Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So if the thief would have somehow survived the crucifixion and gone on to live awhile he could have qualified for reward?

How long would he have had to live to have a chance to get into the kingdom reward?

That is speculation. He died right there on the cross.

If your question is who is qualified for a reward that is up to the Lord. It depends on their circumstances and His righteous assessment. Of course, we want to be counted worthy. He is righteous in all His ways.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

That is speculation. He died right there on the cross.

If your question is who is qualified for a reward that is up to the Lord. It depends on their circumstances and His righteous assessment. Of course, we want to be counted worthy. He is righteous in all His ways.

But you are speculating that he didn't gain the kingdom. Just because the Lord said he would be in Paradise neither states nor implies that he would not receive the kingdom.

The fact is, the thief may have gained the kingdom.

[UntoHim]

One thing we can be sure of, this guy was not an overcomer, yet he got to be with the Lord Jesus in Paradise. The apostle Paul clearly implied that when Christians die they get to "be with Christ".(Phil 1:23) This puts a little bit of a hitch in the teachings of Nee and Lee. It really doesn't make much sense (biblically or otherwise) that the 1,000 year Kingdom (if it is indeed literal) is going to be a place of punishment for all the little bad boys and girls who didn't live up to some arbitrary, man-made set of teachings and requirements. So they get to be in Paradise with Christ (possibly for thousands of years), then at the 2nd coming they get to spend 1,000 years gashing their teeth in the outer darkness of Nee/Lee's "Summer School"(a la Dan Towle, LSM chief eschatologist) This sounds more like an attempt to control people and keep people in fear and trembling of your group and it's leader than sound biblical teaching.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing we can be sure of, this guy was not an overcomer, yet he got to be with the Lord Jesus in Paradise. The apostle Paul clearly implied that when Christians die they get to "be with Christ".(Phil 1:23) This puts a little bit of a hitch in the teachings of Nee and Lee. It really doesn't make much sense (biblically or otherwise) that the 1,000 year Kingdom (if it is indeed literal) is going to be a place of punishment for all the little bad boys and girls who didn't live up to some arbitrary, man-made set of teachings and requirements. So they get to be in Paradise with Christ (possibly for thousands of years), then at the 2nd coming they get to spend 1,000 years gashing their teeth in the outer darkness of Nee/Lee's "Summer School"(a la Dan Towle, LSM chief eschatologist) This sounds more like an attempt to control people and keep people in fear and trembling of your group and it's leader than sound biblical teaching.

UntoHim,

We agree that this thief was not an overcomer and we agree that he was with the Lord in the abode of the dead people of God, a place called Paradise, the place visited by Christ after His death, a place of apparent comfort implied by not only its name, and the reference of Paul you mentioned, but also that Abraham was there with a poor man named Lazarus. The alternative being a place of torment as indicated by the suffering of the rich man.

I believe the outer darkness is indicative, probably a real sphere or realm, that allows the occupants to see the enjoyment of the kingdom from the outside looking in. Not like the rich man's suffering but rather the loss of not being able to participate in the enjoyment of the millennium with Christ. The wailing and gnashing of teeth brought on by a recounting of one's unwillingness to follow the Lord completely for what will certainly seem as petty things of this life compared with the glory of that time.

Also, there seems to be a scale of exclusion from the kingdom as indicated by the Lord's description "until the last farthing is paid".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Also, there seems to be a scale of exclusion from the kingdom as indicated by the Lord's description "until the last farthing is paid".

When you start talking about kingdom punishment being a matter of paying a debt off, you are pretty much in the teaching of Purgatory.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When you start talking about kingdom punishment being a matter of paying a debt off, you are pretty much in the teaching of Purgatory.

I don't agree with the teaching of Purgatory so that can't be true.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I don't agree with the teaching of Purgatory so that can't be true.

It could be true if you don't know what you are talking about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

One thing we can be sure of, this guy was not an overcomer, yet he got to be with the Lord Jesus in Paradise. The apostle Paul clearly implied that when Christians die they get to "be with Christ".(Phil 1:23) This puts a little bit of a hitch in the teachings of Nee and Lee. It really doesn't make much sense (biblically or otherwise) that the 1,000 year Kingdom (if it is indeed literal) is going to be a place of punishment for all the little bad boys and girls who didn't live up to some arbitrary, man-made set of teachings and requirements. So they get to be in Paradise with Christ (possibly for thousands of years), then at the 2nd coming they get to spend 1,000 years gashing their teeth in the outer darkness of Nee/Lee's "Summer School"(a la Dan Towle, LSM chief eschatologist) This sounds more like an attempt to control people and keep people in fear and trembling of your group and it's leader than sound biblical teaching.

I hesitate to get involved in eschatological or theological issues because they don't interest me much. Specific verses do, however. Lee took most of his teachings on this subject from Panton and Govett, and I personally think much of their teaching is good.

UntoHim, your post highlights what does trouble me. First of all, Lee had to live up to his reputation as the last MOTA standing and the latest, greatest oracle of all by systematizing all eschatological events into charts and schedules which subsequently served only to puff up his adherents. Secondly, Lee used the matter of the overcomers to manipulate the saints for personal gain. Overcoming became part and parcel with being one with the ministry. Overcoming was determined by your relationship with LSM, and that held all in fear, so it's no wonder he could get away with murder when necessary.

In the context of endless debates with the Blendeds, Titus Chu made an interesting observation about eschatological events, which I thought was wise. He compared the Lord's return to DaVinci's Mona Lisa, with the saying, "either it inspires you or not." The point being that having all the teaching in the world about the Lord's return does nothing for you if it does not affect your life by inspiring you.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But you are speculating that he didn't gain the kingdom. Just because the Lord said he would be in Paradise neither states nor implies that he would not receive the kingdom.

The fact is, the thief may have gained the kingdom.

I am assuming that if the thief's request had been granted the Lord would have not made the distinction because Paradise is not the Kingdom. Rather He would have affirmed the thief's dying request.

I am also assuming that the thief did not have ample opportunity to fulfill the majority of the qualifications and practices of the kingdom people defined by the Lord in Matthew Chapters 5-7.

If you think otherwise, be my guest.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I am assuming that if the thief's request had been granted the Lord would have not made the distinction because Paradise is not the Kingdom. Rather He would have affirmed the thief's dying request.

I am also assuming that the thief did not have ample opportunity to fulfill the majority of the qualifications and practices of the kingdom people defined by the Lord in Matthew Chapters 5-7.

If you think otherwise, be my guest.

Thanks for the dialogue.

The thief didn't ask to be in the kingdom. He asked to be remembered when the Lord came in his kingdom, i.e. returned from the dead as King. The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request, not a statement of "Well, you're not going to be in the kingdom, but..."

Lee's (your) kingdom overlay here is artificial and unfounded.

As to "the last farthing (penny) being paid," it's clear we can't "pay" for anything, which is why Christ had to pay it all. Matt 5:25 is saying that every sin must be paid for and you won't get out until it is, meaning if you don't have Christ you won't get out. It's speaking of seriousness of sin, not of the matter of reward.

Again Lee's "kingdom" template here is artificial.

[Cal]

But, Cassidy, you claimed Lee used this thief passage to address the matter of someone dying before being full grown. I still don't see that being addressed. Why would someone who didn't have time to grow be excluded from the kingdom reward? How is dying too soon be something that could be blamed on him or her?

Again, Lee said you have to be full grown to be considered ready for the kingdom. This is why I say his teachings don't add up. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would hold something against someone that he or she could not control.

In fact, even if you have a lot of time, you can't control how much you grow. Growth is up to the Lord. All you can do is be faithful. But I reckon very few Christians have ever truly be "full grown" before passing from this world, especially by Lee's definition. So if full growth is a requirement of being in the kingdom, I reckon the party is going to be pretty empty, and there are going to be a lot of faithful Christians left out who didn't get all the way grown.

Sorry. Makes no sense. Doesn't pass the nonsense test.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But, Cassidy, you claimed Lee used this thief passage to address the matter of someone dying before being full grown. I still don't see that being addressed. Why would someone who didn't have time to grow be excluded from the kingdom reward? How is dying too soon be something that could be blamed on him or her?

Again, Lee said you have to be full grown to be considered ready for the kingdom. This is why I say his teachings don't add up. It doesn't make sense that the Lord would hold something against someone that he or she could not control.

In fact, even if you have a lot of time, you can't control how much you grow. Growth is up to the Lord. All you can do is be faithful. But I reckon very few Christians have ever truly be "full grown" before passing from this world, especially by Lee's definition. So if full growth is a requirement of being in the kingdom, I reckon the party is going to be pretty empty, and there are going to be a lot of faithful Christians left out who didn't get all the way grown.

Sorry. Makes no sense. Doesn't pass the nonsense test.

Personally, it makes a lot of sense to me because it ties many loose ends and closes many gaps that those of the Calvinist and Arminian persuasion have never agreed on. Both have seen truths but the teaching of the kingdom as a reward is kind of like the "theory of everything" in theological terms.

I try to explain why it works and the biblical synergy the teaching of the kingdom provides. Yet, I have found that most people of one persuasion or the other will not agree no matter how much sense it makes to me personally. It is kind of one of those things as Ohio stated about Mona Lisa.

[Cassidy]

The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request,

Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion, nor for the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request,

Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion,

So you are saying (positive) Paradise isn't part of God's kingdom? There is part of that place that isn't under God's rule?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are saying (positive) Paradise isn't part of God's kingdom? There is part of that place that isn't under God's rule?

Paradise is the good part (so to speak) of Hades, the abode of the dead. There is of course a not so pleasant part as I stated already. In that sense every place and all of Hades is part of the Kingdom of God as He rules the universe.

The "kingdom" spoken of by the thief refers specifically to the establishing of the kingdom established by Christ as the Messiah in Jerusalem which the Jews were waiting for and expecting. That is the millennial kingdom. Even the disciples contended with each other over the sitting arrangement in the kingdom. They of course were not thinking about the sitting arrangement in Paradise, nor the arrangement in heaven but of His kingdom established at Jerusalem.

I had heard somewhere, and I cannot remember exactly, that Paradise was transferred under the Throne according to the description in Revelation. More I cannot say about that because I do not remember where I read it and I do not know how it ties with the rest of scripture.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I see no scriptural basis for... the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead.

Well, what do you think the thief meant? Do you think he had a clear understanding of Witness Lee's convoluted kingdom theology? Was that his point of reference?

Come on. Look at the situation. The thief saw Jesus dying on the cross. His statement that Jesus would come in his kingdom was an affirmation that he believed Jesus would not stay dead and would be king.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

The Lord's answer is universally considered a positive affirmation of the thief's request,

Only if you equate the kingdom to Paradise. I see no scriptural basis for such a conclusion, nor for the teaching that the Lord Jesus coming into His kingdom was His returning from the dead.

So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee. Nor by myself, I might add; but then I don't pretend to be able to. I am just making the point that what ran across my bow during my sojourn in the LC system was not very impressive. The idea of what Cassidy called "promise and warning" was certainly more balanced than what I found in the Congregational and Lutheran Churches, but it remained embarrassingly crude and ill-formed. You have the thief on the cross, for example, being presented out of any context, as if it were some proof text of a critical point. Which I personally doubt it is: it is rather all these different stories, which tell us what? Or more importantly, they told the disciples what?

It seemed to me that Lee tried to sashay in after the fact, with his brilliant mind and a few teachers like Nee & so forth, and give us the definitive word. I find that completely unsatisfying. Again, I cannot do better, but then I don't pretend to.

[aron]

For me, the seminal text on what did all this mean to the composers of the NT was the Hebrews exposition on the Exodus experience. The Exodus story looms large in the Hebrew history, and the writer of the epistle made the point that they all made it out of Egypt but they didn't make it into the promised land. When I tell people this and they say I am teaching Purgatory then I tell them that the writer of Hebrews was teaching Purgatory as well. If he/she was not, why bring it up?

I just think the Lee/Nee work on this subject is very rudimentary. Number one, they don't list their sources. They have the Bible, their logic and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You get vague references to teachers past, but without any detail. Their sources are minimal to the extreme. Number two, they treat every other possible viewpoint with almost no respect whatever. Number three, they brook no possibility of any weakness in their own interpretation.

It is like having a conversation with a petulant four-year-old, trembling lower lip and all. I find it very unsatisfying, not the least because some of what they teach is probably worth considering. But wading through it all is not what I have in mind when I think of "the kingdom". When Jesus teaches you, you exclaim "Was not our heart burning when He opened for us the scripture?" When Lee teaches... well, the "flavor" just doesn't taste very "kingdom-y" to me. Subjective, I know, but my references above might flesh it out somewhat.

[Cassidy]

"So we have the kingdom, we have Paradise, we have the Wedding Feast, and so forth. None of it presented clearly by Mssrs. Nee & Lee."

To my observation, aron, Mssrs Witness Lee and Watchman Nee spent a great deal of their teaching devoted to the teaching on the kingdom. Witness Lee more so but a significant amount of material from the Life-studies of Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation. Probably some in the Life-study of Exodus and Deuteronomy and perhaps Kings. There might be several hundred messages on on the Kingdom and not to mention the book "The Kingdom" which covers this matter in significant detail.