Questionable Doctrines of Watchman Nee

Watchman Nee is NOT doing any of those things. The man is DEAD. Let me repeat that, the man is DEAD!

I have already answered that question just a few posts above!

Some of us have asked you to be fair and honest enough to quote Nee in context, and you have refused to do that, but you have insisted upon slandering him. It looks to me as though you have not carefully and prayerfully read through even one of Watchman Nee’s books, and yet you are smearing his name. I find that to be utterly disgraceful! If you have carefully and prayerfully read through one or more of Watchman Nee’s books, tell me so and I will apologize.

 

You yourself have read my very strongly-worded posts both in defense of historical, Biblical theology, and against modern, non-Biblical theology. But before I do any of this, I first determine the facts.

 

You're right, Craig, people should determine the facts. As you rightly say, Nee is dead, " I repeat, dead." However, so are Calvin, Wesley, Finney, Augustine, Boyce, Boice, Broadus, and (insert name of theologian, author, pastor, teacher here) and people here and elsewhere often take bits and pieces of what each person says out of context or even in context and discuss them all the time .

Now, that said, wouldn't it be a better use of your energy to, rather than going on about how the folks here are misrepresenting Nee's beliefs and writings, place them in the correct context and articulate them correctly.

Rather than saying that there is an alternative, go the next mile and state the alternative.

 

Gene,

Watchman Nee's theology, because of the mystical nature of it, is not such that the whole of it can be easily articulated in a few posts on a message board. However, one point of his theology could be presented by quoting him in context if anyone who knows a point of his theology that is incorrect and knows exactly what he said about it, in context.

A man has been accused on this board of very serious doctrinal error. The burden of proof is upon the accusers. Posters here talk about how important it is to expose error, but so far no one has been willing to go to the trouble to expose even one point of this doctrinal error. All we have so far is hearsay. Even sinners do not accept hearsay as valid testimony against a man. And here we have Christians posting hearsay about another Christian, and others are condemning the man upon hearing it. Such behavior staggers my imagination.

 

I realize Nee is dead, but his teachings live on. Surely you got what I was saying, Craig, when I said that when someone teaches (or has taught) we are to examine the teachings.

Someone asked for info on Nee and I gave some resources and quotes. Then you attacked me for that. To give quotes in context would take up a lot of space, especially for you, Craig. I don't think I could ever satisfy what you would require to show any teaching wrong. In the Other Religions forum, despite the fact that I posted erroneous teachings from the SDA's own writings, you continued to be angry that anyone would criticize their theology. Even after a former SDA pastor posted some of their erroneous doctrine, you continued to defend them. So what does it take?

Here is Nee's principle of praying thrice for something. The whole article is more illuminating but I cannot post the whole article, Craig. This shows his mystical and what I consider extra-Biblical view of how to pray. If one felt one had to follow Nee's advice, it is much more burdensome than prayer in the Bible.

 

Craig, please note that the title of this thread is "Questionable Doctrine of Watchman Nee." No one is attacking him or saying he is a heretic. No one is saying he had nothing good to say. But in the view of many, many people, he did have some questionable doctrines. That fits right into the topic of this thread.

Continuing with Nee's admonishings on prayer (from same link as before), he misapplies Matt 18.19 here, using it for prayer when actually it is about church discipline. Even disregarding that, his statements here are unbiblical, imo. He says that we must learn "a new way of praying." Well, sorry, Nee, I'm sticking to the Biblical way.

 

I find some of these ideas rather strange.

A lot of people would disagree with this. In fact, I don't even like reading it.

 

More Nee. I think it's getting worse. He quotes Jesse Penn-Lewis in this extensive article on soul power, a woman with strange mystical teachings.

This reminds me of Benny Hinn's teachings that Adam used to fly.

 

More questionable doctrines. Keep in mind everything in the quotes, except the link, are Nee's words.

More weird stuff from the same link:

 

Nee taught a peculiar idea that only our spirits know God. This is part of that.

 

Marcia,

On September 26, 2004 at 06:02 PM, Dr. Bob posted a post for a friend, beginning a new thread entitled, “The Stream Promoting False Gospel.” The first paragraph of that post read as follow:

(The emphasis using bold type is mine)

Lacy Evans responded,

On September 28, 2004 at 09:15 AM, Dr. Bob began a new thread which was a carry-over from the thread referenced above. This new thread is the one that we are now posting to. I never denied that Watchman Nee held to and taught beliefs that were “questionable.” What I have been denying is that it is fair to implicate Watchman Nee in non-Christian cultic practices unless he himself can be proven to have himself been involved in them.

I am very pleased to see that you have begun to quote Watchman Nee rather than what others say about his teachings. However, considering that this thread is a carry-over from another thread in which Lee was implicated in non-Christian cultic practices, the word “questionable” in this particular thread carries with it connotations of questionable as to whether the doctrines are Christian or non-Christian.

I agree that some of Watchman Nee’s teaches are “questionable,” but no more questionable than some of your teachings, or Dr. Bob’s, or Lacy’s. I do NOT agree that some of Watchman Nee’s teachings are “questionable” to the degree suggested in the first post in this thread.

Regarding Nee’s teachings on prayer, I agree with him to a very substantial extent. There is nothing unbiblical about them, they are based on New Testament Scriptures, and their fruit is answered prayers. I have been to similar prayer meetings and I have seen profound miracles take place in answer to the prayers, and I have witnessed the enrichment in the lives of the participants.

I am not quite so fond of some of Watchman Nee’s other beliefs, but I was raised in an entirely different culture and have a decidedly different theological background that can not but help influence my judgment. Therefore I choose to love him as a brother in Christ and give him the benefit of the doubt. Christ has done much more than that for me.

 

I find Watchman Nee's article on the spirit and soul to be profound, stimulating, edifying, well thought-out, and Biblical. When I compare Nee's writing on these matters with the writings of Lewis Sperry Chafer, I find Chafer to be more shallow than a drop of evaporated water and his words devoid of substance.

 

Do I have teachings? How do you know what they are?

On another note, the fact that you find on problem in some of Nee's teachings that I posted informs me a lot on your take on things. I find much of what I posted to be a twist on the truth and not the truth at all. Nee adds his own spin with some very strange takes on the Bible, imo.

We clearly disagree on the soundness of Nee's teachings.

 

We clearly disagree on many things, including what I have said and what I have not said.

 

I have found some of Nee's work to be profoundly edifying. He aint a good card-carryin' Southern Baptist preacher, that's for sure. He is Chinese. He has a fresh culture from which to examine things. He dares to challenge the granite dogma of western evangelicals.

Did he get everything right? No, but neither have I (or any of you).

I'm afraid I will have to carefully read over the posts and respond to them individually. But after just a cursory reading, I have to agree with Craig on this.

Part of the problem is context. I have about 30 of his books and have read most of them. he definately has a "different" way of looking at things but I suggest that some of our problems with him might possibly be cultural and not doctrinal.

lacy

 

If you knew what I believe and my "take on things," you would not have written what you did.

 

Lacy,

God has blessed you with a wonderfully healthy mind and a very loving spirit. I pray that you will use both of them to the glory of God.

 

Thank you for sharing you opinion. I purchased Chafer’s Systematic Theology about 30 years ago and I find Chafer to be as shallow as a water spot on a rug and very naïve, very typical of DTS students.



[ October 02, 2004, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]