Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

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.

Based on Eph. 4.8-10?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Based on Eph. 4.8-10?

Hmm, maybe the "fill all things" part?

I don't know for sure. I'll have to think about it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Hmm, maybe the "fill all things" part?

I don't know for sure. I'll have to think about it.

Rather the "Having ascended to the height, He led captive those taken captive." Years ago Phil Comfort shared with me that "the weight of Christian scholarship" felt this section of scripture referred to those in Paradise under the earth (mainly O.T. believers looking forward to the Messiah) being taken into heaven. This was a fulfillment of Psalms 68.18.

This was contrary to Lee's teachings, but Comfort at that time was on his way out the door.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rather the "Having ascended to the height, He led captive those taken captive." Years ago Phil Comfort shared with me that "the weight of Christian scholarship" felt this section of scripture referred to those in Paradise under the earth (mainly O.T. believers looking forward to the Messiah) being taken into heaven. This was a fulfillment of Psalms 68.18.

This was contrary to Lee's teachings, but Comfort at that time was on his way out the door.

Ohio, could you please say more about what happened to Phil Comfort? You've referred to him several times. Now he seems to be a respected accepted Greek scholar. Why did he leave? What does he now think of the local church?

[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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

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

I know what you mean. Dealing with Cassidy is about as intellectually satisfying as trying to get a square peg into a round hole. It always starts out promising, but always comes back to statements like "I don't agree with the teaching of Purgatory so that can't be true."

And you're like, Dude, I can't believe you said something that prevaricating.

[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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right. But the point is he doesn't tie up the loose ends. He just ignores them.

I mean, I've been trying to get you to address this matter of growth as overcoming and you keep ignoring it yourself. So in that sense you are a great imitator of Lee.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right. But the point is he doesn't tie up the loose ends. He just ignores them.

I mean, I've been trying to get you to address this matter of growth as overcoming and you keep ignoring it yourself. So in that sense you are a great imitator of Lee.

I did not ignore it. I agree that Witness Lee taught the need for the growth in life. I think the testimony of scripture is clear on this. However, as to overcoming I am not so sure that it is only growth in life. I gave the example of Blandina. Surely she was an overcomer though she was just a youth with little opportunity. She loved the Lord Jesus to such an extent that she gave her life for it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

I did not ignore it. I agree that Witness Lee taught the need for the growth in life. I think the testimony of scripture is clear on this. However, as to overcoming I am not so sure that it is only growth in life. I gave the example of Blandina. Surely she was an overcomer though she was just a youth with little opportunity. She loved the Lord Jesus to such an extent that she gave her life for it.

Lee equated growth with rapture and rapture with overcoming and overcoming with reward. He said you wouldn't be raptured until you were mature. His justification of this is that the rapture was a "harvest."

I'm saying that although a faithful person will eventually grow, nowhere does the Bible say that full growth, or any growth is needed for being considered faithful. As I said, someone could become a Christian, be faithful for six months and get hit by a bus. Growth is nowhere on the radar screen as far a judgment goes for such a person, and it's really kind of dumb to think it would be.

This is the loose end Lee just ignored.

[aron]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, since I am not critiqueing it their teaching in depth perhaps we just need to leave my few points stated yesterday: lack of breadth of analysis (few sources), no respect given to other possible views, and a brittle certainty which reveals its true source if it's challenged.

Everything presented as if it were baldly self-evident, which it is not. Verses plucked out of context and presented as proof-texts for some crucial component of the Nee/Lee narrative.

Let me give an interesting contrast. Some years ago, I was in a surly mood while perusing the local bookstore. There on the shelf was Darwin's On the Origen of Species, which from my background was thought to be written by the Devil himself. I'd never read it. So said, "Okay, Charles: let's see what ya got", and plunked down 12 dollars for the Penguin Classic Paperback, and off we went. I loved it. Obviously Darwin didn't have many textual sources, mostly just his observations and thoughts. But he very carefully laid out his thinking. He very thoroughly pointed out where it rested on only conjecture, not facts. He pursued all the objections and counter-arguments as far as he could take them, treating them as worthy adversaries. He was thorough, he was respectful, he was not overbearing. I thought, "Man, if this guy was a prosecuting attorney, and you're the defendant, you are toast."

I feel that the image, of leaving the Egyptian soil but not arriving to the Canaanite, is an important one. Through the Epistle of the Hebrews I can feel it color Jesus' parables on stewardship ("oikonomia" in Greek), done both well and poorly, on the idea of "many are called but few chosen", and so forth. But my memory of the Nee/Lee exposition is that the text continually was shoehorned into a few rudimentary themes. The same catch-phrases kept coming back, again and again (perhaps some readers are saying, "Yeah, aron, we know all about that! ).

[aron]

On the positive side, I think that maybe the overcomers don't pay much attention to the idea of overcoming. They are too busy paying attention to Jesus Christ. They see Him standing before the Father. They hear the Father's voice: "This is my Son, the Beloved. In Him I find My delight." They see His faithfulness (Heb 3:6) in stewardship of the Father's house. They have an overwhelming image of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. They can see the tears streaming down that face, they can hear the loud cries; they become aware of the piety of a mortal Man here on the earth, whose reverent submission saved Him from the clutches of death (Heb 5:7).

The Lord's tears become their tears. Their small, weak cries begin to rise in echo to His. They feel His saving love for the sinners, not condemnation. They have the realization that the feeling in their heart "...is no longer I, but Christ in me." The Father, through His Son, is reaching out to His lost children. Even a whiff of this experience sets their soul on fire. Whether their works are great or small is irrelevant -- they remember that "It was only what we were supposed to do." (Luke 17). If anything is worth enduring reward, they know that it is only from the power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, which now enlivens their mortal bodies. In this context they seek in the Word eagerly, in order to be equipped to serve the Master. They continually consider the hard questions, many of them perhaps unanswerable in this age. They don't consider themselves to have understood or to have laid hold of anything.

The point, for me, is to go forward. Where you are in relation to some benchmark of "approval and reward" is up to God. E.g. John 21: "What is that to you? You follow Me."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

The point, for me, is to go forward. Where you are in relation to some benchmark of "approval and reward" is up to God. E.g. John 21: "What is that to you? You follow Me."

^^^^^ ^^^^^

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The point, for me, is to go forward. Where you are in relation to some benchmark of "approval and reward" is up to God. E.g. John 21: "What is that to you? You follow Me."

This exortation: "just go forward" is not vague and generic to me but it came from the Bible, specifically the teachings of Jesus. The unrighteous steward in Luke 16 was praised for acting prudently. What was prudent? He went forward: he made the best of a bad situation. When it was all said and done he was improved in position. In economics this would be called "acting on the margin", and we do it all the time. If we can get a car for $1,200 dollars less by going to another dealership we'll do so, and congratulate ourselves that 3 hours work (going elsewhere else and bargaining) saved us that amount. In other words, we still owe, but we don't owe as much, and that, my friends, matters.

But the Nee/Lee version of "Purgatory" (sorry, "promise and warning") that I heard just gave a vague presentation of an "overcomer" which I guess is tantamount to being "mature" according to Cassidy. Of course maturity is important, but remember that only God has the scale in His hand. Only God can say, "Approved" or "Disapproved". The same goes for "mature". Nobody can say, "Now I am mature; ripe and ready for harvest". Anyone who thinks they have arrived, in this body of flesh, is most deceived. All we can do is go forward.

The young believers seeing this vague and probably distant "overcomer" being dangled in front of them often just give up. They don't know where it is nor how to get there. So if they slip up, they give up. They are still nominal believers, i.e. they still pay lip service to the Lord Jesus as God's Christ, but they have resigned themselves to "outer darkness". The darkness becomes comfortable and the Promised Land just seems so far away.

But the message of the Gospels is "turn and repent". It doesn't matter if you are the thief on the cross, it doesn't matter if you are Peter who's denied the Lord, it doesn't matter if you are the unrighteous steward or the creditors who owe a hundred measures of wheat or a hundred measures of oil. If you are going backward, turn around and go forward. If you feel that you are making some progress (e.g. Romans 2:15 says that our conscience either "accuses" or "excuses" us), then keep going forward. Just keep going. Let God worry about the "big picture" of whether or not you have crossed the "overcomer" line. Just go forward.

To some extent one may argue that "a miss is as good as a mile", as they say. If you look at the image of being shut out of the wedding feast, when the door closes you are outside. Ten feet from Noah's ark and ten miles away both got flooded. But I note that Moses got to Mount Pisgah and that seemed to matter. "Many stripes" versus "few stripes" seemed to matter to Jesus (Luke 12:47-8). If the judge sentenced you to 2 years instead of 5 years you wouldn't say, "Well, jail is jail. 2 years or 22 years doesn't matter." No, you'd appreciate the fact that 3 years got shaved off your sentence.

Now, I am NOT saying that "This is the way it is." I am a believer trying to make sense of the teachings of Jesus Christ. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a person with interest in these matters might look at these teachings and draw at least somewhat similar conclusions. Typically, however, we look at this in the post-Luther world and shrink back: "No!!! Purgatory!!! Aughhhh!!!" and we flee from the room. But they arguably didn't flee the room in the first century because they didn't have the RCC distortions (yet) to repel them thusly.

My concern is for the young people. I don't think they are being helped much by the LSM gospel, at least as I remember it. I don't know what the the "serving ones" and "laboring ones" are telling the college students on the campuses (campii?) these days but I imagine it's the same old Nee/Lee song and dance, which I deem insufficient. They will lose a great many of them, over time. This gospel may attract them for a while, but I doubt it has the power to keep many.

We shall see. As I said already, the sample size of my observation (one local church after 10 years away) may be too small. But I remember during my time there, of speeches bemoaning the great "exodus" (pun intended) of the youth. I remember Gene Gruhler's "pipeline". And I believe that no pipeline is going to cover, ultimately, for an inadequate gospel message. And because Lee was supposedly the "minister of the age" and "God's present oracle" who delivered the "high peaks", I doubt they have the capacity or inclination to address the shortcomings. The words "shortcoming" and "Lee" probably never make it into the same sentence.

I don't know what my word count is, but it's probably over some arbitrary line.

[aron]

One final thought (I hope) on the subject. After a while, I imagine my readers get bored & I try to shut it down. But usually I like to write because I simply enjoy writing, and also because sometimes I think there are things that need to be said, or in this case written.

So I wanted to add a perhaps necessary or useful thought, regarding my previous post of "acting on the margin", or "going on". I think the Bible calls it "continuing steadfastly" (Acts 2:42). Like, "blessed is he whom, when the Master returns, he finds him so doing" (Matt 24:26, Luke 12:43). I remember a local church song, probably composed after some "rebellion", in which we all sang, "Go on, go on/Go on in the Lord/Be strenghened, go on in the Lord".

Well, I argue that this "going on" is about people, specifically your neighbor. How you treat the person next to you is how you treat God, and how you treat others is how God will treat you. And while it's to some degree measured by what we might call "the body of work", i.e. the totality of your actions, it's more importantly determined by how you are treating people right now, at this moment. This determines whether you are, in fact, "going forward" or "going backward". You are either moving toward or away from the proverbial "finish line" or "promised rest" or what-have-you depending on your relations with others.

And I also argue that this got subverted in the LSM churches. Instead of your neighbor, your orientation point, or measuring stick, on becoming an "overcomer" in the LSM teaching and practice was your relationship with "the ministry", or "the church", or "the body". Your neighbor be damned. And with that I vehemently disagree.

This is why to me the "full-timers" and "serving ones" and "campus laborers" are today's equivalent of the medieval RCC monks and nuns. They think that if they simply do enough good stuff to build up the system, the scales will tip in their favor, and they'll have a reward. But one telling part for me is that the LSM system of teachings and practices ignore the poor; even though that suffering one may be their "neighbor", the poor can't be used to "build the system", so they are ignored, sometimes even avoided. Another telling example is that if your LSM-system neighbor runs afoul of the system, like they witness "Noah getting drunk in his tent", you have to jettison your neighbor, not the system. That is what I meant by "your neighbor be damned" -- after the obligatory lip service, when push comes to shove it's about your relationship with the system.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

But the Nee/Lee version of "Purgatory" (sorry, "promise and warning") that I heard just gave a vague presentation of an "overcomer" which I guess is tantamount to being "mature" according to Cassidy. Of course maturity is important, but remember that only God has the scale in His hand. Only God can say, "Approved" or "Disapproved". The same goes for "mature". Nobody can say, "Now I am mature; ripe and ready for harvest". Anyone who thinks they have arrived, in this body of flesh, is most deceived. All we can do is go forward.

The greek word for "Tribulation" refers to the sickle that is used in a harvest. The book of revelation refers to several "harvests". The Lord refers to the harvest being ready, thrust in your sickle and reap. Jesus used many parables referring to seeds being planted and growing up to maturity. God is a farmer and his business is Jesus Christ, the vine tree. There are way too many references to seeds growing up to bring forth a harvest and that the harvest takes place when the fruit is ripe (i.e. mature). Some believers are referred to as "the first fruit".

The fact that I cannot judge if I or another is ripe is not a valid reason to not teach this. A thermometer doesn't measure air pressure, doesn't mean it isn't a valid instrument.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

Well, since I am not critiqueing it their teaching in depth perhaps we just need to leave my few points stated yesterday: lack of breadth of analysis (few sources), no respect given to other possible views, and a brittle certainty which reveals its true source if it's challenged.

Which Christian group are you referring to?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which Christian group are you referring to?

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