[OBW]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Theology: "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth."

Rational? Systematic? A study of religion and its influences?

Where is Christ and His life in that?

....

Nee would never have wanted to be called a theologian, I am certain of that.

First, bringing one of the definitions of theology out and using it to defend Nee not being a theologian does not do him much service. Theology is the totality of the realm of the study of God. Some follow a systematic approach. Others do not. Some lean heavily on the rational while others a kind of Christian mysticism.

And it is true that if your goal is just to get the terms and phrases right and know the stuff, then there is a legitimate question about whether Christ is actually in it other than in name. But most of the true theologians are engaged in their endeavors for the purpose of helping to lead the church forward in its practical and real experience of Christ and in obeying rightly. That is precisely what Nee and even Lee set out to do. Many will disagree with the direction that Nee and Lee took, including the lack of true understanding of the meaning of so much of what they expounded upon, even going so far as to reinterpret it through the lens of their culture and biases. But they took on the role of theologian whether they like the word or not. And since Lee (for sure) basically took his positions regardless of the position of any before him, including Nee, and accepted no help in coming to those positions, he was the worst kind of theologian — one with no base of support or critique.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

As for God speaking specially to him, doesn't God speak specially to each one of us? Christ said:

John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me"

This is not an invitation to the creation of unsupportable theology. (Yeah, you don't like that word. But it is very applicable.)

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Nee taught this truth as well...

"This truth" is what truth? And is it truth? Just because you include scriptural words does not make the totality of the words spoken into "truth."

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Inner-life teachings are not untrue, brother. Unless we abide in Him, and He in us, we cannot bear fruit. We can rationally apply scripture all we want, there will be no blessing.... But if we abide in Him, and He in us, we will bear fruit. A tree is known by it's fruit. We don't need to know about Christ, brother. We need to know Him.

No. Inner-life teachings are not simply untrue. But some of them are untrue. And the way you phrased this little portion I quoted is one of those untruths. It suggests that we should not obey, but rather abide until obedience comes. Scripture is very clear that it is the other way around. Take the following:

John 14:23 “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” This verse makes it clear that the Father and the Son will abide with those who love him (the Son) and keep his words. So what came first? It is clear that the abiding going on here is predicated upon love and obedience.

John 15:10: “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” This one is even clearer. It says "keep my commandments" as the predicate for abiding in His love. So there is no real love unless you are keeping his commandments.

John 8:31-32 “To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ ” I really like this one. You cannot seek your way into the truth that sets you free. You cannot abide your way into the truth that sets you free. You can only "hold" your way to that truth. And to hold to teachings is not to defend them, or assent to their truth, but to obey them. So once again, obedience precedes truth. That is the truth.

Now when it comes to evangelizing, it may be true that you must be at the point of abiding before you can bear this kind of fruit. But fruit is of all kinds. It is in kindness, meekness, gentleness, long suffering, etc. Much of this is what we are commanded when you properly understand how to love your neighbor as yourself, or even keep the 10 commandments.

Obedience is what is commanded of us. Read the "Great Commission." Go. Disciple. Baptize. Teach to Obey. Not a word about abiding. Nothing about teaching the truth that sets them free. If you read back through John, you will find that those who follow and obey are given much — abiding, truth, the light of life, God's love. Those do not come first. They are the results.

It seems too clear that those who are obeying have the abiding. So abiding is not something that you seek to do independently. It is a truth if you are obeying. If you are not obeying, it is not happening.

And this is where the overall effect of inner-life teachings goes astray. They are too focused on seeking after the mystical things. Seeking after the results of obedience and following without obeying or following, but by seeking the result of them anyway. If they would obey and follow, they would find that they do not need to seek those things. It will be theirs.

The problem is that they have redefined too many of the things into something mystical that could never arise from such a simple action as obedience. They need to make it into something that is a feeling and is achieved by doing mental/spiritual things. That is a fraud and a distraction.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Nee knew Him.

At some level, I cannot disagree. But he did not know Him so well that he could expound not being into being in terms of his theology.