Ok the title was a joke, but it got you looking right?

Well, not totally a joke, I has a question about them:

In [i]The Normal Christian Life[/i], Watchman Nee talk of being filled with the Holy Spirit. He says tarry meetings aren't the way to go, and cites examples such as himself, R A Torrey and Dr Martin Loyd Jones. He agrees that the experiences are very often different, but that to tarry is missing the point.

He also says that "we have already been cricified with Christ" (Think: seed of adam / seed of Christ) and are already dead and raised again in Christ.

Moving on to Tozer, he says "They give you books these days on how to be filled with the spirit in 10 easy steps. Thats not how I was filled... [Tells story about a prayer time]... After hours and hours of dying, until I thought I was pretty close to dying, a verse of scripture was quoted in my ear, I believed it and down came the Holy Ghost and lept into the depths of my being... after God killed me, then He could fill me"

How do these two go together? They seem to conflict.

_________________
Coops

Dear Coops,

You are soooo right. They do conflict and one of them isn't correct. I have posted a thread If You Think This is Useful, Will You? Even though I haven't read Tozer with respect to his prayer life, the post I wrote touched on exactly that. I will address this again in It Is NOT Nornal for a Christian to Sin, But....?

I just finished reading another sermon by Ernest O'Neill which supports the Nee teaching. Again, if we are all filled with the same Holy Spirit, how do we get sooo divided?

God bless you,

_________________
Hans Prang

Just an observation about God. It would seem that as soon as you conclude that God does something this way, He turns around and does it that way. Then we try to do it that way and He choses a different way. To interpet an experience based on ours or others experiences is usually a formula for failure. Let God be God. These great men were still men. While I understand what they'er saying , there is an element where all experiences of God are more on the lines of testomony rather than "doctrine" or teaching. Now while one can teach from experiences it a very rare thing indeed that the experience will square 100% with doctrinal teaching. That's why we are commanded to live by the every "Word" that proceeds from the Mouth of God, instead of just serving Him with only our intelect. In the first temptation of Jesus , He was tempted toward experience but opted for the Word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Just a thought.

_________________
D.Miller

Could it be that we serve a very Diverse God???? ;-)

_________________
D.Miller

_________________
Ron Bailey

Dear Coops,

There is no conflict. They are both right.

Sometimes people are looking at the same thing from two different perspectives. We know in our hearts what we have experienced. It is our personal experience, our testimony of Christ. And thus, while we know this in our heart and experience it in truth, is it truly possible to tell what happens adequately in words?

And so, I don't think Nee and Tozer disagree. They are just explaining it in different ways. They are each providing a different piece of a large puzzle.

By what Nee is saying, when humanity sinned we became dead to God. You could look at it like this for we were rebuked by God. We were cast from His presence. We were sinners. And so, we were dead. Christ gave us new life and thus we were resurrected.

In that process of resurrection, we had to die to the law. We had to die to the old way of things. We were already dead to God. However, we were alive to sin. Thus, in Tozer's perspective, we had to die to sin. Once Tozer died to sin, he was resurrected to new life.

They are both trying to describe a transformation.

It does kind of bother me that Tozer said, "God killed me." When we die, we die with Christ on the cross. Who killed Christ? Did God kill Christ? Or did we kill Christ?

Something to ponder.

Hope this helps. This is my take on it anyway. Someone else may have a different perspective.

In Christ,
Blake

_________________
Blake Kidney

_________________
Mike Balog

Didn't see some of these until after the fact;

_________________
Mike Balog

Tozer was likely operating from a Wesylean view point of sanctification/baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereas Nee was not. In the Wesylean informed view of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit/sanctification is where one truly dies to self, and what was once a heavenly reality from a position standpoint was not actualized in practical application and experience until they were baptized in the Spirit/sanctified.

I'm not overly familiar with either man's theology, though a little bit with each. They are probably in conflict. Remember, Nee was much more dispensational in theology, whereas Tozer was more Wesely-Arminian/Pentecostal.

_________________
Jimmy H

Brother coops wrote:

_________________
Jeff Marshalek