Nee vs. Tozer

Ok the title was a joke, but it got you looking right?Well, not totally a joke, I has a question about them: In The Normal Christian Life, 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.

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,

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.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.The seed comment I will not comment on but the general context I will. Much of what we are is through identification with Christ and His finished work. To the degree in which we allow our faith to develope in this identification, we will suceed as christians. We are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, etc...Identification with realtionship will lead us into experience(s). That should help get this thread going :-) God Bless Bro. Daryl

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

How do these two go together? They seem to conflict.You're not wrong. They do conflict. I am with Tozer. ;-) One of the interesting, and priceless, aspects of this site is that we have the opportunity of listening to people who see some vital issues very differently.

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

Thats not how I was filledHe agrees that the experiences are very often differentThink that very well sums it up and agree with Dohzman, these are not necessarily contradictory. Like most often when we are gleaning from each other and from past saints, if we are willing they could be seen as complimentary.The problem here is in doing this comparison. What was referenced seems to be out of context of some sorts, there is some information missing.He agrees that the experiences are very often different, but that to tarry is missing the point. In what context was this taken?They give you books these days on how to be filled with the spirit in 10 easy stepsWouldn't think that Tozer would be referring to any of these man, from what I recall they would all be in complete agreement on this point. This seems to be an unfair comparison, if anything the likelihood would be that they were approaching it from different angles, hard to tell from just a couple of excerpts.

Didn't see some of these until after the fact;You're not wrong. They do conflict. I am with Tozer. One of the interesting, and priceless, aspects of this site is that we have the opportunity of listening to people who see some vital issues very differently. One of these days I will find it again but recall listening to a message from Keith Daniel where he mentioned hearing that some found it impossible to tell whether he was Calvinistic or Armenian and in that wonderful chuckle he has I believe he intimated that he had done well.And all I could do was smile :-D

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.

Brother coops wrote: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.This is true according to God's foreknowledge. But when does it become true for those who become heirs with Christ?Where does obedience to the commands of Christ fit into these theological thoughts?In ChristJeff

This is true according to God's foreknowledge. But when does it become true for those who become heirs with Christ?Where does obedience to the commands of Christ fit into these theological thoughts? Much of what we are is through identification with Christ and His finished work. To the degree in which we allow our faith to develope in this identification, we will suceed as christians

Brother Dozman wrote:Much of what we are is through identification with Christ By what means does one realize this "identification?"In ChristJeff

Faith

By what means does one realize this "identification?"the answer to this is the essence of the disagreement between Tozer and Nee.

If all else fails, remember that Tozer was probably right :)

Brother dohzman wrote:FaithDoes faith find its roots in man or God?In ChristJeff

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Everything God does and gives is through faith or in the agency of "faith".Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Faith is a pretty exhaustive subject, I sure you know the passages too.Faith can be closely associated with conscience but isn't nessarily dependent upon the condition of the conscience as much as the response .

Yeah that is they key though, both Nee and Tozer are firm that faith is foundational. Nee calls it "reckoning" (looking back at the FACTS) and Tozer calls it "aprehending God".So we have well established that faith is the key and that these theological interpretations could well differ, but may not.I once read/heard somewhere that alot of theological differences are a result of not grasping the vastness of God. In our small minds they seem to conflict, but in God's master plan they go togther somewhow. I don't know if that was just somebody's cop-out to become a christian "pluralist" in theology, or something we could all think about. *shrugs* :-) I'll come back to the dead/dying thing a little later, I just wanted to ask about the filling of the spirit. Some quotes from Nee (The Normal Christian Life - Chapter 8)are below, how do they fit in with Tozer's views? Or are they opposite?Talking on Acts 2:33, he says "The question of what we are does not come into consideration at all here, but only what He is. He is glorified; therefore the Spirit is poured out... The exaltation of the Lord Jesus is the basis on which the Spirit has been given... Now the principle on which we recieve the Spirit of enduement of the Holy Spirit is the very same as that on which we recieve forgiveness of sins... Then is it possible that the Son of God has been glorified and you have not recieved the Spirit? Never!...Now heres the strongest part:As for forgiveness, so equally for the coming upon us of the Holy Spirit, the whole question is one of faith. As soon as we see the Lord Jesus on the Cross, we know our sins are forgiven; and as soon as we see the Lord Jesus on the Throne, we know the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon us. The basis upon which we receive the enduement of the Holy Spirit is not our praying and fasting and waiting, but the exaltation of Christ. Those who emphasize tarrying and hold ‘tarrying meetings’ only mislead us, for the gift is not for the ‘favoured few’ but for all, because it is not given on the ground of what we are at all, but of what Christ is. The Spirit has been poured out to prove His goodness and greatness, not ours. Christ has been crucified, therefore we have been forgiven: Christ has been glorified, therefore we have been endued with power from on high. It is all because of Him.Thanks for all your responses, I'd love to hear you how can reconcile this :-)

I guess I don't see much conflict in thier theology, they both believe ,as I also believe, that the Holy Spirit is evidence of the resurrected, ascended and enthroned Christ. Thier methods seem to differ though.Personally I think to some faith comes easier in acceptance of what Christ has done, where others , it would seem , need to work through or have things in them worked through inorder to recieve the Holy Spirit.Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; I believe that literally is be being filled.....etc... I think Ron Bailey made mention of that in another post but I can't find the reference.Watchman Nee had some mystical doctrine too though, Have you ever read "The Latient(sp?) Power of Man"? From his perspective he attributed an aweful lot of ,looking for words here.....almost god like abilities or attributes to man before the fall, and believed that they were still present but somehow hidden after the fall but still present. So I see in most of his writtings a more man based approach to the Holy Spirit (by man based, more of a almost assuming the recieving of). Boy I don't know if I did that justice :-? I know what I would like to say but just don't know how to go about it without along long explaination.I'll stop here.

For what it is worth, I have that book and a number more. I loved to read and study Nee's work, but as of the last few years, a number of questions such as you touch on dohzman, have made me very uneasy about some of the things he wrote.I am much more inclined to stick with God's word and ask for God's wisdom and insight.