Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[aron]

Here is a discussion I recently ran across of the "overcomers" vs. the "thousand years of darkness". The writer appears to be a former member of the local churches of Witness Lee. Full text, as "Topic 12", found at

http://www.controversialchristiantopics.com

All Christians have the light that the Passover is a type of Christ dying as our sacrifice - that we are justified by faith in the blood of Jesus and not by any meritorious works of our own. If one doesn't believe this, he cannot be a Christian. That is the beginning of the Christian life. But what about the end of the Christian life, the inheritance? There arose a teaching in the middle of the nineteenth century that agreed with the beginning of our walk -that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works. But the end of our walk, the kingdom, our inheritance, must be earned by fulfilling certain obligations. And only a better class of Christians, the "overcomers", would actually enter into the inheritance. The noted scholar, G.H. Pember taught this in the most unequivocal language. Robert Govett, another eminent scholar, also taught it, acknowledging his debt to Pember. Jesse Penn-Lewis passed it on in her Overcomer magazine, to which M.E. Barber subscribed, and taught it to Watchman Nee. He mixed it with his teaching about the three circles and transformation (which he also received through the Overcomer, from Mary McDonough, of Brookline MA). And in that form it passed to us through Witness Lee. In the spring of 1973 Witness gave a history of our movement, citing rapture by maturity and the kingdom as a reward for maturity, as having been seen by Bro.Nee in the mid to late 1920's, "..through the help of so many spiritual giants". It is a matter of fact that the Local Church Movement is, in a large part, based upon this teaching...

It should not surprise anyone then, that a devout Christian viewing the Christian profession with not only its outright unbelief in God's word and its idolatry, but also its carelessness, indifference, and worldliness - should think it might be a good idea to come up with a teaching which would scare us back to reality. I can remember Witness lecturing us that 'God in His wisdom' knew that many Christians would not be faithful, not be diligent, and He therefore decided to give the kingdom as a reward for maturity, and the "outer darkness" as a threat to the "lazy" Christians. But he assured us that even the lazy Christians, because they had believed the gospel, would, after the Kingdom, be allowed entrance into the eternal state, the New Jerusalem. How assured did that make you feel?

We had the unique experience, possibly the singularly unique experience in the twentieth century, of seeing the results on a large scale of this kind of reward & punishment system woven back, or should I say, "added", into the New Covenant. Our whole movement was based upon the teaching started by Pember a century earlier. Only we were reminded that it was not simply righteousness which was required. We also had to "buy the oil", "gain Christ", "love not our soul-lives", and "ripen" before the Lord returns. Or else! This was the subject of many of our meetings and much of our fellowship.

How well did it work among the many hundreds of devotees who threw themselves with all their hearts and souls into this teaching? Do you remember the trail of human wreckage, the weepings, the public outbursts of humiliation, the mental breakdowns? Do you remember also the heartless Phariseeism? Remember how many (so very many!) fell away, not because of worldliness or lukewarmness, but because they just couldn't stand the condemnation, the dread, the sense of perpetual defect, of not measuring up? My own dear wife fell away out of discouragement turned into bitterness.

How well did it work? I witnessed the believers in our group fall into three categories:

1. Pharisees. This type compares himself, not against the Bible, but against the others he meets with and, seeing his superior advances, thinks, "I'm doing OK." He has the false peace derived from resting on a false standard. There weren't too many of these, but they usually became leaders who presumed to teach others.

2. Breast beaters (Lk.18:13). These were the most sincere and the most condemned. They were sometimes able to get a little peace through self-flagellation: "I revile myself, Lord!" Ever confessing, ever praying, "Lord, make me more for you!" And thereby gaining a temporary peace through such continual reconsecrations. But this is not real peace, because it is not based on the whole truth. The state of one's heart and his/her spiritual progress become the object, and not Christ. There can be no peace in that.

3. Unconscious Unbelievers. Paul teaches us we must be "holding faith and a good conscience" in balance. If one drops, the other must drop also. Many Local Churchers unconsciously lowered the standard of what they believed was expected of them, in order to keep from having a continually condemned conscience. Without actually facing it, they would develop a creeping unbelief, after so many failures: "He doesn't really expect me to do and be all these things". This does bring relief from condemnation. Only it is not really peace, but slumber. The great majority of all believers stop struggling and slide into this pitfall. Most of the older Local Churchers have lapsed into this category.

Brother, you and I should be the last people to be preaching to our brothers and sisters that they must buy the oil and ripen or else they will be left to endure the Tribulation along with the unbelievers. We have seen firsthand the disastrous effect upon the faith of sincere believers and the puffing up of the more self-vindicating minded believers. Remember how superior we felt to the "cotton candy Christians"? How we talked of how precious Witness' message pamphlets would be to the poor Fundamentalists during the Tribulation? If you are not preaching about the verses I have quoted concerning the kingdom as a promise, and others like it, such as:" Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom"; if you are not giving these equal time along with your warnings, your ministry will be stilted. "The legs of the lame are not equal".

Please allow me this poor example, which I have used to help believers through the difficulties we all experience reconciling grace and responsibility:
A. The train is leaving at 3:00PM. If you do not do what is necessary to be at the station on time YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND.
B. Your heavenly Father loves you and has predestined you to have a seat on the train before the world's foundation. And He WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARRIVE THERE.

As the hour approaches and one believer sees he is not yet ready, he begins to fear and to think, "I do not find in myself the resources to be ready on time; I fear I will be left behind!" The Father answers, "Do not fear; your heart and spirit are right. Leave the details to me. I will get you there; and you will glorify me for it. Remember my promise".

Another believer sees the hour approaching and is at least dimly aware that he is not at all ready. When questioned about it, he remarks that these things are in God's hands and reminds us of the divine promises. To this one the Holy Spirit must come and remind him of the divine warnings, "If you don't prepare yourself now you will be left behind. That is also a divine promise!"

I hope this example will not be too simple.... But on more than one occasion Paul wrote of speaking "humanly because of the weakness of your flesh". It doesn't take a genius to see, at least in the train station analogy, the disastrous effect of telling people only one side. We really do need both sides of the truth maintained because of our weakness. A ministry which majors on the promises of God, skirting away from the warnings, which seem to contradict them, will not produce any exercise. And where there is no exercise, there is no progress. This has happened to much of Fundamentalism. A ministry which majors on the warnings, skirting away from the promises because it is believed we have heard too much of them, will bleed out all the believers' confidence. And confidence is the one thing we must have for continuance. And continuance is the only true mark, as Hebrews emphasizes, which proves that we do have faith. This has happened in groups such as the Local Church and some of the Pentecostal churches, which teach that one can lose his salvation.

Mr. Anderson seems to lean a little too close to Calvinistic "predestination" for my taste, but still he is erudite and passionate enough to listen to. My beef with his logic, which uses the Book of Hebrews' exposition on the Israelites who "fell because of unbelief" in the wilderness, is this: according to his logic Moses is an unbeliever, cast aside for his unbelief. But we see Moses on the mountaintop with Jesus in the NT gospels.

It seems clear to me from the OT text that Moses' death on Pisgah, overlooking the Good Land, was significantly not in Egypt or in some way station. Anderson seems to overlook this distinction. I cannot.

But at the same time I cannot dismiss his writings on God's promises: "What I have said I will do, I will do." I as a failed human being sense that we both have free will to obey, and that with our free choice we may "lean on the everlasting arms."

However, it's not a subject which I feel that I can treat with any sophistication. And although I can't buy Anderson's arguments whole cloth, his warnings on the possible effects of the "overcomer" teachings are sobering. I think it's a very difficult subject, and I appreciate his efforts on this regard. The whole "free will/predestination" discussion seems to have been going on, often heatedly, for centuries. I had felt that the Nee/Lee school found a fairly tenable middle ground.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Cal]

I think it's good enough to realize:

• Our eternal security is assured.
  
• The Lord expects us to be faithful as believers.
  
• There will be varying rewards based on faithfulness.
  
• You will experience a loss if you squander the chance to use your life to gain kingdom value.

The rest is details.

I think many of Lee's dire threats, in particular being "touched by the second death" and that kind of thing, are misled and damaging.

First, the second death is reserved for unbelief. It is not the portion of believers. It refers to final, spiritual death. There is no reason to think that believers will be subject to such a thing. How could spiritual death be a proper discipline for those who are destined for eternal life?

Second, the reference to the second death is given to the church in Smyrna, the suffering, martyred church. Think about the context. In the midst of their suffering, the Lord is reassuring them that even though they may die physically, they will not die eternally. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would threaten a church which was dying for him with the possibility of experiencing the eternal death.

I think our reward will be the realization that we participated in eternal things in a positive way. It is something you cannot be given. You have to gain it for yourself.

It's like being on a sports team for the entire season. You work, you sacrifice, you give all for the team. When you finally win the championship, no one can give you the feeling of knowing that you had part in producing the champion. Someone may have joined the team in the last game and helped a little, and he can hoist the trophy, too. But he cannot have the same feeling that those who went through the entire season have. That's what I think the reward is, at least in part.

Those who missed that chance will never be able to experience that feeling. They will experience other blessings, but not that one.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Those who missed that chance will never be able to experience that feeling. They will experience other blessings, but not that one.

And as far as experiencing a loss goes, which is worse? Being burned for a while, or realizing that you will never again get the chance to on Earth do good for the Lord?

The first is immediately more scary, but I think the second is worse.

[Cal]

The same goes for the marriage feast. Who enjoys a wedding the most? Those who have invested the most in the bride and groom--parents, close friends, family. Acquaintances enjoy the wedding, too, but not like those who have poured into the couple.

Everyone will be at the marriage feast and will have a good time. But some will have a special enjoyment of it commensurate with their investment. It's just the way things work.

[Cassidy]

"However, it's not a subject which I feel that I can treat with any sophistication. And although I can't buy Anderson's arguments whole cloth, his warnings on the possible effects of the "overcomer" teachings are sobering. I think it's a very difficult subject, and I appreciate his efforts on this regard. The whole "free will/predestination" discussion seems to have been going on, often heatedly, for centuries. I had felt that the Nee/Lee school found a fairly tenable middle ground.

Thoughts, anyone?"

Aron,

I thought the author was a bit judgmental and I did not agree that Witness Lee taught one side like the Pentecostals. There was and is a vast difference between the two both doctrinally and in the experiential.

I agreed with you that Witness Lee and Watchman Nee taught balanced on this topic.

That is what I liked, and still do, about both men and their teaching. The security of our eternal salvation once we believe and receive, but a loss of the kingdom reward, not the loss of eternal salvation, if we are unfaithful in our christian walk. The assurance and the warning.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

but a loss of the kingdom reward, not the loss of eternal salvation, if we are unfaithful in our christian walk. The assurance and the warning.

So Cassidy, my man! Good to hear from you!
In relation to the teachings of Witness Lee (hate to pin ya down this way..but this is a forum about Nee, Lee and the Local Church) in relation to to the teachings of Witness Lee...what do you consider as "unfaithful in our christian walk".
Watch this folks......

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Cassidy, my man! Good to hear from you!
In relation to the teachings of Witness Lee (hate to pin ya down this way..but this is a forum about Nee, Lee and the Local Church) in relation to to the teachings of Witness Lee...what do you consider as "unfaithful in our christian walk".
Watch this folks......

Hi UntoHim,

Witness Lee taught very much about the inner life and following the leading of the Spirit. My takeaway from that aspect was this: That each believer should learn to follow the Lord in everyday personal matters, not only big things, but even in little things, matters that we often might think too small to pay any attention to. Sensing the Lord in your conversations and their manner, what you wear, relationships, etc.

Applying that to the topic of this thread means that if we are faithful to follow the Lord's leading in all aspects of our life, even in little things, fine matters, He will commend us at His judgement seat. If we are loose in our living, not following the Lord, then we will miss out on a reward. Nevertheless, though we may suffer loss, we are eternally saved by our believing and faith.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

That is what I liked, and still do, about [Witness Lee and Watchman Nee] and their teaching. The security of our eternal salvation once we believe and receive, but a loss of the kingdom reward, not the loss of eternal salvation, if we are unfaithful in our christian walk. The assurance and the warning.

This subject, incidentally, points out another weakness in the Protestant Reformation, which I wanted to address in discussion on Erasmus vs Luther. The main promulgators of the Protestant Reformation, I feel, were so horrified by the abuses of "works" (see, for example, the indulgences issue) that they over-reacted: "It is naught of works/'Tis all of grace". They downplayed the issue of "My reward is according to your works" until it was nearly non-existent in the consciousnesses of the Protestant faithful.

Thus, I posit, arose the Anabaptists. I spent some time with a group of them, post-LC, and was really impressed with their living. The children were a glaring contrast to LC children. Instead of fussy and agitated, they were calm and obedient. At the time I was still pretty strong for LSM teachings, even though I'd gone "back to christianity". But I realized that to introduce these young Anabaptist children to the LC young people would be like introducing them to the plague. So it was part of my journey: the realization that teachings, terminology and doctrine don't equal the kingdom. I somewhat heard about the kingdom in the local churches of Nee and Lee, but I saw more clearly it in the intentional communities of the anabaptists, and elsewhere.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Aron,

I agreed with you that Witness Lee and Watchman Nee taught balanced on this topic.

That is what I liked, and still do, about both men and their teaching. The security of our eternal salvation once we believe and receive, but a loss of the kingdom reward, not the loss of eternal salvation, if we are unfaithful in our christian walk. The assurance and the warning.

I still prefer the "balanced" approach of Nee & Lee. However, I find it rather crude. The topic deserves a more thorough teaching than they provided (to me, anyway; perhaps you have gotten more than I). And it deserves a better rebuttal than Mr. Anderson gave.

The "overcomers" is a topic raised in scriptures so it ought to command our attention. If we wave "overcomers" off as being tantamount to "believers" we do it disservice, I believe. But I have in the past characterized Lee's teaching on the topic as equivalent to spreading butter with the head of an axe. It works, after a fashion, but it is neither as fine nor nuanced as the subject deserves.

Unfortunately, I can only offer my "homespun" reading as well. I am sure someone out there has addressed this more satisfactorily, but I have not yet come across them, or if I did I wasn't paying sufficient attention.

A few of my objections, in brief:

- Witness Lee taught that "raptured and martyred" folks got the thousand year "Wedding Feast" with the Lord. The rest, per John's "Revelation", were not raised until the thousand years were over. Witness taught us that "Watchman Nee was surely martyred" in China, thus was a Wedding Feast overcomer. But Lee wasn't, so I guess he's in torment for a thousand years.

Of course you'll reply, "No, not torment." But what, then? Silence. The Nee/Lee school has no idea, at least that came across my attention.

-- Jesus taught that if you do wrong, you'll get punished. If you do wrong and should know better, you'll get "many stripes", but if you do wrong ignorantly, you'll get "few stripes". Silence from Nee & Lee.

-- In the parable of the unrighteous steward, the steward and the creditors still are on the negative side of the ledger (the steward is still expelled, and th creditors still owe), but the relative positions have all improved. Silence from Nee and Lee.

I suspect, as a non-schooled laity, that these stories meant something to the hearers, as they meant to Jesus and the apostles. But what I don't know. It seems they meant nothing to Nee and Lee. They had their "Wedding Feast", and their "outer darkness", and that was sufficient for them.

[Cal]

I don't think Witness Lee was very balanced on this. For one thing, he kept tying overcoming to "growth," saying you had to be full-grown to be raptured (harvested), and equated rapture with overcoming. But this doesn't make much sense. Reward is about faithfulness, not growth. How about someone who is saved, then dies young? Or saved late in life without much time to grow? These people can't be overcomers? He never explained this kind of thing. He was just so enamored with "life" and "growth" he kept pushing it without tying the loose ends together.

Sorry, but there are a lot of problems with Lee's teaching on this subject. I would not suggest anyone just take it carte blanche.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think Witness Lee was very balanced on this. For one thing, he kept tying overcoming to "growth," saying you had to be full-grown to be raptured (harvested), and equated rapture with overcoming. But this doesn't make much sense. Reward is about faithfulness, not growth. How about someone who is saved, then dies young? Or saved late in life without much time to grow? These people can't be overcomers? He never explained this kind of thing. He was just so enamored with "life" and "growth" he kept pushing it without tying the loose ends together.

Sorry, but there are a lot of problems with Lee's teaching on this subject. I would not suggest anyone just take it carte blanche.

Igzy,

Witness Lee addressed the above scenario in blue in the teaching of the thief on the cross contrasting the thief's request (the Kingdom) with His promise (Paradise).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy,

Witness Lee addressed the above scenario in blue in the teaching of the thief on the cross contrasting the thief's request (the Kingdom) with His promise (Paradise).

So what did the thief do to earn the kingdom reward?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think Witness Lee was very balanced on this. For one thing, he kept tying overcoming to "growth," saying you had to be full-grown to be raptured (harvested), and equated rapture with overcoming. But this doesn't make much sense. Reward is about faithfulness, not growth. How about someone who is saved, then dies young? Or saved late in life without much time to grow? These people can't be overcomers? He never explained this kind of thing. He was just so enamored with "life" and "growth" he kept pushing it without tying the loose ends together.

Sorry, but there are a lot of problems with Lee's teaching on this subject. I would not suggest anyone just take it carte blanche.

The emphasis on growth over faithfulness established a hierarchy based on how many years in the LRC while deemphasizing the need to be faithful

[Cassidy]

"- Witness Lee taught that "raptured and martyred" folks got the thousand year "Wedding Feast" with the Lord. The rest, per John's "Revelation", were not raised until the thousand years were over. Witness taught us that "Watchman Nee was surely martyred" in China, thus was a Wedding Feast overcomer. But Lee wasn't, so I guess he's in torment for a thousand years."

Aron,

No. All born again christians are raptured before the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth.

Just want to clarify that misunderstanding in your sentence above.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a discussion I recently ran across of the "overcomers" vs. the "thousand years of darkness". The writer appears to be a former member of the local churches of Witness Lee. Full text, as "Topic 12", found at

http://www.controversialchristiantopics.com

How well did it work? I witnessed the believers in our group fall into three categories:

1. Pharisees. This type compares himself, not against the Bible, but against the others he meets with and, seeing his superior advances, thinks, "I'm doing OK." He has the false peace derived from resting on a false standard. There weren't too many of these, but they usually became leaders who presumed to teach others.

2. Breast beaters (Lk.18:13). These were the most sincere and the most condemned. They were sometimes able to get a little peace through self-flagellation: "I revile myself, Lord!" Ever confessing, ever praying, "Lord, make me more for you!" And thereby gaining a temporary peace through such continual reconsecrations. But this is not real peace, because it is not based on the whole truth. The state of one's heart and his/her spiritual progress become the object, and not Christ. There can be no peace in that.

3. Unconscious Unbelievers. Paul teaches us we must be "holding faith and a good conscience" in balance. If one drops, the other must drop also. Many Local Churchers unconsciously lowered the standard of what they believed was expected of them, in order to keep from having a continually condemned conscience. Without actually facing it, they would develop a creeping unbelief, after so many failures: "He doesn't really expect me to do and be all these things". This does bring relief from condemnation. Only it is not really peace, but slumber. The great majority of all believers stop struggling and slide into this pitfall. Most of the older Local Churchers have lapsed into this category.

I met a brother in the local churches who told me of his "back-slidden" daughter. She had received the Lord, then in college went back to the world. He told me this bad news, then brightened and said, "Well, at least she isn't going into the lake of fire!!"

I found this kind of thinking to be dis-heartening. This guy, the last I knew, was an elder in a local church. Drinking right from "the ministry" fountain. Wonderful guy -- would give you the shirt off his back. I just don't like his teaching.

The children in the LCs got "reward" and "outer darkness", and that's it. All of it very vague & arbitrary. There is some line somewhere, completely ill-defined, that if you cross you'll be blessed and if not you'll be whacked for a thousand years. If I was a teen-ager, sitting in this teaching month after conference after year, I'd probably take my chances on the world as well. At least I might have some enjoyment for a while.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by aron

I met a brother in the local churches who told me of his "back-slidden" daughter. She had received the Lord, then in college went back to the world. He told me this bad news, then brightened and said, "Well, at least she isn't going into the lake of fire!!"

I found this kind of thinking to be dis-heartening. This guy, the last I knew, was an elder in a local church. Drinking right from "the ministry" fountain. Wonderful guy -- would give you the shirt off his back. I just don't like his teaching.

The children in the LCs got "reward" and "outer darkness", and that's it. All of it very vague & arbitrary. There is some line somewhere, completely ill-defined, that if you cross you'll be blessed and if not you'll be whacked for a thousand years. If I was a teen-ager, sitting in this teaching month after conference after year, I'd probably take my chances on the world as well. At least I might have some enjoyment for a while.

I saw this in the Baptist church too. Assured of eternal salvation many I knew lived like the Devil. I wasn't regenerated at the time but knew that something was not right about that. After regeneration I gravitated to the Arminian persuasion where one could lose their eternal salvation if they lived liked the Devil. Depends on what condition they were in at the moment they died (i.e. did they die in an automobile because they were drunk at the wheel). But that seemed to oppose scripture which assured salvation based on faith and belief. Whenever I sinned my belief in Jesus did not change, so that did not feel right either.

When I first heard the teaching on the kingdom I started realizing the synchronization of the scriptures for the first time based on these two views having lived in both camps. I had an epiphany at some point when everything fell in place and I could see both viewpoints had part of the truth but not enough to explain the other side. The epiphany was a flash of light and I knew that the kingdom was not just a doctrine, that reconciled these major viewpoints, but a reality to be lived out.

Youth is wasted on the young so they say. I wish I had the revelation of the kingdom as a teen but I might not have the appreciation for it that I do now if I had heard about it all my life.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Youth is wasted on the young so they say. I wish I had the revelation of the kingdom as a teen but I might not have the appreciation for it that I do now if I had heard about it all my life.

This is such old news. You haven't been in evangelical Christianity for decades, obviously. The idea of the need to be faithful and being answerable to the Lord is everywhere. And you don't need Lee's convoluted kingdom narrative to get the point across.

Lee didn't invent the idea of accountability and he certainly didn't popularize it. No church I know of teaches "free ticket to heaven, live as you please." It's a red herring. And it's dishonest or at least ignorant to continue to act like Christianity sanctions such an idea.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is such old news. You haven't been in evangelical Christianity for decades, obviously. The idea of the need to be faithful and being answerable to the Lord is everywhere. And you don't need Lee's convoluted kingdom narrative to get the point across.

Lee didn't invent the idea of accountability and he certainly didn't popularize it. No church I know of teaches "free ticket to heaven, live as you please." It's a red herring. And it's dishonest or at least ignorant to continue to act like Christianity sanctions such an idea.

No church teaches it but people live it and I have heard them say it. A preacher in fact who fit that description of living like the Devil.

I have attempted an answer to your every objection and to provide you the scriptural and experiential basis for my beliefs. In response, you have merely rejected them without providing a scriptural basis and presentation of your own. I can go along with that for a time yet, now you are casting dispersions on my truthfulness and intelligence and once we enter that phase there is nothing I can say that will satisfy you.

So thanks for the dialogue.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I have attempted and answer to your every objection and to provide you the scriptural and experiential basis for my beliefs. In response, you have merely rejected them without providing a scriptural basis and presentation of your own. I can go along with that for a time yet, now you are casting dispersions on my truthfulness and intelligence and once we enter that phase there is nothing I can say that will satisfy you.

So thanks for the dialogue.

Your problem plain and simple, Cassidy, is that you can't accept the possibility that you might be wrong. So when someone challenges your beliefs too effectively you go into a shell and either say you answered the challenges (you haven't), or that the person didn't refer to scripture (I have), or that they called you names, like "prevaricating" (be honest and upfront and that won't happen).

The thing is you don't realize how deceived you are. You don't see it. But your fruit manifests it. Everyone here sees it. But you ignore their feedback. Because you can't and won't deal with the possibility that the problem is you and the way you think.

The Bible calls that a "stronghold."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I saw this in the Baptist church too. Assured of eternal salvation many I knew lived like the Devil. I wasn't regenerated at the time but knew that something was not right about that..

I remember going to a Baptist meeting and the sermon was on "The wages of sin is death", and I had the realization that they preached some variation of this sermon every Sunday. Although as an evangelical Protestant fundamentalist the message seemed right and true to me, it also seemed static. But they had to keep coming back to it, week after week, to keep the faithful from "living like the Devil", as you put it. Every week you are fixated on Square One. The gospel consists of "Repent and be saved". The rest of the journey isn't shown very well, if at all. No wonder the children leave! The world and the flesh are calling, and the mind only has "See Spot run" to work with, and the heart is bored. So they leave.

After regeneration I gravitated to the Arminian persuasion where one could lose their eternal salvation if they lived liked the Devil. Depends on what condition they were in at the moment they died (i.e. did they die in an automobile because they were drunk at the wheel). But that seemed to oppose scripture which assured salvation based on faith and belief. Whenever I sinned my belief in Jesus did not change, so that did not feel right either...

The assurance comes from God's work, not from ours. I also recognized the uncertainty of the Arminian position. But I could not deny that the level of "the living testimony", on the whole, was better than most everywhere else. It seems that fear is a good motivator. "Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom."

When I first heard the teaching on the kingdom I started realizing the synchronization of the scriptures for the first time based on these two views having lived in both camps. I had an epiphany at some point when everything fell in place and I could see both viewpoints had part of the truth but not enough to explain the other side... I knew that the kingdom was not just a doctrine, that reconciled these major viewpoints, but a reality to be lived out...

Yes; for that I am grateful for that attempt at reconciliation, and harmonization. My complaint(s) for the LSM's version of "the kingdom" is that it is so insufficient. The idea is important; the Epistle to the Hebrews' lengthy reference to Exodus makes that clear.

Youth is wasted on the young so they say. I wish I had the revelation of the kingdom as a teen but I might not have the appreciation for it that I do now if I had heard about it all my life.

My sample size is small, since I only visited one local church; therefore my observations may not have broad applicability. But while there I was struck by the dearth of all the children whom I'd known ten years earlier. Where were all the young adults? And I have also noted this trend elsewhere in the Protestant fold. The young people get a message that may have had some resonance in the 19th century or even into the 1960s, but its drawing power, and importantly it's holding power, has diminished exponentially over time. They get an antiquated, static, museum-style message which can't overcome the barrage of stimuli from the world they live in.

In order to "overcome" they try what the Catholics did, which was become priests and monks and nuns. Only today they call them "campus workers" and "serving ones" and "full-timers". By an abundance of work you might cross some invisible line, be pleasing to God, and be an "overcomer".

Of course they won't say this: they'll say that you need a relationship with Jesus Christ, etc etc. But when I don't see any young people there, only hear of a few who are "serving the ministry" abroad, it makes me feel that this message of the kingdom is not working at all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Here is a discussion I recently ran across of the "overcomers" vs. the "thousand years of darkness". The writer appears to be a former member of the local churches of Witness Lee.

Thoughts, anyone?

Is Andy Anderson the same "XXXX Anderson" that Matt Anderson also spoke of?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is Andy Anderson the same "XXXX Anderson" that Matt Anderson also spoke of?

Probably so, since this Andy Anderson fellow is in the DC/Virginia area (where Matt is).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Probably so, since this Andy Anderson fellow is in the DC/Virginia area (where Matt is).

Then he was an elder who left the LC. IIRC both Anderson's were meeting with an open Brethren congregation near WashDC that was quite good.