Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Relating to the topic of deputy authority is Watchman Nee's book on spiritual authority.
Though scriptural in content, are Nee's conclusions sound?
|
Quick break from sabbatical is in order for this thread.
I think Terry has it pretty close here. But I would restate his question as follows:
"
Though full of scripture, does Nee faithfully analyze its meaning and thereby arrive at sound conclusions?"
When we started looking at this book a couple of years ago, I began to see Nee engaging in selective rewriting of scripture. If you actually read the verses that he uses in the first chapter of the book, you find that he consistently takes verses that speak of "power" and immediately carries on as if they say "authority." If you look in the fifth paragraph of the book, he does actually quote from the ending of the Lord's Prayer, then immediately restates it as referring to authority and glory.
Why? Maybe because he thinks it is true and sees no reason to provide a legitimate explanation.
Because of things like this, I cannot refer to his book as "scriptural" unless the term only means that there are a lot of verses cited and/or quoted. But to me, "scriptural" can only be attributed to a book outside of the scripture itself if it faithfully quotes, analyzes, and applies the scripture in a manner that clearly springs from that scripture.
And replacing one important term with a different one — one that does not mean the same thing — and then using that altered term as a foundation for insisting upon its importance is not "scriptural." It is mishandling the word of truth. It is the fabrication of a myth. And a myth that now underpins the unrighteousness of the leadership of yet one more exclusivist, remnant theology sect.
This is the beginning of the march to "discover" deputy authority.