that gives any clear understanding of what that involves. And the point of the passages is something other than that interim period. And then your point-by-point dissection of my longer post. I will provide an overview assessment in this way. You missed the point. Even the way you responded to so many items shows that you are missing the point. For example, I created a hypothetical statement by a "postmodern" person that said Quote:
Quote:
By the way. That post was not just for you. And even if it was, finding a testimony of someone who had some kind of vision as the result of whatever it is that we call "near death experiences" does not support the need for better understanding of what happens between death and the resurrection. It just proves that our God is real. However it came to be, whether a vision given in an extreme situation (nearly dying) or the partial opening of the veil that separates what is beyond the grave from what is on this side, it is proof of God. But it is not evidence of how this "between time" exists. If it is a vision, it could very well be a vision of what will be after the resurrection. How are we to know? And how are we to decide how to build a theology surrounding this? And for what purpose? Being the first to do it? Yes. We are joining here to discuss things somewhat theological. But we are far short of the kind of plurality required to consider anything we come up with as substantial. If we could submit it to others and they ultimately come to the same conclusion, that would be nice. But what does it do for us? Should we set out to make it a point of teaching? I always have questions concerning some kinds of "afterlife" teachings. But most of what some Sunday School teacher is going to provide is little more than questionable terminology surrounding the little we actually know something about. We will be with Jesus. He is in heaven. The fact that heaven comes to the earth is not really something to gripe at them for not including in their discussion. They may be a little too enamored with their near-mythology about what it will be like. But are we really doing much more than trying to pin down this near-mythology with better speculation? And for what purpose? What do we gain from it? Lee thought that his over-analyzed, over-adjectivized version of scripture and its meaning relegated the rest of Christianity to the status of cattle in a field. We know better. But are we just beginning to chase after a different set of over-analyzed, over-nuanced theological constructs to replace those old ones with? We may not be as dogmatic about them as Lee and his followers have been. But where does it stop? When we realize that we forgot what is the primary core of the faith? When we remember that the command was to go and make followers and teach them to obey the commands, not go and teach minds to assent to better theology. And, in this lifetime, there is no way to assert that whatever you come up with concerning pinning-down paradise v heaven v purgatory v Abraham's bosom is certain enough to hang any hats upon. And even if you actually think you can, it won't make a bit of difference to the current living of any of those Christ-followers besides thinking they know something better. This is not the first topic like it. We no longer dissect the bad theology of Lee and the LRC. We dance around the bad acts (and they need to be trampled on) and try to pass judgment on every other Christian group that is still too much like the things that Lee said were bad. Then we start trying to delve into things that the NT would seem to disagree with (disagree with us). Things like whether the whole idea of church leaders, elder, etc., was just something that Paul and others slipped into the account and it was an error. We despise the ground of dirt and then wonder how how so many groups exist in a single city, and try to figure out a different angle on making it all one. Or doing it "right" so that we can feel like our group has it right even if others don't. But we aren't going to get nasty about it like Lee. Just talk about it here. Now we want a better-defined "between life." Why? To what end? I'm done with it. My objections are not to the actual accounts in the scripture or to suggest that the Buddhist did not have the vision he did and that his conversion is somehow false. My objections are to the chasing of more pins to put angels on. To yet one more truly irrelevant thing to capture our imaginations and thoughts while the important goes silent. If this topic had been started by Bilbo, and was continually pushed as important to pursue by him, many would be screaming "troll" because the effect would be to drag-line a hook for an irrelevant topic and sucker as many as possible into it while the important topics go wanting. I'm not calling you or the others trolls. But in the grand scheme of things, whether an irrelevancy is being perpetrated by a troll or by someone else does not change the actual effect it has. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 01:46 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: More 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. The context of these verses is that Paul might be martyred and this is his mindset. When he says "to die" the context is clearly a physical death. This is not allegorical. When he says he has a desire to "depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" you cannot read that to mean that "the suffering of my life is over and his labor is finished" because in the next verse he makes it clear that it isn't finished, rather "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you". The context and intent I think is very rich in detail. Like Stephen, if he is martyred he will be with Christ. (Perhaps he can even see Jesus standing.) He is quite excited at the prospect of being with Christ, but he knows his labor is not finished and he needs to remain for our sakes. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 01:33 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 09:51 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
The issue with Samuel speaking to Saul was not how it came to be. Talk about missing the point. You are majoring on the periphery. Does the scripture bother to tell you how it came to be? And precisely in what way Samuel had existed since death until that time? If not, then I suggest it was not the point of the passage. It is more of a distraction for those with ADHD. "Squirrel!" |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 09:44 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" A few posts back, MacDuff probably said some of what I would say better than I would. I will not say that I agree with him on some of his positions. And I surely would not simply take the Catholic position over that of Protestantism. Except in a few things. And those seem to be the things that are underpinning the nature of the recent arguments. I do not simply agree with the Catholics on these. But note that they are at least rational and consistent in how they approach and deal with scripture. Sola Scriptura was developed in response to some decrees of the RCC that seemed to fly in the face of what scripture actually said. Since the RCC's position is that the church is the final arbiter of what scripture means, they think it is their prerogative. They are wrong. But the idea that scripture simply speaks clearly is nothing short of ludicrous. If we are going to dump the church, and go to scripture alone, then it becomes me and my Bible. And we all get to say. And we simply don't agree. (And look where that has gotten us.) While I have no desire to even consider a regular "diet" of Masses, rosaries, Hail Marys etc., the fighting among the Protestants is proof that what they think is important about in understanding scripture is mostly garbage. And in the midst of the fighting, for many it is ending. What I note in so many posts and positions is that we have virtually all been part of (or are still part of) a group that made such a big deal about being free from the law. But despite this, we view whatever our position is as so important that everyone else ought to agree with it. Even when we dump the LRC, we want to make rules about how leaders ought to be (and whether there should even be leaders) or we are degenerate. We mostly don't say it that strongly, but we look down our noses at a denomination simply because it is a denomination. We despise a preacher because he is paid. We think that the fact that there is someone who is primary among leadership is problematic. But does the record in Acts ever suggest such a problem? It is clear that Peter took the lead at a time. At another time, it was James. There is no indication in the written account that this was a problem. I don't say that there are no problems anywhere. But the problems are the actual problems, not the ones layered on by implication of purist theology. And this is my beef, of sorts. I have seemed to take on some pretty strong opinions on things lately. But how often have you paid attention to the position I take? How often is it like the latest one here on life-after-death? We are poised to develop a new and better theology about how to say it right (and without intention, start looking down our noses at those who don't do it that way or agree with it). My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others. I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error. There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together. I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right." But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication? And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true. And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me. You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed. You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are. I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord. I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so. I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree. Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 09:05 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:59 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
The closest verse you can get is to say that the "unbelieving" will be cast into the Lake of fire. But, as you have been so vehemently arguing you cannot assume that this must be equivalent to something spoken in another book. Especially since within the same context of the consummation of all things in Revelation it says that "the nations will bring their glory into the New Jerusalem". And in several places it says that the believers will "rule and reign" over the nations. There are too many verses in the New Testament that would cause you to question that, for example the verse I already gave you, 2Peter 2:20-21 If every non believer is cast into the lake of fire how could it be "better" for someone to have never believed than after having believed to turn back from the right way? |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:56 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
How do you explain Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus on the Mount of transfiguration? How do you explain the verses that says Jesus preached to those in Tartarus, they were aware of what was happening. How do you explain the rich man being tormented asking to go talk to his brothers? Where do you make this stuff up? Why do you teach beyond what is written in the Bible. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:55 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
Please tell me where I did. Anyone? This has been my point. This is a simple statement. It is (arguably) right there in the scripture. (I say arguably because there are some that think it is not quite so clear. But so far they have not been persuasive.) You don't need to understand where it is, precisely, that you go upon death and before the resurrection. You don't even need to understand the nature of the body you will receive upon resurrection. But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written. I will not comment specifically on the other "what if" kind of things you bring up. To All: I will provide another post in a moment that will underscore my base. Where I am coming from. And if you really can't tolerate it after that, then I realize that there is a problem here that makes my participation nearly worthless. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:47 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Now this debate is central to this discussion and I would argue there is no way to reconcile the verses on "salvation" unless you determine that the word "saved" does not always refer to the same salvation. If you agree with that, which is basically your premise as I understand it in this post (just because a word is common to two different verses doesn't mean they are referring to the same truth), then you are forced to define what happens to a person after they die. After all the word "overcome" is clearly making a fine delineation between two "saved" believers. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:45 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven I'll respond to just this one and you might understand me better and be able to presume how I think concerning the others. Quote:
And, even if I remain aware after death, and am actually, like the story of the rich man and Lazarus, in "Abraham's bosom" so to speak, my destiny is secure and I can say that I am with Christ because the suffering of life is over and "it is finished." I don't really like this analogy (for obvious reasons that you will see when you read on). But if I got great tickets to a sporting event or primo concert and then later came to realize that there are now 3,000 people standing in line to get the remaining 1,000 tickets, I can say that I am "in" while many of those cannot say that. But until the concert time actually arrives and they open the doors, no one is literally "in." What Paul says may or may not be like that. "It is decided and final. I have confidence that it is simply so." "In any case, I'm with you." Remember. It is language. And in some cases, the precision of language is not in every possible outcome of what that means at the moment, but what it means in context and in intent. |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:40 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Please reconcile this word by Peter with that "common" teaching 2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. If everyone who knows Jesus as Lord and Savior is saved, and everyone who doesn't is going to hell then how could it be better for someone to have never known Jesus and the way of righteousness? How does anyone preach the gospel without reconciling this? |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:33 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
What you have demonstrated is that there are several references that somewhat fit together, and somewhat confuse one another. At least as long as the thought is that these are all very literal, precise-meaning phrases intending to provide a "modern," systematic, and cohesive theology. And if that is the goal, then there is room for complaint about inconsistencies. But I believe that you will see that each of these are specific references that are not intended so much to tell us about what happens after death as to reflect upon the results of the actions and decisions of this life. We had some disagreement some months back about the cohesiveness of a series of parables that Jesus spoke. There was the field with the weeds sown by the enemy, followed by several others — some relating to growing and harvesting, some used leaven, and at least one referred to fishing. I don't remember if you had a particular thought on this, but my impression from these was that even where the same thing came up a second time, it was not necessarily for the purpose of creating a larger theology surrounding that thing, but of using some aspect of it to make a point. Another is where Jesus speaks at least three parables in a row concerning sheep, shepherds, sheep pens, the gate, etc. In each of those, he made a specific point. Some think that the use of the common collective in the metaphorical sense was to build a complete metaphor concerning Christ. But if that is true, there is a problem. In one, Christ is the shepherd. But in another it is clear that men are shepherds. So it is not as simple as some larger whole. And for those who just got lost in all of that, the thing that I see in these various tidbits about what happens after death are these:
|
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:31 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Who makes you the arbiter of which verses are clear and which aren't, and which are worth being interested in and which aren't? |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 08:14 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
But, if they think they might come back to life to live here on this earth and get another crack at it all, what does that do to their salvation? Once again, you throw out a somewhat extreme example and assert that you need to be able to teach them about what happens when they die. It seems that the only clear word is that you die, then face judgment (one way or the other). Much of any "teaching" on other things in between is sort of speculative. The need is for belief in Christ and his gospel. It is not for theological analysis of what happens after death beyond what is clearly stated. And, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4, don't go beyond what is written. Let the words of scripture speak for themselves. They do not need embellishment or improvement to deal with those who believe in reincarnation. They just need to get to the heart and mind of the person to believe in and follow Christ. I'm not saying that there is no value in persuading a believer that still holds to reincarnation. But the value is not "life-changing" in the ultimate sense. It probably will help them toward sanctification now since now will probably become more important. But scavenging the little actually written about what is after death and before the New Jerusalem (or at least the rapture) to build a more robust teaching on the subject does not appear to be important. It surely did not rise to the level of a teaching for Jesus. Or even for Paul. Referring to 1 Corinthians 15 only asserts that there is a resurrection. And it gives a fleeting hint at the nature of the new body we will receive then. But it says nothing about between now and then (after death). |
|||||||||
| 11-12-2012 04:38 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Does the LRC have a mixed agenda in the gospel? Is at least one stated goal of the gospel they preach to "spread the ministry"? |
|||||||||
| 11-11-2012 03:45 PM | ||||||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
If spreading the gospel or even fellowship among believers does not come from nor directly contributes to LSM-oriented fellowship, there is no ear to hear. |
|||||||||
| 11-11-2012 10:34 AM | ||||||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" I hear what you're saying ZNP. While I was meeting in the local churches, it became obvious the agenda about the gospel was who is "good material" for the ministry? Meaning bringing the gospel of Jesus to the unsaved is secondary to adding membership to the local churches. If you spoke the gospel to someone and they ended up meeting somewhere else, yuur time was wasted because it did not issue in positive results for "the ministry". However what is lost sight of is as Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 3:4-7; "For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth." |
|||||||||
| 11-11-2012 03:49 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 09:20 PM | ||||||||||
| TLFisher |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 02:18 PM | ||||||||||
| MacDuff |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" ZNPaaneah I feel your pain. Igzy said the same thing about what little I was interested in on this forum. But you have to admit that, unless you believe that overcoming refers to the next life, the after life has little to do with overcoming. But then, maybe we should leave that to Aron who started this thread. And he's as much a part of this conversation on the after life as any. Sorry. I won't mention it again. Nor be a part of this conversation, seeing as I have no personal interest in the after life. Not yet, not yet being there. Being 72 years, it won't be long I think. And I think I already said that to me, all that matters is that we're with Jesus, whether in this life or the next. Whether or not we're in Christ in this life determines where we'll be in the next. And at the moment, I have enough to concern me in this life. Thanks for your response. It should be considered sufficient for both OBW and myself, and any others who questioned your emphasis on the matter. MacDuff |
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 02:02 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 12:29 PM | ||||||||||
| MacDuff |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" ZNPaaneah The word paradise is only found three times in the New Testament. And in none of those three times is the word defined or said to be the same as something else. Quote:
Not being a Protestant, I would say that Luther’s idea of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides are based on personal interpretation more than on the Bible itself. But then, that’s just a personal opinion, and the opinion of the RCC, the largest of the denominations, and of Eastern Orthodoxy, which is no small denomination, though it seems so in America where it is a minority denomination. I realize that Protestants get themselves in a quandary about the smallest matters as they try to define every detail of “the Faith” via Biblical interpretation. A natural result of thinking that the Bible is more in its own right than it really is. And many Protestant denominations are created because of disagreements about matters that aren’t very important. Whether or not to use musical instruments or a particular musical instrument in meetings, for example. The maxim that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it is apropos here. The idea of reincarnation isn’t a Christian idea. Never has been. Nevertheless, there are Christians who believe in it today and can quote you Bible verses that substantiates the belief in their own mind. And some of them are Catholics, who you would think would know better. The point OBW is trying to make, I think, is a concern that the next thing you may question is how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. There are many things we should be concerned about without trying to get into things that may be of no concern to us as an explicit explanation in our present life. And like OBW, I think that trying to explicitly define paradise and some of the other Biblical references to the future life may be in that realm. Better minds than those of us on this forum have tried to define such things and they disagree. Why should we think we are any better? The RCC has defined some of these things. And even they don’t spend a whole lot of time on such matters according to their most recent Catechism, and other Catholic writings. They just say this is what the Church has thought for centuries and go on with more important things like the Mass and prayer and their importance as experiences of God today. Some Catholics may emphasize such things as appearances of Mary over the last couple centuries. The RCC itself does not. But that doesn’t bother those Catholics who emphasize such things. A summary, for those who prefer short posts. There are important matters and not so important matters. And I think OBW is trying to steer us back to the more important matters. Such as, what does the term overcomer mean and what does it mean to us today? MacDuff |
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 11:07 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
You had the image of the ark. Inside is safe. Outside, it's over. Also the image of Sodom and Gomorrah. Every thing is hunky-dory until one day it starts raining fire. Game over. Esau, though he wept with many tears, was not able to reclaim the birthright. It was gone -- it had passed through his hands and wasn't coming back. The rebellious angels, kept in chains, waiting for the judgment of the last day. The rich man, unable to get a drop of water from Lazarus, who was separated by an unbridgeable chasm. There are arguably no "details" here, just a general, but consistent and clear theme. God is patient, but once God says it's over, it's over. |
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 10:32 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
1. Jesus told the thief "this day you will be with Me in paradise". That is one detail. 2. Paul said that when he died "he would be with Christ". That is another detail. 3. Paul said that "the dead in Christ rise first". That is a third detail. Of course there are more. Jesus talked about Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham, and a gulf that separates the two parts of Hades. Peter talks about different realms in Hades as well, mentioning Tartarus where the fallen angels are held. Then of course you can talk about the False Prophet and Anti Christ who both "went to their place until the appointed time". There is also the very thorny question of Elijah and Moses. Where did they go. If John the Baptist was Elijah who is to come, what does that mean? Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 10:21 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 10:16 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-10-2012 04:20 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" In Acts 24:25 Paul was lecturing the governor Felix on righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come. Felix became nervous and said, "Okay, Paul, that's enough for now!" What a gospel that Paul preached... may we all be blessed with such hearts, lips and tongues! What I love about the Bible is that it often gives us such bare sketches: here Paul is presenting Felix with "the judgment to come", but we get no details. Yet we see its effect on the governor. Felix was supposed to be judging Paul, yet when God though Paul's words began to judge Felix, he was clearly affected. So I agree with the point of OBW that the details in and of themselves are not requisite. For example, we don't see them in Acts 24:25, yet we see their power. May God's Word so touch our hearts. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 11:29 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
The thing is that we don't need paradise or heaven defined to deal with them. And at the same time, we aren't even sure how to read some of them no matter when any alleged punishment might happen. And if we want to discuss "when," I'm not sure that it is specifically defined. Maybe it actually happens after death and before the resurrection. (That would coincide with the Catholic purgatory without taking on all of their baggage.) Or maybe it is during the 1,000 years (assuming that this is actual and not metaphorical — not saying, just noting some uncertainty). There is a reference to outer darkness and to weeping and gnashing of teeth. We like to read that parable as clearly talking about the saved (because of the word "servant"). But there were 12 disciples and one of them was taken over by Satan and betrayed Jesus. Yes, that was before salvation as we know it. . . . Or was it? Are we entirely sure that we know what it all means? What about salvation. Grace? No works? Then what about "working out your salvation? These are at least somewhat important. They deal with your life and your after-life. But the difference between heaven and paradise does not really deal with meaningful issues for this life. It is angels on a pin. There may be an answer. But knowing it gives no brownie points and doesn't help anyone be closer to God. I cannot say that I buy Lee's version of some of those parables. At least not entirely. But I have never heard anyone deal with them in a way that is completely cohesive. But, having said that, I understand what the thrust of them is. It is to be righteous, watching, etc., now in this life. I don't need to understand little dark rooms or summer school to figure that out. Sometimes a warning is just that — a warning. It needs no dissection. trying to pick your way through the minutia to arrive at the entire knowledge of it seems like trying to figure out what you can get away with and still meet the criteria. (Not saying you are doing this.) But if your goal is to follow, then it would seem that being warned is sufficient. I don't want weeping and gnashing of teeth. I prefer to leave the details of what that really means undiscovered. Forever. That was the message. "Don't go there." "Avoid that!" "Do what the master commands." (Oddly despising works is contrary to what the master commands.) The message is not to figure out how there is some literal outer darkness where you will weep and gnash your teeth — and get all of its details correct. So, to the extent that we take these words and heed the warning, we are wise. To the extent that we try to build a novel out of a couple of paragraphs, it won't hurt us (probably not) but neither will it help us. But it might take our eyes off of the goal of obedience that was the command to be followed. You don't need to respond. I think we are essentially on the same page. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 10:46 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
I know you are not addressing my points, so I may be off the mark by addressing yours as if they pertain to mine. But I shall, anyway.  My quibble with the Nee/Lee school is because I like it. I like how they stressed responsibility, reward, and warning of loss to the believers. There seems to be at least some biblical ground for making those points, and saying that they fit alongside eternal life, as we understand it (I know Lee made a straw man out of "christianity" and acted as if they didn't discuss christian responsibility, when actually they do. Still, the subject remains valid). The subject is important, even if some of it is covered scantily in the Bible and subsequent Christian writings. If I ask, "What does it mean to owe 100 measures of wheat, versus 50?", from the parable in Luke 16, I am not "off the reservation". What does "many stripes" mean versus "few stripes" mean in Luke 12? If Jesus taught on it, I am not beyond bounds at least considering it. But our dilemma is that with this topic, you have to piece together a composite picture. Therefore I think that any treatment should be scholarly (broad, careful, reasoned) and very tentative. We should do a lot of thinking and have little confidence. Lee, on the other hand, did little scholarship and had lots of confidence. So we got taken in by his "confidence game" (pun intended). Lee said "This means that" and that was that. I think what happens today and what happens after we die are connected. That was part of the message of Jesus, and of those who followed him. And death is a big deal, even to the unbelievers. But "what happens after we die" is at best, very vague, from our perspective. So we should be somewhat modest about making any bold assertions. Love one another, treat each other with respect, try to live properly, believe in Jesus. And carefully and humbly consider what Jesus' parables might have meant to those who listened to Him. I don't think we have exhausted the subject. And I do think it bears on our daily living. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 09:38 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But more importantly, does Paul answer because it was important to know, or to deal with funny teachings coming from others (some that you might be labeling as "false teachers" in the other thread). I read the account Paul gives and know that it is not simply physical. It is spiritual. But not simply spiritual. It was touchable. And when Paul was done, he probably hoped that they could get back to living this life. In any case, the fact that there is a small bit on it does not mean that we have a need to figure it out beyond what was recorded. Quote:
But the present life is the only thing that will impact your future life. And that only the realm of "in" or "out" and, if in, in the realm of "reward." The body you get is the body you get. Knowing about it in details beyond what is told fairly simply and in few words is, at best, speculative. In other words, it is not actually knowing. It is just guessing. And if you are right or wrong will not affect whether or not it is your experience at that time. What do you achieve beyond claiming some knowledge that is, at best, tenuous? And what benefit is it with respect to the Kingdom? Worrying about my body after the resurrection is a waste of my time. It will be what it will be. And the little we are told would appear to be enough as far as God was/is concerned. Your mocking question is not actually asked by any of those people. They do not conclude that you need to go beyond what is recorded. Jesus did not say that we should know everything. He didn't even say that the teachers of the law should know everything. But he did suggest that the point he was making in John 3 should have been understood, or at least something on his radar to think about. At least for the teachers. Martin Luther did not need to know where we go when we die to conclude that faith is the only thing that saves us. And that once dead, there is no more opportunity for faith. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus should have settled that. Paul set out to deal with some claiming there is no resurrection. And going along with that was a question about what kind of body we would get assuming there is a resurrection. Paul's answer was that it is not simply a reconstituted physical body. It is also spiritual. Like the one Jesus got. And that seemed to be enough. Got them over their problems. So which one of these needed to explain the difference in paradise and heaven? And if we "get to be with Jesus" upon death, as you mentioned in a prior post, and He is said to be in "heaven," then do we not "go to heaven"? What else do we need? But the real question that I keep asking and you have not answered is this: If you are right/wrong, what does it do to your theology? To your salvation? To your eternal destiny? The only thing affected will be your theology. And right theology is not required. Just being right with God. That will dictate everything. And don't you dare come back and say that just because I said getting theology right is not the important thing that I am saying that it really doesn't matter what you believe. I shouldn't have to say that, but the little question about Martin Luther, Jesus, and Paul would suggest that I need to. When I speak of theology in this post, I am referring to the many things which are not the core of the faith. Things that do not decide whether one is a believer in Christ or just in some good teachings. Many believers in Christ do not buy into dispensational theology. That does not affect their destiny. Some baptize by sprinkling. It does not reduce their salvation. There may be a right and a wrong, but getting it right is not central to the Kingdom life. And there are a bunch of theoretical theologians somewhere that have wondered how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Deep stuff. There might be enough information in the scriptures to at least postulate an answer. But it is completely off the reservation to think about it. The question(s) about what happens after our death is(are) not totally irrelevant. But the important things are broad and are covered fairly clearly. More details than are given becomes speculative, at best. At some point, the best answer is to say "it doesn't matter. It is distracting us from what does matter." You don't "get ready" for His return by studying the difference in heaven and paradise or filling in more details on our resurrected body. ("Will be able to fly? To just be wherever we want?" Does it really matter? Is that more important that what is actually recorded in the scripture?) You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category. And it does not fly in the face of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, or Paul said to the Corinthians. How Martin Luther went about trying to argue against indulgences is really not important. Funny thing is that it was never decided. The discussion did not happen. He was simply rejected by Rome and taken under the wings of the German government. Politics was the decider. The issue was not discussed. Salvation by faith was. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 08:38 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: How did heaven begin? Quote:
1,000 years is not too small to measure. The amount of ink given to the 1,000 years in scripture is, when dealing in percentages, too small to have any real meaning. The purpose was part of a comment on the primary thrust of scripture. It is not the 1,000 years. It is not the "tribulation." And despite it being the ending of everything, even the New J is not the thrust. It is what we do with this life that is the primary agenda and topic of scripture. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 05:30 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
First, I thought Anderson's critique of the Nee/Lee "overcomer" school unfair. Nee & Lee don't overturn Ephesians 2's "...it is by grace that you have been saved, it is of faith, not of works. It is the gift of God". They try to point out the scriptural warnings of sloth and indolence. "Behold, I am coming, and My reward is with me according to your works." In the Epistle to Hebrews, in the epistles to the the Asian ekklesia in Revelations, and elsewhere in the NT (e.g. Galatians, Jude, and 2 Peter) we see warnings to the believers. Paul's word that "You may suffer loss; you will be saved, but through fire" also seems worthy of discussion. But my critique was that the Nee/Lee discussion on this topic was about as satisfying as one of Rudyard Kipling's "Just So" stories. You get no references, no possible explanations. Just that Witness Lee says it is so. So I found it to be crude, simplistic, and unsatisfactory. I said at the beginning of the thread that I don't claim to be able to thoroughly examine the issue, and also that this forum may not the venue to do so. I merely wanted to show in some of Jesus' parables a few possible nuances that are ignored in the Nee/Lee school. But I don't imagine that a few verses constitute proofs showing definitively the hidden realms. That, in fact, is my objection of Lee: that he's trying to do this. Jesus prayed to the Father: "Your will be done on earth, as it is done in Heaven". I think it is important for us to consider how things are done in heaven. That means, for example, not lording it over one another. Not being covetous for temporal gain, and being snared by deceitful things of the world. We have outward laws, but Jesus said that if you break the laws in your heart, you have broken them in the heavenly realms. Look at His teachings on adultery, for example. "If you look at a woman because of lust in your heart, you have committed adultery." These are warnings, spoken to believers, not to unbelievers. He is speaking to His disciples. It is hard to make it into the kingdom of heaven, and we must struggle to get in. "Masticating the processed and consummated Triune God" may loom large in Witness Lee's economy, but perhaps being an overcomer depends more on endurance in righteousness, obedience, repentance, and mercy (for example). If we oversimplify the heavenly realms, we can end up, like the LSMites, trying to "make it", i.e. to be overcomers. Because their goal is ill-formed they either get frustrated and give up, or trust that their relationship with a certain publishing house in Anaheim, California is a bellwether of their spiritual condition. Both routes, I believe, go into the ditch. Our Father is nuanced, detailed, and fine. Every hair is counted. Every thought is measured. Just go forward, carefully. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 04:57 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: How did heaven begin? I didn't have time to find OBW's quote, but I am so glad to hear this! OBW since you feel this way can you come to NY and get gas for me? The lines are about an hour long (absolutely nothing on your scale), you can't see the gas station from the back, you just line up in faith, and there might be a few fights. Anyway, let me know, I really appreciate this. |
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 04:42 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
How did heaven begin? Quote:
 Thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure!?! Did I really hear you correctly? I must not have read that post to the end the first time around. What kind of calendar year are you on? That's like 20 adult life times! That's an extremely long time to sit around and wait. I had a guy freak out behind me cause I was going "too slow" for him. He was forced to "wait" like 10 extra seconds. I tried to explain to him that "10 seconds was infinitesimally too small to measure." His jaws were aflappin' too fast to hear me. 
|
|||||||||
| 11-09-2012 04:16 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 05:20 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
I noticed you read my post all the way to the end. Success! |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 05:14 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
 In I Corinthians 1, Paul noted that Greeks seek wisdom, but the Jews indeed ask for signs. Here he noted cultural differences, and how God and the apostles operated differently, based on their audience, in order to save some. In ch. 9 Paul explains how he even became all things to all men in order to reach them with good news. Our heavenly Father has never been restricted to some "new way," or even the so-called "God-ordained way." I believe many people have been affected by these stories of near death experiences. Many people have been ministered to by angels. Some have seen God's hand in "climate change," and that has affected their hearts to believe. God has not only been "creative" in creation, but even more so in the new creation. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 03:21 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Why does everything have to be for "my" benefit. If it helps some come to the Lord isn't that more than reason enough? Suppose some kid in a very strict Muslim family, perhaps in a country where Christian meetings are prohibited, dies and is resuscitated. You don't think that kids testimony will be powerful to his family? How can this kid grow up to to attack Christian churches after having an experience like that?
|
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 03:19 PM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
 And your response should be: (at me)
|
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 03:16 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
2nd, again you didn't read the posts. Jesus told Nicodemus that to be a teacher in Israel you have to know, at the very least the things of this earth, but the top standard is Jesus who also knows the things of heaven. Being able to explain these things is a testimony that Jesus is Lord and that He has ascended into heaven and descended from heaven. 3rd, Paul said 1Cor 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" Now these are those who deny the resurrection. You cannot preach the gospel if you cannot handle these challenges. It is not just about you and your walk, it is about helping new ones with any and all concerns they have. So let's see, this was important to Martin Luther, Jesus and Paul. But not important to OBW. Who to listen to?
|
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 01:35 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
We who are long time believers in Jesus (and heaven) do not need others' testimonies for our faith. These wonderful testimonies may, however, inspire us on our journey. Some of His other chosen ones, however, may be drawn to Jesus for the first time! In this regard I see the Father's love -- He is using all kinds of signs and wonders in these last days to draw men to His Son. Whether dreams, or near death experiences, or just old fashioned altar calls. Note: 3 short paragraphs. Each one short, quick, and to the point. Not a wasted word, and less than 500 words. 
|
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 01:26 PM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
First. If "Jesus is in heaven and we are going to be with Him," then either we actually do go to heaven to be with Him now, or we will eventually be with Him wherever he is after our resurrection since he may not be in heaven then. But if the latter is the case, then we do not simply "go to be with Him upon death. Getting circular. And it still does not affect this life — the only part that is important to "get right." If we get that right, the rest will fall in place. If we get it wrong, then it still won't matter. But getting where we go upon death right changes nothing. Second. On the "sowing" reference in your second point, that would seem to be a picture, not something so literal. You didn't really say one way or the other, but the way you are going on about this makes it seem as if you are certain that it is a literal thing, not just a picture. Third. Whether you go to a place (heaven or paradise — assuming a difference) or just to limbo until the resurrection, how does it change anything about this life in a meaningful way? And how does it affect what happens at the resurrection? In other words, why do you think it is important to figure out? And "because it's in the Bible" is not a reason that it is important. All those rabbis and priests who spent so much time trying to decide what was "work" relative to the sabbath were just trying to figure it all out. And who would have presumed that speaking would ever be considered "work"? Yet that is all Jesus did when he healed the invalid by the Sheep Gate pool. That was really important. It has been suggested that until they figured out it was Jesus who had done it, they probably didn't really think speaking could be considered work. But it is in scripture, so I guess we have an obligation to beat that dead horse to death. It is there. Must be important. Just as important as Jesus healing the man. I know this sounds sarcastic. And it could be taken that way. But this is my honest take on "because it's in the Bible." It seems to me to be another case for missing the important things said while turning snippets into fortune cookies for an "out of context" experience. The Bible does not say "paradise is thus and so," and "heaven is the same as (or different than) paradise." It does not imply that there is content to the "between time" of after death but before resurrection that we need to focus on. It focuses almost entirely on now. Plus a little vague reference to resurrection and after. And I say "little focus" because even much of Revelation is about things on the earth. Even the so-called millennium is little more than a blip in the entirety of scripture. It is as if it is 99% now, 0.85% the 7-year "tribulation," and 0.15% the New J. The thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 12:25 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: heaven Near-death stories about seeing heaven don't do much for me because they are unverifiable and they don't add anything to my faith. I'm going to believe in heaven whether I hear them or not. I guess there are people who think, "Wow. I never believed in heaven before, but since that little boy told his story about going there now I believe." But I'm not one of them. I'm much more impressed by the stories of Muslims in the Middle East who say Jesus came to them in their dreams and preached the gospel to them, and have converted because of it. Those have the ring of truth. See here. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 11:53 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
1. the overriding principle is not that we go to paradise when we die but, as it says in Phil, we go to be with the Lord. This we feel is because our life is hid in the Lord. So when the Lord told the thief He would be with him this day in Paradise it wasn't because that is where we go, but because he was going to be with the Lord. 2. As for "the dead in Christ rising first" we determined, based on 1Cor 15 that when we die our body is sown as a seed and the in resurrection it is raised a spiritual body, like "the bodies" that Jesus had, or like those that the ones who are resuscitated report seeing. This is the reason it says "the dead in christ rise" because just like a seed sprouting our transfigured bodies will also "sprout" in type. 3. Therefore we also concluded that Christianity is not "off the mark" to say that we "go to heaven when we die" though the emphasis is wrong. Since Jesus is currently in heaven and we are going to be with Him. 4. Using the Lord's words to the thief on the cross though is clearly an erroneous basis for this teaching. As to your question "Do we need to understand..." Paul himself in 1Cor 15 said that "some will ask ..." in reference to what happens when we die. Since Christ has been to every realm of the universe we should be able to fellowship this and it is Paul that explains this. So yes, you should be able to explain in a coherent way to one who asks what happens when you die. As for this forum it is very relevant because it is a shining example of how the LRC thinks that they are rich and know all mysteries but are in fact blind. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 11:14 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 11:13 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm sure that they aren't. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 11:09 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
I tell that story because I know that there is something in the spiritual realm that we are not truly knowledgeable about. I know there are demons and angels. There is God and there is Satan. But the accounts from these kids may be real, or they may be imagined. The details that they supposedly knew nothing about may not have been as unknown as was thought. Or they may have truly not known and learned something factual while on the brink of death. But something that always keeps me guarded on these is that studies of the stories of near-death experiences show that the person almost always sees things that are consistent with the "mythology" of their culture. A Chinese Buddhist sees things from that culture. And Indian Hindu from that culture. So many aspects of the stories are culturally centered. But I did say "most." There are some that take some explaining away. Mostly because the expectations are not met. The vision was not consistent with the culture or belief. Or there is the thought that details that could (or at least should) not have been known were revealed. For me, I take note of them. But I realize that my faith is not based on whether someone thinks they "went to heaven" (or actually did) and lived to tell about it. It is based on the realization that Jesus is who he said he was/is. That prophecy was fulfilled. And so on. For the child that met a great grandfather and saw them at a younger age, since the description could be verified with photographs, could the child have seen them even if they were not remembered specifically? Not trying to debunk the stories. Just noting that faith based on these things will be as tenuous as the evidence that it is really miraculous rather than a product of a busy mind under stress. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 10:49 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
Do we need to understand everything in this detailed way because it's there (like climbing a mountain "because it's there")? Seems that there is quite little that actually answers the question about precisely where you go when you die prior to the end times. And the terminology of what may or may not be the same or different about heaven v paradise is really not clear. And I'm supposed to conclude that it is important to know the difference? What is that supposed to do for me? |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 05:58 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
By this I don't argue for some universalist, watered-down version, but rather that the power, the simplicity, the purity and the visceral impact of the Spirit of the Man Jesus has been largely lost. We believers get a brief glimpse, then we typically spend the rest of our time in either empty ritual or empty doctrine. And the curious and open person visits our ekklesia and says, like your Buddhist, "I don't know what they are talking about". |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 05:51 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
http://www.embracedbythelight.com/ And I had not considered the "Jesus" part of it so strongly, but you seem to have a point. I remember a story of an English rock star, Robert Plant, who wrote a blues number called "In my time of dying", in which at one point he sings, "Oh my Jesus!" over and over. Years later, he was in a horrific car crash. He testified that as the vehicle tumbled down the embankment, the only thing in his mind were those words. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 04:37 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
So I asked what his experience was. He said he also saw Jesus. That really confused me, so I asked if you saw Jesus why are you a Buddhist? He said that for a few weeks he tried going to Christian churches but didn't understand what they were talking about so he returned to being a Buddhist. |
|||||||||
| 11-08-2012 04:32 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
I also saw another special on the "Face of Jesus" where they reconstruct the image from the Shroud taking into account the distortion that a sheet draped over a face would make. They used 3d imaging technology from NASA, etc and the face they reconstructed was much more similar to a young Middle Eastern face, not so elongated. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 09:20 PM | ||||||||||
| MacDuff |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" It could be true that when we die we go to wherever Jesus is. At this point he is in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father. And we who are in Christ and part of his body thereby, it makes sense that we would be there. But also there is also the reference to the heavenly Jerusalem, and Revelation is clear that Jesus is there. And it comes to earth in the end. And that both the Father and the Son are there. So it may be we can eventually come up with a scenario that covers most of the verses. And there seems to be quite a few verses that hint at what will be after death. I know there are a lot of books written on the subject. None of which I've read because I only have time to deal with the present. These people who claim to have seen things on the other side before being revived, there are getting to be quite a few of these people. Haven't paid much mind to them either. Do they all become Christians? I'm thinking of that parable where Jesus said something like even if one was sent back they still wouldn't believe. MacDuff |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 07:43 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
His paternal great-grandfather appeared to him younger than he did when he died and was readily recognizable by the boy in photos. Of course this only raises more questions. How can the boy, while dead and gone to heaven, recognize his own sister and his g-grandfather whom he never met? How can they have a visible form, yet have no body? I long have condemned the paintings of the face of Jesus which I was so accustomed to see as a Catholic. I had always assumed that it was the imagination of some artist back in the dark ages. I assumed the same with angels. Now I'm not so sure. Possibly that picture could have been sketched by someone who actually died and came back from heaven. He/she was only sketching what had been seen. Both of those two young boys Alex Malarkey and Colton Burpo claimed that Jesus held them and comforted them. They definitely knew who Jesus was and who He was not. Each "person" they met had a definite identity. Alex even learned the names of several angels who tended to him. He seemed to have no trouble identifying them once they were introduced. Alex' father verified every story with the scripture. He was definitely skeptical, but as a parent, knew what his child had known, and knew what he had not known. Alex' story never changed from day one. Both boys knew things that were impossible to know. It was never a matter of whether they were imagining something. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 04:16 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Very nice, so this reconciles the term "the dead in Christ are raised". Our physical death is likened to a seed being sown, and our resurrection is likened to the seed sprouting and rising up as a spiritual body, similar to the Lord's resurrection. The Last Adam becoming a life giving spirit is the forerunner for all men. This corresponds nicely with the accounts of people who have been resuscitated since they can recognize people, just like the disciples could recognize Jesus yet His body was clearly a spiritual body. I think this little distraction should make it very clear that just like the church in Laodicea which was so sure that they were rich and knew all mysteries and were clueless that they were in fact blind, in the same way the LRC is blind. They are quite confident that they know that Christianity is "wrong" to say that when they die they will go to heaven, yet the truth according to the NT is that when we die "we will be with Christ", and Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of God. In addition they confuse Jesus resurrecting with a spiritual body with the different persons of the godhead, muddling up their teaching on the trinity and missing the idea that we all will be raised with a spiritual body, since we all are "Adam". Christianity has the right idea but didn't have the verses to support it, as a result the teaching seems erroneous. Confusing Paradise with Heaven in the verse with the Thief. This is a good reason why we need to know the verses that the teachings are built on and not just the teaching. ICor 15 also points out that "some will ask..." As Christians who have fellowship with Jesus we should be aware of the things in the heavens, not just those on the earth (Jn. 3:11-13) and if someone asks these questions we should be able to explain these things intelligently. This is further testimony that Jesus is Lord. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 04:03 PM | ||||||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" ZNP, As a former Local Churcher you should be intimately familiar with 1 Corinthians 15. I use the word "should" here advisedly, because the truth is that Witness Lee taught us all to have tunnel vision regarding this chapter. We all focused on verse 45"b"(the last Adam became a life giving spirit), so much so that we lost track of the context in which verse 45 should be placed in. The context - the immediate context - from verse 35 through the end of the chapter is crystal clear: "But someone will say, 'How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?' ". To put the finest point possible on this part of the chapter, the apostle Paul is explaining to the Corinthians in the most basic and clearest way, that we have a physical "earthy" body which will be transformed "in the twinkling of an eye" into a "spiritual", "incorruptible" body. Verse 45, when taken in context of this section of chapter 15, is simply stating that Jesus Christ was the forerunner in this mysterious, glorious and wonderful transformation. If verse 45 is telling us that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit then we are all going to become the Holy Spirit  Anyway, from verse 35 to the end of the chapter is answering your question in vivid detail. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 03:04 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 02:25 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 12:43 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
That is strongly supported by Paul's word in Phillippians: 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. According to this verse when we die we will "be with Christ". Since Christ is in the heavens then it makes sense we would be too. However, it still leaves the verse about "the dead in Christ rising first" to be reconciled. Perhaps the bumper sticker should be "When you die will you be with Christ?" |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 11:23 AM | ||||||||||
| MacDuff |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" ZNPaaneah Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
MacDuff |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 10:43 AM | ||||||||||
| awareness |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
And yes, things have changed. Lee died, and the Blended Bros were born. Yet one thing that hasn't changed is their orientation. They might try to hide it, but it remains. Their orientation is never gonna change ... unless everyone leaves the LC. And that won't happen because some people will believe anything. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 10:38 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Also, it is certainly relevant to this forum since the LRC holds a very distinct view, contrary to Christianity in general, and they are very much assured in their speaking. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 10:36 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 10:15 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 10:01 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Contrast that to, besides the Luke 14 parable: Jesus' speaking to Zaccheus in Luke 19:9,10, on giving half of his wealth to the poor; Jesus' advice to the young man who wanted perfection to "Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come after Me"; and Paul's word in Galatians 2:10 on being eager to remember the poor. We have myriad opportunities to remember "these, the least of My brothers". Every day when you leave your house you will find them. I have come to feel that more than money and an ear for their sob story, the downtrodden ones want someone to pay attention, to show them that God is paying attention to them, that they matter to Him as much as everyone else. And it's true. They do matter to God. The Bible clearly, repeatedly shows this. It is unmistakeable, to me. 'Paradise' and 'heaven' and the 'Wedding Feast' I'm still sorting out. But taking care of the fallen ones all around us is pretty clear. And I'm also pretty clear that Witness Lee never got this simple idea. Evidently he was just too busy with his theology, and the organization his theology oriented him towards. And he arguably "received his reward in full" (cf Matt. 6:2b). |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 09:43 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Sorry for the collateral damage. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 09:13 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
So getting into discussions about whether it is "heaven" or "paradise" is really a distraction. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 06:59 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 06:26 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 06:20 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
"Are you going to heaven or hell" is not. It encourages passivity and pride. "I am going to heaven when I die" is also not aligned because it is too focused on the future and not on the present. Seek is present tense. Seek ye first -- is all about priority. The kingdom of heaven, heaven here is an adjective, not a noun. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 06:13 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven My understanding is that when you die you are essentially sent to a temporary holding place, could be a very nice place called "paradise" but it is temporary until we all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, which occurs after the resurrection from the dead. Now there is no doubt that the New Jerusalem is our ultimate destination and that is a "heavenly city". As for "orientation" I think the question "are you going to heaven or hell" is counterproductive towards the orientation of believers. I would also note, perhaps due to the similarity between orientation and orienteering, that it is very important to be precise in your orientation. A "slight" variation can equate to being lost by hundreds of miles. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 06:11 AM | ||||||||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I was strongly rebuked by an elder/full-timer that I was spending too much time with this brother, and I should focus whatever "serving" time I had on better material. I took that admonition seriously, and stopped making an effort to spend time with this young brother. (At the time I bought into the church's authority/submission complex. If an older brother, especially an elder, tells you something against your conscience, then you need to "take it from the Lord.") Eventually that young brother gave into his addiction, and dropped out of school. I have no idea what became of him. But I still regret letting our friendship go, just because I wanted to make an elder happy. The Lord spent so much time with the lost and helpless and rejected. But I was made to feel guilty for spending just a little time with a brother who needed people to care. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 05:38 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The "trainer" was blunt. "Don't waste your time." My hair stood on end. I raised my hand, and then raised Luke 14. The trainer looked at me as if I simply were not there, said nothing in reply, and continued the meeting. "Next question?" I don't think the trainer "went rogue" in his reply, or ignoring my objection. I think he was fully and succinctly expressing the wishes of those who trained him. The goal of the LSM is to build up the present, earthly system, variously called "the ministry", "the local churches" and "the Recovery". People be damned. If you can't help them, they are not interested in you. They simply won't invest anything in you if they can't get an immediate, physical, "practical" payout. Like Willard "Mitt" Romney: now that the election is over he probably won't give any more speeches on "America". Now it's back to what really matters, which is Willard "Mitt" Romney. The presidency is no longer a trophy available for his grasp, so he will seek others. They said Romney flip-flopped but he was remarkably consistent in trying to build up the Kingdom of Romney. (And believe me, I am not a huge fan of Democrats from Illinois either [hint-hint]. This morning the news told me of a certain Democratic Congressman from Chicago who's been on leave of absence, "seeking medical treatment" because of "nervous anxiety" over the various scandals plaguing him. Today I found out that he coasted to an easy re-election. As they say up there: Vote early, vote often!) Point is: if you stick around, people eventually reveal their true orientation, of what sort it is. In retrospect, I saw something of the real LSM orientation that day, all the talk of "New Jerusalem", "paradise", and "overcomers" notwithstanding. And for that view, I am grateful. It was not as visceral as awareness' experience: GET OUT!! GET OUT!! But that vista 'behind the veil' was ultimately as instructive to me as it was to him. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 05:13 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Now I would like to shift the terminology, but hopefully not the focus, to the word "resurrection". Luke 14 12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” In the resurrection, the righteous overcomers will be repaid for giving to those who do not have the means to repay them in this age. Their orientation, I argue, is not to get a "return" on investment on earth; but rather thier investment is waiting for them in heaven. Thus thier heart is seeking a secret kingdom, one that remains (Heb 12:25-29). As I said, I believe orientation has 3 effects (of course there may be more, but these came to me): attention, interest, and effort. So if our orientation is toward the earth, we won't waste scarce earthly resources (time, attention, effort) if we don't get an immediate payoff. Now, I want, in this light to consider the widows, the orphans, and the poor. In Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Proverbs, in Job, Jeremiah and Isaiah (to name a few), we see repeated admonitions to care for the less fortunate ones. So Jesus' admonition in Luke 14 has a clear background in God's Word. Now, according to our selfish, immediate needs, this orientation will produce a loss. But if we are "heavenly oriented" then we will see the prudence of this investment. We will gladly "lose something" in this age in order to "win something" in the resurrection of the righteous. Now, I would like to contrast this with what I see as an "earthly" orientation: that of the LSM teachings and practices regarding "the ministry", "the churches", and "the building up of the body", and so forth. But in the interests of brevity (ha-ha-ha) I will do so in another post. |
|||||||||
| 11-07-2012 04:40 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
Not being facetious here. If Jesus tells you to orient your heart toward the things of heaven, wouldn't you be so inclined? And even if those things eventually "come down from heaven" to be with you on the "new earth", still shouldn't your heart be "heavenly oriented" in this age? So "where do you go when you die?" instead becomes, "Where is your heart oriented today?" The second question will be resolved from the first, I believe. For example, Matthew 6 says, “19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Again, "store up treasures in heaven" seems antiquated compared to Lee's high-peak "dispensing" theory. But Jesus clearly told us to store up for ourselves treasures in heaven. Heaven is for real, as Todd Burpo has recently told us. Well, we can dismiss Todd's testimony and say that we are going to the New Jerusalem instead. But if Jesus tells us to put our heart in heaven, then we want to say, "amen", even if we don't understand what He means. I strongly feel that this is not about terminology but about orientation. I would argue that orientation produces three effects. 1. Attention 2. Interest 3. Activity, effort. In the interests of brevity I will pursue this on another post. (ha-ha-ha) |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 02:44 PM | ||||||||||
| Unregistered |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" It's interesting that Peter and Paul, while not emphasizing heaven, definitely emphasized the resurrection of the dead (not just of Christ, but of the believers). That is, they did speak about what will happen after we die. Their gospel included that we would have a heavenly, spiritual body. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 02:02 PM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
So, in today's terms, I agree that forgiveness stands out as a much more meaningful aspect of the gospel. And, as far as the outreach side of the gospel is concerned, it should always be (and have been) the predominant part of the gospel. Too much emphasis on what you get out of it that is like "heaven" tends to attract shallow followers. Followers who are not really following, but would like to think they are. Those who recognize their frailty and unrighteousness also recognize that they need forgiveness. The message of changed lives is the crux of the matter. I don't know about heaven. But the lame walk and the blind are seeing. The miser has opened his heart and loosened the grip on "his" pocketbook. Justice is served on a regular basis. In fact, all are serving each other and even the outsider. Balances in the marketplace are honest (honest weight, no springs). The drunk has found the way to be free of the bottle. And on it goes. But while I do agree at some level that so much focus on heaven is relatively trite, it is only so when it is usurping your place and part in the changing of lives, both "your" own and of others. When active participation in this life is relinquished and everything is pining for something somewhere else. There is a place for "Oh I want to see his face." But if that's all we ever do, might we find that we were busy pining about that and missed when He came to us now as an out-of-luck guy on the street and we simply told him to be warm and fed. Or worse, just acted like he wasn't there. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 01:59 PM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
To me this gospel is akin to the restoration done on the Jesus fresco that was so hysterical. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 12:06 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
It was W. Nee who pointed out in TNCCL that there is no verse in the Bible that ever uses the phrase "Pastor So'n'so," as if this was some great light. I know brothers who got seriously agitated when anyone ever mistakenly implied them to be a "pastor," since in the LC that phrase was worse than "heretic." At least while being labeled a "heretic," one might consider himself to be persecuted for the sake of deeper truths, but being called a "pastor" meant one had degraded to the depths of Christianity. Oh my! Both "going to heaven" and being called a "pastor" with the hallmarks of degraded Christianity. The Recovery folks can sue their brothers in the courts, swindle their money with Daystar, slander brothers who disagree, steal their real estate, coverup crimes of abuse and molestation, but ... don't call me a "pastor!" And don't say we are "going to heaven!"
|
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 11:38 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I would much prefer people boiling down the gospel to something like "I am forgiven". I can see that resulting in people coming to the Lord, repenting and believing. Besides "they overcame by the blood of the lamb". So even such a simple concept does contribute to people not only receiving Christ but also overcoming. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 11:24 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" (First, there are over 600 words in this one. Oh well.) I know that heaven is not the topic of the thread, but at some level, the whole idea of being an overcomer in the context of Lee's theology is put up against the more trite aspects of popular theology. I recall a song — really just a chorus, don't know if there was anything but these four lines: Heaven is a wonderful placeNow it is clear that there is something a little misplaced for most of us when we sing these kinds of songs. Or think in these ways. Or is there? Paul acknowledged that just dying and being with Christ was personally preferable. No matter whether you like the simple terminology, that is "going to heaven." And let's consider the chorus. It is not about streets of gold and mansions. (Yes, there are songs that cover those things. "Mansion Over the Hilltop" has both.) It is about seeing the face of Jesus. It is about the glory and grace that fills it. But it is not weighty. It is "shallow" theology, so we diss it. (And it is my first reaction as well. Not pointing fingers.) But even if shallow, it is not simply wrong. There are no verses that directly support the words provided to sing. But it is not just a fairy tale that doesn't contradict other verses. It has a base in truth that can be found in scripture. Tying everything up in a serious theology that needs a verse reference after every statement is overkill. And Lee tried to do that. He provided verses all over the place. In fact he provided so many that when he finally said the ridiculous thing that was coming, there had been so many verses provided that we too often missed that the most important things were not actually supported. That is another topic for another thread. But here, there is something to be said for (or really against) parsing through scripture to find nit-picky things like whether heaven is the right word to use for where we go after death but before the rapture, while dismissing the real, practical commands of God through Jesus about this life as we ignore the part where Jesus said "teaching them to obey all that I have commanded." This is not about any particular posting in this thread. It is about the mentality of "what matters" in the LRC v the rest of Christianity. I may agree (somewhat) that many in Christianity are a little too focused on "heaven," but I would suggest that the LRC simply renamed it and made it virtually the only focus. But I'm not sure that they understand what little we think we see about the life to come. They have distilled the substance of "overcoming" to better meetings, better teachings, and better terminology. If I presume that overcoming is about this life, then I would be more focused on the practical commands of Christ. Love God and your neighbor. Serve. Obey all that I command. I would see that obedience is precursor to knowing the truth that "sets you free." It is not the other way around. It is about getting this life right, not practicing falling on your face and shouting "Holy, Holy, Holy . . ." If we have properly prepared this life according the best teachings available (and that starts with Jesus, not Paul — no disrespect to Paul, but he is commentary, not the other way around) we will be prepared for that when the time comes (assuming that is really what we will be doing — I am not saying one way or the other). |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 11:19 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Also, I personally never liked using the thief on the cross for this teaching because he obviously predated the Lord's ascension followed by the outpouring of the Spirit. So just as other verses suggest that things may have changed with regards to paradise I don't think it is all sound to base a teaching on what happens with believers in this age with his story. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 11:06 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 10:59 AM | ||||||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: heaven Quote:
This is one of the reasons why some people like to separate teachings from behavior....it seemingly gets them off the hook...but God's Word does NOT separate teachings from behavior. Instead, they are inextricably linked, both by the Lord Jesus and the authors of the New Testament, including that guy who was supposedly "devoid of the divine revelation"....But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.(James 1:22) |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 10:52 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 10:45 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
The receivers of the Master's blessing, and His condemnation, both have "wrong theological concepts", i.e. they don't get cognitively what is transpiring. But they are not being judged on their theology, but their behavior. Quote:
"If you don't do what I say, the Boogie Man will get you" gets revised to "Nobody who leaves the LRC can go on with the Lord in a positive way." I.E if you don't toe the line with the LSM and the Blendeds its a thousand years of outer darkness for you. The vagarity of their teaching leaves it open for abuse. No different for me than "When the coin in the offering box rings, the soul to heaven springs". Bad teaching leads to bad theology leads to bad behavior, unchallenged. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 09:33 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: heaven Quote:
I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not, God knows) such a one caught up to the third heaven (ouranos). And I know such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body I know not, God knows) that he was caught up into paradise (paradeisos), and heard unspeakable things said which it is not allowed to man to utter. (2 Cor 12:2-4 Darby)And Revelation 2:7 says the tree of life is in the paradise (paradeisos) of God. So that seems to suggest the paradise of God is somewhere other than "the pleasant part of Hades," or at least a broader concept. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 08:55 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 08:15 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: heaven Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 07:51 AM | ||||||||||
| OBW |
Re: heaven Quote:
If we erroneously describe what Jesus called "paradise" as "heaven," then the complaint cannot be about where you go, but rather what you call it. And that is just a waste of breath. Needing to proof-text whether heaven is the proper term to use turns the focus of teaching from what is important to what is not. When you die, your spirit/soul will go wherever it is that it goes. If we get it wrong in our minds while alive, it does not change what actually happens. And it does not make anything about our current life need to be lived differently. Unless it is coupled with an erroneous teaching that we can just take our "salvation by faith" card to the bank and walk straight through the "pearly gates" and walk on "streets of gold," etc. I don't buy either the Catholic or LRC version of purgatory. But I don't think that there is no consequence for failure to at least be in the process of transformation in this life. There is something to the idea, but it is not given much more than vague imagery and metaphors. But if I intend to be pursuing the Christian life, then I have no qualms with terminology about what comes after this life. We only see it darkly. Those who seek certainty are wasting their current life in pursuit of the one to come. And if there is anything to rewards (with or without punishment) the rewards come from what we do rightly here in this life, not how "right" we get our mental theology about the life to come. But as to the idea of "going to heaven," if I accept that the term "paradise" is somewhat equivalent to "heaven," then the verse that makes it so would be where Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise." Arguing against saying that is "heaven" is not arguing a substantive theological problem, but an exercise in muddled terminology of limited importance. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 07:39 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: heaven ZNP and aron, I understand the need to "rightly divide the word of truth." What I think really happens in the Church at large is that there is so much potential and realized disagreement on the details of end times and the specifics of reward of punishment, etc. that most practical teachers try to stay focused on the essentials, to avoid the bog of those peripheral controversies. And we all know there is the danger of worrying too much about the details to the point of shoving out the essentials, and becoming like the scribes and Pharisees who "tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." (Matt 23:23) I think in the grand scheme, heaven versus paradise are dill and cumin. At the same time, Jesus continued on to say, "these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others," so there are arguments both ways, as long as you see the overall priorities of things, which was His main point. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 05:12 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
Second, I think that the gospel is important for how we live our Christian life. I think you have made this point repeatedly as an error of WL's teachings. This teaching leads some to equate Jn 14:2 with "going to heaven when we die". I think that is a serious error that leads Christians to erroneously believe that once you have received Christ that is it, and that definitely does not promote Christians living a better manifestation of Christ. Third, I had already taught my kids that "we don't go to heaven when we die". So naturally this was the one thing they were excited to bring home from Catechism. I think being careless with the word has a very negative effect. For example, they also taught that "if you don't receive Christ you will go to hell". This is based on the verse that says whoever receives Christ will not receive this judgment. To me this is a prime example of being careless with the word. To say that if you have received Christ you will not go to hell is not equivalent to saying "everyone who has not received Christ will go to hell". |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 05:04 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
But today, after 2,000 years, it is hard (for me) to recreate all of this with the certitude which I see displayed elsewhere. What I think important for our children is that they see us earnestly pursuing the reality of these words together in a spirit of gentleness and peace, and not crossing swords over distinctions. If we tell our kids, "this is how it is", then they will either become mindless robots who repeat what we say as if it were the truth ("Bruther Lee says"), or they will find inadequacies in our arguments and reject it whole cloth. Better, I feel, that we pursue, and invite others to join us in the pursuit. "The kingdom", "Heaven", "paradise", and the role of "the overcomers" are distinctions worthy of our careful attention. But 1) it bugs me when people oversimplify things and treat it as if "it were so", and 2) I am aware that I do the same, and must allow the Lord to come in our conversation, with His gentle rebuke: "O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 04:51 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: heaven ZNP, Technically you have a point. But here's the thing. Most Christians don't care about those kinds of detailed distinctions for two reasons:
Whether the thief went to heaven or some place other than heaven, what differences does it make in the essential meaning and how you are to live your life? The point was the thief went to the place Jesus was going. The point of going to heaven is it is the place Jesus will be. Wherever that is has absolutely no effect on how you are to live, what type of faith you are to manifest or anything else practical. Do you really think your kids are going to live a better manifestation of Christian lives if they know they distinction between heaven and paradise? I seriously doubt it. It's a detail. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 04:50 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: heaven Quote:
You say that you don't want your kids confused. I understand. But my sense is that your certainty will ultimately lead to further confusion. At least it does for me. And since I am older than your kids, and have read the Bible, and am not stupid, at least intellectually, the certainty with which you & Lee operate is somewhat off-putting. I prefer a conversation in which both you and I admit to being at least partly in the dark, here on this earthly coil, and we together explore the light in God's word. Then the Lord Himself comes alongside and helps us in our weakness. He declares the things concerning Himself. In His light we begin to see the light. Your declarations of certitude push me away from this process of exploration. Like all of Lee's bullet points, they become barriers to the light. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 04:43 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: A final thought Quote:
These forces don't like to come to the light. They would love for us to vilify the vessel whom they have captured for their ends, and ignore them. Then they can continue their work. But Paul said, "We do not fight against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces in the heavenlies" which are opposed to God's rule. Quote:
Quote:
The only one who made it through alive was/is Jesus. The rest: "The work, the ministry, the move of God, the churches, the body" are, as Ohio said, a smokescreen for this system of human manipulation and control. And all the subsidiaries, variously named "Christians on Campus", Bibles for America", "Affirmation and Critique", "Full-Time Training", "Defense and Confirmation Project", and so on, are further smokescreens to disguise the system. To me it is simple: God wants "the freedom of the sons of God" to be restored (Rom. 8:21; see also Matt. 17:26; Gal. 5:1). Satan doesn't want that, because it spells his end. So he disguises himself as an angel of light, and distracts the elect with systems of control, and reward/punishment. As I have said earlier, I understand "this is the way the world works". But I don't think this is the way the kingdom of God works. Instead of a "top-down" system, Jesus declared a "bottom-up" system. |
|||||||||
| 11-05-2012 04:20 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: heaven Quote:
When I asked the sister for the verse reference she gave me Luke 23:43 which I felt was a reasonable interpretation (as long as there is no NT verse that refutes this). So I asked her to give my kids the verse reference (I don't like my kids being taught Bible truths that don't include the Bible) and I asked if she would use the word "paradise" instead of "heaven". She asked why? I said that I agreed with her that by comparison, where believers go when they die could be considered "heaven" to the other alternative, but since that could be confused with the heaven where God dwells I didn't want my kids confused. She said they were the same place, the paradise where the thief went when he was crucified is the same as heaven where God our Father is. I asked "how is that possible? Jesus said to the thief "this day" you will be with me in paradise the day He was crucified, but then on the third day when he rose from the dead He told the disciples He hadn't ascended yet to the Father. How can they be the same place?" |
|||||||||
| 11-04-2012 04:36 PM | ||||||||||
| UntoHim |
Thanks to long time lurker! Thanks to long time lurker for that great post! Thanks for coming out of the shadows and taking a chance in posting! Please consider registering when you get a chance...the more the merrier! Yes, unfortunately the Local Church view and understanding of orthodox/evangelical Christianity is kind of stuck in early 20th century Mainland China. Rather bizarre if you think about it. These people actually think that nothing has changed since what the missionaries taught in the 20s and 30s. Regarding the teaching of heaven in the Local Church, you are so right. Yet Witness Lee's teachings regarding what heaven is and what it is not are very easy to debunk...you just need to do what you did....USE THE BIBLE! The Bible is actually quite clear regarding heaven. From Genesis to Revelation, God has unfolded what heaven is, and what it is not. He has even told us what heaven will be for eternity. And we know from the Bible that heaven is not going to be what Witness Lee taught - "the ultimate mingling of God and man". We know this because the new heaven and the new earth are described in a fair amount of detail in Revelation and it doesn't match up with what Lee taught...actually not even close. Heaven will be a place where we will see our God's face...we will serve and worship Him...NOT BECOME HIM. Thank God we have the REAL divine revelation in our hands! Thank you Lord! |
|||||||||
| 11-04-2012 02:07 PM | ||||||||||
| Unregistered |
heaven Quote:
Long time lurker here. I couldn't resist writing about this, one of my many pet peeves about the LC. Yes, Christians can over-emphasize "going to heaven," but the LC went way overboard in rejecting heaven. Before I left, I remember RK boasting that an upcoming issue of Affirmation and Critique was going to expose "the leaven of heaven!" When he made that announcement, there were shouts of zealous joy (this was during an Anaheim training). It was the usual "we're so much better than those shallow Christians in poor blind Christianity." Well, Jesus said to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven..." When Stephen was martyred, he saw the Son of Man standing in heaven. There are way too many examples to list here. So heaven is a real place (not just a "realm" but an actual place). The Bible says so. God the Father dwells there. Jesus the Son dwells there. The Holy Spirit was poured out from there. Why mock heaven and use it to condemn other Christians? And in the end, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we (believers) will all dwell in the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem. Regardless of whether you consider the end of Revelation to be a physical or metaphorical description, it's a real place. What's wrong with calling it "heaven"? Maybe Christians should be more specific, it's a heavenly city, but so what? Is it wrong to say that after they die, they'll be with Jesus in heaven, and they'll see their loved ones again in heaven? I guess I'm just reacting to Z's post, because for so long the topic of heaven was used by the LC to look down on other Christians. The same way they actually belittled the death of Christ as "merely" judicial redemption, but not as "deep" as organic salvation. (Mocking Christians for focusing on the death of Christ???) Yes, being a Christian is much more than "going to heaven when you die." But being with God and with Christ in the heavenly city for eternity is kind of a big deal. |
|||||||||
| 11-04-2012 06:05 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: A final thought Quote:
I witnessed both WL and TC doing this. They demanded the utmost loyalty and zealotry to their system which was actually to themselves. Both used the churches and the saints to build their empires. Workers and elders only served at their pleasure. Those who attempted to follow the Lord directly, serving His people, were beat into submission, because the highest priority was not your relationship with Him, but with him. The biggest threat to their empires was not sin or worldliness, but a certain required independence by church leaders in following their Lord directly. Thus the LC's became "of Lee" or "of Titus." This is why both of these brothers became so abusive towards other brothers. They could never share "their glory." The saints' relationships with their elders, or their church, or the one next to them, were also bonds which needed to be broken in order to maintain the ultimate relationship of all, codenamed "one with the ministry." One would never know this by their teachings, however. Kind of like my maxim about politicians: pay little attention to what they say, rather to what they do. |
|||||||||
| 11-04-2012 04:52 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: A final thought Quote:
); and in its own way it sums up what's wrong with the LRC system--that is that the LRC system is not about people, it's about the system. A while back it dawned on me that everything in God's reality is about relationships--either our relationship with God or others or ourselves. That's all there is. Everything is about God and people and how we feel and think about them and treat them. I recall a few years back bringing up this matter of relationship, arguing that Lee's view of the Trinity almost totally misses that the principle of relationship is built into the Triune God. One borderline LCer (SC) got indignant and more or less scoffed at the idea of relationship, considering it shallow, touchy-feely and marginal. That's the Lee effect. Minimizing relationship. But when you minimize relationship, you minimize people. When you minimize people, they becomes means to an end. They become fodder for the cause. That not only misses the point of everything, it stands in opposition to it. It shows you have no clue what God is about and what is truly important to him. |
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:21 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:16 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: On the Positive Side Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:15 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I meet with a very good non denominational group in NYC after leaving the LRC. My kids went to catechism class where they were taught that when Christians die they go to heaven, among other things. I asked the woman running the classes to show me the verse reference for this. When she saw that no verse actually says that she became very "brittle" in her attitude. Does this make her a "false teacher" or merely misinformed? Nit picking on LRC teachings does not lead anywhere. False teachers/false prophets are not determined by those that teach wrong or superficial doctrines. Acts 19:1-6 gives an example of how Apollos was teaching wrong or superficial teachings that Paul had to correct. Apollos is not likened to a false teacher, Balaam is the example given to us, and nowhere does the Bible condemn Balaam for teaching things that are false. |
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:09 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: On the Positive Side Quote:
The fact that I cannot judge if I or another is ripe is not a valid reason to not teach this. A thermometer doesn't measure air pressure, doesn't mean it isn't a valid instrument. |
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:05 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:04 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
A final thought One final thought (I hope) on the subject. After a while, I imagine my readers get bored & I try to shut it down. But usually I like to write because I simply enjoy writing, and also because sometimes I think there are things that need to be said, or in this case written. So I wanted to add a perhaps necessary or useful thought, regarding my previous post of "acting on the margin", or "going on". I think the Bible calls it "continuing steadfastly" (Acts 2:42). Like, "blessed is he whom, when the Master returns, he finds him so doing" (Matt 24:26, Luke 12:43). I remember a local church song, probably composed after some "rebellion", in which we all sang, "Go on, go on/Go on in the Lord/Be strenghened, go on in the Lord". Well, I argue that this "going on" is about people, specifically your neighbor. How you treat the person next to you is how you treat God, and how you treat others is how God will treat you. And while it's to some degree measured by what we might call "the body of work", i.e. the totality of your actions, it's more importantly determined by how you are treating people right now, at this moment. This determines whether you are, in fact, "going forward" or "going backward". You are either moving toward or away from the proverbial "finish line" or "promised rest" or what-have-you depending on your relations with others. And I also argue that this got subverted in the LSM churches. Instead of your neighbor, your orientation point, or measuring stick, on becoming an "overcomer" in the LSM teaching and practice was your relationship with "the ministry", or "the church", or "the body". Your neighbor be damned. And with that I vehemently disagree. This is why to me the "full-timers" and "serving ones" and "campus laborers" are today's equivalent of the medieval RCC monks and nuns. They think that if they simply do enough good stuff to build up the system, the scales will tip in their favor, and they'll have a reward. But one telling part for me is that the LSM system of teachings and practices ignore the poor; even though that suffering one may be their "neighbor", the poor can't be used to "build the system", so they are ignored, sometimes even avoided. Another telling example is that if your LSM-system neighbor runs afoul of the system, like they witness "Noah getting drunk in his tent", you have to jettison your neighbor, not the system. That is what I meant by "your neighbor be damned" -- after the obligatory lip service, when push comes to shove it's about your relationship with the system. |
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 10:02 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-03-2012 07:49 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: On the Positive Side Quote:
But the Nee/Lee version of "Purgatory" (sorry, "promise and warning") that I heard just gave a vague presentation of an "overcomer" which I guess is tantamount to being "mature" according to Cassidy. Of course maturity is important, but remember that only God has the scale in His hand. Only God can say, "Approved" or "Disapproved". The same goes for "mature". Nobody can say, "Now I am mature; ripe and ready for harvest". Anyone who thinks they have arrived, in this body of flesh, is most deceived. All we can do is go forward. The young believers seeing this vague and probably distant "overcomer" being dangled in front of them often just give up. They don't know where it is nor how to get there. So if they slip up, they give up. They are still nominal believers, i.e. they still pay lip service to the Lord Jesus as God's Christ, but they have resigned themselves to "outer darkness". The darkness becomes comfortable and the Promised Land just seems so far away. But the message of the Gospels is "turn and repent". It doesn't matter if you are the thief on the cross, it doesn't matter if you are Peter who's denied the Lord, it doesn't matter if you are the unrighteous steward or the creditors who owe a hundred measures of wheat or a hundred measures of oil. If you are going backward, turn around and go forward. If you feel that you are making some progress (e.g. Romans 2:15 says that our conscience either "accuses" or "excuses" us), then keep going forward. Just keep going. Let God worry about the "big picture" of whether or not you have crossed the "overcomer" line. Just go forward. To some extent one may argue that "a miss is as good as a mile", as they say. If you look at the image of being shut out of the wedding feast, when the door closes you are outside. Ten feet from Noah's ark and ten miles away both got flooded. But I note that Moses got to Mount Pisgah and that seemed to matter. "Many stripes" versus "few stripes" seemed to matter to Jesus (Luke 12:47-8). If the judge sentenced you to 2 years instead of 5 years you wouldn't say, "Well, jail is jail. 2 years or 22 years doesn't matter." No, you'd appreciate the fact that 3 years got shaved off your sentence. Now, I am NOT saying that "This is the way it is." I am a believer trying to make sense of the teachings of Jesus Christ. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a person with interest in these matters might look at these teachings and draw at least somewhat similar conclusions. Typically, however, we look at this in the post-Luther world and shrink back: "No!!! Purgatory!!! Aughhhh!!!" and we flee from the room. But they arguably didn't flee the room in the first century because they didn't have the RCC distortions (yet) to repel them thusly. My concern is for the young people. I don't think they are being helped much by the LSM gospel, at least as I remember it. I don't know what the the "serving ones" and "laboring ones" are telling the college students on the campuses (campii?) these days but I imagine it's the same old Nee/Lee song and dance, which I deem insufficient. They will lose a great many of them, over time. This gospel may attract them for a while, but I doubt it has the power to keep many. We shall see. As I said already, the sample size of my observation (one local church after 10 years away) may be too small. But I remember during my time there, of speeches bemoaning the great "exodus" (pun intended) of the youth. I remember Gene Gruhler's "pipeline". And I believe that no pipeline is going to cover, ultimately, for an inadequate gospel message. And because Lee was supposedly the "minister of the age" and "God's present oracle" who delivered the "high peaks", I doubt they have the capacity or inclination to address the shortcomings. The words "shortcoming" and "Lee" probably never make it into the same sentence. I don't know what my word count is, but it's probably over some arbitrary line.
|
|||||||||
| 11-02-2012 06:06 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: On the Positive Side Quote:
^^^^^
|
|||||||||
| 11-02-2012 05:33 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
On the Positive Side On the positive side, I think that maybe the overcomers don't pay much attention to the idea of overcoming. They are too busy paying attention to Jesus Christ. They see Him standing before the Father. They hear the Father's voice: "This is my Son, the Beloved. In Him I find My delight." They see His faithfulness (Heb 3:6) in stewardship of the Father's house. They have an overwhelming image of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. They can see the tears streaming down that face, they can hear the loud cries; they become aware of the piety of a mortal Man here on the earth, whose reverent submission saved Him from the clutches of death (Heb 5:7). The Lord's tears become their tears. Their small, weak cries begin to rise in echo to His. They feel His saving love for the sinners, not condemnation. They have the realization that the feeling in their heart "...is no longer I, but Christ in me." The Father, through His Son, is reaching out to His lost children. Even a whiff of this experience sets their soul on fire. Whether their works are great or small is irrelevant -- they remember that "It was only what we were supposed to do." (Luke 17). If anything is worth enduring reward, they know that it is only from the power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, which now enlivens their mortal bodies. In this context they seek in the Word eagerly, in order to be equipped to serve the Master. They continually consider the hard questions, many of them perhaps unanswerable in this age. They don't consider themselves to have understood or to have laid hold of anything. The point, for me, is to go forward. Where you are in relation to some benchmark of "approval and reward" is up to God. E.g. John 21: "What is that to you? You follow Me." |
|||||||||
| 11-02-2012 05:09 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Everything presented as if it were baldly self-evident, which it is not. Verses plucked out of context and presented as proof-texts for some crucial component of the Nee/Lee narrative. Let me give an interesting contrast. Some years ago, I was in a surly mood while perusing the local bookstore. There on the shelf was Darwin's On the Origen of Species, which from my background was thought to be written by the Devil himself. I'd never read it. So said, "Okay, Charles: let's see what ya got", and plunked down 12 dollars for the Penguin Classic Paperback, and off we went. I loved it. Obviously Darwin didn't have many textual sources, mostly just his observations and thoughts. But he very carefully laid out his thinking. He very thoroughly pointed out where it rested on only conjecture, not facts. He pursued all the objections and counter-arguments as far as he could take them, treating them as worthy adversaries. He was thorough, he was respectful, he was not overbearing. I thought, "Man, if this guy was a prosecuting attorney, and you're the defendant, you are toast." I feel that the image, of leaving the Egyptian soil but not arriving to the Canaanite, is an important one. Through the Epistle of the Hebrews I can feel it color Jesus' parables on stewardship ("oikonomia" in Greek), done both well and poorly, on the idea of "many are called but few chosen", and so forth. But my memory of the Nee/Lee exposition is that the text continually was shoehorned into a few rudimentary themes. The same catch-phrases kept coming back, again and again (perhaps some readers are saying, "Yeah, aron, we know all about that! ).
|
|||||||||
| 11-02-2012 04:45 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In order to "overcome" they try what the Catholics did, which was become priests and monks and nuns. Only today they call them "campus workers" and "serving ones" and "full-timers". By an abundance of work you might cross some invisible line, be pleasing to God, and be an "overcomer". Of course they won't say this: they'll say that you need a relationship with Jesus Christ, etc etc. But when I don't see any young people there, only hear of a few who are "serving the ministry" abroad, it makes me feel that this message of the kingdom is not working at all. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 06:47 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 05:25 PM | ||||||||||
| MacDuff |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Ohio If this is the same Phil Comfort I'm thinking of, he's written some great books on the original text of the New Testament. His loss would be a great loss to the Recovery. But then, from what I've been reading, his loss would be power for the course. He has written Bible commentaries, but I haven't read them. With his background they should be interesting. MacDuff |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 05:18 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Being a Lee clone doesn't lead to a name which only you know. It leads to your name being Lee, and everyone knowing it |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 03:20 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Phil Comfort Quote:
Phil moved back to Columbus late '82- early '83 and he was definitely not the same. All those close to Phil wanted to hear from him what had happened, apart from TC's spin, and gathered with Phil on occasion. Everyone of those brothers, from that point on, had no more respect for TC. Phil decided, perhaps in concert with his family, to transition back into "life" by enrolling at OSU for a Masters degree in English. He was no more in the eldership, but did meet with the saints and testified and prayed in our meetings. Tensions later grew and exploded at times between the remaining leaders and TC. TC was never interested in making "friends" in the church, but he sure was good at making enemies. All the brothers in Cleveland and beyond, however, sided with TC. Phil's love for the Bible in the original language of Greek was always with him. After the Masters program, he eventually landed at Wheaton College near Chicago, where he thrived at Wheaton teaching and writing. I remember sitting in an leaders' meeting years ago and TC confronted Bill Orsborn of Buffalo, who was then is Hanover Park, for not being able to bring Phil back to the churchlife. How typical of TC to place these demands on others, when he himself was the source of the offense. I understand he has traveled extensively. Here is a bio link. Here's a pic. Several years ago another poster, who was then an elder and GLA co-worker, made comment to the effect, "some in the churches regret that our hearts were not big enough to receive Phil and his portion." I immediately challenged his statement, with the counter, "let me suggest that it was Titus Chu himself whose heart was not big enough to receive Phil and his portion." Phil and his wife G. loved the church and the church loved them. They were a definite blessing to the church in Columbus where I got to know them. The problem was simple. Titus was threatened by other gifted members. He abused them to keep them in line. Phil is now just one more brother in a long list of precious brothers who found out the hard way how brutal TC treats his people, and has moved on. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 02:44 PM | ||||||||||
| awareness |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
That's where the prayer will lead you anyway. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:55 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Here's my challenge to you, Cassidy. Spend 10 minutes a day for the next 60 days praying sincerely and openly to the Lord that he would make you clear about Lee and his teachings and your relationship to them. I'm talking about sincere and desperate prayer. Put everything on the table. Ask about all the doctrines. Ask the Lord to correct you where you need correction in your thinking and outlook. Ask him to break down strongholds. You know, I asked an LCer one time to do that and you know what he said? He said, "I don't need to pray." How about you? Check back with me in 60 days. You've been challenged. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:41 PM | ||||||||||
| Unregistered |
Phil Comfort Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:40 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The thing is you don't realize how deceived you are. You don't see it. But your fruit manifests it. Everyone here sees it. But you ignore their feedback. Because you can't and won't deal with the possibility that the problem is you and the way you think. The Bible calls that a "stronghold." |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:40 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:38 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
This was contrary to Lee's teachings, but Comfort at that time was on his way out the door. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:22 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I have attempted an answer to your every objection and to provide you the scriptural and experiential basis for my beliefs. In response, you have merely rejected them without providing a scriptural basis and presentation of your own. I can go along with that for a time yet, now you are casting dispersions on my truthfulness and intelligence and once we enter that phase there is nothing I can say that will satisfy you. So thanks for the dialogue. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:21 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I'm saying that although a faithful person will eventually grow, nowhere does the Bible say that full growth, or any growth is needed for being considered faithful. As I said, someone could become a Christian, be faithful for six months and get hit by a bus. Growth is nowhere on the radar screen as far a judgment goes for such a person, and it's really kind of dumb to think it would be. This is the loose end Lee just ignored. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:16 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:12 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Lee didn't invent the idea of accountability and he certainly didn't popularize it. No church I know of teaches "free ticket to heaven, live as you please." It's a red herring. And it's dishonest or at least ignorant to continue to act like Christianity sanctions such an idea. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:07 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I don't know for sure. I'll have to think about it. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:03 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I saw this in the Baptist church too. Assured of eternal salvation many I knew lived like the Devil. I wasn't regenerated at the time but knew that something was not right about that. After regeneration I gravitated to the Arminian persuasion where one could lose their eternal salvation if they lived liked the Devil. Depends on what condition they were in at the moment they died (i.e. did they die in an automobile because they were drunk at the wheel). But that seemed to oppose scripture which assured salvation based on faith and belief. Whenever I sinned my belief in Jesus did not change, so that did not feel right either. When I first heard the teaching on the kingdom I started realizing the synchronization of the scriptures for the first time based on these two views having lived in both camps. I had an epiphany at some point when everything fell in place and I could see both viewpoints had part of the truth but not enough to explain the other side. The epiphany was a flash of light and I knew that the kingdom was not just a doctrine, that reconciled these major viewpoints, but a reality to be lived out. Youth is wasted on the young so they say. I wish I had the revelation of the kingdom as a teen but I might not have the appreciation for it that I do now if I had heard about it all my life. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 01:01 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
And you're like, Dude, I can't believe you said something that prevaricating.  
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:58 PM | ||||||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:46 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Right. But the point is he doesn't tie up the loose ends. He just ignores them. I mean, I've been trying to get you to address this matter of growth as overcoming and you keep ignoring it yourself. So in that sense you are a great imitator of Lee. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:44 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:44 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:41 PM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:39 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" "So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee." To my observation, aron, Mssrs Witness Lee and Watchman Nee spent a great deal of their teaching devoted to the teaching on the kingdom. Witness Lee more so but a significant amount of material from the Life-studies of Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation. Probably some in the Life-study of Exodus and Deuteronomy and perhaps Kings. There might be several hundred messages on on the Kingdom and not to mention the book "The Kingdom" which covers this matter in significant detail. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:38 PM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I found this kind of thinking to be dis-heartening. This guy, the last I knew, was an elder in a local church. Drinking right from "the ministry" fountain. Wonderful guy -- would give you the shirt off his back. I just don't like his teaching. The children in the LCs got "reward" and "outer darkness", and that's it. All of it very vague & arbitrary. There is some line somewhere, completely ill-defined, that if you cross you'll be blessed and if not you'll be whacked for a thousand years. If I was a teen-ager, sitting in this teaching month after conference after year, I'd probably take my chances on the world as well. At least I might have some enjoyment for a while. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:31 PM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" For me, the seminal text on what did all this mean to the composers of the NT was the Hebrews exposition on the Exodus experience. The Exodus story looms large in the Hebrew history, and the writer of the epistle made the point that they all made it out of Egypt but they didn't make it into the promised land. When I tell people this and they say I am teaching Purgatory then I tell them that the writer of Hebrews was teaching Purgatory as well. If he/she was not, why bring it up? I just think the Lee/Nee work on this subject is very rudimentary. Number one, they don't list their sources. They have the Bible, their logic and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You get vague references to teachers past, but without any detail. Their sources are minimal to the extreme. Number two, they treat every other possible viewpoint with almost no respect whatever. Number three, they brook no possibility of any weakness in their own interpretation. It is like having a conversation with a petulant four-year-old, trembling lower lip and all. I find it very unsatisfying, not the least because some of what they teach is probably worth considering. But wading through it all is not what I have in mind when I think of "the kingdom". When Jesus teaches you, you exclaim "Was not our heart burning when He opened for us the scripture?" When Lee teaches... well, the "flavor" just doesn't taste very "kingdom-y" to me. Subjective, I know, but my references above might flesh it out somewhat. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:30 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The "kingdom" spoken of by the thief refers specifically to the establishing of the kingdom established by Christ as the Messiah in Jerusalem which the Jews were waiting for and expecting. That is the millennial kingdom. Even the disciples contended with each other over the sitting arrangement in the kingdom. They of course were not thinking about the sitting arrangement in Paradise, nor the arrangement in heaven but of His kingdom established at Jerusalem. I had heard somewhere, and I cannot remember exactly, that Paradise was transferred under the Throne according to the description in Revelation. More I cannot say about that because I do not remember where I read it and I do not know how it ties with the rest of scripture. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:21 PM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
It seemed to me that Lee tried to sashay in after the fact, with his brilliant mind and a few teachers like Nee & so forth, and give us the definitive word. I find that completely unsatisfying. Again, I cannot do better, but then I don't pretend to. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:21 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:20 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I try to explain why it works and the biblical synergy the teaching of the kingdom provides. Yet, I have found that most people of one persuasion or the other will not agree no matter how much sense it makes to me personally. It is kind of one of those things as Ohio stated about Mona Lisa. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 12:17 PM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
 Come on. Look at the situation. The thief saw Jesus dying on the cross. His statement that Jesus would come in his kingdom was an affirmation that he believed Jesus would not stay dead and would be king. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 11:58 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
So you are saying (positive) Paradise isn't part of God's kingdom? There is part of that place that isn't under God's rule? |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 11:57 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 11:55 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request, Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion, nor for the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 11:47 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" But, Cassidy, you claimed Lee used this thief passage to address the matter of someone dying before being full grown. I still don't see that being addressed. Why would someone who didn't have time to grow be excluded from the kingdom reward? How is dying too soon be something that could be blamed on him or her? Again, Lee said you have to be full grown to be considered ready for the kingdom. This is why I say his teachings don't add up. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would hold something against someone that he or she could not control. In fact, even if you have a lot of time, you can't control how much you grow. Growth is up to the Lord. All you can do is be faithful. But I reckon very few Christians have ever truly be "full grown" before passing from this world, especially by Lee's definition. So if full growth is a requirement of being in the kingdom, I reckon the party is going to be pretty empty, and there are going to be a lot of faithful Christians left out who didn't get all the way grown. Sorry. Makes no sense. Doesn't pass the nonsense test. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 11:33 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Lee's (your) kingdom overlay here is artificial and unfounded. As to "the last farthing (penny) being paid," it's clear we can't "pay" for anything, which is why Christ had to pay it all. Matt 5:25 is saying that every sin must be paid for and you won't get out until it is, meaning if you don't have Christ you won't get out. It's speaking of seriousness of sin, not of the matter of reward. Again Lee's "kingdom" template here is artificial. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 10:57 AM | ||||||||||
| Ohio |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
UntoHim, your post highlights what does trouble me. First of all, Lee had to live up to his reputation as the last MOTA standing and the latest, greatest oracle of all by systematizing all eschatological events into charts and schedules which subsequently served only to puff up his adherents. Secondly, Lee used the matter of the overcomers to manipulate the saints for personal gain. Overcoming became part and parcel with being one with the ministry. Overcoming was determined by your relationship with LSM, and that held all in fear, so it's no wonder he could get away with murder when necessary. In the context of endless debates with the Blendeds, Titus Chu made an interesting observation about eschatological events, which I thought was wise. He compared the Lord's return to DaVinci's Mona Lisa, with the saying, "either it inspires you or not." The point being that having all the teaching in the world about the Lord's return does nothing for you if it does not affect your life by inspiring you. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 10:39 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
We agree that this thief was not an overcomer and we agree that he was with the Lord in the abode of the dead people of God, a place called Paradise, the place visited by Christ after His death, a place of apparent comfort implied by not only its name, and the reference of Paul you mentioned, but also that Abraham was there with a poor man named Lazarus. The alternative being a place of torment as indicated by the suffering of the rich man. I believe the outer darkness is indicative, probably a real sphere or realm, that allows the occupants to see the enjoyment of the kingdom from the outside looking in. Not like the rich man's suffering but rather the loss of not being able to participate in the enjoyment of the millennium with Christ. The wailing and gnashing of teeth brought on by a recounting of one's unwillingness to follow the Lord completely for what will certainly seem as petty things of this life compared with the glory of that time. Also, there seems to be a scale of exclusion from the kingdom as indicated by the Lord's description "until the last farthing is paid". |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 10:26 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I am also assuming that the thief did not have ample opportunity to fulfill the majority of the qualifications and practices of the kingdom people defined by the Lord in Matthew Chapters 5-7. If you think otherwise, be my guest. Thanks for the dialogue. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 10:22 AM | ||||||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" One thing we can be sure of, this guy was not an overcomer, yet he got to be with the Lord Jesus in Paradise. The apostle Paul clearly implied that when Christians die they get to "be with Christ".(Phil 1:23) This puts a little bit of a hitch in the teachings of Nee and Lee. It really doesn't make much sense (biblically or otherwise) that the 1,000 year Kingdom (if it is indeed literal) is going to be a place of punishment for all the little bad boys and girls who didn't live up to some arbitrary, man-made set of teachings and requirements. So they get to be in Paradise with Christ (possibly for thousands of years), then at the 2nd coming they get to spend 1,000 years gashing their teeth in the outer darkness of Nee/Lee's "Summer School"(a la Dan Towle, LSM chief eschatologist) This sounds more like an attempt to control people and keep people in fear and trembling of your group and it's leader than sound biblical teaching. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 09:42 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The fact is, the thief may have gained the kingdom. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 09:08 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
If your question is who is qualified for a reward that is up to the Lord. It depends on their circumstances and His righteous assessment. Of course, we want to be counted worthy. He is righteous in all His ways. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 08:53 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
How long would he have had to live to have a chance to get into the kingdom reward? |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 08:42 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
I say almost because it depends, for instance if they died by being martyred. Many believers died after first becoming believers through martyrdom. They "loved not their soul lives even unto death". I don't see that as a matter of growth exactly, more like following the Lord to the ultimate extent. For instance, in Foxes Book of Martyrs there is one young sister mentioned (Blandina) that may fall into the category of young in age, maybe not a lot of opportunity for spiritual growth, but "loved not her soul-life even unto death" even through excruciating torture. I weep when I think about her suffering and consecration. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 08:07 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 07:52 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
However, though the Lord did not grant the thief his request for the Kingdom, He did promise him the portion of every believer (Paradise) |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 07:36 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
|
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 07:34 AM | ||||||||||
| ZNPaaneah |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The emphasis on growth over faithfulness established a hierarchy based on how many years in the LRC while deemphasizing the need to be faithful |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 07:28 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Witness Lee addressed the above scenario in blue in the teaching of the thief on the cross contrasting the thief's request (the Kingdom) with His promise (Paradise). |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 07:23 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" "- Witness Lee taught that "raptured and martyred" folks got the thousand year "Wedding Feast" with the Lord. The rest, per John's "Revelation", were not raised until the thousand years were over. Witness taught us that "Watchman Nee was surely martyred" in China, thus was a Wedding Feast overcomer. But Lee wasn't, so I guess he's in torment for a thousand years." Aron, No. All born again christians are raptured before the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth. Just want to clarify that misunderstanding in your sentence above. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 07:15 AM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Witness Lee taught very much about the inner life and following the leading of the Spirit. My takeaway from that aspect was this: That each believer should learn to follow the Lord in everyday personal matters, not only big things, but even in little things, matters that we often might think too small to pay any attention to. Sensing the Lord in your conversations and their manner, what you wear, relationships, etc. Applying that to the topic of this thread means that if we are faithful to follow the Lord's leading in all aspects of our life, even in little things, fine matters, He will commend us at His judgement seat. If we are loose in our living, not following the Lord, then we will miss out on a reward. Nevertheless, though we may suffer loss, we are eternally saved by our believing and faith. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 06:13 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" I don't think Witness Lee was very balanced on this. For one thing, he kept tying overcoming to "growth," saying you had to be full-grown to be raptured (harvested), and equated rapture with overcoming. But this doesn't make much sense. Reward is about faithfulness, not growth. How about someone who is saved, then dies young? Or saved late in life without much time to grow? These people can't be overcomers? He never explained this kind of thing. He was just so enamored with "life" and "growth" he kept pushing it without tying the loose ends together. Sorry, but there are a lot of problems with Lee's teaching on this subject. I would not suggest anyone just take it carte blanche. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 05:55 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The "overcomers" is a topic raised in scriptures so it ought to command our attention. If we wave "overcomers" off as being tantamount to "believers" we do it disservice, I believe. But I have in the past characterized Lee's teaching on the topic as equivalent to spreading butter with the head of an axe. It works, after a fashion, but it is neither as fine nor nuanced as the subject deserves. Unfortunately, I can only offer my "homespun" reading as well. I am sure someone out there has addressed this more satisfactorily, but I have not yet come across them, or if I did I wasn't paying sufficient attention. A few of my objections, in brief: - Witness Lee taught that "raptured and martyred" folks got the thousand year "Wedding Feast" with the Lord. The rest, per John's "Revelation", were not raised until the thousand years were over. Witness taught us that "Watchman Nee was surely martyred" in China, thus was a Wedding Feast overcomer. But Lee wasn't, so I guess he's in torment for a thousand years. Of course you'll reply, "No, not torment." But what, then? Silence. The Nee/Lee school has no idea, at least that came across my attention. -- Jesus taught that if you do wrong, you'll get punished. If you do wrong and should know better, you'll get "many stripes", but if you do wrong ignorantly, you'll get "few stripes". Silence from Nee & Lee. -- In the parable of the unrighteous steward, the steward and the creditors still are on the negative side of the ledger (the steward is still expelled, and th creditors still owe), but the relative positions have all improved. Silence from Nee and Lee. I suspect, as a non-schooled laity, that these stories meant something to the hearers, as they meant to Jesus and the apostles. But what I don't know. It seems they meant nothing to Nee and Lee. They had their "Wedding Feast", and their "outer darkness", and that was sufficient for them. |
|||||||||
| 11-01-2012 05:42 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
Thus, I posit, arose the Anabaptists. I spent some time with a group of them, post-LC, and was really impressed with their living. The children were a glaring contrast to LC children. Instead of fussy and agitated, they were calm and obedient. At the time I was still pretty strong for LSM teachings, even though I'd gone "back to christianity". But I realized that to introduce these young Anabaptist children to the LC young people would be like introducing them to the plague. So it was part of my journey: the realization that teachings, terminology and doctrine don't equal the kingdom. I somewhat heard about the kingdom in the local churches of Nee and Lee, but I saw more clearly it in the intentional communities of the anabaptists, and elsewhere. |
|||||||||
| 10-31-2012 07:38 PM | ||||||||||
| UntoHim |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
In relation to the teachings of Witness Lee (hate to pin ya down this way..but this is a forum about Nee, Lee and the Local Church) in relation to to the teachings of Witness Lee...what do you consider as "unfaithful in our christian walk". Watch this folks...... |
|||||||||
| 10-31-2012 07:11 PM | ||||||||||
| Cassidy |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" "However, it's not a subject which I feel that I can treat with any sophistication. And although I can't buy Anderson's arguments whole cloth, his warnings on the possible effects of the "overcomer" teachings are sobering. I think it's a very difficult subject, and I appreciate his efforts on this regard. The whole "free will/predestination" discussion seems to have been going on, often heatedly, for centuries. I had felt that the Nee/Lee school found a fairly tenable middle ground. Thoughts, anyone?" Aron, I thought the author was a bit judgmental and I did not agree that Witness Lee taught one side like the Pentecostals. There was and is a vast difference between the two both doctrinally and in the experiential. I agreed with you that Witness Lee and Watchman Nee taught balanced on this topic. That is what I liked, and still do, about both men and their teaching. The security of our eternal salvation once we believe and receive, but a loss of the kingdom reward, not the loss of eternal salvation, if we are unfaithful in our christian walk. The assurance and the warning. |
|||||||||
| 10-31-2012 11:34 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" The same goes for the marriage feast. Who enjoys a wedding the most? Those who have invested the most in the bride and groom--parents, close friends, family. Acquaintances enjoy the wedding, too, but not like those who have poured into the couple. Everyone will be at the marriage feast and will have a good time. But some will have a special enjoyment of it commensurate with their investment. It's just the way things work. |
|||||||||
| 10-31-2012 08:19 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Quote:
The first is immediately more scary, but I think the second is worse. |
|||||||||
| 10-31-2012 07:40 AM | ||||||||||
| Cal |
Re: Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" I think it's good enough to realize:
The rest is details. I think many of Lee's dire threats, in particular being "touched by the second death" and that kind of thing, are misled and damaging. First, the second death is reserved for unbelief. It is not the portion of believers. It refers to final, spiritual death. There is no reason to think that believers will be subject to such a thing. How could spiritual death be a proper discipline for those who are destined for eternal life? Second, the reference to the second death is given to the church in Smyrna, the suffering, martyred church. Think about the context. In the midst of their suffering, the Lord is reassuring them that even though they may die physically, they will not die eternally. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would threaten a church which was dying for him with the possibility of experiencing the eternal death. I think our reward will be the realization that we participated in eternal things in a positive way. It is something you cannot be given. You have to gain it for yourself. It's like being on a sports team for the entire season. You work, you sacrifice, you give all for the team. When you finally win the championship, no one can give you the feeling of knowing that you had part in producing the champion. Someone may have joined the team in the last game and helped a little, and he can hoist the trophy, too. But he cannot have the same feeling that those who went through the entire season have. That's what I think the reward is, at least in part. Those who missed that chance will never be able to experience that feeling. They will experience other blessings, but not that one. |
|||||||||
| 10-28-2012 05:23 AM | ||||||||||
| aron |
Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers" Here is a discussion I recently ran across of the "overcomers" vs. the "thousand years of darkness". The writer appears to be a former member of the local churches of Witness Lee. Full text, as "Topic 12", found at http://www.controversialchristiantopics.com All Christians have the light that the Passover is a type of Christ dying as our sacrifice - that we are justified by faith in the blood of Jesus and not by any meritorious works of our own. If one doesn't believe this, he cannot be a Christian. That is the beginning of the Christian life. But what about the end of the Christian life, the inheritance? There arose a teaching in the middle of the nineteenth century that agreed with the beginning of our walk -that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works. But the end of our walk, the kingdom, our inheritance, must be earned by fulfilling certain obligations. And only a better class of Christians, the "overcomers", would actually enter into the inheritance. The noted scholar, G.H. Pember taught this in the most unequivocal language. Robert Govett, another eminent scholar, also taught it, acknowledging his debt to Pember. Jesse Penn-Lewis passed it on in her Overcomer magazine, to which M.E. Barber subscribed, and taught it to Watchman Nee. He mixed it with his teaching about the three circles and transformation (which he also received through the Overcomer, from Mary McDonough, of Brookline MA). And in that form it passed to us through Witness Lee. In the spring of 1973 Witness gave a history of our movement, citing rapture by maturity and the kingdom as a reward for maturity, as having been seen by Bro.Nee in the mid to late 1920's, "..through the help of so many spiritual giants". It is a matter of fact that the Local Church Movement is, in a large part, based upon this teaching... It should not surprise anyone then, that a devout Christian viewing the Christian profession with not only its outright unbelief in God's word and its idolatry, but also its carelessness, indifference, and worldliness - should think it might be a good idea to come up with a teaching which would scare us back to reality. I can remember Witness lecturing us that 'God in His wisdom' knew that many Christians would not be faithful, not be diligent, and He therefore decided to give the kingdom as a reward for maturity, and the "outer darkness" as a threat to the "lazy" Christians. But he assured us that even the lazy Christians, because they had believed the gospel, would, after the Kingdom, be allowed entrance into the eternal state, the New Jerusalem. How assured did that make you feel? We had the unique experience, possibly the singularly unique experience in the twentieth century, of seeing the results on a large scale of this kind of reward & punishment system woven back, or should I say, "added", into the New Covenant. Our whole movement was based upon the teaching started by Pember a century earlier. Only we were reminded that it was not simply righteousness which was required. We also had to "buy the oil", "gain Christ", "love not our soul-lives", and "ripen" before the Lord returns. Or else! This was the subject of many of our meetings and much of our fellowship. How well did it work among the many hundreds of devotees who threw themselves with all their hearts and souls into this teaching? Do you remember the trail of human wreckage, the weepings, the public outbursts of humiliation, the mental breakdowns? Do you remember also the heartless Phariseeism? Remember how many (so very many!) fell away, not because of worldliness or lukewarmness, but because they just couldn't stand the condemnation, the dread, the sense of perpetual defect, of not measuring up? My own dear wife fell away out of discouragement turned into bitterness. How well did it work? I witnessed the believers in our group fall into three categories: 1. Pharisees. This type compares himself, not against the Bible, but against the others he meets with and, seeing his superior advances, thinks, "I'm doing OK." He has the false peace derived from resting on a false standard. There weren't too many of these, but they usually became leaders who presumed to teach others. 2. Breast beaters (Lk.18:13). These were the most sincere and the most condemned. They were sometimes able to get a little peace through self-flagellation: "I revile myself, Lord!" Ever confessing, ever praying, "Lord, make me more for you!" And thereby gaining a temporary peace through such continual reconsecrations. But this is not real peace, because it is not based on the whole truth. The state of one's heart and his/her spiritual progress become the object, and not Christ. There can be no peace in that. 3. Unconscious Unbelievers. Paul teaches us we must be "holding faith and a good conscience" in balance. If one drops, the other must drop also. Many Local Churchers unconsciously lowered the standard of what they believed was expected of them, in order to keep from having a continually condemned conscience. Without actually facing it, they would develop a creeping unbelief, after so many failures: "He doesn't really expect me to do and be all these things". This does bring relief from condemnation. Only it is not really peace, but slumber. The great majority of all believers stop struggling and slide into this pitfall. Most of the older Local Churchers have lapsed into this category. Brother, you and I should be the last people to be preaching to our brothers and sisters that they must buy the oil and ripen or else they will be left to endure the Tribulation along with the unbelievers. We have seen firsthand the disastrous effect upon the faith of sincere believers and the puffing up of the more self-vindicating minded believers. Remember how superior we felt to the "cotton candy Christians"? How we talked of how precious Witness' message pamphlets would be to the poor Fundamentalists during the Tribulation? If you are not preaching about the verses I have quoted concerning the kingdom as a promise, and others like it, such as:" Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom"; if you are not giving these equal time along with your warnings, your ministry will be stilted. "The legs of the lame are not equal". Please allow me this poor example, which I have used to help believers through the difficulties we all experience reconciling grace and responsibility: A. The train is leaving at 3:00PM. If you do not do what is necessary to be at the station on time YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND. B. Your heavenly Father loves you and has predestined you to have a seat on the train before the world's foundation. And He WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARRIVE THERE. As the hour approaches and one believer sees he is not yet ready, he begins to fear and to think, "I do not find in myself the resources to be ready on time; I fear I will be left behind!" The Father answers, "Do not fear; your heart and spirit are right. Leave the details to me. I will get you there; and you will glorify me for it. Remember my promise". Another believer sees the hour approaching and is at least dimly aware that he is not at all ready. When questioned about it, he remarks that these things are in God's hands and reminds us of the divine promises. To this one the Holy Spirit must come and remind him of the divine warnings, "If you don't prepare yourself now you will be left behind. That is also a divine promise!" I hope this example will not be too simple.... But on more than one occasion Paul wrote of speaking "humanly because of the weakness of your flesh". It doesn't take a genius to see, at least in the train station analogy, the disastrous effect of telling people only one side. We really do need both sides of the truth maintained because of our weakness. A ministry which majors on the promises of God, skirting away from the warnings, which seem to contradict them, will not produce any exercise. And where there is no exercise, there is no progress. This has happened to much of Fundamentalism. A ministry which majors on the warnings, skirting away from the promises because it is believed we have heard too much of them, will bleed out all the believers' confidence. And confidence is the one thing we must have for continuance. And continuance is the only true mark, as Hebrews emphasizes, which proves that we do have faith. This has happened in groups such as the Local Church and some of the Pentecostal churches, which teach that one can lose his salvation. Mr. Anderson seems to lean a little too close to Calvinistic "predestination" for my taste, but still he is erudite and passionate enough to listen to. My beef with his logic, which uses the Book of Hebrews' exposition on the Israelites who "fell because of unbelief" in the wilderness, is this: according to his logic Moses is an unbeliever, cast aside for his unbelief. But we see Moses on the mountaintop with Jesus in the NT gospels. It seems clear to me from the OT text that Moses' death on Pisgah, overlooking the Good Land, was significantly not in Egypt or in some way station. Anderson seems to overlook this distinction. I cannot. But at the same time I cannot dismiss his writings on God's promises: "What I have said I will do, I will do." I as a failed human being sense that we both have free will to obey, and that with our free choice we may "lean on the everlasting arms." However, it's not a subject which I feel that I can treat with any sophistication. And although I can't buy Anderson's arguments whole cloth, his warnings on the possible effects of the "overcomer" teachings are sobering. I think it's a very difficult subject, and I appreciate his efforts on this regard. The whole "free will/predestination" discussion seems to have been going on, often heatedly, for centuries. I had felt that the Nee/Lee school found a fairly tenable middle ground. Thoughts, anyone? |
|||||||||
