Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I would agree that sometimes there is something in the forest that is not seen tree-by-tree.
But when you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put Authority and Submission and Spiritual Authority into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it. If you simply note that it seems spiritual, or that it "hangs together," that might not be enough. I did some significant review of the first couple of chapters several years ago and came to see that if you just brush through the first chapters and accept the little that they say as true, the rest follows. But if you take the time to ask whether that little in the first chapters is actually sound (logically, grammatically, spiritually, biblically, etc.) there were some problems that had to be overcome to continue on to the rest of it. And without those chapters and their groundwork, you never get to the rest.
Besides, when you insist on viewing it from 40,000 feet, you miss that there are details that just aren't quite right. Like declaring that no one had the position to complain or do anything about certain persons because they had some "position." Only God could deal with them. That is simply not true. The Bible is full of stands against that.
But if you start by agreeing that the declaration that there is "authority and submission" in the verses in chapter 1 of the book, then you have bought Nee's false word substitution.
And it is in the trees. You need to show why the first chapter is even correct before you get to the rest. It is because authority and submission is given such a high and lofty place that Nee goes on to chapter 2. And then what is in chapter 2 is so important that you can now go on to chapter 3. If you are just taking it all in isolation without any critical thinking, then it probably is cohesive and has a good "forest" kind of effect. But when you start at the entrance to the forest and find pine beetles attacking the pines, and labels on the Aspens declaring them to be White Oak, then you begin to wonder if you are following a marine biologist on a fact-finding trip through the woods. He may make it all fit together and look pretty, but it is full of factual errors. He may think the beetles are simply symbiotic with the trees. And that anything with a white bark is a White Oak.
And that coconuts are migratory.
|
Such careful and critical thinking as this will bring a highly controversial subject into the light.
This is from Nell 2015 on a thread she started called "The Sin of Noah?".
[QUOTE=Nell;42909][SIZE="2"]
Genesis 9:18-27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
(Nell continued)
I recently took another look at these verses and I would like to make a few observations about what the verses actually say.
Rather than “deputy authority” the verses are the obvious account of an interaction between a father and his sons…it's a family matter.
“The sin of Noah”? This passage does not contain the word “sin”. The Bible doesn’t call what Noah did “sin”. He and his family were just off the boat and the earth had been wiped clean. He was apparently new to the vineyard business. What these verses discuss may have occurred at Noah's first harvest of wine when he drank too much and it put him to sleep. Then, he was uncovered “within his tent”.
Speaking to "deputy authority", Noah may have been
uncovered in his tent, but to the outside world,
Noah was covered ...
by his tent.
He didn’t go bar-hopping. He didn’t go out carousing around with the boys, get drunk and take his clothes off. He was drunk and naked
in the privacy of his own tent. Since the Bible doesn’t call it sin,
should we presume to call sin what the Bible does not? Even though sin is implied, is there enough evidence to convict? Since it is not specifically stated in the Word, Noah's actions could have been unintentional so I can give him the benefit of the doubt.
Noah’s son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and went out and talked about it to his brothers. Shem and Japheth respected their father by simply covering him up. If there is a lesson to these verses, IMHO, here it is. In a family, you’re always going to see things you wish you hadn’t seen. There will be things you don’t want to see. In a family, “nakedness” is always a possibility. Parents aren’t perfect and their behavior will be exposed to the children. Of course, this doesn't excuse bad or sinful behavior of parents toward young children. In this passage though, Noah's sons are adults, so that's the context I'm addressing......
Nell
There was some more to her sharing, but what she has shared shows that she isn't just accepting Nee's line of reasoning but has made "observations about what the verses actually say", and what they don't say.
"When you are trying to determine the value of something as significant as the line of reasoning that Nee used to put Authority and Submission and Spiritual Authority into the Christian landscape, it is worthwhile to actually see where he starts and how he goes through it."