SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Nee vs. Tozer

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
coops
Member



Joined: 2004/6/28
Posts: 141


 Re: reckoning & death - head knowledge?

[b]philologos[/b] thanks for such a fast reply, i think Reidhead is talking of the same pragmatism, but applied wrongly. I guess the question is: where do we draw the line between pragmatism and faith?

Can we say: "I (in the flesh) died in Christ"? or do we have to say "I must die in Christ"? The latter gives rise to such stenches as legalism and pragmatism wrongly applied. It requires less faith and puts the responsibility on us to act. It almost seems works based (when extreeme). Please note: Im not talking about works based justification, but works based holiness.

The latter requires more faith and releases us from the nature to sin. If we have become a Christian, we died in Christ when He died. And we can 'reckon' (look back at the black and white facts, just like acounting) and say that sin has lost it's power on us and we no longer have to be bound to it. Its not "I must die" but "I dont have to fight this, I'm dead to it already when I walk by the Spirit".

So here we have Romans 6 where we must reckon ourselves to be dead to sin, it is no longer an issue to us.
Then we have Romans 7 when it is revealed that we aren't even bound to the law anymore! We have no obligation to the law. Holiness is not obeying the letter of the law. For the law leads to death.
Then finally Romans 8 where we are taught to live by the Spirit! But we can't do that until we stop trying to fulfill the law, and we stop trying to stop sinning. When we realise these things, we stop fighting in the flesh and allow the Spirit to do His work in us. No wonder He is called the Prince of Peace.

But we cannot have the experience of Romans 8 (life by the Spirit) until we have the revelation of Romans 7 (no longer bound to the law), which comes after the 'reckoning' that we died with Christ (Romans 6).

This isn't me saying "Hey you! This is black and white facts!" but voicing more what I got from Nee's writings and wondering what you all think of it. :-)


_________________
Coops

 2005/10/12 19:15Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

Hummmmm. how do I answer your questions here?
I do believe every man is given a measure of faith but its origin is God. I believe our ability to exercise faith can and is often closely related to the condition of our conscience. Faith worketh by love...Gal5:6f but because of sin the Love of many will wax cold....I John chapter 3 talks about our heart condemning us but God is greater.

This is how I understand this, our conscience can hinder us from experiencing the Fullness of the Spirit and that because of sin or other unresolved issues. The sin affects our love which effects our ability to exercise faith. By agency of faith I mean the practical out working of our walk. Faith , kinda like a stream of water that moves things. A deep inter confidence toward God that transcends even the mind will and emotion. But has the ability to capture the mind will and emotions in acts of righteousnes done in obedience to God's Word that proceeds from His mouth.Does that make sense to you? Did I answer you to your satisfaction? If not let me know I 'll try to refine it for you.


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/10/12 21:28Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

This is from my perspective. It seems that as soon as we say the bible teaches this certain thing 1...2...3... in that order or that we observe the Holy Spirit operate in a manner 1...2...3.. in that order, then all of a sudden God seems to throw us a curve ball and changes things up on us, He messes up the order to our way of thinking. I guess its so we stay dependent on Him and not institute programs where we can remove Him and keep going on as if nothing has changed. :-(


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/10/12 21:39Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

After I wrote the above I was reading Matt 6:25 to 30 and really felt as if it was at least a partial answer to my own question. That doesn't happen to me often, kinda cool 8-)


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/10/12 22:51Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Perhaps if I can tease out the underlying nature of Watchman Nee's theology it will explain why I am saying that Tozer and Nee disagree. Let me first acknowledge my indebtedness to Watchman Nee's writings over many years. I am not anti-Nee. The basic position of most Brethren teachers was that we received the Spirit at conversion, usually without any specific consciousness of the fact. This would be, in their understanding, synonymous with regeneration, receiving Christ, being saved, being justified by faith etc. As such the Brethren did not look for a conscious experience of 'receiving the Spirit' but believed that all who were 'saved' HAD already received the Spirit. There was no 'second blessing' experience; everything was present in the 'first blessing'. All that was necessary to enjoy the blessings of the Spirit was to 'realise' that He had come, and then to base one's life on the fact. It is significant that Nee's main book on the work of the Spirit is entitled 'The Release of the Spirit'. There is a conscious point being made in this title; this is not 'receiving the Spirit' as a new experience but the 'breaking of the outward man' so that the Spirit, who is already within, can be released.

The 'second blessing' movements of Holiness or Pentecostalism both believed in a 'second blessing' which was 'distinct from and subsequent to, new birth'. This was not a 'realisation' but a fresh encounter with God; it was a conscious 'experience' of the Spirit. It is difficult to get a firm grip on Tozer's view of things from his own pen, or at least I have found it so. However, Tozer was the successor to, and a strong advocate of the teaching of, A B Simpson; and A B Simpson was 'second blessing holiness'. When ABS said 'baptism in the Spirit' he meant what Wesley meant by the experience (not the progress) of sanctification.

The consequence of these different foundations of understanding in the two men have their impact on their teaching. Watchman Nee wants us to understand what has already happened to us; A W Tozer want to make sure that it [u]really has[/u] happened to us. Tozer does not want us to put our confidence in 'logical deductions drawn from texts'; Nee does not want us to put our confidence in a point of experience.

Tozer is saying if you have got 'it' (not the Spirit but the personal experience) you will know it. Nee is saying you do have 'it', now count on it as you live. My point is that you can only 'count on it' if you really have it and if you really have it you will know it.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/13 5:30Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear philologos,

I had not realized that about Nee, and did not get that impression from his book, "The Normal Christian Life." However, if that is indeed what Nee is saying and the basis for his theology, I would have to say I disagree.

I still appreciate Nee's readings have grown much from his teachings.

I have also yet to find a teacher apart from Christ who has a perfect doctrine, one that I agree with 100%. Have you?

Thank you,

Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/10/13 8:33Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I have also yet to find a teacher apart from Christ who has a perfect doctrine, one that I agree with 100%. Have you?



I don't agree with myself [u]all[/u] of the time! :-)
As our beloved brother Paul expressed it... we know in part.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/13 9:11Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

As Ron has been contrasting the two it occurred to me that the "Word- Faith" teachings are a variation of the Brethren in that once you ask for The Holy Spirit you then accept it as fact and embrace that fact until the actual experience happens. The word/faith movement it would seem has taken much of its foundational principles from that idealogy and of course today its grossly perverted and into a man centered believism.


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/10/13 9:54Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Brother Coops wrote:

Quote:
Can we say: "I (in the flesh) died in Christ"? or do we have to say "I must die in Christ"? The latter gives rise to such stenches as legalism and pragmatism wrongly applied. It requires less faith and puts the responsibility on us to act. It almost seems works based (when extreeme). Please note: Im not talking about works based justification, but works based holiness.



If you obey His voice the things He commands you to do daily will cause you to die daily to your flesh. This is the Spiritual outcome of those who abide in Christ. We can only reckon according to what the Spirit has taught us. The work of the Spirit in one's life is very clear to those who do what the Spirit tells them. This 'Life" by the Spirit is the only means by which legalism has no hold on those who hear. Living by the Spirit releases the bonds that hold us captive because of one's carnal mind.

To be known by God, is to receive the understanding of the truth that sets you free from the depravity of the first man Adam. The Second Man Christ actually gives you the means to begin to see this world for what it is. The Second Man Christ actually gives you understanding that begins to change the substance for which you strive for in this life. That which we use to strive for deminishes as Christ reveals Himself in you more each day. The world knows nothing of this substance but look at this death as foolishness. The cross is foolishness to those who are blind, yet it really is something that continues to grow as a treasure in our life. This is what faith is made up of.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2005/10/13 12:45Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
As Ron has been contrasting the two it occurred to me that the "Word- Faith" teachings are a variation of the Brethren in that once you ask for The Holy Spirit you then accept it as fact and embrace that fact until the actual experience happens.


dohzman
I can see your thinking but this is far from the case. The modern word/faith movement is really a kind of magic. If you say the right word, it works. That is very different to what the Brethren were about. There were some Brethren who believed that the 'Baptism in the Spirit' was a secondary experience ( G H Lang) but saw it not in 'second blessing' terminology as pertaining to power or purity; they saw it as as the moment when a person was distinctly joined to the body of Christ. They were usually very strongly opposed to the early days of the Pentecostal movement.

The word/faith folk are selling a methodology, which is why I call it magic. The Brethren were not wrong in saying that we must believe in what God has done. It is just that unless God has really 'done' something the process of 'reckoning by faith' is a house built upon the sand.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/10/13 14:15Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy