Watchman Nee on the New Jerusalem

This page,
http://dyspraxicfundamentalistbp.blo...jerusalem.html
is taken from this page,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Revelation_21#newcity

Darrin said... Hey Matthew-

Great post. Where did you come across this? I like Watchman Nee's stuff, but only have a couple of books by him.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

10:32 AM Celestial Fundie said... I find it interesting that you like Watchman Nee, given that you are non-dispensational and he was Pre-Trib Partial rapture.

I am glad I am not the only Pre-Wrath Watchman Nee fan.

Watchman Nee's books are easy to come by on Amazon.

I got this off this site:

Watchman Nee: The Spiritual Man

It is a rather unbalanced site. The administrator seems to think that Watchman Nee was infallible. He has a bad habit of firecely attacking critics of Watchman Nee and concluding that they are 'unsaved.'

God Bless

Matthew

12:38 PM Tammy said... I disagree and feel your comments are unbalanced for sinning bearing false witness. The owner of that site actually felt Nee was too soft on gibberish babblers, though he did refer to them as baby talk or kindergarteners, and did refer to the dangers of such things. But he never directly came out and said gibberish babble is altering God's Word. The owner, Troy Brooks, other than that found everything Nee wrote to be correct and fully proven in God's Word. Why does that offend you? Is there something Nee taught that you disagree with? I think you are bearing false witness, because the owner of that site doesn't accuse someone of being unsaved because they disagree with the person Watchman Nee. You know it is a sin to bear false witness so you know you get judged for this sin. When someone is abused and mistreated, it is incumbant upon you to defend the truth and not accuse those who are doing God's will. May God forgive you Matthew. I know Troy and Nee would forgive you.

9:45 PM Celestial Fundie said... Tammy, thanks for visiting and leaving your comment.

Troy Brooks accuses a number of individuals on his website of being 'unsaved' without giving any good reason.

12:42 AM Troy said... Where? I think you have to prove your case, otherwise you are bearin false witness. God hates that sin.

9:59 PM Troy said... I think several sins can be identified here bearing false witness, so here is the truth of those mistaken assumptions:

1) Watchman Nee was also pre-wrath for the general resurrection;

2) On Amazon, make sure you only get the books from CFP and CLC because LSM have strange alterations (LSM is a cult);

3) that Watchman Nee site and link to the TSM is not professing Watchman Nee is infallible-who knows where Matthew makes that assumption, but that's his own problem;

4) a person is not saved because they may disagree with Watchman Nee, so again, that is bearing false witness (any claim of unsalvation in another individual is strictly according to Scripture and testified by the Spirit);

5) Yes, Nee is a spiritual Christian so many will not be at his level (but that is still not excuse for someone to teach false teachings), so by disagreeing it could indicate fleshly Christian, but since Nee is in agreement with Scripture, disagreeing with Nee could, in fact, be a sign of unsalvation, because the person is, ultimately, rejecting Scripture perhaps by teaching Calvinism, since God does not save that way. Go does not regenerate a person causing them to repent and believe in Christ. First you need to repent and believe then God regenerates (saves). Watchman Nee was OSAS Arminian, whereas that cult mentioned above was run by a Calvinist. As Dave Hunt says, What Love is This?

I hope this gives you some idea what Christians go up against. The unsaved tares, e.g. Calvinists, trying to look like saved wheat.

God offer us salvation when He says "come unto me" (Matt. 11.28) because we have free-will: "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22.17)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celestial Fundie

He has a bad habit of firecely attacking critics of Watchman Nee and concluding that they are 'unsaved.'

---

Not fiercely, but just matching untruth with truth. Why does that offend you? What's wrong with that? Unless you have some bias and feel judged by something Nee is exposing about you. What would that be? Let us know.

A site that encourages you to read one of the most spiritual Christians that ever lived is not something you should shake a stick at! Take another look.

It is interesting to see that Orange Mailman thinks he may be unsaved according to Watchman Nee.

There are 5 things that identify Nee in a league almost of his own: 1) our being tripartite, 2) osas arminian, 3) gap restoration, 4) partial rapture, 5) biblocality.

Name me another person the planet, there are some, who believe all these 5 things?

I agree, a person is not unsaved if they disagree with Nee, nor is this site saying that, but that does not preclude someone from being unsaved because they disagree with Nee either, for Nee was an "uttermost spiritual Christian."

Hope that helps Orange Mailman. He obviously has some untold hostilities about something, namely, partial rapture for one. Though what is his reason, he doesn't say.

Quote:

---

I am glad I am not the only Pre-Wrath Watchman Nee fan.

---

Watchman Nee believed in pre-wrath for the resurrection at the last trumpet; whereas first rapture was according to readiness (Matt. 24.42, Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10 at 7.9 before the 7 trumpets of Tribulation commence-which lasts 7 years).