Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm reminded of that song we sang back in the 70s -

O I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I’m the center and the meaning of the universe.
Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/1293#ixzz2NR8Gr47y

No other song that I'm aware of illustrates as well this foundational and fundamental error in Nee/Lee. Yes, yes, YES, you will find that Nee and Lee taught that God was the center and meaning of the universe....but the fact that they did does not even begin to mitigate, much less cancel out, such a grievous error in teaching, which no doubt spilled over into our practice in the LC movement as well.

Kind of ironic that you go back to an old LC song to prove your point while ZNP attempts to employ scripture from both the OT and the NT.

How in the world is "ministering to the Lord" any different from the Lord's word here, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." -- John 4.23

Seems to me the "problem" lies in semantics and attitudes of certain posters rather than being a bona fide discussion of the truth. God desires, God longs for, God wants, God needs, God seeks, God etc. etc. etc. -- are we not just playing word games here in order to prove Nee and Lee wrong -- one more time?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seems to me the "problem" lies in semantics and attitudes of certain posters rather than being a bona fide discussion of the truth. God desires, God longs for, God wants, God needs, God seeks, God etc. etc. etc. -- are we not just playing word games here in order to prove Nee and Lee wrong -- one more time?

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs. It is exactly this kind of concept that leads to heretical teachings such as Witness Lee's "four-in-one God". And no amount of provisos, addendums or exception clauses can make them biblical. None of the passages provided have established that God actually needs man. He does not need man to be "represented" (Adam and Eve blew that gig for us in Genesis 3) He does not need man to do a job for him. (for all the details read the Bible). God does not need man to be "expressed" (Only ONE person on earth was/is God's "express image") and God certainly does not need man to be glorified ("I will not share my glory with another")

Don't downplay semantics too much now. Words mean things. If we have any technical questions regarding the semantics of the Bible we might be better off consulting true experts in the field, and not fly-by-night theologians like Witness Lee. And by the way it does not take word games to prove Nee and Lee wrong....it's just a matter of going to the source material itself and maybe consulting some real scholars, theologians and linguistic experts to help us out a bit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs. It is exactly this kind of concept that leads to heretical teachings such as Witness Lee's "four-in-one God". And no amount of provisos, addendums or exception clauses can make them biblical. None of the passages provided have established that God actually needs man. He does not need man to be "represented" (Adam and Eve blew that gig for us in Genesis 3) He does not need man to do a job for him. (for all the details read the Bible). God does not need man to be "expressed" (Only ONE person on earth was/is God's "express image") and God certainly does not need man to be glorified ("I will not share my glory with another")

Don't downplay semantics too much now. Words mean things. If we have any technical questions regarding the semantics of the Bible we might be better off consulting true experts in the field, and not fly-by-night theologians like Witness Lee. And by the way it does not take word games to prove Nee and Lee wrong....it's just a matter of going to the source material itself and maybe consulting some real scholars, theologians and linguistic experts to help us out a bit.

OK, let's get our definitions straight so we are all on the same page.

1. Did God need Ananias to go speak to Paul? If not what is the correct term to use?

2. Did God need Mary in order for Jesus to be incarnated? If not what is the correct term to use?

3. If the church is the Body of Christ, does Christ need His body? If not what is the correct term to use?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Did God need Ananias to go speak to Paul? If not what is the correct term to use?

If you're referring to Acts chapter 5 then it was Peter (not Paul) that went to got speak to Ananias (not the other way around). In any case I can't see how God needed anything here. It was to serve as a warning to the newly established Church.

2. Did God need Mary in order for Jesus to be incarnated? If not what is the correct term to use?

Mmmm, don't think I've ever thought of it in this way. The Messiah was to come from the line of David so I suppose that in a way God "needed" to be incarnated through the human line of this family tree. But I don't see how this fits into the kind of "need" we are talking about in this thread.

3. If the church is the Body of Christ, does Christ need His body? If not what is the correct term to use?

Ok, this may be getting a little closer to the kind of need we are talking about. There is a Christian contemporary song out there in which the chorus goes: "But if we are the Body, then why aren't his arms reaching, why aren't his hands healing, why aren't his words teaching. And if we are the body, why aren't his feet going, why is his love not showing them there is a way" (from one my favorite Christian groups Casting Crowns) Hey, Cassidy you will really like this one too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAWeHo8E70E
Anyway, this is not talking about some kind of intrinsic or internal need that God actually has. I suppose we can have a little back and forth about this though.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If you're referring to Acts chapter 5

I was referring to Acts 9

You didn't answer my question. What term would you use?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Did God need Ananias to go speak to Paul? If not what is the correct term to use?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was referring to Acts 9
You didn't answer my question. What term would you use?

Oh THAT Ananias. Ok, you still have not shown how God needs man. He could have used a donkey (just in case you forgot God used a donkey one time). Your talking apples and oranges (again). You have not (nor can you) show how God actually needs man to accomplish anything significant. God has his person(s), he has his work. Man has nothing to do with either. We (mankind) only exist to worship, serve, and give God glory. By his grace and his mercy you and I live in an age and place where we have the awesome privilege to do all these things without much burden or hindrance (for now).

So the term I would use is PRIVILEGE. Ananias had the privilege to be used by God to assist Paul (Saul) in his initiation as a man to be used greatly by God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Oh THAT Ananias. Ok, you still have not shown how God needs man. He could have used a donkey (just in case you forgot God used a donkey one time). Your talking apples and oranges (again). You have not (nor can you) show how God actually needs man to accomplish anything significant. God has his person(s), he has his work. Man has nothing to do with either. We (mankind) only exist to worship, serve, and give God glory. By his grace and his mercy you and I live in an age and place where we have the awesome privilege to do all these things without much burden or hindrance (for now).

So the term I would use is PRIVILEGE. Ananias had the privilege to be used by God to assist Paul (Saul) in his initiation as a man to be used greatly by God.

You clearly misread my post. I am not trying to "prove" the word need is correct. What I am trying to do is understand why you feel it is incorrect and more importantly what the correct word is.

You used the word "used". God used Ananias. That is obvious. God used Mary. Obvious. Christ uses His body. Again obvious.

But, I am using a computer to post this to the internet. I am using the internet to communicate via this forum. Do I "need" to use a computer? I need something, perhaps not this particular computer, but I need something.

The word "need" is defined as "require something because it is essential".

I believe that Mary was essential for Jesus to be born of a virgin, and that was essential to fulfill the prophecy. Hence, I feel the word "need" is appropriate based on its definition.

I believe Ananias was essential since Paul was persecuting the church. It was easy for God to speak to Him from heaven and knock Him off his horse. But Paul would have remained blind until he saw God speaking through one of those little brothers that Paul was hauling off to prison.

I believe that my fingers are essential. Sure, Stephen Hawking communicates without using his fingers but that does not annul the fact that I "need" my fingers to communicate, and that God needs His fingers to communicate.


So then let us consider a different word "required". Did God require Mary to give birth to Jesus? Did He require Ananias to speak to Paul? This word refers to something that is necessary or "needed".

For example:
Luke 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

In this parable Jesus as Lord has given talents to his servants and he therefore requires something in return. He expects them to do something that is necessary or needed.

[UntoHim]

Ok, ZNP. I think you have made your point well.

Let's let some others come in and contribute.

Oh Cassidy...where art thou?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, ZNP. I think you have made your point well.
Let's let some others come in and contribute.
Oh Cassidy...where art thou?

I was on the sidelines watching the various arguments develop with great interest.

I don't think anybody here believes that God in His infinite greatness, power, majesty, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. needs us (created men) to display or execute those divine attributes. He spoke the universe into being and He bears and upholds all things by the Word of His power. It would be arrogant to say God needs man to be what He is in those ways.

Yet, in the Bible, we see that God has hinged His interactions with men through the cooperation of other men. The very act of creating the first man indicates God has something in mind that requires a man. That He was incarnated as a man cannot be dismissed as irrelevant either. And the whole Bible is all about God working through men for some purpose (Noah, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul, and Mary , etc.). God binds His actions to man's cooperation. He may intervene on occasion supernaturally (like Balaam's donkey as you pointed out) or a blinding flash from heaven, but that is not His primary modus operandi. Rather, He says "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” Could He go Himself? Sure, but He chooses not to and that in no way compromises what He is in His Godhead or His divine attributes. God needs man as pertains to His executing His plan with man. He designed it that way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

I have addressed some of what you have written, and attempted to bring some objectivity to a discussion which seemed to possess none, and you are calling my post an ad hominem? Please tell me you are being facetious.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs.

You certainly are entitled to your opinions.

But you seem to have no clue why this God of the universe would sell all He had, leave his eternal glory in the heavens, take the wretched form of a slave, make that awful humiliating sacrifice, hang for hours from some stupid pole, pay the ultimate price, suffer the worst atrocities, be forsaken by the Father, be hated without a cause, rejected by His own chosen people, etc etc ... all for something He doesn't even need.

Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your viewpoint.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have addressed some of what you have written, and attempted to bring some objectivity to a discussion which seemed to possess none, and you are calling my post an ad hominem? Please tell me you are being facetious.

Oh so that's what you're trying to bring...thanks for clearing that one up

I didn't call your whole post an ad hominem...only the part about attitude. Nothing gives me an attitude more than somebody telling me I have an attitude...at least that's the way it went with my dear mom. Oh well, can't say I didn't try.

You certainly are entitled to your opinions.

Why thank you kind sir!

But you seem to have no clue why this God of the universe would sell all He had, leave his eternal glory in the heavens, take the wretched form of a slave, make that awful humiliating sacrifice, hang for hours from some stupid pole, pay the ultimate price, suffer the worst atrocities, be forsaken by the Father, be hated without a cause, rejected by His own chosen people, etc etc ... all for something He doesn't even need.
Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your viewpoint.

Oh I have more than a clue my friend. In fact I stated why the God of this universe would do all these things just a few posts ago. Of course you have chosen to ignore this part of my post because it doesn't seem to serve your objectiveness...but that's ok cause you're entitled to your opinion too

No I don't think I will reconsider my viewpoint just yet. Nobody here has given me any reasons to do so. But hey...tomorrow's another day.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have addressed some of what you have written, and attempted to bring some objectivity to a discussion which seemed to possess none, and you are calling my post an ad hominem? Please tell me you are being facetious.
You certainly are entitled to your opinions.

But you seem to have no clue why this God of the universe would sell all He had, leave his eternal glory in the heavens, take the wretched form of a slave, make that awful humiliating sacrifice, hang for hours from some stupid pole, pay the ultimate price, suffer the worst atrocities, be forsaken by the Father, be hated without a cause, rejected by His own chosen people, etc etc ... all for something He doesn't even need.

Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Why take on a human body and suffer for man? Why would ANY Father bare such torment for his children? Because he LOVES THEM - Not because he needs them. How monumentally arrogant and insulting to God this is!!! Unbelievable!! God so LOVED the World (kosmos or Greek for Universe) - not " for God so needed man". See what poisonous pride you were taught in the LC?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why take on a human body and suffer for man? Why would ANY Father bare such torment for his children? Because he LOVES THEM - Not because he needs them. How monumentally arrogant and insulting to God this is!!! Unbelievable!! God so LOVED the World (kosmos or Greek for Universe) - not " for God so needed man". See what poisonous pride you were taught in the LC?

I love the brilliant logic here -- God loves us and here is a verse to prove it, and that proves that God don't need us, and any thought like that must be due to poisonous pride picked up in the LC.

End of discussion.

Cassidy?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I love the brilliant logic here -- God loves us and here is a verse to prove it, and that proves that God don't need us, and any thought like that must be due to poisonous pride picked up in the LC.

End of discussion.

Cassidy?

It's a people thing.

My observation is that people who are secure in their beliefs can interact with others of a different persuasion without belligerence.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

My observation is that people who are secure in their beliefs can interact with others of a different persuasion without belligerence.

Very keen observation! Everyone should take this to heart.