The Crow Crows for the Bed

As the crow flies and pleads for excessive nesting
 

The person who calls himself Crow has a thing against Watchman Nee (CFP white covers) so Crow created, in his hostilities, an Enemy of NeeTM as he would have you believe there could be such a thing. It's quite funny and sad what people do instead of repenting from their misrepresentations and false accusations (see below) that Crow tried to label against Nee by misreading his words. Suffice it to say, the Crow has issues. If you want to attack Christianity, I think the idea behind Crow's thinking is to go after the most spiritual of Christians like Watchman Nee.

 

For starters, the accuser, Crow, accuses Watchman Nee of accepting Taoism. Was Watchman Nee for or against Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism? He makes it quite clear and why these things are not of God. Another pillar over at TheologyWeb, Crow's nesting place, is "Bill the Cat" who seeks after the latent power of the soul. Lots of strange teachings are over there at that partial preterist site-that would be non-Christian and false Christianity.

 

Partial preterism teaches the book of Revelation already happened at AD 70 so they don't think they have to know the wrath of God that is to come in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 8ff). They blunt the most solemn warning at the end of this age. They deceive themselves, putting their head in the sand. They really don't believe in Christ, but some facsimile, some false Christ. Since Christ is not reigning with an "iron rod" in Person mentioned three times in Revelation and the nations are still deceived (Rev. 20.3 says they won't be deceived in the 1000 years), we know partial preterism is untrue and of Satan. Rev. 7.9 has not happened yet: there has been no rapture to the throne in heaven yet. Take a look at Rev. 9.16,18 also where it says in some great cataclysmic event, there will be armies totally 200 million amassed in the middle east (probably fighting over oil) and one third of the people of the earth will die (probably by nuclear holocaust). Obviously this has not happened yet.

 

Those who don't have revelation of the Holy Spirit in agreement with the Word, will shut their minds down to these things. They worship a book of Revelation that is not a book of revelation and prophecy for the future, but the the past, which they can not show, but it is assumed. The book of Revelation is one of the easiest books of the Bible to understand and should not be such an issue at all, but the flesh worships not by the spirit.

 

I had come across a site (2005), owned by the owner of TheologyWeb, where he says he is a preterist: "I am co-owner of TheologyWeb...with a solid population of orthodox preterists".  If you want to turn people away from Christianity, that's how you do it, for you make Christianity look mindless. There are lots of false Christians out there. Be careful!

 

This is the lamest misreading I have ever heard from a conversation I had with a person who goes by nickname, Crow at TheologyOnline (he is also at TheologyWeb), when he (or she) said to me, he found an error in Watchman Nee's The Spiritual Man. This was the first thing this person ever said to me. I said bring it on. Of course, I am banned from this forum by Crow who is censoring and unethically takes the links that I posted, editing my posts at that forum, and linking them elsewhere. I have never seen anyone on the internet ever do this which gives false impressions that they are my links and posts after they are altered. Very sneaky.

He basically said that he disagrees with what Watchman Nee said on page 148, volume 3, of the Spiritual Man. Watchman Nee essentially said, which you can see for yourself in The Believer and His Body in The Spiritual Man (CFP), that overindulgence, license and excessiveness are not spiritual. Simple.

I wouldn't bring this up but he was so serious on the matter, going on for days about it, as he thought he had found the big mistake in Watchman Nee's writings that he so longed to find when before he could not find one. Is this spiritual jealousy? It is quite a reaction, nonetheless. I'll never forget it, such a strange spirit of attack.

Crow believes that couples in marriage can do anything they want in the bed (and that includes even all of the above), and nothing would be considered a sin or overdone or mistreatment of a partner or to oneself, because the Bible is silent about it (appealing to the argument from silence). The Word is actually not silent. He just imagines that it is. He thinks if the Word doesn't legalistically have the clause attached to it "...in marriage" (a legalism, like a bad lawyer's argument), then it gives him right to sex with someone 24/7 or any way he wants, and to do anything to a future wife he has planned for. Let us pray he doesn't get married.

I have never heard of such a thing, and doesn't sound holy, righteous, and filling needs, or giving glory of God in all things. Nor is it respectful to one's own body or to the partner. Definitely, such an attitude seems selfish, cavalier and obsessed, focused on the flesh. Please, if you are reading this now, never read the Bible that way. I think the guy had grandiose plans for sex in marriage beyond what any normal Christian would deem acceptable, for a man or a woman. There was no indication that Crow was a Christian several years ago (or now), for he was just playing pretend. He was also a calvinist believing God pre-made him for salvation defended in dozens of posts, apparently since removed (2001).

The owner of TheologyOnline testified to me then that he did not believe Crow's false teaching of calvinism at that time (2001); and I was much appreciative of his testimony (though I was not aware that the owner himself was an open theist, as Crow says that he is). Moving forward to today (2005), Crow has renounced his claim of being a calvinist, yet he says he does not believe in osas arminian either as of now. There is no third option. All the various ideas floating out there like open theism and liberal Christianity are vague words that Satan utilizes to deceive, to lower one's conscience, and take one's eye off of Christ even more. Open theism, the false teaching of TheologyOnline, which Crow is a moderator of now, teaches God has no foreknowledge of osas arminian and osas calvinism. Vagaries is one of Satan's favorite weapons. This renders their god impotent, having no means to see, for example, that God has chosen us before the foundations of the world, and He even knows the size of the new city in eternity future because He knows exactly who will be saved to enter it.

A recent quote of Crow is as follows: "And I am not at all coy about being armenian--I've never claimed to be armenian. I am OV. I am OSAS". If you are not osas arminian then you are calvinistic, since there is no other option. Like Christ said, if you are not with Him you are against Him. If you break one item of the law, you break it all. If you accept even one item of calvinism, you accept it all. The direct opposite of osas arminian is osas calvinism; and new false teachings such as OV are not even considered by the Church, for in no century was it ever even considered that God has no foreknowledge of perseverance and preservation.

We must realize as brothers and sisters in Christ that in order for God to foreknow our initial salvation before the foundations of the world and letting us know He has chosen us, He must also be able to see we are with Him for eternity. He must be able to see eternally to be able to save initially. Oh praise the Lord this is a much more powerful God than the god of OV, and truly loving than the god of calvinism.

Osas arminian and osas calvinism are entirely mutually exclusive, even the 5th point of osas. In other words, the osas of arminian is predestination by foreknowledge of knowing who would choose. The osas of calvinism is predestination by premaking to choose (prideful, unholy). You see what Crow is trying to do is access a way to deceive by claiming I made a mistake in the assessment of him back in 2001 by changing his position since then in his ongoing cultic ideas, by blaming me for accusing him of that which he is not today (2005), which he once was (as I had always known him, how he has always shown himself, and defended), as testified by the owner of the TheologyOnline back in 2001 as well. Do you really want to be around someone so couthful, dishonest, sly and sneaky? If the proof of those posts have been removed, I do not know, for who can say, but it is preserved here in truth, remembrance and the ongoing deceitful maneuverings of The Crow. Regarding his hostility to Watchman Nee, he doesn't say so much now, as he has others do that bidding for him, but silence is never to be taken as repentance. Yes, there are several others on this forum that are vaguely attacking Watchman Nee with no specific claim, just vague like the wind. Such is the way of men of the world.

This will probably be a good place to mention various examples of marriage in the Bible and where it says in Scripture that marriage is to be honored, not overindulged. See 1 Cor. 7, Heb. 13.4.

This was for me at least, a good example how people warp the Scriptures anyway they want so they can give into the flesh, not yet realizing that salvation includes not just forgiveness of sins and a regenerated spirit, but also co-death with Christ whereby our old man as an accomplished fact has died on the cross with Christ at Calvary. Because you have died, now put to death that which is fleshly in you. One can not have reverence for God in open theism; it is so open, almost anything goes, depending on the person's flavor of what their god foreknows and doesn't.

Troy Brooks