The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
has written some comments of theirs on Watchman Nee. I will
address each of their points and their overassuming mistakes.
http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=24
Question and Answer - Watchman
Nee
Question:
How does the teaching of
Watchman Nee differ from the teaching of Reformed theology?
Answer: Well, for starters, I
must admit that I do not claim to be an expert on Watchman Nee.
However, allow me to suggest some brief points.
1) Watchman Nee apparently
believed in on-going present-day revelations outside of the
Bible. So, for instance, he could write this (I'm quoting from
the WatchmanNee.org Web site):
"What the Lord revealed to me
was extremely clear: Before long He would raise up local
churches in various parts of China. Whenever I closed my
eyes, the vision of the birth of local churches
appeared...."
This differs significantly from
Reformed Theology, since we believe that the fullness of God's
revelation is contained in Scripture alone. In other words, God
speaks to us today through his written Word, not through direct
revelations.
Making such a case from the Bible
is beyond the scope of this forum. I would simply direct you to
the very fine work done by Richard B. Gaffin in his book
Perspectives on Pentecost, P & R Publishing. In that book,
Dr. Gaffin expounds all the relevant biblical passages to make
the Reformed case against present-day direct revelations.
Notice the slight of hand by the writer
for the Presbyterian Orthodox Church. Quite cunning, and
unethical! The writer says "outside the Bible", with no
indication what Nee has said here as being outside the Bible. So
the writer makes a self-declaration which stems from the selfish
self, and then agrees with himself in his self-declaration, yet
is unable to back it up by showing it in Watchman Nee's words,
since Nee is merely agreeing with the Word of God. Revelations
by the Holy Spirit agree with the Word of God, so the question
becomes: why does this Reformed Presbyterian theology reject the
Word of God? In other words, why do they operate outside the
Bible, all the while being doubletongued and saying they agree
with the Bible? Be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). The Holy
Spirit is working today. The very serious question needs to be
put to the Orthodox Presbyterians, why they reject the working
of the Holy Spirit in the spirit of believers today which agrees
with the Word of God? The answer is: to "control" through their
system by the false teaching of calvinism (which is not orthodox
in the true sense of this word), that is, the pride of believing
one is premade for salvation like a robot or a machine. This is
not love of the Lord, but an ugly pride that needs to be
repented of. Please note: the website this quote was taken from
is the lsm/lc cult. Sometimes, quotes are fabricated and
translations are false to agree with its
cult
leader Witness Lee. The authority of Watchman Nee's writings
are found at Christian Fellowship Publishers, the white covers.
2) The Watchman Nee web site also
says this about Watchman Nee:
"Because of what he saw in
the Word, he was exercised to live purely and singly by
faith in God not only for his living, but also for every
aspect of the Lord's work. Hence, he steadfastly refused
employment by any person or organization."
Reformed Theology does not teach
that any man, not even a minister of the Word, MUST live in
poverty. In fact, Paul teaches that we should work in order that
we may eat (2 Thess. 3:10-12). We should work and earn money so
as to share with others who are in need, (Ephesians 4:28).
Certainly Paul worked to help supplement his own income (Acts
18:3). And Paul taught that the one who labors in the word
should receive payment for his work in the church (1 Cor.
9:9-11; see also 1 Tim. 5:17-18).
Watchman Nee should not be blamed
because He gave everything to the Lord, even to the point of
poverty, so nothing could be held against him (yet the
calvinists still blame him, because Nee was osas arminian). This
shows how he gave everything to God, even his wealth. When Nee
needed to work, he did so, working at a company that he
inherited; but thereafter, he sold the company and gave all the
proceeds to the church. Paul did not receive an income from the
church, so to say so is an abuse of 1 Cor. 9.9-11 and 1 Tim.
5.17-18. Simply stated, those in the Work for the Church
may receive gifts, but not incomes. Rather, a worker should get
a job, then have expectations of those gifts or donations. Paul
went to work for a time when he needed to raise funds but he
never demanded payment or income from the church.
1Cr 9:9 For it is written in the law of
Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the
corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth,
1Cr 9:10 or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our
sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in
hope, and he that thresheth, [to thresh] in hope of partaking.
1Cr 9:11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great
matter if we shall reap your carnal things?
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be
considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in
preaching and teaching;
1Ti 5:18 for the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox
when it is treading out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves
his wages."
In these two sets of verses we do not see a
demand for a salary for those in the work for the church. We see
the allowance for a gifts or donations, and we see the need for
the workers in the church to also have occupations in society
when funds are needed. But we do not see the demand for the
workers to draw a salary off the people. A double honor may be
accounted a double gifting, but not a double salary since no
salary is acceptable.
Watchman Nee makes this point well, when he
writes, "Luke was a physician (Col. 4.14a), and Paul was a
tentmaker (Acts 18.3). Tentmaking is different from fishing, in
that it is manufacturing work. Whereas farming is a direct work,
the labor of spinning, weaving, cutting or tentmaking involves
an additional step in the laboring process, and is therefore
manufacturing work. We may say that from the Old Testament to
the New, God has made His arrangement for occupations. The
disciples of the Lord were either farmers or shepherds or
craftsmen or fishermen or manufacturers. We can add one more
occupation, that of a laborer. For the New Testament does have
this word: 'the laborer is worthy of his [wages]' (1 Tim. 5.18).
A laborer is one who works with his hands in unskilled or manual
labor. Such employment is also sanctioned in the Bible."
We can see how easily it is for men to twist
the Word so that they can receive a $30,000 or $50,000 or
$100,000 per year income from the church. Do not trust men's
claims. See the Word.
3) Nee also believed "that,
according to the Bible, denominations are wrong. . ." Certainly,
denominations are not ideal. All Christians should have a
visible witness of unity. But, unfortunately, there are
differences of opinion in matters of faith and practice. And for
conscience' sake, there must be different denominations of
Christians who disagree over very simple practical issues. For
instance, do we baptize babies or no? We Presbyterians say yes;
our Baptist brethren say no. How would these two groups do
church together? What would be the official policy on baptism?
That said, however, we should
keep in mind that Reformed Theology does teach the unity of the
church. For example, we believe that while our Reformed Baptist
brethren worship in a different building than we do, and even
though they don't baptize infants, we are still part of the same
universal and invisible church. They are no less the body of
Christ than we are. We might wish that it be otherwise, but,
unfortunately, this side of glory, and for the sake of Christian
liberty, denominations are necessary.
The writer for the Presbyterian
Orthodox Church admits his sytem is "not ideal", so a reasonable
question would be to ask, why does he settle instead of doing
God's will? What naturally follows is the acceptance of an
untruth: "there must be different denomations", and to discount
the matter further to rationalize his position, "disagree over
very simple practical issues". This is the approach of the flesh
of men to discount and to settle. The Bible does not divide the
church on denominations, doctrine, persons or nations. What is
the only way by which the church divides?
According to Biblical localities. Therefore, when there are
differences, they are contained within the Biblical locality and
do not spread like an infection to other localities by way of a
denomination, which would be like the carrier of the disease.
On the matter of babies. You should not
baptize babies because it is not found in the Word of God, so it
is an overassuming. Baptism occurs when the person willingly
does it, and is not forced or done pretentiously. Under Biblical
locality, as revealed in the Word and taught by Watchman Nee,
the Baptists and the Presbyterians would need to stand side by
side to resolve their differences rather than dividing the
church falsely. Men are simply too comfortable in their
divisions. God's way is according to Biblical locality, i.e.
church of Ephesus in the churches of Asia Minor or the church of
Jerusalem in the churches of Judea or the church of Dallas in
the churches of Texas.
Reformed Theology (Sardis revivals -
akin to filling a glass with less water each time after it is
emptied) may preach unity of the church but does not actually
accept unity, otherwise, it would not divide the church falsely
as described. The unity of the church is according to Biblical
locality as the local expression of the church, and as a
miniature of the new city in the new earth.
God has foretold of these
denominational problems in the
7 church
periods of the past 20 centuries (see Rev. 2 & 3). Soon
after the first (and second) centuries the first love was lost
of the Ephesus church period of Biblical locality. Before Christ
returns, it shall be restored as the foundation by which Christ
will reign with His overcomers during the millennial kingdom
over cities and remote areas.
4) Watchman Nee's influences
seemed to have been associated with the Plymouth Brethren and
the writings of John Darby. These folks basically taught that
office in the church was unbiblical. So, he didn't believe in
churches governed by elders as we Reformed do. Also, going hand
in hand with these influences would have been the approach to
interpreting the Bible called "dispensationalism." Reformed
theology does not adhere to this method of interpretation, but
rather believes in what is called "Covenant Theology."
John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren
did not teach that the office in the church was unBiblical. To
accuse as such is simply the sin of bearing false witness. There
is both the Work and the Church. Watchman Nee (see his 3 volume
work - The Church and the Work) believed the apostles as in the
NT, appointed elders to take care of Biblical localities (the
churches). Reformed do not believe this but as stated before,
divide the church falsely exceeding the boundary of Biblical
locality.
Regarding the matter of God's working
in time, called dispensationalism, who can deny this?
Dispensationalists believe in the covenant working through time.
A false fruit in not believing this would be the accusation
against dispensationalists. What this reveals is vague
accusations are the tool of the great accuser.
The basic difference between the
two systems of reading the Bible is that dispensationalism
divides the Bible up into different ways in which God saves his
people. Covenant Theology believes that there is only one way in
which man is saved by God from the fall to the return of Christ;
and that is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of
Christ alone. For further reading in the differences between
dispensationalism and covenant theology, see A Primer on
Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing
the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (second
edition) by John H. Gerstner with Don Kistler,
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? by
Keith A. Mathison, and Understanding Dispensationalists
by Vern S. Poythress.
Dispensations do not divide the Bible
into different ways in which God saves His people. To say so
would again be that infamous sin of bearing false witness,
showing something is wrong with the accuser. Whether looking to
the cross and back at that eternal cross, the way of salvation
is the same. Though the Holy Spirit did not come to indwell the
believers before the cross as the veil was not rent, they may
still receive new life if they believed and repented to God to
receive Gods gift of eternal life through His saving grace. The
new covenant has been given to Christians beforehand, before
Israel will receive their covenant promise to be at the center
of all nations.
We need to look deeper now at what is
really going on with these false accusations. What is motivating
them? It is as follows. Often times when people argue, they are
actually arguing for something other than what the surface
argument is. Here we see the Presbyterians arguing that
dispensationalism is wrong with their wrong assumptions about
what dispensations are. So therefore, they are really arguing
something else. What is it? It is none other than calvinism,
that pride of their believing they were premade for salvation,
and quite often the matter of historicalism, in having no faith
to believe that Christ will return to reign in Person for 1000
years (Rev. 20.2-7). Historicalists consider this time now of
horrendous atrocities and warring nations to be the millennial
peace and that Christ is reigning with an iron rod. How could a
regenerated conscience in Christ believe this? Yet none see His
return in Person on the mount of olives. There has not been an
army of 200 million amassed in the middle east (Rev. 9.16) and
1/3 of the people of earth have not died in a Great Tribulation
(v.18). Why do Presbyterians blunt the solemn warning at the end
of this age? It is because they have not received revelation
from God in agreement with the Word. Therefore, there will be
many who profess false christs having already arrived. The
kingdom of God is in believers now, but its manifestation in
rewards of reigning with Christ in the millennium will occur
when Christ returns. Praise the Lord!
Well, this should give you some
basics. So as not to sound uncharitable, however, I would also
recognize that Watchman Nee was used by the Lord in a very
powerful way to spread the good news of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. Nee apparently believed that many people in China were
relying upon their works to gain eternal life, but his emphasis
in preaching was upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. And for
that work we rejoice and thank God.
Not to sound uncharitable; in no way I
am saying here that all Presbyterians are unsaved, only that a
great many of them were never regenerated and would be
considered the tares (Matt. 13). Watchman Nee did not see those
in China operating on works as much as the problem of the
western missionaries bringing in the same old false teaching of
dividing the church falsely. The church in China was quite adept
at accepting both substitionary work of Christ as well as
co-crucifixion. This allowed for other truths to open up such as
partial rapture, Biblical locality, tripartite man, osas
arminian and restoration of creation; whereas these truths seem
to have all been but lost in western denominations.
Love, in Christ,
Troy Brooks |