Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But you are speculating that he didn't gain the kingdom. Just because the Lord said he would be in Paradise neither states nor implies that he would not receive the kingdom.

The fact is, the thief may have gained the kingdom.

I am assuming that if the thief's request had been granted the Lord would have not made the distinction because Paradise is not the Kingdom. Rather He would have affirmed the thief's dying request.

I am also assuming that the thief did not have ample opportunity to fulfill the majority of the qualifications and practices of the kingdom people defined by the Lord in Matthew Chapters 5-7.

If you think otherwise, be my guest.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I am assuming that if the thief's request had been granted the Lord would have not made the distinction because Paradise is not the Kingdom. Rather He would have affirmed the thief's dying request.

I am also assuming that the thief did not have ample opportunity to fulfill the majority of the qualifications and practices of the kingdom people defined by the Lord in Matthew Chapters 5-7.

If you think otherwise, be my guest.

Thanks for the dialogue.

The thief didn't ask to be in the kingdom. He asked to be remembered when the Lord came in his kingdom, i.e. returned from the dead as King. The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request, not a statement of "Well, you're not going to be in the kingdom, but..."

Lee's (your) kingdom overlay here is artificial and unfounded.

As to "the last farthing (penny) being paid," it's clear we can't "pay" for anything, which is why Christ had to pay it all. Matt 5:25 is saying that every sin must be paid for and you won't get out until it is, meaning if you don't have Christ you won't get out. It's speaking of seriousness of sin, not of the matter of reward.

Again Lee's "kingdom" template here is artificial.

[Cal]

But, Cassidy, you claimed Lee used this thief passage to address the matter of someone dying before being full grown. I still don't see that being addressed. Why would someone who didn't have time to grow be excluded from the kingdom reward? How is dying too soon be something that could be blamed on him or her?

Again, Lee said you have to be full grown to be considered ready for the kingdom. This is why I say his teachings don't add up. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would hold something against someone that he or she could not control.

In fact, even if you have a lot of time, you can't control how much you grow. Growth is up to the Lord. All you can do is be faithful. But I reckon very few Christians have ever truly be "full grown" before passing from this world, especially by Lee's definition. So if full growth is a requirement of being in the kingdom, I reckon the party is going to be pretty empty, and there are going to be a lot of faithful Christians left out who didn't get all the way grown.

Sorry. Makes no sense. Doesn't pass the nonsense test.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But, Cassidy, you claimed Lee used this thief passage to address the matter of someone dying before being full grown. I still don't see that being addressed. Why would someone who didn't have time to grow be excluded from the kingdom reward? How is dying too soon be something that could be blamed on him or her?

Again, Lee said you have to be full grown to be considered ready for the kingdom. This is why I say his teachings don't add up. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would hold something against someone that he or she could not control.

In fact, even if you have a lot of time, you can't control how much you grow. Growth is up to the Lord. All you can do is be faithful. But I reckon very few Christians have ever truly be "full grown" before passing from this world, especially by Lee's definition. So if full growth is a requirement of being in the kingdom, I reckon the party is going to be pretty empty, and there are going to be a lot of faithful Christians left out who didn't get all the way grown.

Sorry. Makes no sense. Doesn't pass the nonsense test.

Personally, it makes a lot of sense to me because it ties many loose ends and closes many gaps that those of the Calvinist and Arminian persuasion have never agreed on. Both have seen truths but the teaching of the kingdom as a reward is kind of like the "theory of everything" in theological terms.

I try to explain why it works and the biblical synergy the teaching of the kingdom provides. Yet, I have found that most people of one persuasion or the other will not agree no matter how much sense it makes to me personally. It is kind of one of those things as Ohio stated about Mona Lisa.

[Cassidy]

The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request,

Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion, nor for the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request,

Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion,

So you are saying (positive) Paradise isn't part of God's kingdom? There is part of that place that isn't under God's rule?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are saying (positive) Paradise isn't part of God's kingdom? There is part of that place that isn't under God's rule?

Paradise is the good part (so to speak) of Hades, the abode of the dead. There is of course a not so pleasant part as I stated already. In that sense every place and all of Hades is part of the Kingdom of God as He rules the universe.

The "kingdom" spoken of by the thief refers specifically to the establishing of the kingdom established by Christ as the Messiah in Jerusalem which the Jews were waiting for and expecting. That is the millennial kingdom. Even the disciples contended with each other over the sitting arrangement in the kingdom. They of course were not thinking about the sitting arrangement in Paradise, nor the arrangement in heaven but of His kingdom established at Jerusalem.

I had heard somewhere, and I cannot remember exactly, that Paradise was transferred under the Throne according to the description in Revelation. More I cannot say about that because I do not remember where I read it and I do not know how it ties with the rest of scripture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I had heard somewhere, and I cannot remember exactly, that Paradise was transferred under the Throne according to the description in Revelation. More I cannot say about that because I do not remember where I read it and I do not know how it ties with the rest of scripture.

Based on Eph. 4.8-10?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Based on Eph. 4.8-10?

Hmm, maybe the "fill all things" part?

I don't know for sure. I'll have to think about it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I see no scriptural basis for... the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead.

Well, what do you think the thief meant? Do you think he had a clear understanding of Witness Lee's convoluted kingdom theology? Was that his point of reference?

Come on. Look at the situation. The thief saw Jesus dying on the cross. His statement that Jesus would come in his kingdom was an affirmation that he believed Jesus would not stay dead and would be king.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request,

Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion, nor for the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead.

So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee. Nor by myself, I might add; but then I don't pretend to be able to. I am just making the point that what ran across my bow during my sojourn in the LC system was not very impressive. The idea of what Cassidy called "promise and warning" was certainly more balanced than what I found in the Congregational and Lutheran Churches, but it remained embarrassingly crude and ill-formed. You have the thief on the cross, for example, being presented out of any context, as if it were some proof text of a critical point. Which I personally doubt it is: it is rather all these different stories, which tell us what? Or more importantly, they told the disciples what?

It seemed to me that Lee tried to sashay in after the fact, with his brilliant mind and a few teachers like Nee & so forth, and give us the definitive word. I find that completely unsatisfying. Again, I cannot do better, but then I don't pretend to.

[aron]

For me, the seminal text on what did all this mean to the composers of the NT was the Hebrews exposition on the Exodus experience. The Exodus story looms large in the Hebrew history, and the writer of the epistle made the point that they all made it out of Egypt but they didn't make it into the promised land. When I tell people this and they say I am teaching Purgatory then I tell them that the writer of Hebrews was teaching Purgatory as well. If he/she was not, why bring it up?

I just think the Lee/Nee work on this subject is very rudimentary. Number one, they don't list their sources. They have the Bible, their logic and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You get vague references to teachers past, but without any detail. Their sources are minimal to the extreme. Number two, they treat every other possible viewpoint with almost no respect whatever. Number three, they brook no possibility of any weakness in their own interpretation.

It is like having a conversation with a petulant four-year-old, trembling lower lip and all. I find it very unsatisfying, not the least because some of what they teach is probably worth considering. But wading through it all is not what I have in mind when I think of "the kingdom". When Jesus teaches you, you exclaim "Was not our heart burning when He opened for us the scripture?" When Lee teaches... well, the "flavor" just doesn't taste very "kingdom-y" to me. Subjective, I know, but my references above might flesh it out somewhat.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I just think the Lee/Nee work on this subject is very rudimentary. Number one, they don't list their sources. They have the Bible, their logic and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You get vague references to teachers past, but without any detail. Their sources are minimal to the extreme. Number two, they treat every other possible viewpoint with almost no respect whatever. Number three, they brook no possibility of any weakness in their own interpretation.

It is like having a conversation with a petulant four-year-old, trembling lower lip and all. I find it very unsatisfying

I know what you mean. Dealing with Cassidy is about as intellectually satisfying as trying to get a square peg into a round hole. It always starts out promising, but always comes back to statements like "I don't agree with the teaching of Purgatory so that can't be true."

And you're like, Dude, I can't believe you said something that prevaricating.

[Cassidy]

"So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee."

To my observation, aron, Mssrs Witness Lee and Watchman Nee spent a great deal of their teaching devoted to the teaching on the kingdom. Witness Lee more so but a significant amount of material from the Life-studies of Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation. Probably some in the Life-study of Exodus and Deuteronomy and perhaps Kings. There might be several hundred messages on on the Kingdom and not to mention the book "The Kingdom" which covers this matter in significant detail.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee."

To my observation, aron, Mssrs Witness Lee and Watchman Nee spent a great deal of their teaching devoted to the teaching on the kingdom. Witness Lee more so but a significant amount of material from the Life-studies of Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation. Probably some in the Life-study of Exodus and Deuteronomy and perhaps Kings. There might be several hundred messages on on the Kingdom and not to mention the book "The Kingdom" which covers this matter in significant detail.

Right. But the point is he doesn't tie up the loose ends. He just ignores them.

I mean, I've been trying to get you to address this matter of growth as overcoming and you keep ignoring it yourself. So in that sense you are a great imitator of Lee.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. But the point is he doesn't tie up the loose ends. He just ignores them.

I mean, I've been trying to get you to address this matter of growth as overcoming and you keep ignoring it yourself. So in that sense you are a great imitator of Lee.

I did not ignore it. I agree that Witness Lee taught the need for the growth in life. I think the testimony of scripture is clear on this. However, as to overcoming I am not so sure that it is only growth in life. I gave the example of Blandina. Surely she was an overcomer though she was just a youth with little opportunity. She loved the Lord Jesus to such an extent that she gave her life for it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

"So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee."

To my observation, aron, Mssrs Witness Lee and Watchman Nee spent a great deal of their teaching devoted to the teaching on the kingdom. Witness Lee more so but a significant amount of material from the Life-studies of Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation. Probably some in the Life-study of Exodus and Deuteronomy and perhaps Kings. There might be several hundred messages on on the Kingdom and not to mention the book "The Kingdom" which covers this matter in significant detail.

Well, since I am not critiqueing it their teaching in depth perhaps we just need to leave my few points stated yesterday: lack of breadth of analysis (few sources), no respect given to other possible views, and a brittle certainty which reveals its true source if it's challenged.

Everything presented as if it were baldly self-evident, which it is not. Verses plucked out of context and presented as proof-texts for some crucial component of the Nee/Lee narrative.

Let me give an interesting contrast. Some years ago, I was in a surly mood while perusing the local bookstore. There on the shelf was Darwin's On the Origen of Species, which from my background was thought to be written by the Devil himself. I'd never read it. So said, "Okay, Charles: let's see what ya got", and plunked down 12 dollars for the Penguin Classic Paperback, and off we went. I loved it. Obviously Darwin didn't have many textual sources, mostly just his observations and thoughts. But he very carefully laid out his thinking. He very thoroughly pointed out where it rested on only conjecture, not facts. He pursued all the objections and counter-arguments as far as he could take them, treating them as worthy adversaries. He was thorough, he was respectful, he was not overbearing. I thought, "Man, if this guy was a prosecuting attorney, and you're the defendant, you are toast."

I feel that the image, of leaving the Egyptian soil but not arriving to the Canaanite, is an important one. Through the Epistle of the Hebrews I can feel it color Jesus' parables on stewardship ("oikonomia" in Greek), done both well and poorly, on the idea of "many are called but few chosen", and so forth. But my memory of the Nee/Lee exposition is that the text continually was shoehorned into a few rudimentary themes. The same catch-phrases kept coming back, again and again (perhaps some readers are saying, "Yeah, aron, we know all about that! ).

[aron]

On the positive side, I think that maybe the overcomers don't pay much attention to the idea of overcoming. They are too busy paying attention to Jesus Christ. They see Him standing before the Father. They hear the Father's voice: "This is my Son, the Beloved. In Him I find My delight." They see His faithfulness (Heb 3:6) in stewardship of the Father's house. They have an overwhelming image of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. They can see the tears streaming down that face, they can hear the loud cries; they become aware of the piety of a mortal Man here on the earth, whose reverent submission saved Him from the clutches of death (Heb 5:7).

The Lord's tears become their tears. Their small, weak cries begin to rise in echo to His. They feel His saving love for the sinners, not condemnation. They have the realization that the feeling in their heart "...is no longer I, but Christ in me." The Father, through His Son, is reaching out to His lost children. Even a whiff of this experience sets their soul on fire. Whether their works are great or small is irrelevant -- they remember that "It was only what we were supposed to do." (Luke 17). If anything is worth enduring reward, they know that it is only from the power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, which now enlivens their mortal bodies. In this context they seek in the Word eagerly, in order to be equipped to serve the Master. They continually consider the hard questions, many of them perhaps unanswerable in this age. They don't consider themselves to have understood or to have laid hold of anything.

The point, for me, is to go forward. Where you are in relation to some benchmark of "approval and reward" is up to God. E.g. John 21: "What is that to you? You follow Me."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Well, since I am not critiqueing it their teaching in depth perhaps we just need to leave my few points stated yesterday: lack of breadth of analysis (few sources), no respect given to other possible views, and a brittle certainty which reveals its true source if it's challenged.

Which Christian group are you referring to?