Oil and the Holy Spirit

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

What about the parables concerning the wicked servant. How can an unbeliever be a servant?

The problem is with approaches like this. No matter what is ultimately the meaning of the particular parable, there is nothing about being a wicked servant that is answered by "how can . . . ?".

The problem with the question is not that it is wrong, but that it cuts off the consideration. Have you or anyone else tried to think beyond the question once it is there? I honestly believe that this was among Lee's tricks of reining-in our thoughts. He made anything but his premise unthinkable. Beyond question. But is it really so? Is there not a view in which those who disobey (like sinners do) are not servants?

The evil servant would appear to have everyone fooled until the end. But is the fact that the parable uses the idea of a master and servants, even possibly making mention of the servants of others simply evidence that the other masters are the world or Satan? Or is it just a context in which to take a look at a particular characteristic or two of someone who works for someone else.

Where do the characteristics of master and servant fit the purpose of the parable and where are they extraneous to the intent of the parable? I do not claim to know. But I am pretty sure that trying to figure out what every observation within the story could mean or how it could be applied is not what is intended there.

That leaves us with uncertain meaning at some level. But a decent warning at another. Whether there actually is a kind of purgatory or this is just about those who go through the motions but do not really believe is unclear. But the warning to actually believe and act as if you do is clear. It should affect how we behave among our neighbors. Those where we live and work. Those sharing the street, the shopping aisles. Those that look like us and those that do not. Those that love us and those that would love to kill us.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with the question is not that it is wrong, but that it cuts off the consideration. Have you or anyone else tried to think beyond the question once it is there? I honestly believe that this was among Lee's tricks of reining-in our thoughts. He made anything but his premise unthinkable. Beyond question. But is it really so?

Excellent point. The expositor framed the discussion. Instead, the exposition of meaning should find its rest within the larger discussion, whose bounds far exceed it.

Lee put out books, and books, and books. But everything in those books fit in a very narrow meaning, which of course was whatever was convenient to the subject at hand. The Brethren with their types, and then Nee who read "all the classics", both fell prey to the notion that they had exhausted the word of Scripture, and looking beyond their considerations was vain. It was not. Rather, it ultimately became shoe-horning Scripture into very narrow exegeses, and forbidding any to look beyond. "You neither enter in, nor permit others to enter"...

[NewManLiving]

Thank you for your response. My answer only attempted to encourage thoughtfulness. The whole idea is to ask "yourself" these questions before the Lord. With that said, your answer concerning the possibility of who the servant might be is to me, completely illogical. Like I said it all has to make sense to the person who is asking the question. Quite frankly, I do not believe that your own response makes any sense to yourself. You are a pretty smart guy. I have read your posts.
As far as WL he is not the originator of most of what he said including the kingdom truths. This light as you well know came from the writings of Govett, Pember, Lang and others. At the very least I suggest to anyone who is serious about the subject to do their own research. I suggest Lang's Firstborn Sons for a real eye-opener.

Anyway, along the same lines as your final remarks; pursue peace with all men and sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord.

Your brother John

[NewManLiving]

Thank you for your response Aron. Your remarks concerning Peter are insightful. Here is another way to consider his experience:
Christ had informed His disciples that they would all “be offended”. This word Gk. Skandalizo, can also mean a falling away, or resulting in a fall. The words “fall away” in Luke 8:13 are the translation of aphistemi or apostasia from which comes apostasy. Peter’s decline can be seen, by his own experience
Peter would not accept Christ’s statements concerning what was about to happen: Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee; the other disciples responded the similarly. But unfortunately all the disciples ended up forsaking him ( Matt: 16: 33-35, 56)
In the garden the Lord told His disciples that He was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry and watch with me, specifically not to enter into temptation. The Lord then rebuked them for falling asleep. ( Matt.26: 36-41). And of course, they entered into temptation
Consequently when Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter’s reaction was one of the flesh. His answer was the sword. Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. ( Matt. 26:56)
Peter then began to follow Christ “afar off” ( Matt. 26: 58). His closeness to the Lord along with James and John was now gone
The Lord was then led to the “Hall of Judgement”, it was at this point He turned and looked upon Peter. The word used here was far more serious than a glance. It was a lasting, penetrating look, under scrutiny. This caused Peter to wake up and remember his actions. “Peter then went out, and wept bitterly”.
So, the result of all this is that, Peter was on the “outside”, “weeping bitterly”. Fortunately for Peter He was recovered and Praise the Lord, died an honorable death.
We will all face the judgement seat of Christ. There is a reason why the apostle uses the term: “That you may have boldness in that day”. I hope we all can be like Peter, Paul and others. Forgetting or learning from the past and running the race. If not, I am convinced there will be more people on the “outside”, “weeping”

[aron]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

We will all face the judgement seat of Christ. There is a reason why the apostle uses the term: “That you may have boldness in that day”. I hope we all can be like Peter, Paul and others. Forgetting or learning from the past and running the race. If not, I am convinced there will be more people on the “outside”, “weeping”

Yes, my posting here has been a kind of running. I allow my thoughts to be examined, and pruned, by others. And my posts here come into discussions in church groups during the week, and also my outside discussions (and readings) come into my posts here on the forum. It arguably is all a kind of running of the race.

And how has this been a help? And have I been advancing? I cannot say, but rather I let go and struggle forward.

BP says we who discuss Lee's foibles are destroyers of God's building. Bold and impudent, defying God's authority. We could say the same for BP, RK, EM and the rest; and that WN and WL defied pre-existant church authorities, and drew men (and women) after themselves. After the Communists displayed Nee's sins, how many followed him? Almost none. "All in Asia have abandoned me", said Paul. Was Nee today's Paul, abandoned and rejected by the flock, to be martyred in prison? Or was he a failed shepherd, who was rightly rejected by the flock for gross sin? The jury is out.

Therefore I don't judge anyone or myself. The race is on. Keep going. Keep trying. Have mercy on others and Jesus promised we'd find mercy as well. Keep going.

[aron]

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

As far as WL he is not the originator of most of what he said including the kingdom truths. This light as you well know came from the writings of Govett, Pember, Lang and others. At the very least I suggest to anyone who is serious about the subject to do their own research. I suggest Lang's Firstborn Sons for a real eye-opener.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Lang once said,

"No man should write a book until he is 40. He needs to prove his theories in practice before publishing."

Most of Lang's books were published after he was 50 years old.

I guess WN skipped that chapter, eh? Or maybe he was so smart that, as WL said, he could take parts from each author, which pleased him, and build his own hermeneutic. And while the sources of WN's theology were arguably cutting-edge stuff 150 years ago, they're far from it today. So while we don't dismiss them out of hand, they're neither definitive nor foundational.

As NML says, "Do your own research". Our reading shows a sin unto death, and sin not unto death. (1 John 5:16-18) One is probably "gross sin" of the flesh - i.e. fornication, theft, drunkenness, and the other is being soulish: barren, petty, small-minded, and lazy. Both are sins... but where's the proverbial line between "unto death" and "not unto death"? Not always clear: people can get clouded, and deceived. Experience can blind as much as clarify, as biases and pre-dispositions become reinforced, and entrenched, and hardened. The Pharisees spent all day staring at scripture, discussing and debating, but still didn't recognize the incarnate Word speaking to them.

In the LC, with its "inner life subterfuge", as John Myer put it, terms like “revelation” and “vision,” "life,” and "view," ended up taking on a kind of Fu-Manchu aura of mystery, which consequently swamped peoples' ability to discern what scripture actually meant. Subjectivity then ruled, especially the subjectivity of top leadership. So whatever Max Bro wanted was "according to the vision" and was "life". How could anyone figure out what the Bible actually said, in such an environment?

If WL could hide the ongoing sins of one of his sons (PL), and "shoot the messengers" who exposed the goings-on in LSM offices, then anyone could be deceived. A Christian might simultaneously put out a book like "Spiritual Man" and still be ensnared by gross sin, even a sin "unto death". And while we wouldn't dismiss WN's version of 'purgatory', it was developed so long ago with so few sources, mainly British Brethren cited by NML above, that it's crude and unsatisfactory.