Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

The LSM-promulgated version of "the kingdom", and more specifically "the overcomers".

My point was that those three points refer to a multitude of of Christian groups. In every case you can argue they lack breadth, they have a pet theory, and their attitude is brittle.

I meet with a very good non denominational group in NYC after leaving the LRC. My kids went to catechism class where they were taught that when Christians die they go to heaven, among other things. I asked the woman running the classes to show me the verse reference for this. When she saw that no verse actually says that she became very "brittle" in her attitude. Does this make her a "false teacher" or merely misinformed?

Nit picking on LRC teachings does not lead anywhere. False teachers/false prophets are not determined by those that teach wrong or superficial doctrines. Acts 19:1-6 gives an example of how Apollos was teaching wrong or superficial teachings that Paul had to correct. Apollos is not likened to a false teacher, Balaam is the example given to us, and nowhere does the Bible condemn Balaam for teaching things that are false.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nit picking on LRC teachings does not lead anywhere.

Perhaps. And I am arguably as brittle (note my incessant nit picking), and mis-informed (note my lack of citations). But I appreciated having a place to vent.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I meet with a very good non denominational group in NYC after leaving the LRC. My kids went to catechism class where they were taught that when Christians die they go to heaven, among other things. I asked the woman running the classes to show me the verse reference for this. When she saw that no verse actually says that she became very "brittle" in her attitude. Does this make her a "false teacher" or merely misinformed?

The answer to that last question is neither.

Long time lurker here. I couldn't resist writing about this, one of my many pet peeves about the LC.

Yes, Christians can over-emphasize "going to heaven," but the LC went way overboard in rejecting heaven. Before I left, I remember RK boasting that an upcoming issue of Affirmation and Critique was going to expose "the leaven of heaven!" When he made that announcement, there were shouts of zealous joy (this was during an Anaheim training). It was the usual "we're so much better than those shallow Christians in poor blind Christianity."

Well, Jesus said to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven..." When Stephen was martyred, he saw the Son of Man standing in heaven. There are way too many examples to list here. So heaven is a real place (not just a "realm" but an actual place). The Bible says so. God the Father dwells there. Jesus the Son dwells there. The Holy Spirit was poured out from there. Why mock heaven and use it to condemn other Christians?

And in the end, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we (believers) will all dwell in the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem. Regardless of whether you consider the end of Revelation to be a physical or metaphorical description, it's a real place. What's wrong with calling it "heaven"? Maybe Christians should be more specific, it's a heavenly city, but so what? Is it wrong to say that after they die, they'll be with Jesus in heaven, and they'll see their loved ones again in heaven?

I guess I'm just reacting to Z's post, because for so long the topic of heaven was used by the LC to look down on other Christians. The same way they actually belittled the death of Christ as "merely" judicial redemption, but not as "deep" as organic salvation. (Mocking Christians for focusing on the death of Christ???)

Yes, being a Christian is much more than "going to heaven when you die." But being with God and with Christ in the heavenly city for eternity is kind of a big deal.

[UntoHim]

Thanks to long time lurker for that great post! Thanks for coming out of the shadows and taking a chance in posting! Please consider registering when you get a chance...the more the merrier!

Yes, unfortunately the Local Church view and understanding of orthodox/evangelical Christianity is kind of stuck in early 20th century Mainland China. Rather bizarre if you think about it. These people actually think that nothing has changed since what the missionaries taught in the 20s and 30s.

Regarding the teaching of heaven in the Local Church, you are so right. Yet Witness Lee's teachings regarding what heaven is and what it is not are very easy to debunk...you just need to do what you did....USE THE BIBLE! The Bible is actually quite clear regarding heaven. From Genesis to Revelation, God has unfolded what heaven is, and what it is not. He has even told us what heaven will be for eternity. And we know from the Bible that heaven is not going to be what Witness Lee taught - "the ultimate mingling of God and man". We know this because the new heaven and the new earth are described in a fair amount of detail in Revelation and it doesn't match up with what Lee taught...actually not even close. Heaven will be a place where we will see our God's face...we will serve and worship Him...NOT BECOME HIM. Thank God we have the REAL divine revelation in our hands! Thank you Lord!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The answer to that last question is neither...

Great, if you could give me the verse reference on that it would be very much appreciated.

When I asked the sister for the verse reference she gave me Luke 23:43 which I felt was a reasonable interpretation (as long as there is no NT verse that refutes this). So I asked her to give my kids the verse reference (I don't like my kids being taught Bible truths that don't include the Bible) and I asked if she would use the word "paradise" instead of "heaven". She asked why? I said that I agreed with her that by comparison, where believers go when they die could be considered "heaven" to the other alternative, but since that could be confused with the heaven where God dwells I didn't want my kids confused. She said they were the same place, the paradise where the thief went when he was crucified is the same as heaven where God our Father is. I asked "how is that possible? Jesus said to the thief "this day" you will be with me in paradise the day He was crucified, but then on the third day when he rose from the dead He told the disciples He hadn't ascended yet to the Father. How can they be the same place?"

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

She said they were the same place, the paradise where the thief went when he was crucified is the same as heaven where God our Father is. I asked "how is that possible? Jesus said to the thief "this day" you will be with me in paradise the day He was crucified, but then on the third day when he rose from the dead He told the disciples He hadn't ascended yet to the Father. How can they be the same place?"

ZNP,

You say that you don't want your kids confused. I understand. But my sense is that your certainty will ultimately lead to further confusion. At least it does for me. And since I am older than your kids, and have read the Bible, and am not stupid, at least intellectually, the certainty with which you & Lee operate is somewhat off-putting.

I prefer a conversation in which both you and I admit to being at least partly in the dark, here on this earthly coil, and we together explore the light in God's word. Then the Lord Himself comes alongside and helps us in our weakness. He declares the things concerning Himself. In His light we begin to see the light.

Your declarations of certitude push me away from this process of exploration. Like all of Lee's bullet points, they become barriers to the light.

[Cal]

ZNP,

Technically you have a point. But here's the thing. Most Christians don't care about those kinds of detailed distinctions for two reasons:

• They are hard to confirm.
• They don't affect their lives, anyway.

Whether the thief went to heaven or some place other than heaven, what differences does it make in the essential meaning and how you are to live your life? The point was the thief went to the place Jesus was going. The point of going to heaven is it is the place Jesus will be. Wherever that is has absolutely no effect on how you are to live, what type of faith you are to manifest or anything else practical.

Do you really think your kids are going to live a better manifestation of Christian lives if they know they distinction between heaven and paradise? I seriously doubt it. It's a detail.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Do you really think your kids are going to live a better manifestation of Christian lives if they know they distinction between heaven and paradise? I seriously doubt it. It's a detail.

I have a somewhat different take. I think these distinctions are important. I think they were important to the writers and hearers (the NT was largely orally disseminated, at first. Few actually had access to written texts). If they were not important, they wouldn't be there in the record, as such.

But today, after 2,000 years, it is hard (for me) to recreate all of this with the certitude which I see displayed elsewhere. What I think important for our children is that they see us earnestly pursuing the reality of these words together in a spirit of gentleness and peace, and not crossing swords over distinctions. If we tell our kids, "this is how it is", then they will either become mindless robots who repeat what we say as if it were the truth ("Bruther Lee says"), or they will find inadequacies in our arguments and reject it whole cloth.

Better, I feel, that we pursue, and invite others to join us in the pursuit. "The kingdom", "Heaven", "paradise", and the role of "the overcomers" are distinctions worthy of our careful attention. But 1) it bugs me when people oversimplify things and treat it as if "it were so", and 2) I am aware that I do the same, and must allow the Lord to come in our conversation, with His gentle rebuke: "O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

ZNP,

Technically you have a point. But here's the thing. Most Christians don't care about those kinds of detailed distinctions for two reasons:

• They are hard to confirm.
• They don't affect their lives, anyway.

Whether the thief went to heaven or some place other than heaven, what differences does it make in the essential meaning and how you are to live your life? The point was the thief went to the place Jesus was going. The point of going to heaven is it is the place Jesus will be. Wherever that is has absolutely no effect on how you are to live, what type of faith you are to manifest or anything else practical.

Do you really think your kids are going to live a better manifestation of Christian lives if they know they distinction between heaven and paradise? I seriously doubt it. It's a detail.

Well the reason I questioned this was because I wanted my kids to be taught Bible lessons based on the Bible. I was not involved in designing the curriculum. I don't care if they teach this or not, just so long as when they say the Bible says something they actually use the Bible. I think that is an important principle for the Christian life.

Second, I think that the gospel is important for how we live our Christian life. I think you have made this point repeatedly as an error of WL's teachings. This teaching leads some to equate Jn 14:2 with "going to heaven when we die". I think that is a serious error that leads Christians to erroneously believe that once you have received Christ that is it, and that definitely does not promote Christians living a better manifestation of Christ.

Third, I had already taught my kids that "we don't go to heaven when we die". So naturally this was the one thing they were excited to bring home from Catechism. I think being careless with the word has a very negative effect.

For example, they also taught that "if you don't receive Christ you will go to hell". This is based on the verse that says whoever receives Christ will not receive this judgment. To me this is a prime example of being careless with the word. To say that if you have received Christ you will not go to hell is not equivalent to saying "everyone who has not received Christ will go to hell".

[Cal]

ZNP and aron,

I understand the need to "rightly divide the word of truth." What I think really happens in the Church at large is that there is so much potential and realized disagreement on the details of end times and the specifics of reward of punishment, etc. that most practical teachers try to stay focused on the essentials, to avoid the bog of those peripheral controversies.

And we all know there is the danger of worrying too much about the details to the point of shoving out the essentials, and becoming like the scribes and Pharisees who "tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." (Matt 23:23)

I think in the grand scheme, heaven versus paradise are dill and cumin.

At the same time, Jesus continued on to say, "these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others," so there are arguments both ways, as long as you see the overall priorities of things, which was His main point.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

ZNP and aron,

I understand the need to "rightly divide the word of truth." What I think really happens in the Church at large is that there is so much potential and realized disagreement on the details of end times and the specifics of reward of punishment, etc. that most practical teachers try to stay focused on the essentials, to avoid the bog of those peripheral controversies.

And we all know there is the danger of worrying too much about the details to the point of shoving out the essentials, and becoming like the scribes and Pharisees who "tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." (Matt 23:23)

I think in the grand scheme, heaven versus paradise are dill and cumin.

At the same time, Jesus continued on to say, "these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others," so there are arguments both ways, as long as you see the overall priorities of things, which was His main point.

I understand the distinction ZNP is speaking of here, having discussed this on numerous occasions. But now, I am no longer certain that paradise has not been taken into heaven. (Eph 4)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well the reason I questioned this was because I wanted my kids to be taught Bible lessons based on the Bible.

At some level, the reference to "heaven" is correct. If you have a general understanding of "heaven" and "paradise" that is more likely the same — or at least one a part of the other — rather than some nit-picking specificity on something that cannot be considered that important.

If we erroneously describe what Jesus called "paradise" as "heaven," then the complaint cannot be about where you go, but rather what you call it. And that is just a waste of breath. Needing to proof-text whether heaven is the proper term to use turns the focus of teaching from what is important to what is not. When you die, your spirit/soul will go wherever it is that it goes. If we get it wrong in our minds while alive, it does not change what actually happens.

And it does not make anything about our current life need to be lived differently. Unless it is coupled with an erroneous teaching that we can just take our "salvation by faith" card to the bank and walk straight through the "pearly gates" and walk on "streets of gold," etc. I don't buy either the Catholic or LRC version of purgatory. But I don't think that there is no consequence for failure to at least be in the process of transformation in this life. There is something to the idea, but it is not given much more than vague imagery and metaphors.

But if I intend to be pursuing the Christian life, then I have no qualms with terminology about what comes after this life. We only see it darkly. Those who seek certainty are wasting their current life in pursuit of the one to come. And if there is anything to rewards (with or without punishment) the rewards come from what we do rightly here in this life, not how "right" we get our mental theology about the life to come.

But as to the idea of "going to heaven," if I accept that the term "paradise" is somewhat equivalent to "heaven," then the verse that makes it so would be where Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise." Arguing against saying that is "heaven" is not arguing a substantive theological problem, but an exercise in muddled terminology of limited importance.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

We only see it darkly. Those who seek certainty are wasting their current life in pursuit of the one to come. And if there is anything to rewards (with or without punishment) the rewards come from what we do rightly here in this life, not how "right" we get our mental theology about the life to come.

Very well stated, OBW. And in only 378 words! I am indeed impressed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

When you die, your spirit/soul will go wherever it is that it goes. If we get it wrong in our minds while alive, it does not change what actually happens.

This, I think this touches to the parable of Sheep and the Goats, from Matt 25: "They will say to Me, Where did we see You and help You like that?" and conversely "Where did we see You and reject You thus?"

The receivers of the Master's blessing, and His condemnation, both have "wrong theological concepts", i.e. they don't get cognitively what is transpiring. But they are not being judged on their theology, but their behavior.

And it does not make anything about our current life need to be lived differently. Unless it is coupled with an erroneous teaching that we can just take our "salvation by faith" card to the bank and walk straight through the "pearly gates" and walk on "streets of gold," etc.

My beef with the teaching of the LRC is that it gives what is to me a vague and arbitrary "overcomer" status, then manipulates people based on this teaching. How you are in relationship to "the ministry" determines whether you are "going on". Thus the fogginess of the teaching I don't like, because it leaves gray area for human manipulation.

"If you don't do what I say, the Boogie Man will get you" gets revised to "Nobody who leaves the LRC can go on with the Lord in a positive way." I.E if you don't toe the line with the LSM and the Blendeds its a thousand years of outer darkness for you. The vagarity of their teaching leaves it open for abuse. No different for me than "When the coin in the offering box rings, the soul to heaven springs".

Bad teaching leads to bad theology leads to bad behavior, unchallenged.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great, if you could give me the verse reference on that [going to heaven when we die] it would be very much appreciated.

There is a verse in Matthew 5 where Jesus says that if you will be despised in this age because of Him, then great is your reward in heaven (v.5). So I am wondering: if your reward is in heaven and you don't go to heaven when you die, how then will you get your reward? Will it come down from heaven with the New Jerusalem?

Not being facetious here. If Jesus tells you to orient your heart toward the things of heaven, wouldn't you be so inclined? And even if those things eventually "come down from heaven" to be with you on the "new earth", still shouldn't your heart be "heavenly oriented" in this age? So "where do you go when you die?" instead becomes, "Where is your heart oriented today?" The second question will be resolved from the first, I believe.

For example, Matthew 6 says, “19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Again, "store up treasures in heaven" seems antiquated compared to Lee's high-peak "dispensing" theory. But Jesus clearly told us to store up for ourselves treasures in heaven. Heaven is for real, as Todd Burpo has recently told us. Well, we can dismiss Todd's testimony and say that we are going to the New Jerusalem instead. But if Jesus tells us to put our heart in heaven, then we want to say, "amen", even if we don't understand what He means.

I strongly feel that this is not about terminology but about orientation. I would argue that orientation produces three effects.

1. Attention
2. Interest
3. Activity, effort.

In the interests of brevity I will pursue this on another post. (ha-ha-ha)

[ZNPaaneah]

My understanding is that when you die you are essentially sent to a temporary holding place, could be a very nice place called "paradise" but it is temporary until we all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, which occurs after the resurrection from the dead.

Now there is no doubt that the New Jerusalem is our ultimate destination and that is a "heavenly city".

As for "orientation" I think the question "are you going to heaven or hell" is counterproductive towards the orientation of believers. I would also note, perhaps due to the similarity between orientation and orienteering, that it is very important to be precise in your orientation. A "slight" variation can equate to being lost by hundreds of miles.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My understanding is that when you die you are essentially sent to a temporary holding place, could be a very nice place called "paradise" but it is temporary until we all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, which occurs after the resurrection from the dead.

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.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My understanding is that when you die you are essentially sent to a temporary holding place, could be a very nice place called "paradise" but it is temporary until we all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, which occurs after the resurrection from the dead.

The accounts of those two young boys Alex Malarkey and Colton Burpo are quite compelling. Not only are their visits to heaven undeniable, but they have met real people in heaven, not just the angels. They were not in some "temporary holding place" under the earth as also I had long thought, but both of them had seen Jesus, as Apostle Paul once did. The other people they saw were recognizable and identifiable, even though their bodies had not been resurrected.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The accounts of those two young boys Alex Malarkey and Colton Burpo are quite compelling. Not only are their visits to heaven undeniable, but they have met real people in heaven, not just the angels. They were not in some "temporary holding place" under the earth as also I had long thought, but both of them had seen Jesus, as Apostle Paul once did. The other people they saw were recognizable and identifiable, even though their bodies had not been resurrected.

The stories of those who have died and been resuscitated is compelling. Still I would want to base my understanding on Bible verses. I can see that Paul's use of "Paradise" is equivalent to Jesus', but shouldn't there be some explanation of how Paradise was moved and why do other verses refer to "the dead in Christ rise first" if they are actually descending?