[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This observation regarding of Nee's "lack of clarity" is a good point. As we know, in the LC, WN is held as a MOTA and as basically being infallible. When WN describes his experiences and doesn't provide any qualification about what these experiences should be taken to mean, it can lead to people trying to take this stuff too seriously. If he was a pattern for the LC, then members might strive to match his "experiences".

An article on Watchman Nee's theology/ecclesiology and showed clear parallels to his interpretation of what it meant to be a spiritual man, discerned by none, versus what Paul had intended in 1 Cor 2:15. I know that Witness Lee waved off any perceived linkage to so-called "confusionism" but maybe he was wishfully trying to throw gullible Jesus people off the scent. Certainly, if you consider, Witness Lee also tried to be "a great man exercising a transforming influence...[and who was] beyond our knowledge" as the quote below says.

Originally Posted by Tien

[Confucius teaching that]A man who commands our liking is what is called a good man. He whose goodness is part of himself is what is called a real man. He whose goodness has been filled up is what is called a beautiful man. He whose completed goodness is brightly displayed is what is called a great man. When this great man exercises a transforming influence, he is what is called a sage. When the sage is beyond our knowledge, he is what is called a spirit man.可欲之謂善，有諸己之謂信。充實之謂美，充實而有光輝之謂大，大而化之之謂聖，聖而不可知之謂

Tien, H. E. (2020). Spirituality and Authority of the Corporate Christ: An analysis and critique of Watchman Nee’s ecclesiology (Doctoral dissertation).