Owner of CTZ Forums Hostile to Watchman Nee

Owner of CTZ Forums Hostile to Watchman Nee

No Valid Reason Given

My hope is that through posting this page, though I am banned from this site, others may come to testify how the owner of CTZ Forums is sinning bearing false witness and that he ought to repent of his sins. Praise the Lord!

Date of Birth:
April 1, 1951

Age:
55

Gender:
A Guy

Thread: Nee's Writings

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,365

Nee Writings

Nee wrote a lot of materials.

In just casual reading at first it sounds like he might just be saying a lot of things one believes in a different way.

But the more one reads it starts becoming obvious there is a huge, mystical, Pentecostal and other non Christian and Biblical issues and beliefs being taught.

His online writings are located at Living Stream Ministry.

06-25-2006, 11:35 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 10

Re: Nee Writings

It sounds like those that would sin bearing false witness against Watchman Nee through he said, she said, and not actually quoting Nee is a sign of sloppiness and a spirit of undiscernment.

Remember, Nee treated mysticism as of the emotion, not of the spirit and he did not believe in Pentecostalism since he did not believe tongues was gibberish babble. If you would like to confirm this for yourself read God's Work by Nee.

Richard said Watchman Nee did not speak today’s tongues but that neither did he disprove of it either. That is an inaccurate portrayal. When you read his book, God’s Work, the impression you get is that he is using conciliatory irony just as Paul did with the carnal Corinthians who had carried over some practices from the ecstasy of mystery religions (of which there were several) around the region of Corinth. Watchman Nee would use terms like “baby talk” and “kindergarden stage” to describe tongues of Pentecostalism. He said “a church which tries to build itself up by the gifts [which according to man's interpretation includes false tongues of Pentecostalism] will end up being a carnal church always, since it is not God's way for the building up of the church except in the nursery stage”.

Watchman Nee believed that tongues meant different languages.

Instead of bearing false witness, why not double check your sources of he said, she said?

Answers to all known sins bearing false witness are found here,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Misreading.htm

Use the search function to find out about anything specifically.

And remember Living Stream Ministry does not accurately represent Nee's writings either, for LSM is the cult run by the unregenerate Witness Lee. Watchman Nee was jailed for life in 1953. After that time the Little Flock remained true to Nee's agreement with the Word. They separated themselves from the LSM cult.

For a brutal example of altering Nee's writings, go here (Watchman Nee published The Spiritual Man himself),
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm

06-25-2006, 11:46 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 10

Re: Nee Writings

What is this self-proclaimed unspecified different way? Deeper is not different. It is better and more accurate is it not? If your prefer to remain fleshly, no doubt what is deeper will seem different because it is different to your understanding of that which is fleshly and ultimately inaccurate. I know there is some false teaching in the CTZ forum owner because to sin bearing false witness has its hidden subterranean motivation of lack of humility and some certain false teaching.

06-25-2006, 11:47 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 10

Re: Nee Writings

Please do not try to draw people off to other forums to continue a discussion from here.

06-26-2006, 11:16 AM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,365

Re: Nee Writings

Parture,

I have read on Nee from many sources, including pro-Nee sites.

While you may wish to dispute some points of translation the overall reality of Nee remains the same.

He taught a ton that was not Biblical.

The main point is he derived thinking and beliefs from non-Biblical sources. And they perverted Biblical truths.

The Bible does show us to be beings of flesh, mind and soul. The mind being the 'meeting place' of the flesh and spirit.

Before born-again, the flesh is very powerful in our total being. And the Bible does use soul, in many places, to refer to our total being.

After born-again, we do not become spirit controlled. The Bible is quite clear the flesh and spirit are at war. And that war plays out in the mind. Neither our flesh or spirits are in complete control.

And at resurrection, we are not pure spirit beings. We will once again be beings of spirit and flesh. But they will be in total harmony.

So, mistranslation or not. Nee gets it very wrong.

06-26-2006, 03:21 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 10

Re: Nee Writings

I don't wish to dispute anything. I am merely speaking the truth, and will let you repent if you are willing to receive God's leading in your life. I do not say all translations at the LSM cult are inaccurate of Nee's writings, but certainly some as the one I have given you is a premier example, and remember Nee published the white cover himself in English. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm

Obviously I document this information on my site, because you admit you censor and ban the truth. So what I have done is quite reasonable don't you think?

The overall reality of Nee's writings are the same, he remains an uttermost spiritual Christian, and I certainly can't find anyone's writings that are deeper in Christ, nor can you. We can quantify this too with specific teachings that set Nee apart in his accuracy. Suffice it to say, in our reading the Word, him and I agree. Those 5 pinpointeres are: 1) osas arminian, 2) tripartite man, 3) gap restoration, 4) partial rapture, and 5) Biblical locality. Very simple, very true, and proven ad finitum. These teachings expose your teachings. Praise God!

Your teaching is non-Biblical, for the Bible says do not sin bearing false witness, and all I have seen is this is what you do. I love being able to see underneath you on this matter.

The writings of Nee were derived from the Word of God. It is said, and you can sense it, his writings fit like a glove on the Word (66 books of the Bible-Jesus Christ). If it was not the case you could show otherwise. You are aware many in the west deeply respect Nee's writings, because he was so consecrated, and had great talent. Apparently he had a photographic memory and his IQ was off the charts. That's why you try to sin bearing false witness trying to claim he is forgotten. You'll try to deceive yourself every which way you can. That is the power of your flesh at war with the Spirit.

The mind is never confused with the spirit. The mind is of the soul, and of course Nee proves that completely here with verses of Scripture. Your issues are coming forth, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoul.htm.

We are tripartite. In short, our soul is our mind, will and emotion: self-consciousness. Our spirit has the functions of intuition, communion and conscience: God-consciousness. And our body is our world-consciousness. The flesh is the sin of the body and self of the soul. When God breathed His Spirit into the body from dust, there was created the soul life. Chay is used to describe the fact that what was created was both a soul life and a spirit life: the soulical and the spiritual. The soul therefore, is a composite of our body and spirit. Nee explains this in his writings, which you fail to discern. Take another look. Don't be lazy. Anyone can accuse mindlessly. It's the easiest thing in the world. The bipartite view is of fallen man, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoulbody.htmm

After being born-again, it is God's desire that the spirit of the believer take pre imminence as the guiding principle by which the believer walks by so that the soul aids the spirit in communion with the Holy Spirit. The battlefield is in the mind where Satan tries to gain a stronghold. The flesh wars against the spirit, but the redemptive design effects the spirit regaining its rightful place in the believer if the believer is willing. Think of the spirit as the mistress, the soul and the steward and the body as the servant. The soul (where the mind is housed) listens to the sensitivity of the spirit's still small voice and inner registrations as the spirit receives from the Holy Spirit God's direction. Your spirit is your inner man and your soul and body comprise your outer man. I do agree with one thing thing you said though, that when you are born-again, you do not become automatically spirit lead for you are still a babe in Christ and are for the most part operating soulically. Your still likely stuck in your mind, will and emotion, and forsaking the intuition and conscience of your spirit. This takes time to overcome. The fact that we have a spirit and are born-again does not mean we are without the mind, will and the emotion, for God wants us to use all our parts. It just means rather that the spirit is to regain its rightful place as 1 Thess. 5.23 says spirit, soul and body in that order. I am always amazed that men of the flesh can be so confused by this basic truth of the dividing of the spirit, soul and body. As Watchman Nee wrote in TSM (CFP white covers): "I am not the first to advocate the teaching of the dividing of spirit and soul. Andrew Murray once said that what the church and individuals have to dread is the inordinate activity of the soul with its power of mind and will. F. B. Meyer declared that had he not known about the dividing of spirit and soul, he could not have imagined what his spiritual life would have been. Many others, such as Otto Stockmayer, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Evan Roberts, Madame Guyon, have given the same testimony. I have used their writings freely since we all have received the same commission from the Lord; therefore I have decided to forego notating their many references." Praise the Lord!!

The difference between Nee and you is that Nee can back up what he says, as can I.

Watchman Nee never said we are pure spirit beings at resurrection. We still remain spirit, soul and body. Nee believed the new city is a physical city and we will inhabit it physically with our newly resurrected spiritual bodies. There is a wonderful 17 point proof of this fact. Why make this bizarre accusation: "at resurrection, we are not pure spirit beings". Since Nee did not teach this, why argue about it? You're on a tangent.

I don't even think you are misreading something somewhere. You seem to just make things up in your hostility and accusations. You never provide a quote. May I say that you seem like you are trying to be cunning and couth with your words since you never provide the source of your accusations. I believe the source therefore must be the evil spirit in your spirit. You get it wrong every time.

06-26-2006, 03:17 PM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,372

Re: Nee Writings

So far I am seeing preaching.

Answer the Biblical question in the one post to get off this bouncing around.

There are a couple of things to address here though, on a different level.

Quote:

Your teaching is non-Biblical, for the Bible says do not sin bearing false witness, and all I have seen is this is what you do. I love being able to see underneath you on this matter.

Quote:

The mind is never confused with the spirit. The mind is of the soul, and of course Nee proves that completely here with verses of Scripture. Your issues are coming forth, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoul.htm.

We are tripartite.

Quote:

The difference between Nee and you is that Nee can back up what he says, as can I.

You just bore false witness against me and many here.

We believe we are being composed of mind, body and spirit. The spirit and body input into the mind where a decision is made.

One problem with your state is that you call soul the mind in all situations. That is erroneous.

It also carried the meaning, in a number of uses, of being our complete being, as in working as a unified whole within the world.

When we die the flesh is temporarily lost, but the spirit and the mind go on. If damned, in Hell. If saved, in Heaven.

But the flesh input portion of the mind is lost until resurrection and glorfication. Then the flesh is restored but purified.

Nor is the soul, when used in the context of the mind, the place where the mind is housed. It is the mind when used in that context. Partially flesh and partially spirit.

Quote:

Watchman Nee never said we are pure spirit beings at resurrection. We still remain spirit, soul and body. Nee believed the new city is a physical city and we will inhabit it physically with our newly resurrected spiritual bodies.

Then why did you say spiritual bodies instead of resurrected flesh bodies? The Bibles says our flesh is resurrected.

Is it a spiritual or flesh body?

I was banned at this point, so here is my response:

All we are seeing here is preaching and misunderstanding and overassuming from CI. He keeps avoiding the Biblical question presented him which is to prove himself, that if he has a claim against Watchman Nee, surely he can quote Nee saying it to make his case. This is how we ought to treat others as we would like to be treated and not just fling allegations without substance and breaking the commandments of God. For such behavior is not love and truth. Nor should we ban people because of our own sin in this belligerent behavior.

I did not bear false witness, nor did you indicate such. Our being tripartite is spirit, soul and body, not merely mind, body and spirit. Our soul has a will and emotion and a mind that can reason. The spirit of the man does not input into the mind where a decision is made. This is proven by the fact that the mind can make a choice independent of the spirit. The mind of the flesh can war against the spirit and refuse the leading of the spirit in the man by the Holy Spirit. This shows why we need the dividing of our spirit, soul and body so that we can walk after the Spirit and sense the inner registrations of our spirit to do God's will, and not confuse the emotion of our soul with the intuition of our spirit. You don't even make mention of the emotion and the will of our soul because if your stiffness. You focus only on the reasoning of the mind, but it is faulty for you overlook the other components of the soul that are just as important. If we are in harmony with God, we will let the Holy Spirit communicate to the spirit and then what the spirit receives may flow to the soul's mind, will and emotion to make a decision of the will, cleans the mind and renew emotion.

So we see the fallen bipartite teaching of CI, for he rejects that the soul has the functions of mind, will and emotion, thus confusing the functions of the spirit and the soul and not be able to discern like an Andrew Murray. Unwittingly, CI still walks after his soulical self.

You should not misrepresent what I believe. I do not call the soul the mind only. As has been shown through Scripture, the soul has the functions of mind, will and emotion, not just the mind. Again read here for proof...http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/spiritsoul.htm. Your mistake is of course forgetting the will and the emotion which are also components of the soul. When we die the spirit and the soul get saved in Abraham's bosom to be resurrected with a newly clothed spiritual body at the last trumpet. This is a physical body.

The flesh is the sin of the body and the self of the soul. When we die of course the sin of the body is gone since this outer corporeal body will be without blood. Our resurrected body will not have blood in it as Jesus resurrected body did not have blood in it. However, since some believers will lose the reward of reigning during the millennial kingdom, obviously the self of the soul has yet to overcome in outer darkness for believers before the new city commences after the millennial kingdom. The spirit and soul and body live on forever, whether to hell or the new city when heaven and earth come together.

Both the spirit and the soul are resurrected together, not separately. Just as Thomas touched Jesus in the flesh, we too will have resurrected bodies that will reign during the millennial kingdom on earth and afterward in the new city and new earth.

We will always still have a soul with its mind, will and emotion. The mind in the soul is not in the body, nor is it in the spirit. The spirit's functions are much more sensitive with its intuition, communion and conscience, while the outerman of the soul has the functions of mind, will and emotion. The soul is spoken of as being the total man because when God breathed His Spirit into the body from dust there was created the total man. Encased within the soul is the spirit, and in turn is without the body. The soul mediates between the spirit and the body. Like Andrew Murray believed, there is the dividing of the spirit, soul and body that is needed so as to walk after the spirit first and foremost, then the soul, then the body. This is God's ordering. If you don't even know what is of the soul and what is of the body and what is of the spirit, then you will be confused as we have seen.

A resurrected body is a spiritual body just as Jesus' body was a spiritual body which could be physically touched though without the blood. Your problem is not understanding that the physical body resurrected is a spiritual body for it can no longer sin. Only a physical body that is not spiritual can still sin; so we all must die in these bodies of flesh and blood.

The reason we are even having this conversation is because I came to your site and noticed your sins bearing false witness, so I was please to correct you which requires your repentance if you are to overcome these sins of yours.

Troy Brooks

Thread: God's Nature - Modalism

God's Nature - Modalism

Looking at Watchman Nee.org we see the following on the nature of God:
Quote:God

Quote:

Watchman Nee pointed out that God is eternal, self-existing, ever-existing, having no beginning or ending, and complete and perfect in every sense. God is triune; in His Godhead, He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the application. God the Son is the embodiment of God the Father, while God the Spirit is the reality of God the Son, applying the Triune God to those who believe into God the Son. God is also holy and righteous. Holiness refers to God’s inward nature, while righteousness refers to God’s outward acts. God is love and light. Love is the element of His inward nature, while light is the element of His outward expression. This God possesses extraordinary wisdom and accomplishes superlative works.

God is triune in how he presents himself but not in personage.

In Heaven he is the Father (Source). On the earth he is the Son (Expression). In saints he is the Holy Spirit (reality).

This is Modalism and false doctrine.

06-25-2006, 11:15 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 10

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

I would like to show you some sins bearing false witness against Watchman Nee through the flesh of men.

"The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the application." Watchman Nee never said this, nor did He believe this. Nee believed the Son was not the Father, nor was the Son the Spirit. You're confusing Witness Lee with Watchman Nee. Witness Lee spent his entire life trying to convince people Nee agreed with him. Nee did not.

"God the Son is the embodiment of God the Father." Watchman Nee never said this, nor did He believe it, for the Bible says, the Son is the Godhead bodily, not the Father.

Someone else, an unregenerate, said Nee said these things - those who are carnal and those who are unregenerates such as Witness Lee.

"God is triune in how he presents himself but not in personage" - Watchman Nee never believed this. Watchman Nee believed God was Triune in His 3 Persons that held council before the foundations of the world.

Do you see how you sin bearing false witness? Your link is from a Witness Lee site, not a Watchman Nee site. They even alter Nee's writings,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm

"In Heaven he is the Father (Source). On the earth he is the Son (Expression). In saints he is the Holy Spirit (reality)." This is modalism which is a false doctrine that Watchman Nee never believed in, so why sin bearing false witness against him? What is your hidden subterranean motivation?

In order to make any of your false allegations, you need to be able to quote Watchman Nee to prove it. Otherwise it is just he said, she said. It's always interesting to find out what peoples' real agenda is after you catch them sinning bearing false witness.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

06-26-2006, 02:17 AM

John * Thunder!

Join Date: Jun 2006

Location: Cologne, MN

Posts: 59

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

Question: How can CI be bearing false testimony against someone when he is
only calling it as he sees it? I mean, you have evidence that Nee doesn't
believe as CI thinks he does, but CI apparently thinks that about Nee because
he read it wherever. It's not like CI is saying something that he believes is untrue.
That would be sinning via lies, as you have accused. So can you please mellow out
with the accusations?

06-26-2006, 10:20 AM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,365

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

Thanks, John.

I could be wrong, but I believe Parture has been on an old CTZ board saying these same things. If not him, at least the author of Telnus has been in the past.

The problem with Telnus is that those of pro Nee sites have posted his writings. And Telnus and such have tried to rewrite what Nee has said, change it meaning and so on. They have tried to pawn it off on Watchman Lee, an 'Apostle' of Nee.

Nee was very non-biblical and justly labeled a cult founder by Biblical Christians.

06-26-2006, 10:50 AM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,365

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

Hi Parture,

Then post Nee's quotes showing us what he really taught.

I see nothing from you but a statement. Post's Nee's words here on the trinity.

By the way. That quote was from a Watchman Nee site.

06-26-2006, 03:25 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 10

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

I need not post what Nee taught, for it is all through my pages, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm . I have already given you the 5 basic teachings that set Nee apart to prove deeper truth as well.

I see nothing from you but statements, without proof in Nee's writings your claims are true, so it remains. And until you provide some quotes of not he said, she said, then there it remains. Why so afraid to quote Nee? Nee writes tonnes on the Trinity; all you need do is read through the pages. Don't be lazy. For example, see the Way of the Lord - http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htmm

By the way, the quote you gave was from a Witness Lee site, not a Watchman Nee site. Do you see how you are trying to be cunning and unethical? It's easy to see.

Watchman Nee's original writings are found here - http://www.c-f-p.com/

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 12

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

John,

Just because someone calls it as they see it is not justification that it is true. Don't you think that is selfish? It must be shown to be the case. What have we seen that CI sees? We see that he does not quote Watchman Nee to make his case and only relies on he said, she said without evidence. I call that shoddiness and overassuming which is a lack of humility.

It is true, many places try to marry Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, but only because Lee was under Nee. Nee is not to be blamed for Lee's false teachings after Nee was imprisoned for life. Nee is not responsible for Lee's sins. Certainly CI can be deceived by making this mistake, so he has been. Certainly CI has his own false teachings such as the fallen bipartite view of fallen man, just as he takes the word of men as the gospel, though unproven.

Why not relax, mellow out, and realize this error being made, and if you wish to make certain claims, be sure you can back them up. That would seem like the reasonable thing to do. I don't accuse, but merely tell you the truth, whether you like to hear it or not.

Of course Nee was an Apostle for he did have authority and was directly commissioned by God. As proven as before, we see here a proof that the LSM cult did alter Nee's writings. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm. Conclusion: the 3 major categories of emotion are not love, hate and being affected; rather, Nee's writings show (CFP white), as in the 3 chapters that have these titles that agree, that emotion has the components of affection, desire and sensing/feeling.

By carefully reading this proof you will see the contradiction in the LSM version of TSM, and the consistency of the CFP original of the TSM, so therefore, what CI is saying is false. The change in meaning has been committed by the LSM cult. Do you see how this proof is given here? Whereas the claim made by CI comes from his own selfish center as a self-declaration inspired by the evil spirit.

CTZ forums therefore is just labelled a cult, for sinning bearing false witness against spiritual Christians is what it does, and so shall judgment come upon CI. He can't repent, we have seen that. This is God's righteous way of dealing with such souls.

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,369

06-26-2006, 05:16 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 13

Re: God's Nature - Modalism

I don't think you see. My purpose here is that when you make a false claim, someone will come in to show you the truth of your mistaken assumption. That is what I have done for you, and so that you read the information in the links. I need not respond to your claims more than this since you show you have no evidence for your claims. To provide evidence for your claims you would need to quote Nee saying things you accuse him of, but you don't do that, so there is nothing to disprove other than to say you don't have evidence to make your claim; and he said, she said is not evidence.

I understand why you need to ban because you can't repent, so you will just accuse others and pass blame when it belongs on you. You should ban yourself since you make claims and can't back up your position.

Your belligerency is noted. You asked for information on the Trinity, and I gave you the link in the piece entitled "The Way of the Lord". Here it is again...http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm

Obviously you can't research your own information since your research produces a false conclusion as you still have no evidence for your claims. Evidence entails you quoting Watchman Nee saying things you said he said. Why do you refuse to do this? A reasonable person would conclude that you are incapable of doing so. This type of behavior makes you seem like you are trying to be cunning and couth, for certainly you can't be this much of a dullard. Or maybe you are.

Thread: God-Men

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,366

God-Men

Reading here we find a similarity to the WoF. That being that saints in eternity will be both human and divine as Christ is human and divine.

Quote:

Quote:

The Eternal Life
He pointed out that the eternal life described in the Bible is God’s uncreated life, which is eternal both in time and in nature, perfect, and without any blemish. This eternal life of God swallows up and overcomes death and is also the indestructible life. This life of God is also the Triune God Himself as life to those who believe into His Son. By this life we become God-men, those who are joined to God and who possess both humanity and divinity.

Saints remain human even when glorfied. Saint never become gods.

The Second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh. But his spirit remains God. He was never the Father or Holy Spirit. The Father and Holy Spirit never take on flesh.

Adam was created in the image of God. But that never included or was intended to include divinity as angels are not divine.

06-25-2006, 11:20 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 11

Re: God-Men

Again, this is deification, a false teaching taught by Witness Lee; people try desperately to marry Lee and Nee. Watchman Nee never believed in deification, calling oneself a god or God in nature. Just because Witness Lee, an unregenerate, believed this heresy, that does not mean Watchman Nee believed it. If you can't prove your allegation, why make the claim against Nee? That is illogical and sloppy. If you can't find it in his writings, then why falsely accuse? Nee's writings are found at CFP which you can link to from here, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

My prayers go out to you for you are attacking one of the most spiritual Christians who ever lived by sinning bearing false witness against him, yet you have no reason for doing so. Crazy stuff!

06-26-2006, 11:26 AM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,366

Re: God-Men

Nee was non-Biblical in so many teachings. That is why he is called a cult.

If he did not teach it then just post what he did say.

All you are trying to do here is promoting reading and study on your site. And it will not happen because anyone looking will just say they are not digging through all your materials to get to a point here.

Post exactly what Nee said, here, and stop trying to promote your whole site and trying to get people to read it as if that will get them to accept it as fact.

If anyone wishes to read they will. Just post the correct quotes from Nee here. And that does not mean mile long posts of all kinds of material.

This got you banned before. Please don't start it again.

Post the appropriate quotes. Not sermons.

06-26-2006, 02:37 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 11

Re: God-Men

Watchman Nee was not called a cult, though by you he is though you have no reason for doing so at least none that you are willing to talk about. Since you can't verify your claims, then know that you pull out of the air your hostility. I believe you are a cult therefore since you are conducting yourself as do cults in this way with self-proclamations which are mindless and selfish. You have made some points, and I showed you that your points could not be shown by quoting Watchman Nee; nor did you even try to quote Nee. Does not that sound arrogant to you? Christians do not behave this way. The burden of the proof is not on me. It is on those who make false claims. If you are in a court, and you make claims you ought to back it up, but if you can't, it shows you are unfounded in your beliefs. The reason you ban is because you don't fess up to what you are doing wrong, so you blame others. Passing blame onto others for your error is wrong. Your sermons are of no interest. And false sites should not be promoted, for they are without humility.

06-26-2006, 03:21 PM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,366

Re: God-Men

Watchman Nee is considered a cult by most in Bibilical Christianity. Those who do not quite go that far label his teachings dangerous.

Apologetics Index

Quote:

Watching Out For Watchman Nee

The teachings that developed over Nee's lifetime and out of his encounters with these women and the teachings they directed him to are dangerous to Christians seeking clear guidelines to follow. Space allows a listing of only a few of the problems in Nee's teachings:

Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics. In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru.

One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, "Words alone cannot be considered God's Word." In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the "reality behind it," using what he calls "Holy Spirit memory" and "presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words" will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real.

Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210, that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous.

Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving "revelations" in his "Holy Spirit memory" and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a "Holy Spirit memory."

When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee.

Religious Movements Library
While refusing to label any group a cult, they convey the understanding he and his movement are considered cut by including sites labeling him as cult in their footnotes.

Quote:

The church's theology includes belief in a Triune God, that is, the unification of the Father, the Son and the Holy Sprirt in one being.

Something you deny.
[quote]Its fairly orthodox scriptural interpretation holds that Christ was born a God-man, ie., composed of both human and divine attributes. Man is characterized as atripartite union of body, soul and spirit, and also possesses the potential for divine nature.[/QUOTE]
Something you deny.

I know of NO Biblical scholar or theologian who reads the Bible literally that gives Nee any support as being good for Christianity or Biblically grounded.

Many of his writings and thoughts come from extra-Biblical sources.

His own writing state he believes you have to go beyond the Bible for divine truth and revelation. That the Bible is only the beginning to a reality beyond it.

And who found and declared that reality? Nee!

Show me, in the Bible, this Holy Spirit Memory. Or that one has to be emotional for the Holy Spirit to flow and work. Or that there is revelation beyond the Bible we need to find and study.

06-26-2006, 04:11 PM

Parture

Join Date: Jun 2006

Posts: 11

Re: God-Men

Watchman Nee of course is not considered by Biblical Christianity to be a cult, but those who are tares in the kingdom would make such an accusation because they are selfish and are hostile to consecrated Christians. Indeed, those who do this are themselves quite dangerous for they use Christianity for their selfish purposes, thus sin aginst the uttermost spiritual Christians.

Quote:

Richard Fisher List of Reasons Why Watchman Nee is “Dangerous”

(Watch Out for Richard Fisher)

1. Methods of Bible Study

Richard babbles, “Nee outlines no method of Bible study and interpretation and appears to deny evangelical hermeneutics." Watchman Nee did outline methods of Bible study that goes into great detail in the book, Ye Search the Scriptures, Part 2 “The Methods of Bible Study." This whole book is a study of how to study the Scriptures. Evangelical hermeneutics are revealed throughout.

2. Spiritual Authority

Richard babbles, “In his book Spiritual Authority, he sets himself and his elders up as the unquestionable authorities. By all appearances, Nee saw himself not as a servant but as a guru." I have read this book and have responded to another misreading of this same book floating around the internet by Pat Knapp. I was careful before reading this book looking for any possible mistakes of cited by Richard Fisher or Pat Knapp, which unsurprisingly, I could not find any of the claims they were making. Their statements are flatly disproved. Watchman Nee never made himself to be a guru or unquestioned authority. That is not the meaning of authority and submission. If anything is wrong in this book, Spiritual Authority let that man cast the first stone, because I can’t find anything wrong with it. It is basically just common sense.

3. Bible Importance

Richard babbles, “One gets the impression from Nee that the Bible was not nearly as important as Christians generally consider it. In his book The Ministry of God's Word, Nee says, 'Words alone cannot be considered God's Word.' In this book, Nee becomes very philosophical, mystical and incoherent. He says that only as we deliver the Word in terms of the reality behind it,' using what he calls 'Holy Spirit memory' and 'presenting the pictures as well as speaking the words' will the words be correct; otherwise they are not real”.

Understand what Nee is saying about our outward memory and the Holy Spirit memory. "Words alone cannot be considered as God’s word. There must be the reality behind them" (p. 209 pdf, CFP). "Let us understand that the coming forth of words alone is not enough; the spirit must also come out, and when it does it will do so together with feeling" (p. 221 pdf). In other words, people speak forth, but their hearts need to be touched also.

The Bible was the most important thing to Nee for it was the Word of God, and he dissected it better than anyone I know. Nee is correct that words alone by themselves are not the end all to be all of things. A fair statement! Nee was not incoherent, nor mystical nor philosophical. He was so incredibly precise that his words are such a joy. He had an incredibly deep working of the Holy Spirit in his life. When Watchman Nee used the term Holy Spirit memory, he cited verses to identify the meaning of what he was trying to get across. What he has said about the Holy Spirit memory makes sense both objectively and subjectively in experience. The reality behind words is more important than words for words sakes, certainly. There is a memory activity that we can forget of the Holy Spirit in our inner man that is important to maintain otherwise we are susceptible to falling back towards the flesh. Experientially I can not deny this in my life either. It seems like plain old common sense to me. I have a poor memory so I should know.

4. Emotion

Richard babbles “Nee overemphasizes emotions. In The Ministry of God's Word, he claims that the effectiveness of a preacher's delivery is a product of his emotions. If a preacher does not feel emotionally charged in delivery, "the Spirit is stuck" and the "Spirit is inevitably arrested," Nee says. He continues, "The Spirit flows through the channel of emotion." Then he arrives at a strange conclusion: "Nose in the Scripture stands for feeling. Smelling is a most delicate act, man's feeling is most delicate." Therefore, Nee says, a preacher in speaking needs to "mix feelings with the words spoken, else his words are dead. If our feeling lags behind, our words are stripped of the spirit." To say as Nee does, on page 210 that the Holy Spirit only rides on feeling is dangerous”.

Nee does not overemphasis emotions. If you understand Nee’s writings you know that He believes the Holy Spirit always starts from the spirit’s inner man, not the outer man like the emotion of the soul. Emotion is an outlet, expression of feelings. Who wants to listen to a minister without emotion? Nose in scripture does stand for feelings and its delicacy (see below). Nee does not say at all on page 210 that the Holy Spirit rides only on emotion as Richard says. On page 210 (CFP) he says “we use emotion to move people as our spirit is released” and “going forth of the word is powerful only when it is coupled with a corresponding emotion” and “out from the feelings” and “trying to move men with only our emotion is mere performance, resulting in a dead ministry”. This is the complete opposite of what Richard Fisher accused Nee of. Incredible. I find that this critique of Nee is really flawed since nowhere does Nee state the Holy Spirit rides only on emotion. My assessment is that if someone can be this horrible and reading another’s words, then it is either purposefully done with intent or just plain ignorance and misreading.

Nee is also correct that the Holy Spirit flows through the channel of emotion. I already know what he means by this and what he is thinking because I read The Spiritual Man several times which you could say is the foundational book for the redemptive design of all his writings. What he is saying is that the Spirit will use emotion by communicating what is of the spirit to the emotion of the soul. No emotion at all is ineffective, and excessive emotion is also undesirable. For all occasions there are boundaries of what is healthy emotionally.

Nee writes on page 208 of Ministry of God’s Word about the nose from Song of Songs in the Bible. He says “We humans beings have a will, but the will of man is rather rugged. So have we a mind, which, though more refined than the will, is nevertheless quite rugged too. But the emotion which we possess is most delicate part of us. We may ruthlessly make a decision with our will, we may carefully think over a matter, but we touch the tenderest spot when something touches our feeling. Accordingly, in the Old Testament, especially in the Song of Songs, the Spirit of God employs fragrance or savor to express the tender feeling of a man, for it can only be smelled with the nose. Smelling is a most delicate act. It represents man’s tender feeling. “Nose” in the Scriptures stands for feeling. Man’s feeling is most delicate, though it may or may not be useful.”

See, Sgs. 7.8, Gen. 8.21. These are truly sweet things that touch our emotion. Smell is so delicate just like our delicate emotion. Let us keep that which is delicate in a delicate state, and perhaps this is God’s message after all. It is should be spiritually preserved. Nose has several meanings, and this is one of them. Referring to Nee’s book, Song of Songs, you will see another aspect of the which is that of discernment.

5. Using Terms Precisely

Richard babbles, “Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving 'revelations' in his 'Holy Spirit memory' and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a 'Holy Spirit memory.'"”

Nee uses terms extremely precisely. I don’t know anyone who is more precise in their words than Watchman Nee. Really. This is not metaphysical stuff but exactly how the Holy Spirit works in our spirit. And I understand all of it so well with a little effort maybe Richard could too. Richard says Nee is “impossible to understand”. I understood it. But I know my flesh can't understand it, nor will Richard's.

Nee writes, regarding Holy Spirit memory (citing a verse to prove it) on pages 196-197 (CFP) of The Ministry of God's Word,

"You have to support the spoken word with the inner word. Due to the inadequacy of memory, however, you often fail to have the supply ready. The longer you speak, the farther you drift away from the inward word. After you finish delivering the sermon you find your inner word remains untouched. You came with a burden, yet you return with the same burden. You have not been able to discharge it. This is a great suffering to you. Perhaps you say, 'I will write it down in my notebook; then I will remember.' This may or may not help, for an unusual thing happens: as you read your notes you recognize every word of them, but you cannot recall the thing behind the words. How totally inadequate is your memory. If what you have is mere doctrine or teaching you are well able to deliver it. The more doctrinal it is, the easier you remember. But it is not easy to recall revelation. In attempting to communicate your inward revelation you must come to realize that you cannot remember what you have just seen. The words you may remember, yet the thing itself is forgotten. Our problem on the platform is that we forget the thing we have seen. We may say many words, yet none communicates the thing we see. The ministry suffers loss. How necessary it is to have memory."

"The memory we need is of two kinds: the outward memory and the Holy Spirit memory. A minister of the word needs both. The outward memory points to the memory of the outward man, that which is produced in a man’s brain. It occupies a very important place in testifying the word of God. The Holy Spirit memory is what the Lord Jesus mentions in John 14.26: 'But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.'This is the Holy Spirit memory, for it is the Holy Spirit who brings things to your remembrance, not you yourself."

What Nee is speaking about is revelation and memory in that revelation, both on our side and the side of the Holy Spirit.

Is it so hard to accept that in our spirit resides the Holy Spirit whereby God enters the window of our conscience and communicates His mind to us. When this happens is this not where revelation takes place through the function of intuition in our inner man? And when that message works in us, it does so in a form of our “still small voice” (scriptural term - project for everyone - find the verse in Exodus "still small voice" using the NKJV). But, we can easily lose that communication within or become forgetful in our spirit (as matters of the world weigh on us), so what does the Holy Spirit do for us then? For one thing, the Holy Spirit has a memory for us of revelation we have received. As we go about our daily lives we can access what we have received in the Spirit of the Lord by this memory in our inner man. It is really quite elementary.

Conclusion

Richard’s final babble, “When a Christian begins to see Nee as a guide in determining the value of other Christian writers, or sees Nee's writings as a key to spirituality, that person is headed for trouble. Nee's presuppositions are suspect in light of the Word of God. His books provide grist for cult groups such as The Way, The Alamo Foundation, the Children of God and other groups. The astute believer should watch out for Watchman Nee." There is no evidence of the connection claimed by Richard Fisher, nor does he even try to give any, through self-declaration. Watchman Nee is not responsible either, for the mistakes of men, their misreading, and their bearing false witness; therefore, such blaming ought to be passed back to where it came from.

I think Richard is making many claims without connection in his own ego and imagination, lacking a spirit of discernment. Watchman Nee was a powerful writer, one of the best. I put his writings in the top 1% of all Christian writers, easily. I have read over 100 different writers and this is the conclusion I have come in comparing. You must make your own decision. As noted above about Pat Knapp's experience in cults, they love to use the book, Spiritual Authority and misuse the truths therein. The reason for this is based on the unspiritual using attempting to use the spiritual (see the 5th bullet point). The same is true of the leaders of the above mentioned cults. But if anyone spends the time to really read Spiritual Authority, one begins to realize it is a powerful, even authoritative work on the subject of authority and submission.

Richard was not able to make a connection to his claims, because all Richard did was read from someone else (Dana Roberts) who also did a shoddy work of reading Watchman Nee (even marry him to others). Richard admitted having troubles understanding Watchman Nee. I believe that in essence is the problem, that Richard Fisher is without the Holy Spirit. Since man can not understand and can’t see the light, often his recourse is to blame. This has been a work of blaming and bearing false witness of another, and I hope I have done some justice here so that we keep a watch out for Richard Fisher's wiles. Last time I spoke with him, he said he would prepare a follow-up. It has been two years since then (2002), and nothing has been forthcoming. He is dishonest.

In conclusion it can be stated that since Watchman Nee has not been identified as stating something to be untrue, then we can conclude what is going on here is that of the false accuser on the attack for one or more reasons: spiritual jealousy, inability to understand, misreading, mistaken assumption, one-upmanship or trying to defend something in one's own flesh, an untruth. Let us not assume what Richard Fisher is holding onto in his heart, but whatever it is, we know it is of the flesh; either sin, natural (self) or a supernatural hold on him. Experimentally, what runs contrary to what one believes, one often attacks. Therefore, Richard attacks partial rapture, Biblical locality, OSAS Arminianism, triparite man, and authority and submission in all things.

If Watchman Nee had said something wrong, I would agree with Richard Fisher in a heart beat, but I have found Richard Fisher full of sin in bearing false witness. I pray this sets the record straight. I will do this for any person who has be been born false witness of. You can accuse me of thinking, "Nee's writings as the key to spirituality". I recognize the depth in Watchman Nee's writings which answer some of the deepest questions we can ask in just about the best way possible that I know of according to the Scriptures. I consider my defense of no account, since my guiding principle in life is the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. To date, I have found no writer as deep as Watchman Nee apart from the Word of God. I believe what is happening is people are not respecters of truth, but prefer their own truth, which I have outlined from beginning to end where such mistakes occur in reading Watchman Nee, which you can examine for yourself.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

Watchman Nee was not part of The Local Church. The Local Church was a calvinist cult started by Witness Lee. Watchman Nee was of the Little Flock that rejected The Local Church. Those who try to marry Watchman Nee to Witness Lee make this mistake. Nee was osas arminian. Lee was a calvinist. Nee believed in Biblical locality. Lee had a central hub called the LSM corporation and its distribution outlets. Nee taught partial rapture. Lee changed who was raptured at the first rapture as shown here, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/1st_rapture.htm. Nee believed in our being tripartite which disallows the leeism shouters in their emotion of the soul, which is not in the spirit.

The sites mentioned about Witness Lee that Lee is a cult, and so they make similar mistakes labelling Nee having Lee's false teachings, but Nee's writings don't convey the same teachings as Lee. This would be an error of Duddy and Sparks. That's why none can ever find anything wrong with Nee's writings by quoting him. They always need to use subterfuge.

Quote:

The church's theology includes belief in a Triune God, that is, the unification of the Father, the Son and the Holy Sprirt in one being.

How odd to find a problem with this belief. Do you believe that God is not Triune? Do you believe that the Father, Son and Spirit of the Godhead is not one being? What you therefore then teach is called tritheism or polytheism like the mormons. Let it go.

Why sin falsely accusing that I deny that Jesus was both God and man? I don't deny we are tripartite either, so why say I deny this? God's nature, His holiness is His alone, and when we receive His life, we receive eternal life which is divine life. Neither do I deny this fact, so why accuse that I do?

I know of no Biblical scholar who has correct teaching and yet is hostile to Nee's writings, for that would be a contradiction. Those hostile to Nee's writings are calvinists, historicalists, pretrib onlyists, posttrib onlyists, arminians, young earth creationists and others that reject gap restoration; even those in denominations that divide the body of Christ falsely not according to Biblical locality, and fallen bipartite men. Praise the Lord for this discernment!

All of Nee's thoughts come directly from the Bible and in agreement with other believers.

Quote:

His own writing state he believes you have to go beyond the Bible for divine truth and revelation. That the Bible is only the beginning to a reality beyond it.

Nothing in Nee's writings state this so why sin bearing false witness? That's selfish is it not?

Quote:

And who found and declared that reality? Nee!

What reality? The reality you created in your selfish accusation sinning bearing false witness?

Quote:

Show me, in the Bible, this Holy Spirit Memory. Or that one has to be emotional for the Holy Spirit to flow and work. Or that there is revelation beyond the Bible we need to find and study.

Understand what Nee is saying about our outward memory and the Holy Spirit memory. "Words alone cannot be considered as God’s word. There must be the reality behind them" (p. 209 pdf, CFP). "Let us understand that the coming forth of words alone is not enough; the spirit must also come out, and when it does it will do so together with feeling" (p. 221 pdf). In other words, people speak forth, but their hearts need to be touched also.

The Bible was the most important thing to Nee for it was the Word of God, and he dissected it better than anyone I know. Nee is correct that words alone by themselves are not the end all to be all of things. A fair statement! Nee was not incoherent, nor mystical nor philosophical. He was so incredibly precise that his words are such a joy. He had an incredibly deep working of the Holy Spirit in his life. When Watchman Nee used the term Holy Spirit memory, he cited verses to identify the meaning of what he was trying to get across. What he has said about the Holy Spirit memory makes sense both objectively and subjectively in experience. The reality behind words is more important than words for words sakes, certainly. There is a memory activity that we can forget of the Holy Spirit in our inner man that is important to maintain otherwise we are susceptible to falling back towards the flesh. Experientially I can not deny this in my life either. It seems like plain old common sense to me. I have a poor memory so I should know.

Richard babbles, “Nee uses terms imprecisely. One example is his writing about a minister's receiving 'revelations' in his 'Holy Spirit memory' and those revelations being remembered in us by the Holy Spirit. This sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo is impossible to understand, since there is no direct scriptural reference to a 'Holy Spirit memory.'"”

Nee uses terms extremely precisely. I don’t know anyone who is more precise in their words than Watchman Nee. Really. This is not metaphysical stuff but exactly how the Holy Spirit works in our spirit. And I understand all of it so well with a little effort maybe Richard could too. Richard says Nee is “impossible to understand”. I understood it. But I know my flesh can't understand it, nor will Richard's.

Nee writes, regarding Holy Spirit memory (citing a verse to prove it) on pages 196-197 (CFP) of The Ministry of God's Word,

"You have to support the spoken word with the inner word. Due to the inadequacy of memory, however, you often fail to have the supply ready. The longer you speak, the farther you drift away from the inward word. After you finish delivering the sermon you find your inner word remains untouched. You came with a burden, yet you return with the same burden. You have not been able to discharge it. This is a great suffering to you. Perhaps you say, 'I will write it down in my notebook; then I will remember.' This may or may not help, for an unusual thing happens: as you read your notes you recognize every word of them, but you cannot recall the thing behind the words. How totally inadequate is your memory. If what you have is mere doctrine or teaching you are well able to deliver it. The more doctrinal it is, the easier you remember. But it is not easy to recall revelation. In attempting to communicate your inward revelation you must come to realize that you cannot remember what you have just seen. The words you may remember, yet the thing itself is forgotten. Our problem on the platform is that we forget the thing we have seen. We may say many words, yet none communicates the thing we see. The ministry suffers loss. How necessary it is to have memory."

"The memory we need is of two kinds: the outward memory and the Holy Spirit memory. A minister of the word needs both. The outward memory points to the memory of the outward man, that which is produced in a man’s brain. It occupies a very important place in testifying the word of God. The Holy Spirit memory is what the Lord Jesus mentions in John 14.26: 'But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.'This is the Holy Spirit memory, for it is the Holy Spirit who brings things to your remembrance, not you yourself."

What Nee is speaking about is revelation and memory in that revelation, both on our side and the side of the Holy Spirit.

Is it so hard to accept that in our spirit resides the Holy Spirit whereby God enters the window of our conscience and communicates His mind to us. When this happens is this not where revelation takes place through the function of intuition in our inner man? And when that message works in us, it does so in a form of our “still small voice” (scriptural term - project for everyone - find the verse in Exodus "still small voice" using the NKJV). But, we can easily lose that communication within or become forgetful in our spirit (as matters of the world weigh on us), so what does the Holy Spirit do for us then? For one thing, the Holy Spirit has a memory for us of revelation we have received. As we go about our daily lives we can access what we have received in the Spirit of the Lord by this memory in our inner man. It is really quite elementary.

06-26-2006, 03:51 PM

CoreIssue

Site Administrator

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: On my way home.

Age: 55

Posts: 1,372

Re: God-Men

Quote:

No more on Richard. Stop trying to interject him in everything as if he speaks for us all.

It is obvious if we do anything but a few points at a time you are going to ramble off into preaching and periphrials.

Did Nee believe in original revelation, meaning coverning things and aspects, new and in addition to Bible?

If yes, then show me this reality in the Bible.

And where does the Bible state it must come out with feeling?

The example in your link has a guy rolling of the floor for hours. This is non-Biblical and most assuredly Pentecostal.

Quote:

Once a certain brother was convicted of his sin. He was so overwhelmed by it that he rolled on the floor from eight in the evening until dawn. Others had long left the meeting hall, but he remained there rolling as though he had come to the gate of hades. “Even though I go to hell,” he cried out, “it still is less than I deserve!” During that night the Lord showed him the repugnancy of sin. He saw it in his spirit, and he was able to tell others of the hatefulness of sin. As is written in a hymn, he saw sin as black as smoke, and nothing is darker than smoke. With just those few words he was able to utter his inward revelation. Many were helped. Even so, after two or three years his revelation gradually grew dim. The words “sin black as smoke” were still with him, but when he rose to speak, the picture was no longer there. The revelation of the Holy Spirit had faded away; it was no longer as distinct and powerful as before. Formerly when he preached on the blackness of sin it was with tears in his eyes; now he spoke with a smile. The taste was different. The words were the same, but the Holy Spirit memory was absent.

Very Pentecostal and WoF. Or for that time period, Charismatic into the mystical and metaphysical.

Rolling on the floor and the other just walked away and left him alone.

Either this was a very uncaring congregation to leave him alone.

No one here denies God speaks to us and guides us. But the linkage to Memory is non-Biblical.

Quote:

Nee uses terms extremely precisely.

Then where did Holy Spirit Memory come from? Sure not in the Bible in concept or wording.

Remember, you said he used words with precession. Where is memory used in the Bible in any context with the Holy Spirit speaking to us or guiding us?

Bible references of usage. Not quotes or attempts to explain around it.

I was banned at this point, so this is my response...

You are being doubleminded. You quote Richard Fisher in your defense and then say he does not agree with you. You blame me for responding to your quote about him as you bring him up. I think that is unethical of you to do that because it is cunning and couthful.

In each case I have responded to your claims appropriately. Therefore, you are rambling when you accuse, for you speak from your selfish center in making claims but never backing them up.

Did Nee believe in the original revelation in the Word of God. Of course. Why think otherwise? Does Nee believe God gives revelation to believers today in agreement with the Word? Of course. God speaks to us today also by the Holy Spirit in our spirits - this is only for Christians.

Why would you think God does not use our feelings? Show me where in the Bible feelings are not to be used as the Spirit speaks to our spirit and flows through to emotion?

The rolling on the floor is about someone who is convicted by sin in his spirit's inner man. It was an experience of one who had reality without reference to false tongues of Pentecostalism at all. You draw a false association. Again, let this prove your overassuming which is without humility. We need to keep that spiritual reality of what we once received otherwise it becomes dull. Please read it again so as not to miss this point, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/holyspiritmemory.htm

David jumped up in the air for joy and probably found himself on the floor. I think you are being too legalistic saying people can't be overjoyed or convicted in the Lord to the point where they fall down on their knees. You sound hard in your approach. Your approach is non-Biblical.

Mystical is unto emotion. Holy Spirit is revelation given in the spirit and it has a memory, otherwise we could not remember what the Spirit revealed and would forget it automatically. This is not WofF, nor Pentecostal, but Biblical. Similarly in your hardness, you reject God's working of emotion. For those that don't know what metaphysical means, it just means "speculative or abstract reasoning." The fact that God reveals in our spirit His will is not speculative or abstract. What is speculative is to claim God's mind is not revealed in the spirit and should not permeate our entire being, including emotion. What is speculative is claiming things about someone but not questioning yourself about your allegations since you can't find any evidence by quoting the person you accuse. Crazy stuff!

Those who would want to put you into passivity and forgetfulness might say "memory" is not important and non-Biblical, but don't believe them. They are just trying to deceive you to control you. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me things that I still remember today as though it was the day I first learned them, and thus the spiritual reality is still with me in memory by the Holy Spirit - Holy Spirit Memory. Praise the Lord!

Why ask where Holy Spirit Memory came from when it is already explained? http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Richard_Fisher.htm

It is Biblical for it agrees with the Word of God.

We are moved by those moved by the Holy Spirit. Obviously this person was moved for he dropped to the floor and his emotion was greatly impacted. Others observed and felt the movement of the Holy Spirit touching this soul. They stayed to pray and fellowship as you should expect from a caring congregation. You indicate that you would leave for you do not sense the Holy Spirit working.

Using the term Holy Spirit Memory does not demand this exact phrase be used in the Scriptures. I have told you about your hard legalism before that they are not of God. The memory is that spiritual reality that the Holy Spirit maintains in our spirit. Are you saying anything the Holy Spirit has revealed to you you automatically can not remember? Perhaps you have never received the Holy Spirit to begin with to make such a claim.

Please provide quotes in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit automatically causes you to forget? You will never find it. As Nee said, "Probably many have been saved through the words in John 3.16. But suppose you merely recite the words, even to the tenth time; do you think they will be effective? To make it once more effective it requires the Holy Spirit to recall from your memory what you saw in that verse when you were saved." What a strange teaching to deny this. Please provide quotes in Scriptures for your belief that this is not the case and that the Holy Spirit can not recall truths? I ask you this because I know you can't do it.

Troy Brooks