Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My understanding is that we really don't understand this very much. And no matter what we think we have come up with as "the way," it doesn't matter because if you are His, you go wherever it is that you go. It won't be different for those who thought, or taught, that it was something else.

So getting into discussions about whether it is "heaven" or "paradise" is really a distraction.

A distraction from what? Why shouldn't we seek to understand this if it is in the Bible? Why wouldn't it be in the Bible, Jesus has both descended and ascended to every realm of the universe, Paul was caught up to Paradise. This topic is certainly covered in the NT, I see nothing "distracting" about trying to understand the word that has been given to us.

Also, it is certainly relevant to this forum since the LRC holds a very distinct view, contrary to Christianity in general, and they are very much assured in their speaking.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A distraction from what? Why shouldn't we seek to understand this if it is in the Bible?

There is much in the Bible that does not require the kind of detailed understanding that you (and so many others) are wanting.

Do we need to understand everything in this detailed way because it's there (like climbing a mountain "because it's there")?

Seems that there is quite little that actually answers the question about precisely where you go when you die prior to the end times. And the terminology of what may or may not be the same or different about heaven v paradise is really not clear.

And I'm supposed to conclude that it is important to know the difference? What is that supposed to do for me?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is much in the Bible that does not require the kind of detailed understanding that you (and so many others) are wanting.

Do we need to understand everything in this detailed way because it's there (like climbing a mountain "because it's there")?

Seems that there is quite little that actually answers the question about precisely where you go when you die prior to the end times. And the terminology of what may or may not be the same or different about heaven v paradise is really not clear.

And I'm supposed to conclude that it is important to know the difference? What is that supposed to do for me?

Obviously you didn't read the other posts.

1. the overriding principle is not that we go to paradise when we die but, as it says in Phil, we go to be with the Lord. This we feel is because our life is hid in the Lord. So when the Lord told the thief He would be with him this day in Paradise it wasn't because that is where we go, but because he was going to be with the Lord.

2. As for "the dead in Christ rising first" we determined, based on 1Cor 15 that when we die our body is sown as a seed and the in resurrection it is raised a spiritual body, like "the bodies" that Jesus had, or like those that the ones who are resuscitated report seeing. This is the reason it says "the dead in christ rise" because just like a seed sprouting our transfigured bodies will also "sprout" in type.

3. Therefore we also concluded that Christianity is not "off the mark" to say that we "go to heaven when we die" though the emphasis is wrong. Since Jesus is currently in heaven and we are going to be with Him.

4. Using the Lord's words to the thief on the cross though is clearly an erroneous basis for this teaching.

As to your question "Do we need to understand..." Paul himself in 1Cor 15 said that "some will ask ..." in reference to what happens when we die. Since Christ has been to every realm of the universe we should be able to fellowship this and it is Paul that explains this. So yes, you should be able to explain in a coherent way to one who asks what happens when you die.

As for this forum it is very relevant because it is a shining example of how the LRC thinks that they are rich and know all mysteries but are in fact blind.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Obviously you didn't read the other posts.

1. the overriding principle is not that we go to paradise when we die but, as it says in Phil, we go to be with the Lord. This we feel is because our life is hid in the Lord. So when the Lord told the thief He would be with him this day in Paradise it wasn't because that is where we go, but because he was going to be with the Lord.

2. As for "the dead in Christ rising first" we determined, based on 1Cor 15 that when we die our body is sown as a seed and the in resurrection it is raised a spiritual body, like "the bodies" that Jesus had, or like those that the ones who are resuscitated report seeing. This is the reason it says "the dead in christ rise" because just like a seed sprouting our transfigured bodies will also "sprout" in type.

3. Therefore we also concluded that Christianity is not "off the mark" to say that we "go to heaven when we die" though the emphasis is wrong. Since Jesus is currently in heaven and we are going to be with Him.

4. Using the Lord's words to the thief on the cross though is clearly an erroneous basis for this teaching.

As to your question "Do we need to understand..." Paul himself in 1Cor 15 said that "some will ask ..." in reference to what happens when we die. Since Christ has been to every realm of the universe we should be able to fellowship this and it is Paul that explains this. So yes, you should be able to explain in a coherent way to one who asks what happens when you die.

As for this forum it is very relevant because it is a shining example of how the LRC thinks that they are rich and know all mysteries but are in fact blind.

Three things.

First. If "Jesus is in heaven and we are going to be with Him," then either we actually do go to heaven to be with Him now, or we will eventually be with Him wherever he is after our resurrection since he may not be in heaven then. But if the latter is the case, then we do not simply "go to be with Him upon death. Getting circular. And it still does not affect this life — the only part that is important to "get right." If we get that right, the rest will fall in place. If we get it wrong, then it still won't matter. But getting where we go upon death right changes nothing.

Second. On the "sowing" reference in your second point, that would seem to be a picture, not something so literal. You didn't really say one way or the other, but the way you are going on about this makes it seem as if you are certain that it is a literal thing, not just a picture.

Third. Whether you go to a place (heaven or paradise — assuming a difference) or just to limbo until the resurrection, how does it change anything about this life in a meaningful way? And how does it affect what happens at the resurrection?

In other words, why do you think it is important to figure out?

And "because it's in the Bible" is not a reason that it is important. All those rabbis and priests who spent so much time trying to decide what was "work" relative to the sabbath were just trying to figure it all out. And who would have presumed that speaking would ever be considered "work"? Yet that is all Jesus did when he healed the invalid by the Sheep Gate pool. That was really important. It has been suggested that until they figured out it was Jesus who had done it, they probably didn't really think speaking could be considered work.

But it is in scripture, so I guess we have an obligation to beat that dead horse to death. It is there. Must be important. Just as important as Jesus healing the man.

I know this sounds sarcastic. And it could be taken that way. But this is my honest take on "because it's in the Bible." It seems to me to be another case for missing the important things said while turning snippets into fortune cookies for an "out of context" experience.

The Bible does not say "paradise is thus and so," and "heaven is the same as (or different than) paradise." It does not imply that there is content to the "between time" of after death but before resurrection that we need to focus on. It focuses almost entirely on now. Plus a little vague reference to resurrection and after. And I say "little focus" because even much of Revelation is about things on the earth. Even the so-called millennium is little more than a blip in the entirety of scripture. It is as if it is 99% now, 0.85% the 7-year "tribulation," and 0.15% the New J. The thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

In other words, why do you think it is important to figure out?

And "because it's in the Bible" is not a reason that it is important. All those rabbis and priests who spent so much time trying to decide what was "work" relative to the sabbath were just trying to figure it all out. And who would have presumed that speaking would ever be considered "work"? Yet that is all Jesus did when he healed the invalid by the Sheep Gate pool. That was really important. It has been suggested that until they figured out it was Jesus who had done it, they probably didn't really think speaking could be considered work.

Tell that to Martin Luther when you see him. The entire protestant reformation was started over the matter of selling indulgences. Granted, that could be the straw that broke the camel's back, or it could be merely a symptom of the real disease, maybe it just made the best copy for the journalists and historians. You cannot refute this teaching if you don't know what happens when people die.

2nd, again you didn't read the posts. Jesus told Nicodemus that to be a teacher in Israel you have to know, at the very least the things of this earth, but the top standard is Jesus who also knows the things of heaven. Being able to explain these things is a testimony that Jesus is Lord and that He has ascended into heaven and descended from heaven.

3rd, Paul said 1Cor 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" Now these are those who deny the resurrection. You cannot preach the gospel if you cannot handle these challenges. It is not just about you and your walk, it is about helping new ones with any and all concerns they have.

So let's see, this was important to Martin Luther, Jesus and Paul. But not important to OBW. Who to listen to?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

... this was important to Martin Luther, Jesus and Paul. But not important to OBW.

Since I initiated this thread, let me try to bring it back on track in 500 words or less. OBW rightly objects to the discussion degenerating into empty speculation on realms we know nothing experientially about. ZNP says the ancients were "examining these things, to see if they were so", and so should we.

First, I thought Anderson's critique of the Nee/Lee "overcomer" school unfair. Nee & Lee don't overturn Ephesians 2's "...it is by grace that you have been saved, it is of faith, not of works. It is the gift of God". They try to point out the scriptural warnings of sloth and indolence. "Behold, I am coming, and My reward is with me according to your works." In the Epistle to Hebrews, in the epistles to the the Asian ekklesia in Revelations, and elsewhere in the NT (e.g. Galatians, Jude, and 2 Peter) we see warnings to the believers. Paul's word that "You may suffer loss; you will be saved, but through fire" also seems worthy of discussion.

But my critique was that the Nee/Lee discussion on this topic was about as satisfying as one of Rudyard Kipling's "Just So" stories. You get no references, no possible explanations. Just that Witness Lee says it is so.

So I found it to be crude, simplistic, and unsatisfactory. I said at the beginning of the thread that I don't claim to be able to thoroughly examine the issue, and also that this forum may not the venue to do so. I merely wanted to show in some of Jesus' parables a few possible nuances that are ignored in the Nee/Lee school. But I don't imagine that a few verses constitute proofs showing definitively the hidden realms. That, in fact, is my objection of Lee: that he's trying to do this.

Jesus prayed to the Father: "Your will be done on earth, as it is done in Heaven". I think it is important for us to consider how things are done in heaven. That means, for example, not lording it over one another. Not being covetous for temporal gain, and being snared by deceitful things of the world. We have outward laws, but Jesus said that if you break the laws in your heart, you have broken them in the heavenly realms. Look at His teachings on adultery, for example. "If you look at a woman because of lust in your heart, you have committed adultery."

These are warnings, spoken to believers, not to unbelievers. He is speaking to His disciples. It is hard to make it into the kingdom of heaven, and we must struggle to get in. "Masticating the processed and consummated Triune God" may loom large in Witness Lee's economy, but perhaps being an overcomer depends more on endurance in righteousness, obedience, repentance, and mercy (for example).

If we oversimplify the heavenly realms, we can end up, like the LSMites, trying to "make it", i.e. to be overcomers. Because their goal is ill-formed they either get frustrated and give up, or trust that their relationship with a certain publishing house in Anaheim, California is a bellwether of their spiritual condition. Both routes, I believe, go into the ditch. Our Father is nuanced, detailed, and fine. Every hair is counted. Every thought is measured. Just go forward, carefully.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Tell that to Martin Luther when you see him. The entire protestant reformation was started over the matter of selling indulgences. Granted, that could be the straw that broke the camel's back, or it could be merely a symptom of the real disease, maybe it just made the best copy for the journalists and historians. You cannot refute this teaching if you don't know what happens when people die.

That is somewhat incorrect. I believe that you could refute them by showing that no one but yourself is responsible for your destiny. It cannot be bought by anyone, including yourself. And once you are dead, it is over.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2nd, again you didn't read the posts. Jesus told Nicodemus that to be a teacher in Israel you have to know, at the very least the things of this earth, but the top standard is Jesus who also knows the things of heaven. Being able to explain these things is a testimony that Jesus is Lord and that He has ascended into heaven and descended from heaven.

This fails the context test. I think that you will find that this cannot be construed as requiring that we figure every thing out that we could possibly set our minds to.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3rd, Paul said 1Cor 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" Now these are those who deny the resurrection. You cannot preach the gospel if you cannot handle these challenges. It is not just about you and your walk, it is about helping new ones with any and all concerns they have.

Not compelling. Since the people of Corinth did not actually see Jesus, before or after resurrection, look at the account given and tell me that you know exactly what it is that Paul has described.

But more importantly, does Paul answer because it was important to know, or to deal with funny teachings coming from others (some that you might be labeling as "false teachers" in the other thread). I read the account Paul gives and know that it is not simply physical. It is spiritual. But not simply spiritual. It was touchable.

And when Paul was done, he probably hoped that they could get back to living this life.

In any case, the fact that there is a small bit on it does not mean that we have a need to figure it out beyond what was recorded.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let's see, this was important to Martin Luther, Jesus and Paul. But not important to OBW. Who to listen to?

And the answer is that you have misrepresented what I am saying. My point is that going into deeper details than what is simply recorded in scripture does not have any impact on your present life (unless realizing that there is a future life causes you to rethink).

But the present life is the only thing that will impact your future life. And that only the realm of "in" or "out" and, if in, in the realm of "reward." The body you get is the body you get. Knowing about it in details beyond what is told fairly simply and in few words is, at best, speculative. In other words, it is not actually knowing. It is just guessing. And if you are right or wrong will not affect whether or not it is your experience at that time.

What do you achieve beyond claiming some knowledge that is, at best, tenuous? And what benefit is it with respect to the Kingdom? Worrying about my body after the resurrection is a waste of my time. It will be what it will be. And the little we are told would appear to be enough as far as God was/is concerned.

Your mocking question is not actually asked by any of those people. They do not conclude that you need to go beyond what is recorded.

Jesus did not say that we should know everything. He didn't even say that the teachers of the law should know everything. But he did suggest that the point he was making in John 3 should have been understood, or at least something on his radar to think about. At least for the teachers.

Martin Luther did not need to know where we go when we die to conclude that faith is the only thing that saves us. And that once dead, there is no more opportunity for faith. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus should have settled that.

Paul set out to deal with some claiming there is no resurrection. And going along with that was a question about what kind of body we would get assuming there is a resurrection. Paul's answer was that it is not simply a reconstituted physical body. It is also spiritual. Like the one Jesus got. And that seemed to be enough. Got them over their problems.

So which one of these needed to explain the difference in paradise and heaven? And if we "get to be with Jesus" upon death, as you mentioned in a prior post, and He is said to be in "heaven," then do we not "go to heaven"? What else do we need?

But the real question that I keep asking and you have not answered is this: If you are right/wrong, what does it do to your theology? To your salvation? To your eternal destiny? The only thing affected will be your theology. And right theology is not required. Just being right with God. That will dictate everything.

And don't you dare come back and say that just because I said getting theology right is not the important thing that I am saying that it really doesn't matter what you believe. I shouldn't have to say that, but the little question about Martin Luther, Jesus, and Paul would suggest that I need to. When I speak of theology in this post, I am referring to the many things which are not the core of the faith. Things that do not decide whether one is a believer in Christ or just in some good teachings. Many believers in Christ do not buy into dispensational theology. That does not affect their destiny. Some baptize by sprinkling. It does not reduce their salvation. There may be a right and a wrong, but getting it right is not central to the Kingdom life.

And there are a bunch of theoretical theologians somewhere that have wondered how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Deep stuff. There might be enough information in the scriptures to at least postulate an answer. But it is completely off the reservation to think about it. The question(s) about what happens after our death is(are) not totally irrelevant. But the important things are broad and are covered fairly clearly. More details than are given becomes speculative, at best. At some point, the best answer is to say "it doesn't matter. It is distracting us from what does matter." You don't "get ready" for His return by studying the difference in heaven and paradise or filling in more details on our resurrected body. ("Will be able to fly? To just be wherever we want?" Does it really matter? Is that more important that what is actually recorded in the scripture?)

You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category. And it does not fly in the face of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, or Paul said to the Corinthians. How Martin Luther went about trying to argue against indulgences is really not important. Funny thing is that it was never decided. The discussion did not happen. He was simply rejected by Rome and taken under the wings of the German government. Politics was the decider. The issue was not discussed. Salvation by faith was.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category. And it does not fly in the face of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, or Paul said to the Corinthians.

OBW,

I know you are not addressing my points, so I may be off the mark by addressing yours as if they pertain to mine. But I shall, anyway.

My quibble with the Nee/Lee school is because I like it. I like how they stressed responsibility, reward, and warning of loss to the believers. There seems to be at least some biblical ground for making those points, and saying that they fit alongside eternal life, as we understand it (I know Lee made a straw man out of "christianity" and acted as if they didn't discuss christian responsibility, when actually they do. Still, the subject remains valid).

The subject is important, even if some of it is covered scantily in the Bible and subsequent Christian writings. If I ask, "What does it mean to owe 100 measures of wheat, versus 50?", from the parable in Luke 16, I am not "off the reservation". What does "many stripes" mean versus "few stripes" mean in Luke 12? If Jesus taught on it, I am not beyond bounds at least considering it.

But our dilemma is that with this topic, you have to piece together a composite picture. Therefore I think that any treatment should be scholarly (broad, careful, reasoned) and very tentative. We should do a lot of thinking and have little confidence. Lee, on the other hand, did little scholarship and had lots of confidence. So we got taken in by his "confidence game" (pun intended). Lee said "This means that" and that was that.

I think what happens today and what happens after we die are connected. That was part of the message of Jesus, and of those who followed him. And death is a big deal, even to the unbelievers. But "what happens after we die" is at best, very vague, from our perspective. So we should be somewhat modest about making any bold assertions. Love one another, treat each other with respect, try to live properly, believe in Jesus. And carefully and humbly consider what Jesus' parables might have meant to those who listened to Him. I don't think we have exhausted the subject. And I do think it bears on our daily living.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is somewhat incorrect. I believe that you could refute them by showing that no one but yourself is responsible for your destiny. It cannot be bought by anyone, including yourself. And once you are dead, it is over.

Whoa! Where did you get this? What about "reincarnation"? How can you tell people that "once you are dead, it is over" without teaching about what happens when you die? You just destroyed your entire argument.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Your mocking question...

You are mistaken. You were the one who was mocking in your post, which you referred to as sarcastic, therefore my "mocking" question is ironic and is therefore sarcastic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus did not say ...
Paul set out to deal with some claiming there is no resurrection...

You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category.

Do you read the posts? The details were provided by Jesus and Paul.

1. Jesus told the thief "this day you will be with Me in paradise". That is one detail.
2. Paul said that when he died "he would be with Christ". That is another detail.
3. Paul said that "the dead in Christ rise first". That is a third detail.

Of course there are more. Jesus talked about Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham, and a gulf that separates the two parts of Hades. Peter talks about different realms in Hades as well, mentioning Tartarus where the fallen angels are held. Then of course you can talk about the False Prophet and Anti Christ who both "went to their place until the appointed time". There is also the very thorny question of Elijah and Moses. Where did they go. If John the Baptist was Elijah who is to come, what does that mean?

Originally Posted by OBW

Martin Luther did not need to know where we go when we die ...

Then how does he know we don't go to purgatory? How does he know we shouldn't pay the indulgences?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

The thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure.

Thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure.

Thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure!?!

Did I really hear you correctly? I must not have read that post to the end the first time around.

What kind of calendar year are you on? That's like 20 adult life times!

That's an extremely long time to sit around and wait.

I had a guy freak out behind me cause I was going "too slow" for him. He was forced to "wait" like 10 extra seconds.

I tried to explain to him that "10 seconds was infinitesimally too small to measure." His jaws were aflappin' too fast to hear me.

[ZNPaaneah]

I didn't have time to find OBW's quote, but I am so glad to hear this! OBW since you feel this way can you come to NY and get gas for me? The lines are about an hour long (absolutely nothing on your scale), you can't see the gas station from the back, you just line up in faith, and there might be a few fights. Anyway, let me know, I really appreciate this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure.

Thousand years is infinitesimally too small to measure!?!

Did I really hear you correctly? I must not have read that post to the end the first time around.

What kind of calendar year are you on? That's like 20 adult life times!

That's an extremely long time to sit around and wait.

I had a guy freak out behind me cause I was going "too slow" for him. He was forced to "wait" like 10 extra seconds.

I tried to explain to him that "10 seconds was infinitesimally too small to measure." His jaws were aflappin' too fast to hear me.

And the point was missed. (Maybe I needed a few more words.)

1,000 years is not too small to measure.

The amount of ink given to the 1,000 years in scripture is, when dealing in percentages, too small to have any real meaning. The purpose was part of a comment on the primary thrust of scripture. It is not the 1,000 years. It is not the "tribulation." And despite it being the ending of everything, even the New J is not the thrust.

It is what we do with this life that is the primary agenda and topic of scripture.