His book “God’s Spiritual House” was my introduction to him. Highly recommended. You can read this and The School of Christ online:

http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/school_of_christ_the.html

http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/gods_spiritual_house.html

I feel that God’s Eternal Purpose (Eph. 3:11), which is by Him, through Him, and to Him, is the central motif of Scripture, yet we hear so little about it today in so many circles.

A few words about Watchman Nee that may help. Nee was one among many people who had some influence on certain parts of the book. T. Austin-Sparks (“The School of Christ”) and DeVern Fromke (“Ultimate Intention”), as well as a host of other theologians, past and present, did as well.

Nee is often confused with one of his disciples, Witness Lee. Lee started a movement that in the minds of many people who knew Watchman Nee, departed from Nee’s teachings. Therefore, Nee and Lee ought not to be confused. As Kierkegaard once said, the worse thing to befall humans are disciples. They tend to be far more extreme than their mentors.

Nee’s book THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE is heralded as a classic in the deeper Christian life genre. I have never heard anyone in any Christian circle denounce it. It’s a beautiful treatment of the book of Romans. He has one chapter in it on the eternal purpose which is remarkable.

I hope you will read it, as I’m quite curious to know what in it would cause someone to not recommend it.

I would recommend NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE along with SIT, WALK, STAND — which is a wonderful little exposition on Ephesians — to any Christian, whether new or mature.

The book that Nee wrote that is often discouraged is called SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY. Some folks in both South America and in Florida in the 1970s took the teachings in that book on “delegated authority” and spawned a movement that damaged countless souls. That’s one book of his that I would not recommend to people.

Incidentally, someone mentioned THE SPIRITUAL MAN. Nee never retracted or denounced what was in that book. He affirmed the content later in life in fact. He simply observed that the weakness of the book was that it was too complete and comprehensive, and that the Holy Spirit’s way is never to analyze everything in the spiritual walk, reducing it down to intellectual understanding.

If anyone has read the book (it can stop a Sherman tank!), they will understand that sentiment. Nee had a brilliant mind, and he was able to break down profound spiritual truths into segements and categories. That was a strength as well as a weakness.

Other than that, some may object to Nee’s teaching that human beings are tripartite … spirit, soul, and body. His ecclesiology was also heavily influenced by the Plymouth Brethren, though Nee himself was not sectarian. (Some movements that owed much to him after his death became very sectarian, unfortunately.)
None of the above is reflected in “From Eternity” by the way.

In short, Nee’s grasp of the centrality of Jesus Christ, the importance of the church in God’s plan, and the Christocentric exposition of Scripture are his strong points, I feel.

He also understand God’s sovereignty and gave one of the most moving messages on John the Baptist. He tells the story of John being a prisoner, and coming to a point of doubt about Jesus … “Is this the One?”. And then the Lord’s word coming to him, “Blessed is he who is not offended in me.” To follow a God that sometimes we just do not understand and who refuses to meet our expectations. It’s a brilliant message. So much so that others have reproduced it and written books based on it.

In terms of the centrality of Christ and the importance of “life together” in the church, Nee’s work is similar to both Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (in those two areas; he was not neo-orthodox).

All told, Nee’s emphasis on the importance of the church and Christ’s centrality in God’s plan had some influence on my book.

Thanks again for such wonderful words on “From Eternity.” I’m truly honored.

Your brother,
Frank

Thank you for your kind review of my book. I do think you very much got what I was trying to say– and that I’m not a theologian but a layperson struggling with scripture in my vocation.

One bit of clarification– I am a Baptist, but my church is not a part of the SBC. Baylor, also, is independent of the SBC. Abingdon was the first publisher I offered the book to, on the advice of friends who had published there, and they have done a great job with it.

From what I understand many of what are sold as Nee’s books are just other people’s compilations of sermons, lectures, ect. Who knows how much they are edited or added to.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

The death penalty discussion is not “New Covenant vs.Old Covenant” it’s simply a part of the created order. It was in place before God gave the Law to the Israelites at Sinai.

The idea that almost everyone believes that criminals ought to be kept from the rest of the population in some manner points to the idea of an intrinsic hunger for justice of some kind. Obviously there is much disagreement over what constitutes a crime and what prison should be like etc. but most Americans would say that a person who commits cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder ought not to be able to breathe free air for a very long time.

Where does that idea come from? If, in fact it comes from the Creator Himself, then ought we then to find out what He thinks about murder and justice?

So then why is one particular form of “taking a person’s life away” any better then execution? Who decides that life in prison is more just than execution?

What about those who believe that we can “fix” or “heal” murderers and then release them back into society?

C.S. Lewis in his book God in the Dock asks the question whether it is the Justice system or a hospital?

Who is deciding what happens to criminals?
What are they basing their decisions on?
Are we in the business of “fixing” people or of making sure that justice is served?