Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
And yes, it is a mystery. No doubt. We are not instructed to understand, but to believe and obey what we probably cannot understand. I didn't make the rules, God did.
|
I started this tangent by objecting to the statement posted: "Man cannot see the Father in heaven". Of course we can find a verse that supports this. But we can also see verses that don't support this at all. I was pointing out the 'inconvenient' verse that doesn't line up with the bald assertion of the Seer of the Divine Revelation (Lee's appellation for Nee, which he no doubt assumed for himself).
Now, as StG notes, the context of that quote may be some equivocation or circumspection by the speaker. We don't see that, just the quote. So I objected to the statement as it stands.
To me, that is the important thing. Not that I am 'right' or 'have the high peak truth' or even try to overturn others. My point in all of this is to say, "I will not be pushed around, I will not be bullied. If I don't see what you see, I won't sit there quietly and 'take it'. No. I have a voice. Right or wrong it is mine."
So I won't take "no man on earth sees the Father in heaven." Jesus' statement clearly belies that. Now, what does that mean? There are still mysteries there. But just to take the bland word as some truth or fact, No. Witness Lee's hold on my mind is over.
"For freedom, Christ has set you free. Stand fast, therefore, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of slavery."
The problem with Lee, following Nee, and shared by many others, is that they do systematic theology based on a few verses, in which they apply their own readings, guided by ignorant self-oriented intentions. (yes I do the same thing but I'm not opening training centres). And then the verses that don't line up with the 'revelation' they say, "Well, it's a mystery" or they try to minimize them or they say "That's Peter's fallen human concepts" (!!!) And I object to that system of enforced ignorance and superstition. And I will continue to object.