Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)




"We will never say that we can never be wrong! Even if all others approve us, we will be the last to approve ourselves. It may be that our mistakes are more numerous than those of others! But, dear brothers, we are willing to follow the Bible literally. If we are wrong, we are indeed willing to be corrected. We would ask those who know where we are wrong to please point out to us our mistakes from the teachings of the Bible, and not from the opinions of men. We know that we are not trustworthy. This is why we trust in the Bible. Since we know that we are not trustworthy, we would also ask your forgiveness in our unwillingness to trust in any famous Bible expositor. We admit that the exposition in The Christian is quite different from the traditional interpretations of men. We are definitely not for our readers to follow us blindly. If they do this, it would be better for The Christian to cease its publication. We can only proclaim the truth that we know. Our readers should never think that what The Christian has said can never contain any mistake. We have to tell the brothers frankly that we do not believe we are like the biblical prophets who wrote the Scriptures by divine inspiration. We can make mistakes. Even though those who love The Christian are increasing day by day, perhaps no one is more aware of the shortcomings of the magazine than the editor himself. The Lord also knows our shortcomings. We hope that every reader will check our messages against the teachings of the Bible. If they are the same, then please pay the price to follow these teachings. If they are not the same, we advise you to refuse them totally. Never follow blindly just because you trust The Christian and its editor. Our unique goal is to lead people closer to God's living word and His written Word. If a man can be drawn closer to Christ and to the Bible, our work has received its great reward. I wish that The Christian would simply be something like a pontoon bridge, something that is used and then forgotten, with itself receiving no recognition at all."

COLLECTED WORKS OF WATCHMAN NEE, THE (SET 1) VOL. 07: THE CHRISTIAN (5)

Chapter 19 Section 1

Humble words those, but when others actually did say "we" were wrong 'we" sued the pants off of them. So "we" said one thing and did another. Let me know if I'm "wrong" but I think that's called hypocrisy.

[Ohio]

Separation of politics and religion is a fine teaching in the Bible. "You know that those who are esteemed as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you [the Christians]" (Mark 10:42-43). The Lord Jesus declared that His kingdom is not of this world. Hence, the church, which is subject to the Lord, does not need to go to war. But the question now is much deeper than that of separation between politics and religion.

This is similar to Jefferson's federalist statement "the separation of church and state." It was not that the church could not be a part of the state, but that the state could not rule the church. That was the separation the framers intended.

Jesus said, "it is not so among you," meaning that in the church no leader should exercise authority as the Gentiles do. Jesus never said that His children could not engage in any politics. Where is that specific verse? Notice how many liberties Nee takes to promulgate his own opinions.

Note that in this first paragraph, Nee's most provocative point was that the church does not need to go to war. He got that from Mark 10.42-43? Seriously? Is that like Cassius Clay becoming a "conscientious objector" so that he could dodge the draft and remain a professional boxer? Pulleeease! What about all those verses about submitting to authorities? Jesus said "His kingdom is not of this world," does that also mean that we should not live in houses because we are the "house of God?"

[Ohio]

We should look at the teaching in the Bible. The Lord Jesus left us "a model so that you may follow in His steps" (1 Pet. 2:21). The Lord is our example in everything. We will not go wrong if we follow Him in respect to our relationship to politics. Was the Lord Jesus a politician? Did He pay attention to the politics of His country? Did He ever represent the voice of the people to criticize the officers of Palestine? Did He ever rebuke the political oppressors on behalf of the politically oppressed? Did He ever rally any political power around Him? Please read Luke 12:14; 13:1-3; Matthew 17:24; 22:21.

I agree, the Lord Jesus was our model, and He was never a politician. He surely did, however, pay attention to the leaders of Israel. Remember our Lord was not sent to Rome or Greece or Egypt, He came to Israel as the prophets have told us. And Jesus did indeed publicly chastise the Jewish leaders for oppressing the children of God! Go read about how He rebuked the Pharisees and scribes. He shamed the Sanhedrin, the political leaders of the day, telling them "woe to you ..."

Jesus came as the Lamb of God to redeem God's people. There are lots of things He did and did not do. Jesus was not an Architect. He cared little for Herod's gorgeous temple, even prophesying that no stone would remain on another. Does this mean that no Christian should be an Architect?

What about a bazillion other professions? Jesus was silent on them all, especially computers and smart phones. Hear ye, hear ye, all you backsliding Christians! Come out of her My people! And throw all your computers and smart phones in the fire! And be faithful to follow Jesus the carpenter!

In my neighborhood there are lots of nice houses going up all around, and the Amish do the rough carpentry on them all. According to Nee's hermeneutic, all of us Christians should be carpenters like Jesus, just like the Amish are. (And, btw, the Amish don't pay taxes either!)

[testallthings]

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Yes they were different guys and their teaching should not be conflated. However, The Lord's Recovery Movement claims allegiance to both. So, the faithfulness of the movement to Nee's teachings ought to be evaluated. For that matter, Nee's adherence to his own teaching can be assessed. His teachings over time can be also be compared for consistency.

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

[testallthings]

To Zeek

I'll try to find if Nee remained humble or not (although I don't see the connection with Politics and the Church). The quote I posted refers to the same magazine you took your quote from, probably is the same year (I am not sure).

Would you please tell me where Nee says that he is was the minister of his age?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Zeek

I'll try to find if Nee remained humble or not (although I don't see the connection with Politics and the Church). The quote I posted refers to the same magazine you took your quote from, probably is the same year (I am not sure).

Would you please tell me where Nee says that he is was the minister of his age?

I haven't seen that Nee did make that claim explicitly but the LSM defends the claim that he was the MOTA. My impression is that he implied it. http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html Whether or not Nee considered himself the unique MOTA is presently a controversy between LSM and Nigel Tomes and others.

As if that isn't problem enough, the anonymous author of the piece states "At the end of his ministry Brother Nee expressed his feeling that the Lord desired to turn the age from the age of spiritual giants to the age of the whole Body serving." Yet Witness Lee claimed to be the MOTA so the putative Lord's desire was delayed while he was alive according to the LSM.

In my opinion, these preachers should really have stuck to reading the Bible rather then all this speculation about people being the MOTA, an issue which really can't rise beyond the level of opinion. To any somewhat objective observer it looks pretty silly. Don't you agree?

[testallthings]

DID NEE REMAIN THAT HUMBLE?

Originally Posted by zeek

Was the teaching you shared an early one? Did Nee remain that humble? If he claimed to be the minister of his age, what possible meaning could that title have if he admits that anything he teaches could be wrong and that we ought not follow him blindly? If you accept that a guy is God's sole minister of the age, aren't you obligated to follow him blindly? Of course, why anyone would accept that claim from anybody is another question.

Not Taking What We See Today
as the Whole Truth

We cannot judge God's word by what we see in this age. What we see today is still limited. Perhaps fifty years from now, other brothers will rise up to say that we are in darkness. We only wish we could climb higher than we are to see God's word. Just as we are not saved and then regenerated, in the same way we do not first receive an individual life and then come to realize the Body life. Just as salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, the realization of the individual life and the Body life happen at the same time (Acts 9:17-18). In every age there are truths of that age. There are also errors of that age. We cannot make the truth of an age become an error just because we do not have enough knowledge about that truth. Take again the example of baptism and the laying on of hands. The two things should happen at the same time. After a person is baptized, he should immediately experience the laying on of hands, and he should immediately be brought to see the coordination, the Body, and be joined to the brothers and sisters. Due to the fact that some truths were recovered first and some later, men set a sequence to the order of the truth. This is wrong. This is why we cannot consider what we have seen today as the whole truth, nor can we judge God's word by our own experience. Never forget that we are ministers of God's word.(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 6, Section 2) [emphasis added](These words were spoken in 1948).

I am not sure if this can answer your question. I will still look for more.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

DID NEE REMAIN THAT HUMBLE?

Not Taking What We See Today
as the Whole Truth

We cannot judge God's word by what we see in this age. What we see today is still limited. Perhaps fifty years from now, other brothers will rise up to say that we are in darkness. We only wish we could climb higher than we are to see God's word. Just as we are not saved and then regenerated, in the same way we do not first receive an individual life and then come to realize the Body life. Just as salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, the realization of the individual life and the Body life happen at the same time (Acts 9:17-18). In every age there are truths of that age. There are also errors of that age. We cannot make the truth of an age become an error just because we do not have enough knowledge about that truth. Take again the example of baptism and the laying on of hands. The two things should happen at the same time. After a person is baptized, he should immediately experience the laying on of hands, and he should immediately be brought to see the coordination, the Body, and be joined to the brothers and sisters. Due to the fact that some truths were recovered first and some later, men set a sequence to the order of the truth. This is wrong. This is why we cannot consider what we have seen today as the whole truth, nor can we judge God's word by our own experience. Never forget that we are ministers of God's word.(Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 3) Vol. 57: The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry, Chapter 6, Section 2) [emphasis added](These words were spoken in 1948).

I am not sure if this can answer your question. I will still look for more.

Interesting. I remember Witness Lee saying the same kind of thing from time to time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry,

But why was Nee being humble?

Talking about the resumption of Nee's ministry, in 1942 was the "SCA Storm" as it was called. It was when Nee was dis-fellowhipped for scandals with a couple of sisters:

"After his arrest, Nee disclosed the names of the two victims, MYC and ZQN. Not until 1956 did we know of Nee’s affair with ZQN. Yet the discovery of his affair was the underlying cause of the “SCA Storm” in 1942."
~ Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 2061-2063). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.

After the SCA Storm and with many coworkers alienated from him, Nee had nowhere to go but back to his hometown, Fuzhou.
~Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 2928-2929). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.

Then in 1949 Witness talked Nee back. So of course Nee would be humble.

The Prelude to Nee’s Resumption
Witness Lee Convinced coworkers to Accept Nee Lee was unswervingly loyal to Nee. He realized there were bitter feelings toward Nee among SCA leaders because of the “SCA Storm in 1942.”(1) Upon his arrival Nanjing and Shanghai, he talked to most of the senior coworkers, including Li Yuanru, Zhang Yuzhi, Xu Dawei (David Hsu), Du Zhongchen, and Yu Chenghua. He persuaded them by saying that the cause of their spiritual back-sliding was their focusing on “Was something truly wrong with Watchman Nee?” They forgot to show gratitude to Nee for his spiritual help. Also, he repeatedly emphasized: “The issue is of ‘the Tree of Knowledge’ versus ‘the Tree of Life.’”

Kinnear writes: Already in 1946 Witness Lee had challenged the Shanghai elders: “Were you in the Spirit when you made the decision to reject him? And what was the effect? Can you say it brought life?” “No,” they had replied sorrowfully to each question.(2)

The coworkers accepted Lee’s viewpoint of “considering ‘life,’ but not ‘the knowledge of good and evil.’” The previous grudge was then resolved.

Lee and Wang Prompted the Resumption of Nee
Witness Lee and Wang Peizhen were eager to have Nee returning to his ministry. Lee said: By being in Shanghai again, I had much opportunity to see Brother Nee after a separation of more than six years. .*.*. Also, at this time Peace Wang [Wang Peizhen] and I were concerned for the recovery of Watchman’s ministry. For this reason we both took every opportunity to have fellowship with him.*.*.*. We presented to him the urgent need to resume his ministry because of the restoration of the church in Shanghai and the wide doors opened in new fields. I asked him to resume his ministry, but he told me that because of certain rebellious brothers, his ministering spirit would not allow him to minister to the church in Shanghai. I realized from this that in order to recover his ministry, there was the crucial need of a revival among us.(3)
~Hsu M.D, Lily M.; Roberts M.A M.T.S, Dana (2013-04-02). My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church (Kindle Locations 857-859). Xulon Press. Kindle Edition.


So Nee was being humble because he was like a little boy coming back after being punished.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


To awareness:

Nee was trying to present what he understood from the Bible. He didn't pretend to be correct all the time, so he asked his readers to check with the Bible and if they found him wrong to correct him. That was my point (actually Nee's point). He accepted correction from the Bible but not from the opinions of men. So far I haven't seen a single verse (maybe allusions), from anyone, disproving what Nee said.


The second thing is, if you believe he sinned in an horrible way, why are you still concerned about what he wrote. It seems that to prove his point was wrong you have to attack his person. If his point was wrong it would be wrong even if he was “perfect” in his conduct.


To all:

Nee was Nee. Lee was Lee.
Please, do not judge Nee's writing by what Lee or Lee's coworkers did or said.

Good post TAT. I'd like to hear more about how the verses you provided relate, but that can be set aside.

First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?

Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.

Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.

Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.

Thanks for your input TAT. I'm anxious to learn more about where you are going.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is similar to Jefferson's federalist statement "the separation of church and state." It was not that the church could not be a part of the state, but that the state could not rule the church. That was the separation the framers intended.

No. The first amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It cuts both ways. Jefferson wanted to prevent state churches like they had in Europe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. The first amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It cuts both ways. Jefferson wanted to prevent state churches like they had in Europe.

Yep. What I said.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yep. What I said.

...Not!...

[awareness]

R.I.P Antonin Scalia. Obama will need to replace him. We should all be praying for Obama.

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

...Not!...

Just for clarity:

Not being able to ignore Jefferson, the Christian right has decidedcided to deliberately misinterpret his message. Anti-separationists deny that Jefferson's term "wall of separation between Church and State" meant anything like what modern "liberals" mean by the phrase. But if we read the whole passage from which this phrase was extracted, it really seems that he did:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State [italics mine]. (from his [Jefferson] letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, January I, 1802)"

Brooke Allen. Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers (Kindle Locations 802-805). Kindle Edition.

[testallthings]

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Regarding, “He says one thing and produces another.” Do you refer to Lee? The Lord Jesus said (for example), love your enemy, do not love mammon, etc.. If we fail in obeying His word, should someone be entitled to blame the Lord for the bad result? About Nee's sins, I have not yet investigated or read about it. But if, every time there is an issue about what Nee taught, and the only way to win the argument is always to refer to his sins,(or to what Lee did) then there isn't anything to discuss, we just condemn in toto what he said and that is the end of the story. On the other end, if we are interested in proving from the Bible if what he said is right or wrong, well then let's do it.

Now to your points:

“First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?” In another post you said, “These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things.” I guess you are the one who should answer your question.

“Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.”


Here you have proved that David (a Jew) ruled as king of Israel. (Are we talking about Christians or not?)

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

Joh 18:37 Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. I was born for this, and I came into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to my voice." Here the Lord Jesus continues to show Pilate the kind of king He was (at His first coming). His job was to testify to the truth. Should this be our job, too?
So, the Lord Jesus was a king, but did He really reigned as such? Where was His throne?

Joh_6:15 Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the hillside by himself.
What should be our reaction in a similar situation? Shall we accept what the Lord refused?

The Lord is surely the King, and at His second coming He will rule forever and ever.



You have proved that the Lord “Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.”


Here is the verse, “Mat_19:28 Jesus told them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel.”
This was a promise that will be fulfilled at the Lord second coming when He will sit on His glorious throne. Could the disciples sit on thrones before He sits on His? Did the disciples reign as kings in the Acts period? When they were persecuted did they proclaim to be kings and so be the only one entitled to rule and judge? Does anyone have in his Bible the Gospel according to King Matthew? Or the 1 & 2 King Peter? Or the 1, 2, & 3 King John?

“Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.”

Good for you. You “proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.” Did you?

“Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.”

Yes, but this should not be a pretext to use the teaching of one to condemn what the other didn't say. Here again I quote the 2 verses:
1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


In conclusion, I tried to answer your disprove. I hope in doing so I didn't hit anyone, in that case I ask your forgiveness.

________________
Notes:
today I am quoting from the ISV (no particular reason). If you have something against this version let me know.