The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age

[Ohio]

But I feel to say : If I stumble a brother away from this Vision, Ministry, Minister, false teaching, I haven't really stumble anyone away from anything but a false belief.

Nee, Lee, and LSM love their first MOTA Martin Luther, but think about how many he stumbled out of Catholicism by exposing their Papal MOTA?

So it's no wonder that the Pope put a "hit" out on him.

[Evangelical]

Hey bro Evangelical, good argument, and so true. Being an alternative viewer I could go into the early other gospels, with overlays such as Peter resurrecting a tuna fish, or his shadow having healing powers.

I guess we could say that, in the end Christianity is made up of overlays and interpolations ... and Nee and Lee came up with some new whoppers. Now that's a Recovery of The Church ; and Recovering back to the days of no overlays ... NOT!

So the local church doesn't celebrate the overlay of Christmas, but do honor the overlays of the vision of the age, ministry of the age, and minister of the age? Overlay selection and preference? Prejudice against one and not the others?

I'm laughing as much about the MOTA teachings as I did when I learned of the Blended Brothers ... that undermine and negate the MOTA doctrine ... by the way. I guess, maybe, that they are The Recovery of the church, recovering from their own blunders, of the MOTA doctrine overlay. But, oddly, that's a new overlay ; where is the term Blended Brothers in the scripture? Not even the disciples, who were most blended with Jesus, used that term.

Tell the truth : Lee's local church movement is full of laughable absurd overlays and interpolations on the scripture ... they even have a term for it. They call them footnotes.

And OH! brother. You forgot to give me a term of endearment.

Here's another -"church service", the term is not found in the Bible. Wait a minute, I just noticed you have capitalized Blended Brothers.

[Drake]

UntoHIm> ".....the only official definitions of these three pillars is the ones that emanate from the headquarters their on La Palma in Anaheim.
They are clearly delineated here: http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html (http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/VisionMinistryMinister.html)"

Yes, they are clearly delineated there..... but not here. There is no use of MOTA as if it were some official position like POTUS or SCOTUS or CEO. The use of "Minister of the Age" is used correctly in a title of a section of the article. In the body of the article Kerry is careful to use lowercase "minister of the age". His meaning is clear when he wrote:

"We should not be those who covet or vie for a name or position."

A minister of the age is not a position ..... it is a function, a description, or an identifier. I'm certain that will not satisfy those who seek to condemn and slander the brothers and sisters in the Lord's Recovery but those are the facts as clearly delineated in the article.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that anyone that wants to understand what the local churches teach about those three items should read that article. It is very well done.

Drake

[Drake]

Your statement and your conduct is not in alignment. The only person you may be fooling is yourself.

LofT,

How do you advise on post #93?

Drake

[awareness]

Here's another -"church service", the term is not found in the Bible. Wait a minute, I just noticed you have capitalized Blended Brothers.
Okay. I'll call you Blended Brother.

[ZNPaaneah]

UntoHIm> ".....the only official definitions of these three pillars is the ones that emanate from the headquarters their on La Palma in Anaheim.
They are clearly delineated here: http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html (http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/VisionMinistryMinister.html)"

Yes, they are clearly delineated there..... but not here. There is no use of MOTA as if it were some official position like POTUS or SCOTUS or CEO. The use of "Minister of the Age" is used correctly in a title of a section of the article. In the body of the article Kerry is careful to use lowercase "minister of the age". His meaning is clear when he wrote:

"We should not be those who covet or vie for a name or position."

A minister of the age is not a position ..... it is a function, a description, or an identifier. I'm certain that will not satisfy those who seek to condemn and slander the brothers and sisters in the Lord's Recovery but those are the facts as clearly delineated in the article.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that anyone that wants to understand what the local churches teach about those three items should read that article. It is very well done.

Drake


I would agree with this based on what I read concerning MOTA in LSM publications. But then you have to also take into account the Loyalty pledge that elders were required to sign, pledging loyalty to Witness Lee and his ministry. In addition you have to look into the allegations made that brothers were "disciplined" or "excommunicated" because they did not subscribe to a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee.

Yes, Kerry did a magnificent job of polishing a turd, but these allegations have been substantiated by many witnesses. According to the NT you only need 2-3 witnesses to justify an investigation.

In addition to this I knew many saints in the LRC that were quietly very offended at the new move to "pray read" Witness Lee's messages for morning watch rather than the Bible. No doubt Kerry could put a positive spin on that downplaying any appearance of elevating Witness Lee's words to put them on par with the Bible.

Finally, the recent allegations concerning Watchman Nee having been disciplined in Shanghai due to living with a mistress is very relevant. Witness Lee was certainly fully aware of what the truth is concerning Watchman Nee. If his account of Watchman Nee being excommunicated by elders who thought his mother was a mistress is not true then the perpetuation of this lie by Witness Lee is extremely relevant. Witness Lee is the one that taught that Watchman Nee was the Minister of the Age and that he was the closest coworker to Watchman Nee assigned to carry on the ministry. All of this adds up to a different motive for this doctrine. Personally I think it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove conclusively that Witness Lee's account was a lie. What I did find was a horrible paucity in Witness Lee's written ministry concerning Watchman Nee's discipline by the Shanghai elders. I find that reprehensible seeing how significant WN was to WL's ministry and his complete and total awareness of the other versions of what happened. If he had evidence that those claims were false he should have made a much better case. Once WN was dead he was free, as the leading coworker involved in the restoration of WN. Therefore I put the blame on not being able to disprove the accusations about WN on WL.

[leastofthese]

LofT,

Let’s say a miracle happens. Imagine every brother and sister in the Lord’s Recovery became convinced overnight that the local churches are not the Lords desire after all. They read your above post and it’s a Saturday night and they come to you and ask where they should meet tomorrow since it’s a Sunday.

Where would you tell them to go to church tomorrow?

Drake

Hey sorry Drake...never saw this post.

I'd invite them to church with me to sit with my family and introduce them to my friends.

[Evangelical]

Okay. I'll call you Blended Brother.

Lower case is better, e.g. blended brother. But I'm a blending brother as I am not blended enough yet.

[Drake]

Hey sorry Drake...never saw this post.

I'd invite them to church with me to sit with my family and introduce them to my friends.

hi LofT,

no problem.

Imagine every locality... not just yours.... how would you advise them wherever they are at?


Drake

[zeek]

I'm surprised an "alternative" someone such as yourself is going with the "it's not in the bible argument" when you know there are so many overlays Christianity has on the Bible. Even the concepts of New Testament and Old Testament, "age of grace" etc are overlays. The verse and chapter numbering is also overlays, and they also play a part in how the bible is interpreted. The term "faith alone" is also an overlay, given to us by the MOTA Luther and Calvin. But no verse in the bible saying that, ZNP was unable to produce it. There's even a "pagan" overlay coming up very soon - Christ mass. Christmas is a pagan overlay really on a concept the bible is silent about ( and we know that Jews did not celebrate birthdays, so trying to portray the nativity scene as Christ's first birthday celebration is naive).

We can even find overlays within the bible itself. Now here is one for you bible fundamentalists out there (awareness and myself included ;) )
Where in the Bible did Jesus ever say "saved by grace" or even use the word grace in a teaching, parable or conversation? The simple fact is that Jesus never taught or spoke about grace, as revealed in the 4 gospels. So the concept of grace in the Paul's letters was actually an overlay onto the gospels. Overlays, overlays, everywhere.

Trenchant observation. Obviously, when one finds an "overlay" literally stated in the Biblical text it can be unequivocally termed "Biblical". When an overlay isn't literally stated in the Bible, the question whether it is Biblical or not is a matter of judgment. Thus, the matter of whether or not "The Trinity" is biblical remains controversial to this day. It may be unequivocally stated to be literally extra-biblical even though, the orthodox see it represented there conceptually.

Whether or not Jesus' understanding of his work corresponds with Paul's concept of soteriology is another question, although an internal biblical one. Wittingly or not, with your "overlay" observation, you have opened up a theological can of worms. Nothing you said legitimates the Witness Lee's concepts of the vision, ministry or minister of the age in terms of the Bible.

[least]

1Peter says that we are "1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:"
......

We are going through a process of sanctification, but the goal is "Unto obedience" -- that indicates God has something for each one of us to accomplish and we need to obey. Finally, it is "unto the sprinkling of the blood". Generally we think of the blood as the starting point, the foundation on which we stand. But here the "sprinkling of the blood" is our ultimate goal. We will become priests, each one of us. Our life, our testimony, our speaking is like sprinkling the Lord's blood, a life supply, little drops of forgiveness and justification.
.....


Using IPeter 1:2 to explain/illustrate a mota or The MOTA teaching/doctrine/whatever – is far-fetched; my opinion. Me not interested.

I’m interested in your interpretation of ‘unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:’ .
Do you have source(s) for what you said (wrote), or it is your own understanding?
If you bother, can you write more on this verse (and verses and context) in this space?

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=5779
Nee Lee free zone.
Thanks.

[awareness]

I'm certain that will not satisfy those who seek to condemn and slander the brothers and sisters in the Lord's Recovery
I'll freely condemn and slander the system of the local church, their far out extra-Biblical teachings, and leaders, but not the brothers and sisters.

We don't condemn and slander people that require a crutch to walk. Why should we condemn or slander someone that needs the crutch of following a man?

We're all different. Some of us need someone to follow and some of us don't.

After the LC I decided I would never hook my wagon to a man ever again. It took me awhile, but I eventually learned to think for myself, and live on my own, without following someone else.

It hasn't always been easy, but I find comfort in the fact that it could always be worse ; I could still be in the LC.

And obviously, I'd like those in the LC to learn to live without following a man, but that's something they're gonna have to hopefully work out on their own.

Some people need a crutch to walk. They're not bad people. And it would be cruel to kick the crutch out from under someone that needs it, before their leg is strong enough to walk without it.

May those in the LC become strong enough to live without their crutch.

[HERn]

May those in the LC become strong enough to live without their crutch.

Wow! That is a priestly prayer. As long as the crutch is the Savior Jesus Christ I'm good; when the crutch becomes the ministry or the minister of the age, then I suggest a quick exit to a place where the Shepherd has healthier sheep.

[Koinonia]

Nee, Lee, and LSM love their first MOTA Martin Luther, but think about how many he stumbled out of Catholicism by exposing their Papal MOTA?

So it's no wonder that the Pope put a "hit" out on him.

This is the irony of the LC. Their history of the Lord's recovery is of people coming out of religious systems that had become corrupt. Until you get to the LC and everything becomes fixed, and no one should ever leave for any reason.

In the LC they have taken a spiritual principle (all the believers in a place constitute the the church that is in that place), codified it principle into a religious system, and then married the whole thing to institutionalized adulation of Witness Lee.

[Ohio]

This is the irony of the LC. Their history of the Lord's recovery is of people coming out of religious systems that had become corrupt. Until you get to the LC and everything becomes fixed, and no one should ever leave for any reason.

In the LC they have taken a spiritual principle (all the believers in a place constitute the the church that is in that place), codified it principle into a religious system, and then married the whole thing to institutionalized adulation of Witness Lee.

And this is exactly what Drake and Evangelical refuse to acknowledge -- that untold numbers of ex-members like us left the LSM and the LC's because this system had become corrupt.

[leastofthese]

hi LofT,
no problem.
Imagine every locality... not just yours.... how would you advise them wherever they are at?

Are you asking for a "friend" :D? I'd be happy to talk through it - send me a private message.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there is no perfect church. If a church claims (directly or indirectly) that they are the true church or even the BEST church - find another church. Search for a church that is theologically sound and has a deep desire to teach and live out the gospel according to scripture. This includes sound doctrine and biblical authority. Find a church that places an emphasis on Christian fellowship, community, and transparent relationships that allow for Christian relationship, spiritual growth, and discipleship. Find a church with a heart for its "locality". How is is serving, loving, and sharing truth with its neighbors. Find a church that has a heart for "going and making disciples of all nations". This is by no means an exhaustive list, but a quick attempt to respond. You see something that needs to change or could be done better - raise your hand, take action, and help.

Having moved around quite a bit, I've found this is small house churches and in mega churches. I guess there are other very practical suggestions since you mentioned "locality". I don't really understand what locality means...Google tells me it means, "a place, spot, or district, with or without reference to things or persons in it or to occurrences there".

If you happen to find a church of Witness Lee in your "locality", move along. If there is not.... one less landmine to worry about.

[awareness]

Wow! That is a priestly prayer. As long as the crutch is the Savior Jesus Christ I'm good; when the crutch becomes the ministry or the minister of the age, then I suggest a quick exit to a place where the Shepherd has healthier sheep.
Amen bro HERn ... you said in a few words what I was just struggling to say. Thanks.

[awareness]

And this is exactly what Drake and Evangelical refuse to acknowledge -- that untold numbers of ex-members like us left the LSM and the LC's because this system had become corrupt.
Oddly, and unlikely, they should have heeded Nietzsche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

Anyway, they became like those they were opposing, corrupt ... by falling into the trap of a personality cult leader.

[Evangelical]

Are you asking for a "friend" :D? I'd be happy to talk through it - send me a private message.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there is no perfect church. If a church claims (directly or indirectly) that they are the true church or even the BEST church - find another church. Search for a church that is theologically sound and has a deep desire to teach and live out the gospel according to scripture. This includes sound doctrine and biblical authority. Find a church that places an emphasis on Christian fellowship, community, and transparent relationships that allow for Christian relationship, spiritual growth, and discipleship. Find a church with a heart for its "locality". How is is serving, loving, and sharing truth with its neighbors. Find a church that has a heart for "going and making disciples of all nations". This is by no means an exhaustive list, but a quick attempt to respond. You see something that needs to change or could be done better - raise your hand, take action, and help.

Having moved around quite a bit, I've found this is small house churches and in mega churches. I guess there are other very practical suggestions since you mentioned "locality". I don't really understand what locality means...Google tells me it means, "a place, spot, or district, with or without reference to things or persons in it or to occurrences there".

If you happen to find a church of Witness Lee in your "locality", move along. If there is not.... one less landmine to worry about.

The Bible seems to give no advice about "finding a church". Why is that? (we all no why, just don't say it too loudly). In fact, there is no example in the Bible of a person looking for a church as opposed to the church. So finding a church invariably settles on finding one that makes you happy or feel connected, and suits your personality, rather than any biblical principles. Perhaps it is the good children or youth program that is also attractive for families, or the range of social activities and programs offered.

[Evangelical]

Drake, are you now playing the victim?

And you included Evangelical too? Some of the things he has posted to me are not fit for family reading. Is he also a victim? He is more critical of the untold members of the body of Christ than even Lee was.


Everyone has posted thing not fit for family reading.

[Koinonia]

The Bible seems to give no advice about "finding a church". Why is that? (we all no why, just don't say it too loudly). In fact, there is no example in the Bible of a person looking for a church as opposed to the church. So finding a church invariably settles on finding one that makes you happy or feel connected, and suits your personality, rather than any biblical principles. Perhaps it is the good children or youth program that is also attractive for families, or the range of social activities and programs offered.

The Bible doesn't talk about "ministry of the age" either. Yet, that is the basis of your gathering.

[leastofthese]

The Bible seems to give no advice about "finding a church". Why is that? (we all no why, just don't say it too loudly). In fact, there is no example in the Bible of a person looking for a church as opposed to the church. So finding a church invariably settles on finding one that makes you happy or feel connected, and suits your personality, rather than any biblical principles. Perhaps it is the good children or youth program that is also attractive for families, or the range of social activities and programs offered.

No one said anything about how the church makes you feel, youth programs, social activities, etc.

Feel free to start a new thread on the Evangelical approved method of finding a church. To piggy back off Drake, Imagine I became convinced overnight that my local church is not the Lords desire after all.... what do I do? How do I find a church?

[Evangelical]

No one said anything about how the church makes you feel, youth programs, social activities, etc.

Feel free to start a new thread on the Evangelical approved method of finding a church. To piggy back off Drake, Imagine I became convinced overnight that my local church is not the Lords desire after all.... what do I do? How do I find a church?

Sorry I can't really answer that because I don't believe finding a church as such is necessarily something God wants us to do and any advice would interfere. I was raised to believe that you go to the denomination of your parents/grandparents/great grandparents. I think that is a very old fashioned belief today. But I think all believers are the church so now fellowship with any believer is sufficient for me. Go where the Lord leads is the often heard saying in the local church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Sorry I can't really answer that because I don't believe finding a church as such is necessarily something God wants us to do and any advice would interfere. I was raised to believe that you go to the denomination of your parents/grandparents/great grandparents. I think that is a very old fashioned belief today. But I think all believers are the church so now fellowship with any believer is sufficient for me. Go where the Lord leads is the often heard saying in the local church.

If you really want the God and Father of Lord Jesus Christ to be blessed you would be a testimony of the resurrected Christ. That is the hope that we have according to God's abundant mercy. A testimony to the one who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamp stands, the one who is holy and true, the faithful and true witness.

[leastofthese]

Sorry I can't really answer that because I don't believe finding a church as such is necessarily something God wants us to do and any advice would interfere. I was raised to believe that you go to the denomination of your parents/grandparents/great grandparents. I think that is a very old fashioned belief today. But I think all believers are the church so now fellowship with any believer is sufficient for me. Go where the Lord leads is the often heard saying in the local church.

That is your response to one of God's children seeking the kingdom and a fellowship of believers? Tell them that God doesn't want them to find a church?

Also, I don't remember hearing "go where the Lord leads" during my time with the Lord's Recovery.

[Evangelical]

That is your response to one of God's children seeking the kingdom and a fellowship of believers? Tell them that God doesn't want them to find a church?

Also, I don't remember hearing "go where the Lord leads" during my time with the Lord's Recovery.

They don't need a church for that. They can fellowship anywhere and seek the kingdom does not mean seek a church. A person may not necessarily find fellowship in a church. For example, for 5 years I fellowshipped in a shop, not a church. So I would not tell someone to find a shop or a church, I'd tell them to find fellowship.

Like I said before, the Bible never says to "find a church". It says find fellowship.

[A little brother]

They don't need a church for that. They can fellowship anywhere and seek the kingdom does not mean seek a church. A person may not necessarily find fellowship in a church. For example, for 5 years I fellowshipped in a shop, not a church. So I would not tell someone to find a shop or a church, I'd tell them to find fellowship.

Like I said before, the Bible never says to "find a church". It says find fellowship.

Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. From what you said, either:


You still think "church" is a building; or
You are not deeply into LC's "live the church life" practices


Either way, it means you are not yet absolute to LC's teachings. That is a good sign.

[Evangelical]

Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. From what you said, either:


You still think "church" is a building; or
You are not deeply into LC's "live the church life" practices


Either way, it means you are not yet absolute to LC's teachings. That is a good sign.

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe church is simply a gathering of believers or "called out" ones. That is from Witness Lee.

[Koinonia]

I'm not sure what you mean. I believe church is simply a gathering of believers or "called out" ones. That is from Witness Lee.

No, it is from the Bible.

[Evangelical]

No, it is from the Bible.

Yes. Everything from Witness Lee is from the Bible ;). But Lee taught it, I learnt it from him. Actually, Watchman Nee first. But in the bible it is not obvious. The English Bible mangles the definition of church in the translation. Some people like Nee/Lee need to explain it.

[awareness]

Mat 18:20* For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.*

[Koinonia]

Yes. Everything from Witness Lee is from the Bible ;). But Lee taught it, I learnt it from him. Actually, Watchman Nee first. But in the bible it is not obvious. The English Bible mangles the definition of church in the translation. Some people like Nee/Lee need to explain it.

How very sad.

[Ohio]

Yes. Everything from Witness Lee is from the Bible ;). But Lee taught it, I learnt it from him. Actually, Watchman Nee first. But in the bible it is not obvious. The English Bible mangles the definition of church in the translation. Some people like Nee/Lee need to explain it.

Wrong!

This forum is filled with refutations of Lee's teachings that are NOT from the Bible, like the MOTA and the false ground of locality.

[Evangelical]

Wrong!

This forum is filled with refutations of Lee's teachings that are NOT from the Bible, like the MOTA and the false ground of locality.

I think the ground of locality is a very biblical pattern, for example this verse says every place, not every denomination:

1 Cor 1:2:
to the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to [those] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours:

Here, the apostle is pointing their attention to the Christians in the locality (every place), to divert their attention away from the narrow factions that were present at Corinth.

Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia. (Vincent's Word Studies)

[Ohio]

I think the ground of locality is a very biblical pattern, for example this verse says every place, not every denomination:

1 Cor 1:2:
to the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to [those] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours:

Here, the apostle is pointing their attention to the Christians in the locality (every place), to divert their attention away from the narrow factions that were present at Corinth.

Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia. (Vincent's Word Studies)
Biblical pattern? Not really. Not in Rome. For one place.

Once again, you condemn every other congregation as some dreaded "denomination," yet not your own?

Paul is the "head of Christianity?" I don't think so.

[leastofthese]

They don't need a church for that. They can fellowship anywhere and seek the kingdom does not mean seek a church. A person may not necessarily find fellowship in a church. For example, for 5 years I fellowshipped in a shop, not a church. So I would not tell someone to find a shop or a church, I'd tell them to find fellowship.

Like I said before, the Bible never says to "find a church". It says find fellowship.

I know this is difficult for you. But try to go off script.

So I'm asking you how to find fellowship, but I called it a church. How do I find fellowship?

[Drake]

The Bible doesn't talk about "ministry of the age" either. Yet, that is the basis of your gathering.

Interesting.

If that is what you believe then you never really saw or understood the truth concerning Gods purpose of the ages and our basis for meeting accordingly.

Drake

[Drake]

Are you asking for a "friend" :D? I'd be happy to talk through it - send me a private message.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there is no perfect church. If a church claims (directly or indirectly) that they are the true church or even the BEST church - find another church. Search for a church that is theologically sound and has a deep desire to teach and live out the gospel according to scripture. This includes sound doctrine and biblical authority. Find a church that places an emphasis on Christian fellowship, community, and transparent relationships that allow for Christian relationship, spiritual growth, and discipleship. Find a church with a heart for its "locality". How is is serving, loving, and sharing truth with its neighbors. Find a church that has a heart for "going and making disciples of all nations". This is by no means an exhaustive list, but a quick attempt to respond. You see something that needs to change or could be done better - raise your hand, take action, and help.

Having moved around quite a bit, I've found this is small house churches and in mega churches. I guess there are other very practical suggestions since you mentioned "locality". I don't really understand what locality means...Google tells me it means, "a place, spot, or district, with or without reference to things or persons in it or to occurrences there".

If you happen to find a church of Witness Lee in your "locality", move along. If there is not.... one less landmine to worry about.

LofT

There are many denominations that do not fit your criterion. Neither does the Catholic Church.

So exclude those and anything else will do?

Drake

[Koinonia]

Interesting.

If that is what you believe then you never really saw or understood the truth concerning Gods purpose of the ages and our basis for meeting accordingly.

Drake

If only that were the basis, Drake.

[leastofthese]

LofT

There are many denominations that do not fit your criterion. Neither does the Catholic Church.

So exclude those and anything else will do?

Drake

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here... Like a said, PM me and I'd be happy to help you find a new church.

[Drake]

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here... Like a said, PM me and I'd be happy to help you find a new church.

Don’t read in, LofT.

If everyone in the local churches read your posts and a miracle happened and they all asked you where to meet then you provided the guidance. However, not every Christian denomination, nor the Catholic Church, matches your guidance.

Therefore, you are not embracing just any Christian denomination, rather with I assume good intent and for the benefit of those seeking you are recommending things to look for to provide the best recommendation for a place to meet.

Yes?

Drake

[Drake]

If only that were the basis, Drake.

It is for me, Koinonia.

Drake

[Koinonia]

It is for me, Koinonia.

Drake

Very good.

But, Drake, if your church were to stop following LSM, what would you do? If LSM coworkers were then to set up another meeting on the other side of town, where would you go?

And this is a legitimate question--because it has happened many times before.

[Drake]

Very good.

But, Drake, if your church were to stop following LSM, what would you do? If LSM coworkers were then to set up another meeting on the other side of town, where would you go?

And this is a legitimate question--because it has happened many times before.

I will endeavor to follow what the Lord has shown me whether there is an LSM publishing business or not. That also means that if a brother rejects the ministry of life I have received then I will not receive that ones teaching. It also means if someone wants to do their thing then I will not follow them. Most of the time the real issue with opposers and dissenters is not that I follow Brother Nee and Brother Lees ministry, it’s that I refuse to follow theirs.

Drake

[Koinonia]

I will endeavor to follow what the Lord has shown me whether there is an LSM publishing business or not. That also means that if a brother rejects the ministry of life I have received then I will not receive that ones teaching. It also means if someone wants to do their thing then I will not follow them. Most of the time the real issue with opposers and dissenters is not that I follow Brother Nee and Brother Lees ministry, it’s that I refuse to follow theirs.

Drake

This is slander against brothers who chose to follow their conscience.

John Ingalls, for example, could not abide the decade-long cover-up of sexual assault in the LSM office. He also disagreed with the Elders Training loyalty pledge to Witness Lee and the increasing interference of LSM in church affairs.

Do these make Ingalls an "opposer" and "dissenter"?

[Koinonia]

I will endeavor to follow what the Lord has shown me whether there is an LSM publishing business or not. That also means that if a brother rejects the ministry of life I have received then I will not receive that ones teaching. It also means if someone wants to do their thing then I will not follow them. Most of the time the real issue with opposers and dissenters is not that I follow Brother Nee and Brother Lees ministry, it’s that I refuse to follow theirs.

Drake

Your post is yet another demonstration of the classic leap from "ground of the church" to "minister of the age." LC members start by defending one and then somehow leap to the other. It is a total contradiction of belief.

[TLFisher]

I think the ground of locality is a very biblical pattern, for example this verse says every place, not every denomination:

1 Cor 1:2:
to the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to [those] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours:

Here, the apostle is pointing their attention to the Christians in the locality (every place), to divert their attention away from the narrow factions that were present at Corinth.

Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia. (Vincent's Word Studies)
Is it a problem to have multiple assemblies in a given locality meeting on the ground of locality, but not having fellowship with each other?

[Drake]

John Ingalls, for example, could not abide the decade-long cover-up of sexual assault in the LSM office.

Don’t hide behind Brother John Ingalls. You and others conveniently use him to distract from the present conversation.

Here is some straight talk since you brought him up: John Ingalls should have called the police. He was the leading elder where this assault occurred. He tolerated criminal activity for a decade?

Drake

[TLFisher]

Once again, you condemn every other congregation as some dreaded "denomination," yet not your own?

I have heard no sound argument to refute why everyone else is a denomination, but not the local churches. Exact as the local churches speak, there are many fellowship of churches that regard as everyone else as denominations but not themselves. You have Exclusive Brethren, Iglesia Ni Christo, International Church of Christ, etc.
Rebuttals please.

[Koinonia]

Don’t hide behind Brother John Ingalls. You and others conveniently use him to distract from the present conversation.

Here is some straight talk since you brought him up: John Ingalls should have called the police. He was the leading elder where this assault occurred. He tolerated criminal activity for a decade?

Drake

Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police. How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.

Should the sisters assaulted by the MOTA's son leave the LC movement? Or should they stay? And don't misunderstand me, Drake--this is a question about the "ground of the church."

[Drake]

Your post is yet another demonstration of the classic leap from "ground of the church" to "minister of the age." LC members start by defending one and then somehow leap to the other. It is a total contradiction of belief.

Koinonia,

You have no idea what I am referring to. You color your world one way over and over and therefore cannot see any other hues.

How about this scenario.....

A couple move to a city where there was a local church but the brothers there no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple not wanting to start another local church opened a dialogue with the elder of that local church to share their sincere desire to meet with them even though they no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple also recognized that Brother Lees ministry was replaced by an opposing leading brother’s own ministry and speaking. Nevertheless, the couple said they wanted to meet anyway rather than start another local church in the same city. However, the couple would not be willing to throw away everything the Lord has shown them nor would they be silent about the nourishment they received from Brother Lees ministry and yet they would endeavor to fellowship in life and mutuality and receive in the same spirit from the brothers and sisters in that local church. The elder, his wife, and the couple agreed and felt this was a good arrangement. Then the elder said he needed to “check with the leading brothers in the lead church” and if the leading brothers in the lead church also agreed with the arrangement and were willing to receive the couple then he would notify the couple and they could start meeting together right away. Weeks passed, no call. Months passed, no call. The elder never called the couple to receive them into the fellowship. Obviously, the dissenting leading brothers did not agree with the elder.

The couple would have been justified establishing a true local church in the same city.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Biblical pattern? Not really. Not in Rome. For one place.

Once again, you condemn every other congregation as some dreaded "denomination," yet not your own?

Paul is the "head of Christianity?" I don't think so.

Well you are disagreeing with Vincent's Word Studies there. Embarrassing.

Marvin Richardson Vincent (1834-1922) was a Presbyterian minister, best known for his Word Studies in the New Testament. From 1888, he was professor of New Testament exegesis and criticism at Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

[Drake]

Koinonia>”Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police”

So then, why did John Ingalls tolerate criminal activity for a decade? What are the possible explanations for that?

The farce Koinonia is that you and others use Brother John Ingalls when you run out of anything convincing to say about a topic. Frankly, I think it is appalling that you use that disgusting situation as the basis of all your arguments regardless of the actual conversation. In the past, I wondered how one might identify an obsession but this forum has certainly helped to see obsession in all its pitiful wallowing.

By the way, why didn’t you call the police?

Drake

[Evangelical]

I know this is difficult for you. But try to go off script.

So I'm asking you how to find fellowship, but I called it a church. How do I find fellowship?

I would pray and ask God to provide Christian fellowship, and then wait for the result. The Bible does not provide any guidance on how to "find fellowship", it does however record people who were led by God to a certain fellowship.

[Evangelical]

Is it a problem to have multiple assemblies in a given locality meeting on the ground of locality, but not having fellowship with each other?

Yes is a problem I think. Should come together sometimes eg once a month.

[Koinonia]

Koinonia>”Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police”

So then, why did John Ingalls tolerate criminal activity for a decade? What are the possible explanations for that?

You ignored this part:

How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.

The farce Koinonia is that you and others use Brother John Ingalls when you run out of anything convincing to say about a topic. Frankly, I think it is appalling that you use that disgusting situation as the basis of all your arguments regardless of the actual conversation. In the past, I wondered how one might identify an obsession but this forum has certainly helped to see obsession in all its pitiful wallowing.

By the way, why didn’t you call the police?

I wasn't there. What's your excuse?

Also, the reason why this is an issue is because it discredits two cherished LC concepts: 1) "minister of the age" and 2) "opposers/dissenters."

[Koinonia]

Koinonia,

You have no idea what I am referring to. You color your world one way over and over and therefore cannot see any other hues.

How about this scenario.....

A couple move to a city where there was a local church but the brothers there no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple not wanting to start another local church opened a dialogue with the elder of that local church to share their sincere desire to meet with them even though they no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple also recognized that Brother Lees ministry was replaced by an opposing leading brother’s own ministry and speaking. Nevertheless, the couple said they wanted to meet anyway rather than start another local church in the same city. However, the couple would not be willing to throw away everything the Lord has shown them nor would they be silent about the nourishment they received from Brother Lees ministry and yet they would endeavor to fellowship in life and mutuality and receive in the same spirit from the brothers and sisters in that local church. The elder, his wife, and the couple agreed and felt this was a good arrangement. Then the elder said he needed to “check with the leading brothers in the lead church” and if the leading brothers in the lead church also agreed with the arrangement and were willing to receive the couple then he would notify the couple and they could start meeting together right away. Weeks passed, no call. Months passed, no call. The elder never called the couple to receive them into the fellowship. Obviously, the dissenting leading brothers did not agree with the elder.

The couple would have been justified establishing a true local church in the same city.

Drake

Is this a real scenario?

How about this one--

Various coworkers find the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, Witness Lee's son, sexually assaulting serving sisters at different times over a ten-year period. This is covered up by Witness Lee and some of those close to him. Anyone who raises the issue is expelled and labeled an "opposer" and "dissenter."

Would any person bothered by this (including those sisters sexually assaulted) be justified in leaving the Local Church movement?

[awareness]

Koinonia,

You have no idea what I am referring to. You color your world one way over and over and therefore cannot see any other hues.

How about this scenario.....

A couple move to a city where there was a local church but the brothers there no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple not wanting to start another local church opened a dialogue with the elder of that local church to share their sincere desire to meet with them even though they no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple also recognized that Brother Lees ministry was replaced by an opposing leading brother’s own ministry and speaking. Nevertheless, the couple said they wanted to meet anyway rather than start another local church in the same city. However, the couple would not be willing to throw away everything the Lord has shown them nor would they be silent about the nourishment they received from Brother Lees ministry and yet they would endeavor to fellowship in life and mutuality and receive in the same spirit from the brothers and sisters in that local church. The elder, his wife, and the couple agreed and felt this was a good arrangement. Then the elder said he needed to “check with the leading brothers in the lead church” and if the leading brothers in the lead church also agreed with the arrangement and were willing to receive the couple then he would notify the couple and they could start meeting together right away. Weeks passed, no call. Months passed, no call. The elder never called the couple to receive them into the fellowship. Obviously, the dissenting leading brothers did not agree with the elder.

The couple would have been justified establishing a true local church in the same city.

Drake
I'm not sure what your point is, but :

Lee and his LSM loyalists have ignored the one church one city way back in the 70s. When Lee had five localities migrate to Ft. Lauderdale, Bob Mumford had already taken the ground in the city of Ft. Lauderdale.

I remember it well. The Lee leaders were in a quandary. They went and met with Mumford. But Mumford wasn't aligned with Lee.

So what did they do? Well they went and declared that they were the church in Ft. Lauderdale anyway, ignoring their "Biblical ground principle."

I'm also sure others can tell of LSM aligned leaders taking the ground when it was already taken by nonaligned churches that had taken the ground.

Detroit, where Kangas was elder, had the ground back with Kangas. But after most, not all, saints migrated, they fell away from Lee. So now there's two churches on the ground in Detroit, one aligned with LSM and one not.

LSM is willy-nilly with the ground doctrine. They don't really hold to it. They care more about their top down organization than their ground rule.

[leastofthese]

Don’t read in, LofT.

If everyone in the local churches read your posts and a miracle happened and they all asked you where to meet then you provided the guidance. However, not every Christian denomination, nor the Catholic Church, matches your guidance.

Therefore, you are not embracing just any Christian denomination, rather with I assume good intent and for the benefit of those seeking you are recommending things to look for to provide the best recommendation for a place to meet.

Yes?

Drake

I guess the answer is yes? I was responding to your question like I would if anyone asked me. I don't have all the answers, but I'm happy to walk through that process with you. Come be a part of my fellowship, I'll introduce you to my peeps. You don't live in my city? Well I'm not familiar with what is available where you live and your situation. Maybe your wife only understands Spanish and you need to fellowship (I'm changing my language from church to fellowship to help our brother Evangelical) with people she can understand.

I've seen a lot, I've moved around a lot. I'm always interested to help someone who is earnestly seeking the Lord. Let me know what I can do.

[Ohio]

The farce Koinonia is that you and others use Brother John Ingalls when you run out of anything convincing to say about a topic. Frankly, I think it is appalling that you use that disgusting situation as the basis of all your arguments regardless of the actual conversation. In the past, I wondered how one might identify an obsession but this forum has certainly helped to see obsession in all its pitiful wallowing.

Drake, thank you for finally admitting to us that you were aware of the corruption and unrighteousness at LSM. You were part of the problem, and never part of the solution.

The sordid, abusive and degenerate history of Timothy and Philip Lee, as bad as it was, is really not what troubled all the brothers, including me.

I suppose all of us are entitled to a bad child or two. Aye?

I give all politicians a pass for being liars and crooks, so I could do the same for W. Lee. What I can't overlook is treason, siding with the enemy to damage the family of God.

So, what troubled us was Lee's own behavior, and not just with Ingalls, but going back to China, Taiwan, and the US. The many and regular "storms" in the Recovery were never about persecution or rebellion, rather they were always used by W. Lee to silence those who spoke their conscience. Those over the years who stuck out their neck on behalf of righteousness in order to protect the children of God. In return, Lee and his cadre bore false witness against them via slander and libel. It worked pretty well until the internet came along. No wonder he hated it so much.

Drake, you are not responsible for what you don't know, but for what you do know. Shame on you for siding with unrighteousness.

[Ohio]

Very good.

But, Drake, if your church were to stop following LSM, what would you do? If LSM coworkers were then to set up another meeting on the other side of town, where would you go?

And this is a legitimate question--because it has happened many times before.
It happened to the 3 LC's I was a part of.

I have first hand experience that convinces me that LSM cares nothing for oneness, or their so-called ground of oneness.

It is all just a smokescreen and a false standard used to uplift themselves and condemn all others.

[Ohio]

Drake, what a farce. You are right about one thing--someone should have called the police. How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.

Should the sisters assaulted by the MOTA's son leave the LC movement? Or should they stay? And don't misunderstand me, Drake--this is a question about the "ground of the church."
One senior brother at LSM walked into the Ball Road office of Philip Lee with a sister on his lap.

Apparently that was consensual.

[Ohio]

Koinonia,

You have no idea what I am referring to. You color your world one way over and over and therefore cannot see any other hues.

How about this scenario.....

A couple move to a city where there was a local church but the brothers there no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple not wanting to start another local church opened a dialogue with the elder of that local church to share their sincere desire to meet with them even though they no longer followed the ministry of Brother Lee. The couple also recognized that Brother Lees ministry was replaced by an opposing leading brother’s own ministry and speaking.

The couple would have been justified establishing a true local church in the same city.

Drake
Now we finally know Drake's unique definition of a true local church -- one in which Witness Lee's ministry is received and loved, and no other.

This is absolutely contrary to Nee's writing in TNCCL.

[Ohio]

Well you are disagreeing with Vincent's Word Studies there. Embarrassing.

Marvin Richardson Vincent (1834-1922) was a Presbyterian minister, best known for his Word Studies in the New Testament. From 1888, he was professor of New Testament exegesis and criticism at Union Theological Seminary, New York City.
1 Cor 1:2: to the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to [those] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours:

Here, the apostle is pointing their attention to the Christians in the locality (every place), to divert their attention away from the narrow factions that were present at Corinth.

Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia. (Vincent's Word Studies)
Paul founded the church in Corinth and was their apostle, but he was not their "head," he made that quite clear to the church.

Since you cite Marvin Vincent, where does he endorse the concept of MOTA, the "acting God," the ground of oneness, or that man becomes God?

Embarrassing for you.

[Evangelical]

Paul founded the church in Corinth and was their apostle, but he was not their "head," he made that quite clear to the church.

Since you cite Marvin Vincent, where does he endorse the concept of MOTA, the "acting God," the ground of oneness, or that man becomes God?

Embarrassing for you.

Why does Vincent have to endorse it. Even if he did it seems you would disagree with it, Professor O.

[Ohio]

Why does Vincent have to endorse it. Even if he did it seems you would disagree with it, Professor O.

You're right, I would disagree.

[Drake]

Is this a real scenario?

How about this one--

Various coworkers find the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, Witness Lee's son, sexually assaulting serving sisters at different times over a ten-year period. This is covered up by Witness Lee and some of those close to him. Anyone who raises the issue is expelled and labeled an "opposer" and "dissenter."

Would any person bothered by this (including those sisters sexually assaulted) be justified in leaving the Local Church movement?

Yes, that is a real scenario. Leave your talking points and address the scenario. Do you agree that the couple would have been justified in starting a local church meeting in the same city and if so why? If not , why not?

I will address your last question in response to your other post.

Drake

[Drake]

You ignored this part:

How about Witness Lee? Instead, he forced out two groups of his coworkers who discovered at different times that the manager of the ministry-of-the-age publishing house, his son, was groping sisters at 1853 W. Ball Road. The first was in the 1970s (Max Rapoport). The second was in the 1980s (John Ingalls). It was Witness Lee who led the cover-up, not John Ingalls. Then he concocted a "fermentation of the present rebellion" around anyone who dared mention it.



I wasn't there. What's your excuse?

Also, the reason why this is an issue is because it discredits two cherished LC concepts: 1) "minister of the age" and 2) "opposers/dissenters."

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense. If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

[Ohio]

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense. If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

You keep saying "lead elder," but there were 5 elders in Anaheim and they were constantly overrun by that publishing house. Two of the elders constantly rejected unrighteousness and protected criminal activity.

Drake your hypocrisy is showing. When it comes to outsiders, then you appeal to Caesar, and use the law to the fullest extent, even to the SCOTUS. But when it comes to serious criminal activity, then you stress the other part of I Cor 6 about not going to the authorities, and keeping everything "in house." Why did W. Lee constantly assure the brothers that he "would take care of Philip?" Well ... He sure did!

The real "lead elder" in Anaheim was Witness Lee. Why didn't he call the police? Didn't he give a couple lengthy conferences on how the Kingdom of God is built on righteousness?

How do we know you weren't part of the crimes or the coverup?

[zeek]

Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia. (Vincent's Word Studies)

If Paul is "the founder and apostolic head of Christianity", what is Jesus?

[zeek]

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense. If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

Are you familiar with this text? http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=6020

[Drake]

Are you familiar with this text? http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=6020

Yes zeek, I am.

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

How do you think Brother John would have felt about the way he is used in this forum by some who take the very way that grieved him?

Drake

[Koinonia]

Yes, that is a real scenario. Leave your talking points and address the scenario. Do you agree that the couple would have been justified in starting a local church meeting in the same city and if so why? If not , why not?

I will address you last question in response to your other post.

Drake

I agree that these leaders were wrong not to receive this couple--assuming the scenario played out as you described. In many other instances, this was not the situation. As we know, in various places in the Midwest, not following LSM became justification not just for new meetings, but for lawsuits over meeting halls.

[Koinonia]

To your question about justified in leaving, I would have advised the sisters and family members to get out of that situation, file charges, prosecute to the full extent of the law, and seek recompense.

So, would the abused, and those bothered by Witness Lee's coverup, be justified in leaving the Local Church movement?

If Brother John Ingalls as the lead elder at Ball Rd did not do anything for ten years then why?

I’d like to know why the lead elder allowed criminal acts to be knowingly committed for a decade at Ball Rd. Please explain. You weren’t there but you seem to know everything about it so you can enlighten us and put it in public record forever. Tell us.... why?

Drake

Yes, they most certainly should have removed Philip Lee sooner, and also involved law enforcement. Unfortunately, they trusted Witness Lee to take care of it. And Witness Lee kept his son in place, despite the repeated, known cases of sexual misconduct, and expelled any leaders that dared to address it. Given his response, I'm sure he would have expelled them even sooner had they tried to do more.

[Drake]

I guess the answer is yes? I was responding to your question like I would if anyone asked me. I don't have all the answers, but I'm happy to walk through that process with you. Come be a part of my fellowship, I'll introduce you to my peeps. You don't live in my city? Well I'm not familiar with what is available where you live and your situation. Maybe your wife only understands Spanish and you need to fellowship (I'm changing my language from church to fellowship to help our brother Evangelical) with people she can understand.

I've seen a lot, I've moved around a lot. I'm always interested to help someone who is earnestly seeking the Lord. Let me know what I can do.

Right LofT,

Not just any fellowship is fine. Your advice to someone seeking a place to meet is to look for certain things.... thereby, will they get the best care for spiritual growth. Of course if someone ultimately decides to reject your advice and become a Catholic you wouldn’t berate them for their decision.

Right?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes zeek, I am.

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

How do you think Brother John would have felt about the way he is used in this forum by some who take the very way that grieved him?

Drake

This is an excellent question, "what is the correct way for a believer to take?"

Let me share my personal experience and perhaps you can critique this approach.

In addition to John's book there were other events that corroborated his account. For example, after the elders in Anaheim were replaced the new elders wrote an apology to Phillip Lee. This apology seems, on the face of it, to be exceedingly insulting to all those who were directly harmed by Phillip Lee and to all those who were offended by his actions. One of the signatories was Ed Marks.

I have known Ed since the days he first came into the church in Houston. We were in Houston together for 3 years and then we both went to Irving and were there together for another 18 months. Also we both worked as trainers in the FTT (I was in Taipei, he was in Anaheim). So then, after reading about John's book on this forum, learning far more details about these events and then learning about this apology letter I heard that Ed was coming to NY to visit. This was the first chance I had to meet with him since learning these things. I met him at dinner Monday night, there was a small gathering at the meeting hall and we ate before the meeting. I went up to him privately, though his wife and a few others were also present at the table, and I asked him about the apology letter he signed.

To his credit he didn't attempt to justify it. However he did argue weakly that with PL's passing perhaps the discussion was in bad taste? He also indicated that his behavior was like the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" monkeys. This may have been due to an awareness of what is written about him on the internet. Finally, his last argument was "this made Witness Lee" happy. He then asked to see the copy of the letter I had printed out and what was quite interesting to me was he also wanted the envelope I had brought it in. Ed then left to confer with the elders in NY (Brother James and Brother Benjamin were both alive at that time). About 30 minutes later I was asked to leave the building and was told "he doesn't want to deal with this at this time". Now this took place more than 30 years after the PL incident and just about 30 years after the apology letter was dated. I considered his interest in the envelope to indicate that they would see if there were any other saints to be "disciplined" over this discussion.

So please explain to me why this approach by me was "grievous"?

How is it that an elder can say "he doesn't want to deal with this now" thirty years later, after so many have been offended, stumbled over this issue? How are you not grieved at that behavior?

Personally I wonder how this complaint will be received at the judgement seat of Christ -- "they did not complain about the sin properly, so I did nothing".

[leastofthese]

Right LofT,

Not just any fellowship is fine. Your advice to someone seeking a place to meet is to look for certain things.... thereby, will they get the best care for spiritual growth. Of course if someone ultimately decides to reject your advice and become a Catholic you wouldn’t berate them for their decision.

Right?

Drake

My mom was Catholic and became a believer, same with my uncle. I still have family members that claim to be Catholic. I do not berate them.

Why would I berate them for that decision? It would sadden me, and hopefully I would pray for them.

[zeek]

Yes zeek, I am.

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

How do you think Brother John would have felt about the way he is used in this forum by some who take the very way that grieved him?

Drake

I'm not sure who on this forum you are referring to. You'd have to be more specific for me to respond. You were critical of the way John Ingalls handled the Phillip Lee affair. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the Speaking the Truth in Love text where Ingalls goes into excruciating detail about how he responded to the matter.

[Ohio]

Do you remember this quote...

“Beginning on the Lord’s Day, September 4th, and continuing in every Lord’s Day morning meeting for over a month, some of the saints in Anaheim interrupted the meeting with derogatory remarks concerning Brother Lee, even mentioning his name. Most all the saints, including ourselves, felt grieved over this, considering it to be out of place and not helping the situation. That the saints were outraged was evident; that their grievances were justifiable, we believed in major part they were; but the way they took was objectionable. ”

Drake
Dear Drake,

Does your quote above sound like it was written by someone who was currently masterminding a vast global conspiracy to overthrow the ministry of Witness Lee? :rollingeyesfrown:

That, of course, was Lee's entire basis for the public meetings and books written against John Ingalls et.al.

[UntoHim]

Since we're quoting from Speaking the Truth in Love I thought I would bring back a few of these little diddies:

"That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me,
you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me."

And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none.

"Whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in,
what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you."

"I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care.
I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth."

Apparently the scales had finally fallen off of the eyes of dear brother Ingalls. He finally saw Witness Lee for who he really was. At a later date John admitted that a number of older brothers from Lee's earlier days in China and Taiwan had warned him about this side of Lee - the REAL Witness Lee. Better late than never, brother John, better late than never........

"Now I would ask, are these the words of a sober man, the words of a spiritual man, a man of God? To me it is shocking to hear him speak this way, for he has indeed been used of God in the past to speak His Word. But to vindicate oneself so blatantly and boastfully indicates to me a fall. May the Lord have mercy on us all."
-

[Ohio]

"Whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in, what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you."


He sounds horribly paranoid. Witness Lee had long sown seeds of suspicion into his loyal adherents, and now was reaping them.

After Lee's death, the Blendeds still cultivated this same system of "sleeper cells" around the country, constantly reporting back to headquarters, and waiting for specific coded language from the podium in order to spring into action.

[Evangelical]

If Paul is "the founder and apostolic head of Christianity", what is Jesus?

Jesus would be the Head (capital H).

[ZNPaaneah]

Jesus would be the Head (capital H).

So let me see if I understand. Paul is the small h head (founder and apostolic head of Christianity) Jesus is the capital H head?

Now Jesus has not left us, He indwells us. But Paul is no longer with us, he is with the Lord.

Jesus as head is practical, operating through every member, touching their conscience, enlightening their spirit. He is the comforter that guides us. I can see that Jesus is the head of the Body.

3 Questions

But what function is Paul, a "small h head" performing?

Why does "Christianity" need two heads?

How many times in the book of Acts did Peter and Paul reject any attempt to elevate them to a status comparable to Jesus?

[ZNPaaneah]

Since we're quoting from Speaking the Truth in Love I thought I would bring back a few of these little diddies:

"That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me,
you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me."
-

11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[Evangelical]

3 Questions
But what function is Paul, a "small h head" performing?
Why does "Christianity" need two heads?
How many times in the book of Acts did Peter and Paul reject any attempt to elevate them to a status comparable to Jesus?

I believe this article answers it :

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-of-the-church.html

Why does wife need two heads?

1 Cor 11:3 ....the head of a wife is her husband

Why do churches need human leaders?

Church members are to follow Christ first and earthly leaders second, as those leaders emulate Christ (see 1 Corinthians 11:1 and 1 Peter 5:3–4). (Gotquestions.org)

Are all church leaders in an elevated position with Jesus?

Why God placed apostles first in the church? (1 Corinthians 12:28)

[zeek]

Jesus would be the Head (capital H).

Two heads= Two masters. Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

[ZNPaaneah]

I believe this article answers it :
https://www.gotquestions.org/head-of-the-church.html

Yes, I do not see anything in that reference that indicates a need for the apostle Paul to be a "small h head" for the church.

Second you have changed my question into why does the church need leaders, not my question.

You said that Paul was the "small h head" of Christianity. Besides having no scriptural basis, and besides the fact that this is a ridiculous doctrine, it is also something that Paul and Peter both rejected in the clearest terms when others attempted similar things.

[Ohio]

In addition to John's book there were other events that corroborated his account. For example, after the elders in Anaheim were replaced the new elders wrote an apology to Phillip Lee. This apology seems, on the face of it, to be exceedingly insulting to all those who were directly harmed by Phillip Lee and to all those who were offended by his actions. One of the signatories was Ed Marks....
Funny how Ed Marks got the aging NYC elders to protect him from a "light shining in a dark place."

We always found Ed Marks to be a little strange. He would constantly talk about loving and visiting the LC's, yet he never once visited my old LC, even though he grew up just a couple miles from our meeting hall. One time Ed was shopping on the street just one hundred feet from the meeting hall, and an elder spotted him. We used to pick his mom up and bring her to the video training so she could see Ed speak. Yet he never attempted to visit us. Like I said a little strange.

[Drake]

My mom was Catholic and became a believer, same with my uncle. I still have family members that claim to be Catholic. I do not berate them.
Why would I berate them for that decision? It would sadden me, and hopefully I would pray for them.

Super.

The brothers and sisters in the local churches are following their conscience and convictions also. Allow them the same liberty and support.

Thanks
Drake

[leastofthese]

Super. The brothers and sisters in the local churches are following their conscience and convictions also. Allow them the same liberty and support. Thanks

It would be a disservice not to warn people about this cult movement. I'm sorry if you feel I have berated you.

Seek the truth Drake. If my conduct has been berating, I'd hate to see what you'd say about Witness Lee if you were able to remove your Lee framed glasses.

[Drake]

Since we're quoting from Speaking the Truth in Love I thought I would bring back a few of these little diddies:

"That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me,
you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me."

And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none.

"Whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in,
what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you."

"I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care.
I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth."

Apparently the scales had finally fallen off of the eyes of dear brother Ingalls. He finally saw Witness Lee for who he really was. At a later date John admitted that a number of older brothers from Lee's earlier days in China and Taiwan had warned him about this side of Lee - the REAL Witness Lee. Better late than never, brother John, better late than never........

"Now I would ask, are these the words of a sober man, the words of a spiritual man, a man of God? To me it is shocking to hear him speak this way, for he has indeed been used of God in the past to speak His Word. But to vindicate oneself so blatantly and boastfully indicates to me a fall. May the Lord have mercy on us all."
-

And yet..... Brother John Ingalls said in the same breath with above:

“Before the conference began a report came to us that a flyer had been printed and would be placed on the windshields of all the cars of those attending the conference in Pasadena. On the flyer, we were told, some sinful disorders were mentioned. We fully disapproved of such action. Not knowing who authorized or printed them or who intended to distribute them, but knowing a couple of brothers who we thought might be aware of it, we called them and urged them to do whatever they could to stop the distribution. It seems that our word was heeded, at least to some extent, for no flyers were distributed at the conference. We discovered later, however, that they were put on some cars in the Anaheim meeting hall parking lot. Such acts we believe to be of the flesh and not the way to protest wrongdoing. Some time later, after the conference, we obtained a copy of the flyer. It was entitled Significant Dates in the History of the Church in Anaheim.”

When posters here refer to the “sinful disorders “ that occurred, it is the equivalent of putting those flyers on the windshield of cars.... rather it is worse as is it like spray painting the content of the flyer on someone’s windshield... and in the words of Brother John it is an act of the flesh. It is even more disturbing that posters who commit these acts of the flesh will invoke Brother Johns name in total disregard and disrespect for his feelings against those flyers and his vocal objection to that way of protesting wrongdoing.

Those are my two objections.

Drake

[Ohio]

It would be a disservice not to warn people about this cult movement. I'm sorry if you feel I have berated you.

Seek the truth Drake.
Drake loves to talk about the so-called proper "standing" and the proper "name" of the church, but never the actual "condition" of those ministering to the church.

Drake loves to talk about the strange, unorthodox, and aberrant teachings of Witness Lee, but never discuss the unrighteous, abusive, and criminal behavior at LSM.

Drake's approach is so polar opposite the Biblical record, which stresses the upright living (i.e. conscience void of offense) of the Apostles, as the basis for their teachings. Why is it that Paul mentions and stresses his godly manner of living in nearly every epistle he writes, yet LSMers reject every attempt to shine a light on the despicable actions taken by their ministry and its operatives.

Yet how they love to expose the flaws of ministers in Christianity.

[Ohio]

When posters here refer to the “sinful disorders “ that occurred, it is the equivalent of putting those flyers on the windshield of cars.... rather it is worse as is it like spray painting the content of the flyer on someone’s windshield... and in the words of Brother John it is an act of the flesh. It is even more disturbing that posters who commit these acts of the flesh will invoke Brother Johns name in total disregard and disrespect for his feelings against those flyers and his vocal objection to that way of protesting wrongdoing.

Those are my two objections.

Drake
Then I am sure, Drake, that you were jumping up and down in protest during those public meetings (with Ingalls et. al. absent, of course) when Lee was excoriating these supposed leprous and conspiratorial rebels.

No? I didn't think so.

[Drake]

It would be a disservice not to warn people about this cult movement. I'm sorry if you feel I have berated you.
Seek the truth Drake. If my conduct has been berating, I'd hate to see what you'd say about Witness Lee if you were able to remove your Lee framed glasses.

LofT,

We each will be judged at the Lords Bema according to our works and conduct. There will be no appeal to what others did or did not do. You will be judged according to what you did and did not do, not what Witness Lee or Drake did and did not do.

You often mention that you are praying for me. I appreciate that. In return I offer the advice that you consider carefully before the Lord before referring to brothers and sisters who have placed their lives in Him as cultists. Not for my benefit, or theirs, but for yours before the Lord in that day which I hope will be. day of reward and rejoicing for you too.

Drake

[leastofthese]

LofT,

We each will be judged at the Lords Bema according to our works and conduct. There will be no appeal to what others did or did not do. You will be judged according to what you did and did not do, not what Witness Lee or Drake did and did not do.

You often mention that you are praying for me. I appreciate that. In return I offer the advice that you consider carefully before the Lord before referring to brothers and sisters who have placed their lives in Him as cultists. Not for my benefit, or theirs, but for yours before the Lord in that day which I hope will be. day of reward and rejoicing for you too.

Drake

It sounds like you've misinterpreted my heart. Nonetheless, your point is well received.

To students, parents, those "seeking", to those within the church of Witness Lee, I do not condemn you, but instead offer myself as a servant to you. I love you as one created by God and hope for you to know Jesus and live in close relation to your Savior and creator. I don't claim to be the keeper of all truth, but warn you of those men who do make this claim.

Either Witness Lee is who he says he was, or he isn't. The claims that he makes are directly correlated to this. Does this mean that everything the man said was a false teaching? By no means. But he has built a church based on falsehood and deception. I have had no personal negative impact from the church of Witness Lee, no wounds, no scars. But others..many...have. I have seen this in the lives of people first hand.

I make this warning in love, not to berate. Step away from the spirit of fear and confusion to the Spirit of Truth, love, and acceptance.

[Ohio]

In return I offer the advice that you consider carefully before the Lord before referring to brothers and sisters who have placed their lives in Him as cultists.

Drake

I agree with this. In fact, I disagree with all broadbrush mischaracterizations. There are too many precious children of God involved. We should critique the many LC's for failures and errors at some publishing house in Anaheim.

Instead we should identify teachings and behaviors which hurt the children of God. This is the role of shepherding and oversight.

This is the boundary I have endeavored to limit my posts to.

[ZNPaaneah]

And yet..... Brother John Ingalls said in the same breath with above:

“Before the conference began a report came to us that a flyer had been printed and would be placed on the windshields of all the cars of those attending the conference in Pasadena. On the flyer, we were told, some sinful disorders were mentioned. We fully disapproved of such action. Not knowing who authorized or printed them or who intended to distribute them, but knowing a couple of brothers who we thought might be aware of it, we called them and urged them to do whatever they could to stop the distribution. It seems that our word was heeded, at least to some extent, for no flyers were distributed at the conference. We discovered later, however, that they were put on some cars in the Anaheim meeting hall parking lot. Such acts we believe to be of the flesh and not the way to protest wrongdoing. Some time later, after the conference, we obtained a copy of the flyer. It was entitled Significant Dates in the History of the Church in Anaheim.”

When posters here refer to the “sinful disorders “ that occurred, it is the equivalent of putting those flyers on the windshield of cars.... rather it is worse as is it like spray painting the content of the flyer on someone’s windshield... and in the words of Brother John it is an act of the flesh. It is even more disturbing that posters who commit these acts of the flesh will invoke Brother Johns name in total disregard and disrespect for his feelings against those flyers and his vocal objection to that way of protesting wrongdoing.

Those are my two objections.

Drake

I think you have hit on a very crucial topic for this forum. What is the scriptural, appropriate way to protest wrongdoing?

Abel protested Cain when his blood spoke to the Lord.

Moses protested Pharoah's rule when he asked for permission for the children of Israel to go and make a sacrifice to God. Pharaoh continually told Moses that he was doing it wrong, if you do it this way or that way it would be acceptable.

The Jewish leaders told the Apostle's that they were doing it wrong:

16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.

17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

It got so bad they were imprisoned for "stirring up the people", etc.

When Herod killed James "it pleased the Jews"! The same people who say our preaching of the gospel is wrong, fleshly, etc. are the same ones who are pleased by the killing of James?

Apparently so, because these "devout" Jews so concerned with the proper way to protest sin plot and vow to kill Paul.

They accused Paul of being a "pestilent fellow". Apparently Paul the "MOTA" by LSM's reckoning was also doing it wrong.

So then, what is the "proper" way to protest sin? (BTW you still haven't critiqued by conversation with Ed Marks explaining why that was improper and deserved being expelled by the church eldership?)

[zeek]

LofT,

We each will be judged at the Lords Bema according to our works and conduct. There will be no appeal to what others did or did not do. You will be judged according to what you did and did not do, not what Witness Lee or Drake did and did not do.

You often mention that you are praying for me. I appreciate that. In return I offer the advice that you consider carefully before the Lord before referring to brothers and sisters who have placed their lives in Him as cultists. Not for my benefit, or theirs, but for yours before the Lord in that day which I hope will be. day of reward and rejoicing for you too.

Drake

Of more immediate concern, Witness Lee and his minions have a history of suing people for calling his organization a cult. So, you better watch out. :nono: Right Drake?

[UntoHim]

When posters here refer to the “sinful disorders “ that occurred, it is the equivalent of putting those flyers on the windshield of cars....
Nah, not even close. But many of us on this forum are doing something similar to what those saints who were crying out for repentance and turn to righteousness from the man who claimed to have The Vision of the Age, The Ministry of the Age and the authority of The Minister of the Age. Witness Lee's response? "Nobody's perfect!" and "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me" and "I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care".

TO THIS VERY DAY many people, including you Drake, are promoting Witness Lee as the only person who spoke as God's oracle on earth since 1945. You promote his writings as "The Ministry of the Age". Some of us know different. Some of us know the history you'd like to hide from the public and unsuspecting "new ones". Sorry if this upsets you. You are here on this forum practicing the ole Local Church tried and true method of shooting the messengers. No problem. But always, always remember that we have the kryptonite to your bullets....THE TRUTH.
-

[leastofthese]

I agree with this. In fact, I disagree with all broadbrush mischaracterizations. There are too many precious children of God involved. We should critique the many LC's for failures and errors at some publishing house in Anaheim.

Instead we should identify teachings and behaviors which hurt the children of God. This is the role of shepherding and oversight.

This is the boundary I have endeavored to limit my posts to.

I've never called members of the Local Church cultists, actually quite the opposite.

[Ohio]

I've never called members of the Local Church cultists, actually quite the opposite.
I know.

I finally found an opportunity to agree with Drake. ;)

[ZNPaaneah]

I've never called members of the Local Church cultists, actually quite the opposite.

I have referred to Witness Lee as a false prophet, and to certain ones as "the fruit of a false prophet". However, my understanding of "false prophet" is generally quite different from most people.

I do not think that a "false prophet" is not a real prophet. Instead, I consider Judas and Balaam as the two key examples of a false prophet. Both were real prophets, truly representing God and speaking His word accurately.

But both were also false, pretending to be holy men of God when in reality they were quite motivated by money.

(I have argued that the term "cult" is not biblical, too vague, and based on the definition could be applied to the early church.)

[leastofthese]

I know.

I finally found an opportunity to agree with Drake. ;)

Ha, I understand! I agreed with him awhile back when OGOP was going to meet the elder- feels good doesn't it.

[awareness]

LofT, . . .
. . .I offer the advice that you consider carefully before the Lord before referring to brothers and sisters who have placed their lives in Him as cultists.
Unless LofT, it's true. Then you're in the clear. Then the cultists have something to answer for. And since God favors truth the odds are in your favor. And mine ... thank God ... I know for sure the LC is a cult.

[zeek]

If by "cult" you mean a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual then Lee's church is a cult. If membership is contingent upon acceptance of Nee and Lee as MOTAs, then members must be "cultists" to belong. And, by retaining Nee and Lee as the "ministers of the age" the LSM has cemented the Local Churches as a cult of Nee and Lee.

I'm curious about Kangas' proposition that both Nee and Lee are ministers of the present age. When I participated in the Local Church Movement, the leaders discouraged us from reading Nee's books, saying that we should only ingest the up-to-date ministry of Witness Lee. Now both Nee and Lee are MOTAs of the "present age." Previously the principle was that there could only be one MOTA per age. Now you've got two? Doesn't having two violate the principle?

And doesn't dying end the age of one's MOTAhood? Kangas mocked the Lutherans for their continuing reverence for MOTA Martin Luther 500 years later. But, the LSM's continued reverence of the Nee and Lee MOTAhood raises the question whether MOTAhood has "term limits".

Of course, when I was in the Local Church Movement, we weren't allowed to ask questions so I suppose I can't expect a straight answer on any of this from Ron Kangas or Drake or Evangelical. But, I can't stop myself from seeing the apparent contradictions.

So, Drake do you suppose I'll be in trouble at the judgment seat for asking too many questions? Witness Lee said questions were serpents like the devil. But Jesus asked a lot of questions. Who should I follow?

[ZNPaaneah]

I'm curious about Kangas' proposition that both Nee and Lee are ministers of the present age. When I participated in the Local Church Movement, the leaders discouraged us from reading Nee's books, saying that we should only ingest the up-to-date ministry of Witness Lee.

I was not discouraged, I was "steered". Our bookroom had both, I was told that Nee was "HS" and Lee was "college". But I ignored that advice. I had personally felt one of Lee's book's I read was a waste of time and didn't make that mistake again. However, we were definitely discouraged from reading non approved versions of Nee.

Now both Nee and Lee are MOTAs of the "present age." Previously the principle was that could only be one MOTA per age. Now you've got two? Doesn't having two violate the principle?

Reminds me of the two high priests involved in Jesus crucifixion.

And doesn't dying end the age of one's MOTAhood? Kangas mocked the Lutherans for their continuing reverence for MOTA Martin Luther 500 years later. But, the LSM's continued reverence of the Nee and Lee MOTAhood raises the question whether MOTAhood has "term limits".

I think the significance is they haven't had a fresh word from the Lord in many, many years.

Of course, when I was in the Local Church Movement, we weren't allowed to ask questions so I suppose I can't expect a straight answer on any of this from Ron Kangas or Drake or Evangelical. But, I can't stop myself from seeing the apparent contradictions.

It is pretty obvious really, look at a ? see how crooked it is. It even looks like a snake.

So, Drake do you suppose I'll be in trouble at the judgment seat for asking too many questions? Witness Lee said questions were serpents like the devil. But Jesus asked a lot of questions. Who should I follow?

Finally, an easy question -- Jesus

[awareness]

So, Drake do you suppose I'll be in trouble at the judgment seat for asking too many questions?
I don't know, of course, but you might be in more trouble for coming up with answers.

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,

Big difference between rejecting doctrine and rejecting a person.

You are over complicating this.

Drake

How am I overcomplicating this? People were excommunicated from the LRC for rejecting the MOTA doctrine (see Awareness and Zeek's testimony)

I was told that we were not to teach anything in the LRC that Witness Lee himself did not teach regardless of the truth. I was told this by Joe Davis who was an elder in Houston at the time but is now a BB.

And UntoHim has quoted references to direct quotes by Witness Lee that his speaking is equivalent to God's speaking. "And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me".

Since you are able to simplify this explain what the difference is?

How do you excommunicate people over a doctrine if it is not on par with the items of the faith?

How do you only teach what Witness Lee teaches and swallow statements like "you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me" and yet say those of us claiming that in the LRC they equate rejecting MOTA with rejecting Jesus as "overcomplicating this"?

Whether you do or don't, that is not the question. The question is how do you explain these actions, this speaking?

[ZNPaaneah]

This is a thought provoking consideration Evangelical poses.

If there are sects then what are they a sect of or from?

It seems that the majority opinion of posters in this forum is that divisions and sects are normal. When awareness says “You’re all sects” he is bringing to the top of the table that unstated view that lives under the table..... and no one seems to mind.

Drake

The most fundamental cause of the "divisions" in the Body is time and space. You can have large meetings with thousands of saints but they are very impersonal and are ideally designed to speak a single word that thousands are to listen to. That is not the meeting described in 1Cor14 where different ones can stand up speak, and every member can bring something to share at the meeting. Meetings of that nature are generally less than 100 people and often 40 or less. It stands to reason if there are a billion Christians on this planet on every continent that we would have a great variety of meetings.

Hence I distinguish between "heresies" -- schools of thought, and "damnable heresies" -- heresies that insult the name of Jesus.

You can't have a gathering of 40 without it being a "school of thought". Regardless of how much you tried to avoid that you could still be classified by someone as falling into a certain classification of thought. That is unavoidable. So to me the only prerequisite for this meeting are those given in Matt. 18.

However, if that gathering has certain prerequisites that are extra biblical, then that could classify as a "damnable heresy" or what Evangelical and you loosely refer to as "sects and divisions". Simply having a meeting hall for Christians and teaching the word does not make you a "sect or division" in my opinion. It simply makes you practical.

[Drake]

Zeek>”Who should I follow?”

Zeek,

Follow the Lord according to what He has shown you.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Yes, I do not see anything in that reference that indicates a need for the apostle Paul to be a "small h head" for the church.

Second you have changed my question into why does the church need leaders, not my question.

You said that Paul was the "small h head" of Christianity. Besides having no scriptural basis, and besides the fact that this is a ridiculous doctrine, it is also something that Paul and Peter both rejected in the clearest terms when others attempted similar things.

I didn't change your question, I answered it by showing that leaders or small h people in the church are needed. A small h head is leader, right? That's why they are needed, because the church needs small l leaders to help us follow the big L Leader and the big H Head. God gave these as gifts to the church (Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 12:28).

If you have a problem with the idea of Paul being the small h head of Christianity I suggest you ask why Vincent would say that, I was merely quoting him. Is Vincent wrong? Vincent was Presbyterian I thought.

[ZNPaaneah]

I didn't change your question, I answered it by showing that leaders or small h people in the church are needed. A small h head is leader, right? That's why they are needed, because the church needs small l leaders to help us follow the big L Leader and the big H Head. God gave these as gifts to the church (Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 12:28).

If you have a problem with the idea of Paul being the small h head of Christianity I suggest you ask why Vincent would say that, I was merely quoting him. Is Vincent wrong? Vincent was Presbyterian I thought.

This thread is about the "Minister of the Age", and "The Ministry of the Age". If you are equating "leaders in the church" with "The Minister of the Age" then your definition is very different from LSM's and your discussion is irrelevant because we are talking about LSM's definition.

[Evangelical]

This thread is about the "Minister of the Age", and "The Ministry of the Age". If you are equating "leaders in the church" with "The Minister of the Age" then your definition is very different from LSM's and your discussion is irrelevant because we are talking about LSM's definition.

Would you care to share your interpretation of LSM's definition of leader to avoid any confusion?

fyi Witness Lee has been called "our leader" in this thread and I thought the terms MOTA and leader were more or less interchangable. MOTA would be a "unique leader" as Paul was a "unique leader". Of course this does not mean that the MOTA or Lee or Paul was the only leader in the church. Elders are leaders, husbands are leaders over their wives and children/home. Wives are leaders over their children. Anyone who takes the lead in the church is a leader as well, it could be anyone.

As the head of Christianity Paul's messages carried weight and authority.

[ZNPaaneah]

Would you care to share your interpretation of LSM's definition of leader to avoid any confusion?

fyi Witness Lee has been called "our leader" in this thread and I thought the terms MOTA and leader were more or less interchangable. MOTA would be a "unique leader" as Paul was a "unique leader". Of course this does not mean that the MOTA or Lee or Paul was the only leader in the church. Elders are leaders, husbands are leaders over their wives and children/home. Wives are leaders over their children. Anyone who takes the lead in the church is a leader as well, it could be anyone.

As the head of Christianity Paul's messages carried weight and authority.

Paul was an apostle who was commissioned to "complete the word of God".

However, I do not understand this word "unique". There were 12 apostles. There were numerous writers of the NT, in fact many books appear to have been something of a collaborative work.

That said, as much as I appreciate Paul, I do not consider him as a "small h head in the church" as you put it. I find that terminology insulting to the head, Jesus Christ. I also find it incongruous to a basic understanding of biology.

There is only one person, Jesus Christ, that you should be required to confess.

The issue I have with MOTA is not that WL was the leader of your group. I don't even care that you have to pledge allegiance to WL to be in the group. What I do care about is that you portray yourselves as Christians, pretend to be standing on the Bible, and at the very same time that you do that you also require elders to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee and you excommunicate those who have an issue with this.

I care that one of your so called "leaders", Joe Davis, admits that he will not teach anything that Witness Lee doesn't teach, as though Witness Lee is Lord.

I care that another one of your so called leaders, Ed Marks, told me that he signed the apology letter to a sexual predator because "it made Witness Lee happy". I am not here to please man, but your so called leaders are.

I care that another one of your so called leaders, Benjamin Chen (he recently passed), had me removed from the meeting hall because I wanted Ed to explain that letter to me. I went to Ed according to Matt 18, as prescribed by the Lord, yet listening to the Lord is not permitted in the meeting halls of the LRC.

These are three examples of my first hand experience. All three of these experiences are blatantly condemned in the NT by Paul and the other apostles.

[awareness]

Guys, the MOTA question resolves down to one thing : Revelation of and from Christ. It's pretty clear that that is what Paul was doing, speaking, and writing from. He claims it.

So was Witness Lee doing, and speaking, from the same kind of Revelation of Christ as Paul?

If so, Lee was the MOTA. If not, Lee was a pretender.

[zeek]

Zeek>”Who should I follow?”

Zeek,

Follow the Lord according to what He has shown you.

Drake

The Lord didn't merely show me. It's in the gospels for everyone to read. According to the gospels Jesus was a man who asked questions and who responded to questions when asked. Witness Lee was not like that. He discouraged questions. I went to several of his Life-study trainings in Anaheim, CA and in Irvine, Tx. The trainings were structured to digest his teachings through pray-reading and rote memorization. He did not take questions from the trainees. He taught that questions were of the devil. He did not support the kind of independent thinking that you and Evangelical are exhibiting on this website. According to my expereince during 13 years of "church life" Lee's sole emphasis was on the spirited regurgitation of his own teaching.

[Evangelical]

The Lord didn't merely show me. It's in the gospels for everyone to read. According to the gospels Jesus was a man who asked questions and who responded to questions when asked. Witness Lee was not like that. He discouraged questions. I went to several of his Life-study trainings in Anaheim, CA and in Irvine, Tx. The trainings were structured to digest his teachings through pray-reading and rote memorization. He did not take questions from the trainees. He taught that questions were of the devil. He did not support the kind of independent thinking that you and Evangelical are exhibiting on this website. According to my expereince during 13 years of "church life" Lee's sole emphasis was on the spirited regurgitation of his own teaching.

The bible seems to say opposite to what you are saying. Rather than being a person open to questions and responding, Jesus often spoke in parables that left even his closest disciples scratching their heads. Rather than give straight answers, Jesus seemed to ignore or defer thus infuriating his questioners.

[Evangelical]

Paul was an apostle who was commissioned to "complete the word of God".

However, I do not understand this word "unique". There were 12 apostles. There were numerous writers of the NT, in fact many books appear to have been something of a collaborative work.

That said, as much as I appreciate Paul, I do not consider him as a "small h head in the church" as you put it. I find that terminology insulting to the head, Jesus Christ. I also find it incongruous to a basic understanding of biology.

There is only one person, Jesus Christ, that you should be required to confess.

The issue I have with MOTA is not that WL was the leader of your group. I don't even care that you have to pledge allegiance to WL to be in the group. What I do care about is that you portray yourselves as Christians, pretend to be standing on the Bible, and at the very same time that you do that you also require elders to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee and you excommunicate those who have an issue with this.

I care that one of your so called "leaders", Joe Davis, admits that he will not teach anything that Witness Lee doesn't teach, as though Witness Lee is Lord.

I care that another one of your so called leaders, Ed Marks, told me that he signed the apology letter to a sexual predator because "it made Witness Lee happy". I am not here to please man, but your so called leaders are.

I care that another one of your so called leaders, Benjamin Chen (he recently passed), had me removed from the meeting hall because I wanted Ed to explain that letter to me. I went to Ed according to Matt 18, as prescribed by the Lord, yet listening to the Lord is not permitted in the meeting halls of the LRC.

These are three examples of my first hand experience. All three of these experiences are blatantly condemned in the NT by Paul and the other apostles.

So you believe that Vincent's word studies is insulting to Jesus Christ.

To understand the term "unique", consider, why the New Testament is not comprised of one book from each of the 12 disciples and Paul's letters made up almost 50% of the New Testament? There were 12 apostles, were all they all of equal importance? The very composition of our bibles seems to suggestion not. Also, the contributions of Paul seem to outweigh Peter, James and John despite these 3 being more personally acquainted with Christ than Paul.

[leastofthese]

The bible seems to say opposite to what you are saying. Rather than being a person open to questions and responding, Jesus often spoke in parables that left even his closest disciples scratching their heads. Rather than give straight answers, Jesus seemed to ignore or defer thus infuriating his questioners.

Can you provide additional context on what you're trying to communicate here?

[Evangelical]

Can you provide additional context on what you're trying to communicate here?

Zeek wrote "According to the gospels Jesus was a man who asked questions and who responded to questions when asked.".

I think the bible does not show this. Jesus often spoke in parables and avoided answering questions with a direct answer. Often his responses were rhetorical, or satirical. Jesus never asked a question to learn something because Jesus knew all things.

[ZNPaaneah]

So you believe that Vincent's word studies is insulting to Jesus Christ.

Great example of someone distorting what someone else said and falsely quoting them.

Now why would you have to stoop to such a demeaning style?

To understand the term "unique", consider, why the New Testament is not comprised of one book from each of the 12 disciples and Paul's letters made up almost 50% of the New Testament? There were 12 apostles, were all they all of equal importance? The very composition of our bibles seems to suggestion not. Also, the contributions of Paul seem to outweigh Peter, James and John despite these 3 being more personally acquainted with Christ than Paul.

I could do the same thing about every single member of the church. In one way or another we are all unique. This discussion has become idiotic.

Did you respond to my questions? No.

Did you justify the excommunication of saints due to this doctrine? No.

Did you justify Ed Mark's "pleasing man instead of God"? No.

Did you justify Joe Davis' decision to let Witness Lee, not the Spirit, decide what he can and cannot say? No.

[zeek]

The bible seems to say opposite to what you are saying. Rather than being a person open to questions and responding, Jesus often spoke in parables that left even his closest disciples scratching their heads. Rather than give straight answers, Jesus seemed to ignore or defer thus infuriating his questioners.

Read the gospels. Jesus asked questions and answered them. Yes he spoke in parables but not exclusively.

Jesus also used aphorisms and plain speech. He was so open to others that he even answered the questions of demons.

Jesus' wisdom was not the conventional kind. Some times he answered a question with a question. He used parables to provoke thought.

Witness Lee made the mistake of interpreting Jesus' parables as allegories with one correct interpretation. Jesus' parables resist conclusive interpretation. That's what makes them endlessly perplexing and fascinating.

Open your Bible to the gospels on just about any page and you will see examples of what I'm talking about. My Bible is open to Matthew 8:2 to 9:21. Jesus asks the disciples "Why are you afraid?" Two demoniacs ask Jesus "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time? " They ask to be cast into swine and Jesus grants them their request! Jesus asks "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, ' or to say, "Rise and walk." The disciples of John ask "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast." Jesus answers "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? " Again, he provokes them to think rather than giving a dogmatic answer.

Jesus was in a continual dialogue with others. Witness Lee conducted an endless monologue. If you disagreed you got kicked out or sued. Take Drake's advise and follow Jesus.

[Drake]

Zeek>”The Lord didn't merely show me. It's in the gospels for everyone to read.”

Zeek,

If what the Lord has shown you is that which is found in the gospels for everyone to read then go with that. That is a marvelous and wonderful revelation and I don’t believe the Lord will hold you accountable for more than He has shown you.

Drake

[Ohio]

Read the gospels. Jesus asked questions and answered them. Yes he spoke in parables but not exclusively.

Jesus also used aphorisms and plain speech. He was so open to others that he even answered the questions of demons.

Jesus' wisdom was not the conventional kind. Some times he answered a question with a question. He used parables to provoke thought.

Witness Lee made the mistake of interpreting Jesus' parables as allegories with one correct interpretation. Jesus' parables resist conclusive interpretation. That's what makes them endlessly perplexing and fascinating.

Open your Bible to the gospels on just about any page and you will see examples of what I'm talking about. My Bible is open to Matthew 8:2 to 9:21. Jesus asks the disciples "Why are you afraid?" Two demoniacs ask Jesus "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time? " They ask to be cast into swine and Jesus grants them their request! Jesus asks "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, ' or to say, "Rise and walk." The disciples of John ask "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast." Jesus answers "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? " Again, he provokes them to think rather than giving a dogmatic answer.

Jesus was in a continual dialogue with others. Witness Lee conducted an endless monologue. If you disagreed you got kicked out or sued. Take Drake's advise and follow Jesus.
Great points, zeek. What a pleasantly surprising post!

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/16/15451/an-aphorism-is-not-a-cliche-it-penetrates-and-bites-it-has-wit-and-consequently-an-affinity-with-quote-1.jpg

[Evangelical]

Great example of someone distorting what someone else said and falsely quoting them.

Now why would you have to stoop to such a demeaning style?


What is it about what you said that I distorted?

I quoted Vincent that Paul was the head of Christianity.

You said you believe the terminology of "small h head" is insulting.

So you must believe that Vincent's word studies is insulting because he says Paul is the small h head of Christianity.

Are they not the facts of this discussion?

Regarding the uniqueness of Paul - you will note that I attributed this uniqueness to the fact that his writings comprised a lot of the New Testament.

Now unless you can say this of every member you think is unique in their own special way (and you are correct, everyone is unique in a way), then we are not talking about the same thing.

I would even say your beloved James is unique, but not for the same reason as Paul is unique. James is unique because he is the only one which defines religion and which unlike Paul, clearly explains the role of faith and works. But he is not unique in the sense of divine revelation such that he would be the minister of the age.

[Drake]

Post #358, #347 and #326 all have questions.

ZNP,

Oh, I don’t think most those are questions of inquiry but rather questions of presumption. Like if I were to ask you “Are you still beating your wife?” presumes you did once and maybe still do.

You assert that Brother Joe Davis told you to to disregard the truth and the Spirit’s speaking and then ask Evangelical and I to answer your question of presumption. Well, I’ve known Brother Joe Davis for decades and I never heard him say anything close to that. I have heard him say he trusts the ministry completely and has proven it over and over. If you were a teacher, then I can understand why he wanted you to teach and trust the source. That is not the same as the way you characterized it, therefore it is not possible to provide an answer because we cannot agree on the question or its basis. Many of your questions, perhaps most, are like that so I just consider them as Op Ed, not inquiry. They need no answer because they are opinion merely in the form of a question.

It is also plausible that you misinterpreted what Brother Joe meant. I base this on a recent conversation we were having where you misinterpreted something I said and it somehow turned in your mind that I agreed something was a “damnable heresy”. I never did but you took my 2 added it to your 2 and came up with 5. You see ZNP, the whole thing then becomes convoluted and normally reasonable men cannot reason together. That is why I do not have the heart or energy to unpack most of your questions to get to a question I can actually answer!

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

What is it about what you said that I distorted?

I quoted Vincent that Paul was the head of Christianity.

You said you believe the terminology of "small h head" is insulting.

So you must believe that Vincent's word studies is insulting because he says Paul is the small h head of Christianity.

Are they not the facts of this discussion?

Has anyone been excommunicated because they disagreed with Vincent?

Has anyone been told that if Vincent doesn't teach it we don't?

Has anyone told you that they apologized to a sexual predator and asked to return to their good graces because "it pleased Vincent"?

Those are the points that are in contention on this thread.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,

Oh, I don’t think most those are questions of inquiry but rather questions of presumption.

You said very clearly that you felt the response by many on this forum was in some way inappropriate.

Therefore I told you how I approached Ed Marks and discussed this with him and the response of both Ed and the church elders.

If you feel this was "hearsay" the decision by the elders was relayed to me by two serving brothers that I could approach and my son was also present and can act as another witness. Not to mention a number of saints who could verify parts of the story (I was there, I talked to Ed, I was then kicked out a little while later).

I would like you to tell me what the appropriate way would have been to approach Ed Marks?

I had learned that saints had been hurt, offended and in some cases left the recovery over this. Therefore I felt I had a responsibility to take these concerns to Ed.

So please, since you have already critiqued the response of many, tell me what I could have done that would have been more appropriate?

In #347 I asked "What is the proper way to protest sin?" Where is the "presumption"?

You were the one that said we were doing it wrong, so please, educate us, what is the correct way to protest sin?

[Drake]

You said very clearly that you felt the response by many on this forum was in some way inappropriate.

Therefore I told you how I approached Ed Marks and discussed this with him and the response of both Ed and the church.

I would like you to tell me what the appropriate way would have been to approach Ed Marks.

I had learned that saints had been hurt, offended and in some cases left the recovery over this. Therefore I felt I had a responsibility to take these concerns to Ed.

So please, since you have already critiqued the response of many, tell me what I could have done that would have been more appropriate?

My take... since you insist....I think you picked the wrong time and place. If you had a relationship with Ed why not reconnect that evening and then ask him if you can call him or email to discuss an important matter. Doing it the way you did on that occasion probably seemed like an ambush.... you pulled out a letter about a 30 year old event, he tried to say kindly he hoped that since PL was dead it would be less of an issue, you pressed him apparently wanting to extract something more out of him more than he could provide, he was a guest at the event so he brought it NY elders attention, they apparently thought you were inappropriately taking advantage of the situation. .. so they walked you out the door.

Yeah, I think you could have handled it differently. That's how I see it from your description.


Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

My take... since you insist....I think you picked the wrong time and place. If you had a relationship with Ed why not reconnect that evening and then ask him if you can call him or email to discuss an important matter. Doing it the way you did on that occasion probably seemed like an ambush....

Shoot, why didn't we think of that?

I hope Indiana is reading this.

So if I understand you correctly, a private meeting, like the one John Ingalls had with Witness Lee or the Texas Elders would have been more appropriate.

Or sending an email like Indiana did.

Or sending a letter, like Indiana did.

Or sending a certified letter like Indiana did.

23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

you pulled out a letter about a 30 year old event, he tried to say kindly he hoped that since PL was dead it would be less of an issue, you pressed him apparently wanting to extract something more out of him more than he could provide, he was a guest at the event so he brought it NY elders attention, they apparently thought you were inappropriately taking advantage of the situation. .. so they walked you out the door.

Yeah, I think you could have handled it differently. That's how I see it from your description.


Drake

Wow that is a strange take no this. See in my view 30 years is a very long time to take to deal with something. The issue isn't that PL is dead, the issue is the Ed Marks wrote an apology to him despite the offenses he committed, and those who had been wronged by him were offended and left, who also were still very much alive.

The way I look at it no one could have "taken advantage of the situation if Ed had dealt with this 30 years ago.

Personally I see the response that "he doesn't want to deal with this right now" as equally offensive. Perhaps 3 hours after the event, or 3 days after the event that could fly, but 30 years later and you still haven't dealt with it?

Also, in my feeling if a brother had come to me with this offense and I did bring it to the NY elders and they were the ones that walked the brother out. Then I would have felt obligated to contact that brother later to at a more appropriate time.

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

You asked, but to be frank it is hard to say how it appeared to Ed or the elders since I am only reading your version and do not have the benefit of the audio to hear the tone or the video to observe the body language. Nevertheless, angst is evident in your text alone.

But I am curious, why you did not discuss with Ed as an acquaintance since you had a history? He apparently considered there to be some basis since he spent time discussing his feelings about the situation with you.

Drake

[Ohio]

What is it about what you said that I distorted?

I quoted Vincent that Paul was the head of Christianity.

Talk about distortion!

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.1:1. Called to be an apostle. See on Rom 1.1. Compare I Tim. 1.1 Not distinguishing him from other apostles. Compare Matt 4.21; John 6.70; but Paul was called no less directly than these by Jesus Christ.
Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.2:Theirs and ours. The A.V. and Rev. connect with Jesus Christ our Lord. Better with in every place. Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia.

Vincett said that Paul brought the gospel to Corinth and defended his authority as "founder and apostolic head of Christianity in that city," and as such he defended the gospel against the false apostles and false teachings.

I protested the word "head" because folks like Evangelical would yank it out of context, and place this pseudo-crown on Lee.

And that he surely did.

[ZNPaaneah]

-1

ZNP,

You asked, but to be frank it is hard to say how it appeared to Ed or the elders since I am only reading your version and do not have the benefit of the audio to hear the tone or the video to observe the body language. Nevertheless, angst is evident in your text alone.

But I am curious, why you did not discuss with Ed as an acquaintance since you had a history? He apparently considered there to be some basis since he spent time discussing his feelings about the situation with you.

Drake

I don't understand the question. I talked with him for about 10 minutes. He then excused himself to go to the meeting in the elder's room.

We were in a room with about 30 - 40 people, including my son. Yet my son at the next table did not hear a word of our conversation. The tone and attitude was respectful and neither of us raised our voices.

I began by introducing myself lest he did not recognize me (I had not seen him in 30 years).

As for my "angst". I was not in any way affected by the sins of PL nor was I affected by Ed's apology letter which I had just recently learned about close to 30 years later. I had heard from those on this forum about it but thought it fair to give Ed a chance to respond.

Likewise I had no issue with the elders in NY. They were the ones that sent me to Taipei. I lived with brother James for years when I was at Dunton House (he stayed there on the weekends). I knew that he had expressed deep revulsion at PL, and he was the one that first informed me of PL's sins.

Nope, my angst developed afterwards when I realized people I had known for years, and a ministry that I had served for many years were behaving in this way.

[ZNPaaneah]

Talk about distortion!

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.1:1. Called to be an apostle. See on Rom 1.1. Compare I Tim. 1.1 Not distinguishing him from other apostles. Compare Matt 4.21; John 6.70; but Paul was called no less directly than these by Jesus Christ.
Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.2:Theirs and ours. The A.V. and Rev. connect with Jesus Christ our Lord. Better with in every place. Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia.

Vincett said that Paul brought the gospel to Corinth and defended his authority as "founder and apostolic head of Christianity in that city," and as such he defended the gospel against the false apostles and false teachings.

I protested the word "head" because folks like Evangelical would yank it out of context, and place this pseudo-crown on Lee.

And that he surely did.

I also find this discussion despicable. If I am talking to an unbeliever and they say that Paul is the founder of Christianity I have no issue with that because they have already taken a stand that they do not believe in the resurrected Christ. Likewise with historians.

To a believer the reality of "Christianity" is the Body of Christ. This is the "new creation" and came about at Jesus Resurrection from the dead. We are only required to keep Baptism and the Lord's table -- both instituted by Jesus, not Paul.

Paul was a great apostle, and to an unbeliever they can call him "the head of the church" because their is no confusion with the head of the Body, nor can you insult Jesus the head if you have no faith in Him.

To believers Paul was a gift to the Body so that we could understand the change in the Age and how the New Covenant related to the Old Covenant. He was a servant, not "the head".

[UntoHim]

ZNP, please continue your conversation with Drake through the PM system. We all know the story with you and Ed Marks. It's only relevant to this thread to a point. You have made your point. Move on.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

So far the argument from Drake and Evangelical is that there are leaders in Christianity, the term MOTA is simply equivalent to leaders just like Paul, Peter, and other church leaders.

When asked about the well documented claims that people were told "we follow Lee", or "Even if he is wrong he is right" or "We only teach what Lee teaches" the response is that there is a presumption there they are not willing to accept. And to be fair many if not all of these comments are edited out of LSM publications. Therefore it falls into a "he said, he said" waste of time. Except for those of us who have witnessed this first hand. For us it seems very strange that Drake who claims to have known these various brothers for decades never heard or witnessed the things we heard and witnessed from them.

But when asked about testimonies of those who were excommunicated for not receiving the MOTA doctrine they are silent. Except to critique the forum and say that comments and posts on this forum are not appropriate as though the issue isn't that someone got excommunicated, but rather the issue is they didn't complain properly.

When asked further on this they suggest the proper way is to set up a meeting, yet there have been a number of documented cases where that did not work. John Ingalls documents some in his book, many others have been documented on this forum.

They also suggest sending an email -- something that many did, most notably Indiana. They also suggest sending a letter, registered mail, etc. All of which Indiana did.

In conclusion the things done in the name of MOTA are indefensible from a Biblical or righteous point of view.

2nd -- The key doctrine necessary for the MOTA doctrine to exist is "The Ground of the Church" doctrine. Take this doctrine away and there is no basis for WN or WL to claim to be the MOTA.

Hence these are the two fundamental doctrines to WL's sect that make it a damnable heresy.

[Drake]

ZNP>"So far the argument from Drake and Evangelical is that there are leaders in Christianity, the term MOTA is simply equivalent to leaders just like Paul, Peter, and other church leaders."

Whoa!

I never said that. .. at all.

Tell me what I said about the term "MOTA". Post it here.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Talk about distortion!

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.1:1. Called to be an apostle. See on Rom 1.1. Compare I Tim. 1.1 Not distinguishing him from other apostles. Compare Matt 4.21; John 6.70; but Paul was called no less directly than these by Jesus Christ.
Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.2:Theirs and ours. The A.V. and Rev. connect with Jesus Christ our Lord. Better with in every place. Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia.

Vincett said that Paul brought the gospel to Corinth and defended his authority as "founder and apostolic head of Christianity in that city," and as such he defended the gospel against the false apostles and false teachings.

I protested the word "head" because folks like Evangelical would yank it out of context, and place this pseudo-crown on Lee.

And that he surely did.

I did not distort anything. The meaning of the first para you quoted is to say that Paul was no less than the others despite not knowing Christ in the flesh. This is strong proof against those that say only the 12 disciples were the real apostles or that Christ stopped calling prominent apostles after His ascension.

The second part is the same portion I quoted.
It still says Paul was the head of Christianity in the city. Note how it refers to the locality and not any particular denomination thus proving that the genuine church in the city can indeed have a human head. Human heads are not merely for religious organizations as some suppose. And to clatify my view of the term head is not the same as the Catholic or Nicolaitan view.

So I dont know what you think you have accomplished since you have just quoted the same thing as I and it shows that Paul was the head in ALL Achaia.

[Evangelical]

I also find this discussion despicable. If I am talking to an unbeliever and they say that Paul is the founder of Christianity I have no issue with that because they have already taken a stand that they do not believe in the resurrected Christ. Likewise with historians.

To a believer the reality of "Christianity" is the Body of Christ. This is the "new creation" and came about at Jesus Resurrection from the dead. We are only required to keep Baptism and the Lord's table -- both instituted by Jesus, not Paul.

Paul was a great apostle, and to an unbeliever they can call him "the head of the church" because their is no confusion with the head of the Body, nor can you insult Jesus the head if you have no faith in Him.

To believers Paul was a gift to the Body so that we could understand the change in the Age and how the New Covenant related to the Old Covenant. He was a servant, not "the head".

Now you are implying Vincent was an unbeliever for saying Paul was the head?

Cannot Paul be a servant by being the head? The bible says apostles are God's gift to the church.

[Ohio]

I did not distort anything. The meaning of the first para you quoted is to say that Paul was no less than the others despite not knowing Christ in the flesh. This is strong proof against those that say only the 12 disciples were the real apostles or that Christ stopped calling prominent apostles after His ascension.

The second part is the same portion I quoted.
It still says Paul was the head of Christianity in the city. Note how it refers to the locality and not any particular denomination thus proving that the genuine church in the city can indeed have a human head. Human heads are not merely for religious organizations as some suppose. And to clatify my view of the term head is not the same as the Catholic or Nicolaitan view.

So I dont know what you think you have accomplished since you have just quoted the same thing as I and it shows that Paul was the head in ALL Achaia.
That's your conclusion?

And now acc. to Vincent, Witness Lee is now the head of the whole earth?

But I'm not supposed to think that is the same as the Pope.

Right! Now I understand.

"Even when you are wrong, you are right."

[Ohio]

Now you are implying Vincent was an unbeliever for saying Paul was the head?

Cannot Paul be a servant by being the head? The bible says apostles are God's gift to the church.
No, Vincent was both wrong and distorted by you.

Only Jesus is the servant Head of the church.

I know this comes as a shock to you, but it's for your own good.

[Evangelical]

No, Vincent was both wrong and distorted by you.

Only Jesus is the servant Head of the church.

I know this comes as a shock to you, but it's for your own good.

I never said Paul was the Head but the head. Are not church leaders a head if not what are they?a foot?

Why do you say that an esteemed scholar like Vincent is wrong on such a simple thing but you are right.

[Ohio]

I never said Paul was the Head but the head. Are not church leaders a head if not what are they?a foot?
The Greek manuscripts never had lower or upper case, and Praise God, we only had one HEAD, who is our risen Savior, Christ the Lord!

[leastofthese]

Why do you say that an esteemed scholar like Vincent is wrong on such a simple thing but you are right.

I don't think you want to open the door to that line of thinking...

[least]

This is a response to a post way up the thread. #244

First, I do not agree with the acronym “MOTA” as it has morphed in this forum into something like an office, like POTUS. That conveys the wrong idea. When you ask “how LSM MOTA is/are biblical” I believe our understandings are so different that it would be impossible without first agreeing on a definition. Your second question is a good starting point for that.
This forum consists of individuals each with his/her own thinking. I do not know personally, anyone of them. I don’t know what POTUS is and I don’t follow that discussion. I only wanted to find out whether anyone has a biblical definition of LSM MOTA.
The answer for me is: There is none.
A few offered their own views, including Drake. But that's their own views.
**********


Gods move in biblical history is revealed when He wants to do something. For instance, God wanted to preserve the human race and creatures so He used Noah to build an ark at that time and place.

(Ref: Genesis chapters 5- 8)
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

God wanted to destroy man; NOT- God wanted to preserve so He used Noah to build an ark …

And God said unto Noah, … Make thee an ark …. thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Noah found grace. God spared Noah and God told Noah to build an ark according to His instructions and God told Noah whom shalt come into the ark. Noah obeyed God. Noah did all that God commanded him to do. NOT – God ‘used’ Noah to … thus Noah was minister of that age just as WL is minister of this (the) age, with a ministry that ‘controls’ and ‘governs’ …

*********

Drake:
The ministry of that age was the building of a boat, the minister of that age was Noah, and the vision of that age, Gods coming judgement with a flood, was imparted to Noah from Enoch.

God said ‘this generation’, not ‘that age/the age’. Genesis 7: 1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

There was NO ‘the vision of that age’ in the biblical Noah record. God did not say so. Bible does not say so.

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

The coming flood was NOT a ‘vision’ given to Noah such that Noah was the ‘minister of that age’ and that ‘the ministry’ was the building of a boat (let’s say ark? - if you think I can’t understand ark than point out the bible verses wherewith God told Noah how to build the ark. So that I cannot be misled to imagine that Noah built a boat.) 😊
God TOLD Noah about the coming flood. God established His COVENANT with Noah and that Noah and his household will come into the ark. God did not make Noah a mota the way LSM made WL a MOTA.

Drake: the vision of that age, Gods coming judgement with a flood, was imparted to Noah from Enoch.

Enoch was Noah’s great grandfather. There is no biblical record that Enoch had ‘the vision of that age’. How could Enoch had imparted to Noah when God had taken Enoch hundreds of years before God (at Noah’s generation) grieved and wanted to flood to destroy?

Are you repeating what your MOTA told you? (Mormon’s The Doctrine and Covenants states that Enoch prophesied that one of his descendants, Noah, and his family, would survive a Great Flood and thus carry on the human race and preserve the Scripture.) WL had learnt quite some things from the Mormons. Mormons also say ‘they are gods’ and also say ‘they were without bodies in previous world and come to be in bodies and they will return to without bodies in another world’.

Drake:
That was the ministry (or service) of that age and if you lived in that place at that time and wanted to participate in what God was doing then you joined in with Noah because that is who God was using.

WHAT WAS GOD DOING, in that place at that time, that you wanted to participate?

I Peter 3: 20
… when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, …

God waited while the ark was a preparing, is that what you wanted to participate?

Drake: ‘joined in with Noah’.
helloooo … God ONLY told Noah to build the ark.
Who would let you join in? God or Noah? God did not tell Noah to let anyone join in and God himself told no one to join in.

Drake: because that (Noah) is who God was using
God was not ‘using’ Noah, God was ‘saving’ Noah.




If you lived at that time and decided Noah was a crazy old fool for building a big boat and instead choose to build the best rowing boats on the Euphrates then you could do that but you would not be partipating in what God was doing at that time and place with and through Noah.

Eh, was there a choice to build a big boat or a rowing boat? (Imagination …)
You’ve twisted what God said. God told Noah to build an ark. God did not tell anyone else to join Noah, (so that these ones participate in what God was doing at that time and that place). God wanted to destroy man, did God say to man to ‘participate’ in it?

God ‘build the ark’ with and through Noah? You twisted what God was doing. God was waiting while Noah build the ark. God established a covenant with Noah, God told Noah to enter the ark ... God flooded the earth ...

You cannot join Noah. You did not find grace in God's eyes. God did not say you were righteous. You can join your MOTA tho. So your MOTA is not the same as Noah- as you like to imply.
You cannot participate in what God was doing in that place at that time. You think God wanted you to destroy the earth together with Him (including destroying your own self)?. You think God is what you think He is, according to your MOTA's ministry doctrine? You can participate in what your MOTA was doing tho, in your time and in your place, and eventho he is dead, you are still under and with him. Your MOTA said he is (was?) god; but he is not God. He is god without head (god but not the Godhead), whatever that means ... but you are god too according to The Ministry Of The Age, flowing out of the LSM printing press. But God is not you.


Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.




Both would be building boats but only one was according to God’s design for His purpose and the other, though also a boat, swift and streamlined for gliding up and down the river, would not survive the ultimate test... the flood.

Eh? More imaginations …

**********


To promote the LSM MOTA to biblical status, Drake used Noah in the bible as an instance, to support LSM’s claim of its copyrighted authors and their works, to be God’s “The minister(s) of the age” and “The ministry of the age”.
But Drake’s account of Noah (and God’s move, at that time and place) is twisted and disfigured Noah and God. The purpose is to fit Noah into the LSM MOTA mould; to make Noah a mota in the order of LSM ordained MOTA list.


This LSM MOTA stuff is extra-biblical. MOTA is LSM publishing company’s branding.


Don’t go on about the next LSM ordained mota. I cannot bear to sort out another disfigured ‘bible record’.

**********


Psalm 50: 21
These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.
Psalm 55: 19
God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. Selah. Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God.

-

[ZNPaaneah]

Now you are implying Vincent was an unbeliever for saying Paul was the head?

Cannot Paul be a servant by being the head? The bible says apostles are God's gift to the church.

No, I am calling him a historian when he refers to Paul as the "apostolic head of Christianity". Read the post.

[Evangelical]

No, I am calling him a historian when he refers to Paul as the "apostolic head of Christianity". Read the post.

He was not a historian but a theologian. Do you know the difference? Ohio and you have different views about Vincent. Ohio said he was wrong, you are trying to avoid saying that. If I say Paul was the head maybe I am being a historian too?

[ZNPaaneah]

He was not a historian but a theologian. Do you know the difference? Ohio and you have different views about Vincent. Ohio said he was wrong, you are trying to avoid saying that. If I say Paul was the head maybe I am being a historian too?

I am not a theologian. The term "apostolic head of Christianity" is historical.

If his point is that the majority of the NT is written by Paul and he provides the doctrinal basis for Christian worship then I think he is clearly wrong.

1. The basis for Christian worship, at its core, is baptism and the Lord's table, both of which were given to us by Jesus at His crucifixion and all that it entailed.

2. The basis for Christian worship as a religion that encompasses both Jews and Gentiles is with Peter who first baptized Gentiles. It is based on a vision he had that Christ's redemption cleansed all of creation, so you can again give credit to Jesus and His work of redemption. Paul's role was to explain the scriptural basis for this.

The idea that Peter was the "h" head of the church is absurd and has no basis in the NT.

The only person in the NT who was a "h" head of the church was James, the brother of the Lord. If you want to compare Witness Lee as the MOTA to a NT figure it should be to James when their were Judaizers coming from him intimidating Peter and others.

Fortunately James appears to have repented of this and his letter is very clear that we should not be respecters of man's person.

[Drake]

Post #33

"Least,

Ok, You have no definition for minister of the age.

Do you agree that throughout biblical history God has raised up leaders to carry out what He wants to do in that time and place?

Drake"

Right... I reiterate the above... but you said “MOTA”.

I shared several times why I object to the term.

Drake

[Drake]

Least>”This forum consists of individuals each with his/her own thinking. I do not know personally, anyone of them. I don’t know what POTUS is and I don’t follow that discussion. I only wanted to find out whether anyone has a biblical definition of LSM MOTA.
The answer for me is: There is none.
A few offered their own views, including Drake. But that's their own views.
********** ”

First, least, thanks for your thoughtful response. We will disagree on many points but your due diligence is commendable and I will do my best to reciprocate in kind.

I’ll start out with your first point because it is important to me though maybe not to others. I believe the term “ MOTA “ includes the notion of an official position like POTUS - President of the United States - and that idea of position is mainly found here in this forum, planted here in this forum, and morphed from its original simple descriptor “minister of the age “. Nowhere in the ministry is the term MOTA ever used nor is the position or office of a Minister of the Age ever conveyed. Some here point to Kerry’s excellent refutation of Tomes’ notion of many “ministers of the age” as proof that “Minister of the Age” was used in that article and yes, but only as a subtitle in front of a section or paragraph as would be proper written language construct. Yet, even at that Kerry is careful not to use “Minister of the Age” or “MOTA” in the body of the text and he certainly does not convey the notion of it being an office, like POTUS, or a position of power as it is here. And to square the distinction with POTUS we never use the acronym “LOTFW” but in referring to his function we will refer the President as “leader of the free world” not because of who he is within himself nor as a position or office. Finally, when trying to understand what the “minister of the age” means from the man who allegedly uses it to advance his own agenda we should be able to see a prominent presentation of this in his teachings. One cannot bend the world to his views if he hides the very thoughts that will convince others to follow him. Therefore, I still challenge anyone to produce an audio transcript from tapes if they claim that he spoke about the minister of the age one way and printed it another.

I put this here as reference so that you will know what I mean by minister of the age and if our conversation gets askew over the terms you will understand my point of view, and yes, it is my view. Else, your liberal use of “LSM MOTA” would hinder a meaningful conversation.

Thanks
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Right... I reiterate the above... but you said “MOTA”.

I shared several times why I object to the term.

Drake

Your objection is noted. You said that you felt this term was similar to a position like POTUS. However, you also agreed with the definition given by Kerry. Now there is a very broad interpretation of how that teaching is actually applied. I indicated that in my post. My personal experience is somewhere between the two extremes. I was able to navigate the LRC experience while ignoring this teaching. I ignored it because it was not codified in the printed ministry and because I was never required to pledge allegiance to Witness Lee.

I am using the term "MOTA" to refer to this definition by Kerry. You don't like us referring to this definition using the acronym MOTA, you have said so, I have read your objections, and I have decided they don't have merit because of the reasons I outline here.

Your position that MOTA does not refer to a position of power seems untenable to me since the elders of the churches were required to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee.

Once I learned that I decided it could no longer be ignored and you had to come down on one side or the other. I like James warns, completely reject a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee or any other man.

In addition to this there are numerous troubling accounts of those who were "disciplined" or "excommunicated" because of their public stand not to pledge loyalty to Witness Lee. I realize these are not substantiated, but I lay that on the LRC leadership for not neglecting to respond to these allegations. For example, I was told directly by one of these involved that he did what he did because "it pleased Witness Lee". That would be a bizarre statement by a Christian leader if in fact Witness Lee did not have a position of power in the church.

[Drake]

-1

Okay ZNP. Thanks.

Please post or post the link for the loyalty pledge you mentioned.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

The text of the loyalty letter is here (annotations in bold are mine):Dear Brother Lee,

After hearing your fellowship in this elders' training, we all agree to have a new start in the Lord's recovery. For this, we all agree to be in one accord and to carry out this new move of the Lord solely through prayer, the Spirit, and the Word. We further agree to practice the recovery one in: teaching, practice, thinking, speaking, essence, appearance, and expression. We repudiate all differences among the churches, and all indifference toward the ministry, the ministry office, and the other churches. We agree that the church in our place be identical with all the local churches throughout the earth.

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder [this refers to Lee] among us.

We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in a new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to lead every member to get used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers; to teach all the saints to know the basic truths in an educational way that they may teach others for the spreading of the truth; to build up the saints in the growth in life that they may minister life to others, shepherd each other, and take care of the backsliding ones; to lead all the saints to preach the gospel in every possible way; to avoid leadership as much as possible; and to have home gatherings for nurturing the saints in life and big meetings for educating the saints in truths. We agree that all the preceding points are the clear and definite teaching of the Bible according to God's New Testament economy.

Finally, we agree that the success of this new move is our responsibility and will rise up to labor and endeavor with our whole being, looking to the Lord for His mercy and grace that we would be faithful to the end.

Your brothers for the Lord's recovery

[Signatures]

April 11, 1986

(Witness Lee published this letter from 419 elders who signed this pledge. It is published in Elder’s Training, Book 8, The Life Pulse of the Lord’s Present Move, Chapter 10, Section 5. He also included a thank you letter from him showing that he approved of this special pledge.)

It should be also noted that some, like brother Don Rutledge of Dallas, were under enormous pressure to sign.

[ZNPaaneah]

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder [this refers to Lee] among us.

Thank you Ohio.

I have just quoted the relevant portion to this discussion.

1. Every elder (419 signatures) agreed to follow Witness Lee's leading. Hence he can be described as "the leader". This is what we are referring to in this thread as "the MOTA".

2. Witness Lee is described as "the one who brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice". This is also what we are referring to as the MOTA.

3. They acknowledge that Lee is the one trumpet -- again what we refer to as "The MOTA"

4. They acknowledge Lee is "the wise master builder" -- again what we refer to as "The MOTA".

Also, please notice they have elevated Lee's leading to a critical component of the oneness. Hence I have said that this has been elevated to an item of the faith. This justifies their excommunication of those that do not acknowledge Lee as MOTA.

I would also point out the hypocrisy -- in Witness Lee's thank you he says that "they are not to follow a man but the ministry".

I think there is only one reasonable way to understand this seeming contradiction. Witness Lee knew that the NT condemns following any man other than Jesus or elevating any man to an item of the faith, or making a cause of division over recognizing a man and his ministry. So he wants it both ways -- everyone pledges loyalty to him, yet they have to also view his ministry as being one and the same as the speaking of God.

It is not reasonable to interpret this as simply being an oath to be one with the Lord and His speaking. That is what we did when we were baptized and is reenforced every time we take the Lord's table and examine ourselves.

12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but [e]let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment.

[UntoHim]

I believe the term “ MOTA “ includes the notion of an official position like POTUS - President of the United States - and that idea of position is mainly found here in this forum, planted here in this forum, and morphed from its original simple descriptor “minister of the age “. Nowhere in the ministry is the term MOTA ever used nor is the position or office of a Minister of the Age ever conveyed.
Actually Witness Lee's "position" among his followers was something more powerful, more influential and more controlling than that of the POTUS, or President of the United States. The President and his power, influence and control is limited and balanced by two other equal branches of government - the legislative and judicial branches. (Interestingly enough, many Christian denominations have instituted such a leadership structure for the same reasons as the US government - to limit and balance the power, influence and control of the chief executive)

While I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Christian church formally, or even informally, institute such a governmental structure, I would point out the abject inherit dangers for a church group or movement that allows one single person to dictate "The Vision of the Age" through his personal ministry, "The Ministry of the Age", which is headed up solely by himself as "The Minister of the Age". This dynamic in the Local Church couldn't be any more or any less official than is described on the Local Church/LSM official website www.afaithfulword.org :
http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/VisionMinistryMinister.html

Whether or not there is the use of capitol letters is actually quite irrelevant. The OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED POSITION of the OFFICIAL leadership in the Local Church Movement is that there is ONE, SINGLE Vision of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Ministry of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Minister of the Age. All roads lead to Mr. Witness Lee. So anyone here is free to haggle, to massage or soften the firm, crystal clear declarations of the movement leaders, or to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms - what they are not free to do is claim that the actual teachings, practices and history in the Local Church are being misrepresented here on this forum.
-

[Ohio]

http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html (http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/VisionMinistryMinister.html)

So anyone here is free to haggle, to massage or soften the firm, crystal clear declarations of the movement leaers, or to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms - what they are not free to do is claim that the actual teachings, practices and history in the Local Church are being misrepresented here on this forum. -

Apparently our beloved brothers Drake and Evangelical have never read the article you linked here from LSM's own website. Ironically even the website anticipated brothers like Drake and Evangelical would attempt to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms," and included the following:
Why is this important? It is more than mere semantics. To designate a certain person as a "minister of the age" is to say that he is the person through whom the Lord's up-to-date vision is being or has been released. As a result, that person and the vision released through him exercise a leadership role in advancing the Lord's move in His recovery. The actual leadership in the Lord's recovery rests not so much in a person, but more in a governing vision.
They love to hide behind this "governing vision" caveat, but that is only window dressing for casual bystanders. Insiders, especially the leaders, know full well all the ramifications that accompany the "actual leadership." Pay attention to another quote from this informative article:
At the time of the Reformation in the 1520s, when Luther was raised up, anyone who wanted to serve under a vision had to join himself to Luther. In the seventeenth century, anyone who wanted to serve under a vision had to join himself to Madame Guyon. In the eighteenth century, anyone who wanted to serve under a vision had to join himself to Zinzendorf. Even John Wesley received help from Zinzendorf. In the nineteenth century, J. N. Darby took the lead among the Brethren, and the vision was with him. In the twentieth century, the vision came to us.
Can anyone really believe that in the 17th century all those throughout the globe who served God with a vision had to join themselves to a solitary nun in France. Unbelievable! Classical historical revisionism! A totally self-serving distortion of church history! It's no wonder that LC members are not permitted to read others' books.

[Koinonia]

Actually Witness Lee's "position" among his followers was something more powerful, more influential and more controlling than that of the POTUS, or President of the United States. The President and his power, influence and control is limited and balanced by two other equal branches of government - the legislative and judicial branches. (Interestingly enough, many Christian denominations have instituted such a leadership structure for the same reasons as the US government - to limit and balance the power, influence and control of the chief executive)

While I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Christian church formally, or even informally, institute such a governmental structure, I would point out the abject inherit dangers for a church group or movement that allows one single person to dictate "The Vision of the Age" through his personal ministry, "The Ministry of the Age", which is headed up solely by himself as "The Minister of the Age". This dynamic in the Local Church couldn't be any more or any less official than is described on the Local Church/LSM official website www.afaithfulword.org :
http://www.afaithfulword.org/articles/VisionMinistryMinister.html

Whether or not there is the use of capitol letters is actually quite irrelevant. The OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED POSITION of the OFFICIAL leadership in the Local Church Movement is that there is ONE, SINGLE Vision of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Ministry of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Minister of the Age. All roads lead to Mr. Witness Lee. So anyone here is free to haggle, to massage or soften the firm, crystal clear declarations of the movement leaders, or to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms - what they are not free to do is claim that the actual teachings, practices and history in the Local Church are being misrepresented here on this forum.
-

UntoHim, thank you for pointing this out. Another thing very extreme about the "MOTA" concept--LC members not only believe that Witness Lee is/was the "minister of the age" but the final "minister of the age" and the "minister of the present age," even though he has been dead for 20 years. So, this is not just "POTUS;" it's worse. It is more akin to the North Korean concept of "Eternal President" (and don't forget, the "minister of the age" is also "the acting God").

[Drake]

Here is Brother Lee's response the letter as mentioned. Highlights mine,

"The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee

[ZNPaaneah]

UntoHim, thank you for pointing this out. Another thing very extreme about the "MOTA" concept--LC members not only believe that Witness Lee is/was the "minister of the age" but the final "minister of the age" and the "minister of the present age," even though he has been dead for 20 years. So, this is not just "POTUS;" it's worse. It is more akin to the North Korean concept of "Eternal President" (and don't forget, the "minister of the age" is also "the acting God").

Good point. As Evangelical and Drake have pointed out there are many human leaders and having leaders in the church is not that big a deal. However, instead of comparing WL and WN to Paul or Peter the better comparison is to Kim Jong Un and Kim Jong Il

[ZNPaaneah]

Here is Brother Lee's response the letter as mentioned. Highlights mine,

"The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee

Yes, we all on this thread agree with what he says here, we just don't agree with what he did.

This simply proves he knew the Lord's will. (The servant who knew his Lord's will and didn't do it will be beaten with many stripes -- Luke 12:47)

Imagine the hypocrisy, on one hand you thank the saints for pledging to follow Witness Lee's leading, on the other you admit that they are not to follow any man. You thank them for pledging their loyalty to the one who brought them God's economy and led them into its practice, on the other you say they are not to follow any doctrine or movement. On the one hand you thank them for acknowledging you as the "One trumpet" and "wise master builder". On the other you claim there is no element of exalting a man or promoting any work. People were forced to sign this but he has the nerve to say that "this action would not be misunderstood".

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people honoreth me with their lips;
But their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

[Drake]

UntoHim>". The OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED POSITION of the OFFICIAL leadership in the Local Church Movement is that there is ONE, SINGLE Vision of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Ministry of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Minister of the Age. All roads lead to Mr. Witness Lee."

Why, I absolutely agree with this statement! (well,...without the CAPS). That is what I have been saying all along...... as follows:

The starting point is the vision of the age... the vision presented in the New Testament which becomes a governing vision and a vision to obey to whom it is revealed. The ministry of the age is for the vision of the age. Ministry follows vision as the means to fulfill the vision. Paul was captured by the vision of Christ and the Church and he became a minister of Spirit and life to build the Body of Christ. Paul in the 1st century was the lead in the ministry of the age. He was in his time and place the minister of the age and established local churches as testimonies and visible expressions of the one unique universal Body of Christ.

The vision Paul dedicated his life to is still the same New Testament vision today. The ministry of Spirit and life is still the same ministry of the age today. God works through men to carry out his ministry and for 2000 years and in any given place and time He works through vessels of mercy of His choosing. Church history shows this clearly. All those that God works through are imperfect vessels, nevertheless, He chooses whomsoever He wills. Luther was imperfect yet God worked through him to recover the Bible for the common man and the truth of justification by faith. Many servants to numerous to name here God worked through to restore something lost since the first century. They were not perfect men but nevertheless, they were useful and important in their place and time. In the past century the Lord worked through two brothers to lead and recover the practice of the church life to build the Body of Christ through the local churches to facilitate His return and establish His kingdom on earth. Like the men God used before them they too were imperfect. Nevertheless, God uses whomever He wills and these two servants from China were faithful to their special calling from the Lord. Through them many have seen the New Testament vision and the ministry that can fulfill that vision, And yes, if the Lord shows someone that the vision of the age is to build the Body of Christ, and if they believe that ministry of the age is to use local churches to accomplish the vision, then either logic, history, or revelation from God will also show that brothers Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were the two vessels that He selected for that special calling. If someone disagrees with the vision or that there is one, if someone disagrees with our defintion of the ministry of the New Testament to accomplish the vision, or if someone disagrees that brothers Watchman Nee or Witness Lee were servants used by God for this purpose then that is between them and the Lord. If someone is without sin and perfect then before the Lord let them cast stones at God's imperfect servants. That also is a matter between them and the Lord that will be settled at His Bema.

Drake

[Ohio]

If someone disagrees with the vision or that there is one, if someone disagrees with our defintion of the ministry of the New Testament to accomplish the vision, or if someone disagrees that brothers Watchman Nee or Witness Lee were servants used by God for this purpose then that is between them and the Lord. If someone is without sin and perfect then before the Lord let them cast stones at God's imperfect servants. That also is a matter between them and the Lord that will be settled at His Bema.

Drake
Wait a minute! Witness Lee cast stones at the entire body of Christ from the first day I heard him speak, until the last time.

I know. I know. I forgot. "Even if he's wrong he's right."

To diehard followers like Drake, Witness Lee alone is without sin.

[ZNPaaneah]

UntoHim>". The OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED POSITION of the OFFICIAL leadership in the Local Church Movement is that there is ONE, SINGLE Vision of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Ministry of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Minister of the Age. All roads lead to Mr. Witness Lee."

Why, I absolutely agree with this statement! (well,...without the CAPS). That is what I have been saying all along...... as follows:

The starting point is the vision of the age... the vision presented in the New Testament which becomes a governing vision and a vision to obey to whom it is revealed. The ministry of the age is for the vision of the age. Ministry follows vision as the means to fulfill the vision. Paul was captured by the vision of Christ and the Church and he became a minister of Spirit and life to build the Body of Christ. Paul in the 1st century was the lead in the ministry of the age. He was in his time and place the minister of the age and established local churches as testimonies and visible expressions of the one unique universal Body of Christ.

The vision Paul dedicated his life to is still the same New Testament vision today. The ministry of Spirit and life is still the same ministry of the age today. God works through men to carry out his ministry and for 2000 years and in any given place and time He works through vessels of mercy of His choosing. Church history shows this clearly. All those that God works through are imperfect vessels, nevertheless, He chooses whomsoever He wills. Luther was imperfect yet God worked through him to recover the Bible for the common man and the truth of justification by faith. Many servants to numerous to name here God worked through to restore something lost since the first century. They were not perfect men but nevertheless, they were useful and important in their place and time. In the past century the Lord worked through two brothers to lead and recover the practice of the church life to build the Body of Christ through the local churches to facilitate His return and establish His kingdom on earth. Like the men God used before them they too were imperfect. Nevertheless, God uses whomever He wills and these two servants from China were faithful to their special calling from the Lord. Through them many have seen the New Testament vision and the ministry that can fulfill that vision, And yes, if the Lord shows someone that the vision of the age is to build the Body of Christ, and if they believe that ministry of the age is to use local churches to accomplish the vision, then either logic, history, or revelation from God will also show that brothers Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were the two vessels that He selected for that special calling. If someone disagrees with the vision or that there is one, if someone disagrees with our defintion of the ministry of the New Testament to accomplish the vision, or if someone disagrees that brothers Watchman Nee or Witness Lee were servants used by God for this purpose then that is between them and the Lord. If someone is without sin and perfect then before the Lord let them cast stones at God's imperfect servants. That also is a matter between them and the Lord that will be settled at His Bema.

Drake

If this is the case then why do we need a special loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? If the vision is the same as the NT then Baptism and the Lord's table should be sufficient.

[Evangelical]

Apparently our beloved brothers Drake and Evangelical have never read the article you linked here from LSM's own website. Ironically even the website anticipated brothers like Drake and Evangelical would attempt to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms," and included the following:

They love to hide behind this "governing vision" caveat, but that is only window dressing for casual bystanders. Insiders, especially the leaders, know full well all the ramifications that accompany the "actual leadership." Pay attention to another quote from this informative article:

Can anyone really believe that in the 17th century all those throughout the globe who served God with a vision had to join themselves to a solitary nun in France. Unbelievable! Classical historical revisionism! A totally self-serving distortion of church history! It's no wonder that LC members are not permitted to read others' books.

What is it about the article that Drake and I have contradicted? I think we are reflected what the article says quite well.

[Evangelical]

If this is the case then why do we need a special loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? If the vision is the same as the NT then Baptism and the Lord's table should be sufficient.

If that is the case why do do special churches aka denominations exist. Baptism and Lord's table should be sufficient.

[UntoHim]

I'm glad to hear our friend Drake has finally admitted that the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee have been accurately portrayed here on the forum.

Now the next step is for you, and more importantly the Local Church/LSM leaders, to be more up front with "new ones" and even the general Christian public about this "Minister of the Age", and how he is to be revered as the only person speaking as God's Oracle on Earth. Also that the "Vision" and "Ministry" (simply the bible commentary/teachings/opinions/theology of Witness Lee) must be accepted and imbibed without question. Finally, that the sect that Lee founded (AKA The Local Church(es) are the only legitimate representatives of the Body of Christ in any particular location that they have a meeting place.
-

[Drake]

If this is the case then why do we need a special loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? If the vision is the same as the NT then Baptism and the Lord's table should be sufficient.

In my opinion, I believe it was circumstances that drove the need. Brother Lee did not demand it but 419 elders felt the situation of disunity merited it. However, I believe his response was even more relevant. It’s clear where his heart was about not following a man.

The NEw Testament reveals more than Baptism and the Table. Still, if you don’t think so then be at peace and allow others follow what the Lord has shown them too.

Drake

[Drake]

I'm glad to hear our friend Drake has finally admitted that the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee have been accurately portrayed here on the forum.

Now the next step is for you, and more importantly the Local Church/LSM leaders, to be more up front with "new ones" and even the general Christian public about this "Minister of the Age", and how he is to be revered as the only person speaking as God's Oracle on Earth. Also that the "Vision" and "Ministry" (simply the bible commentary/teachings/opinions/theology of Witness Lee) must be accepted and imbibed without question. Finally, that the sect that Lee founded (AKA The Local Church(es) are the only legitimate representatives of the Body of Christ in any particular location that they have a meeting place.
-

UntoHim,

If my explanation was an accurate representation of what you and this forum believe then that is superb. Thanks for agreeing where we can agree.

However, in your second paragraph above you have fallen into the old dissenters and opposers habit of mischaracterization at best. Old habits die hard as they say but if you allow yourself to listen and consider others with differing points of view and experience you might find other areas we can agree on.

Thanks
Drake

[Koinonia]

UntoHim,

If my explanation was an accurate representation of what you and this forum believe then that is superb. Thanks for agreeing where we can agree.

However, in your second paragraph above you have fallen into the old dissenters and opposers habit of mischaracterization at best. Old habits die hard as they say but if you allow yourself to listen and consider others with differing points of view and experience you might find other areas we can agree on.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, if you are in favor of "considering others with differing points of view and experience," then why do you label others as "dissenters" and "opposers"? Why do you support "quarantines" against people who disagree with you on important maters of conscience?

[ZNPaaneah]

If that is the case why do do special churches aka denominations exist. Baptism and Lord's table should be sufficient.

If any group requires more than Baptism to receive a brother or sister at the Lord's table then yes, I agree.

[ZNPaaneah]

In my opinion, I believe it was circumstances that drove the need. Brother Lee did not demand it but 419 elders felt the situation of disunity merited it. However, I believe his response was even more relevant. It’s clear where his heart was about not following a man.

The NEw Testament reveals more than Baptism and the Table. Still, if you don’t think so then be at peace and allow others follow what the Lord has shown them too.

Drake

His response includes receiving the pledge and publishing it. He could have rejected it, rebuked the elders for doing something with the appearance of evil (following a man, exalting a man, a ministry, etc). Had he done that then I would agree that the letter represented his heart.

But that is not what he did.

Ray Graver and Benson Phillips were crucial in forcing the 419 elders to sign this. They were put in charge of LSM by Witness Lee. They were also the ones that helped get rid of Max, Sal, and the "sister's rebellion" -- which was an elaborate cover up for PL. They took in a sister abused by PL. They closed their ears to JI about further abuses of PL. And WL replaced JI and other Anaheim elders who stood against PL with those who would act to "please Witness Lee" and Ray and Benson were put in charge of LSM.

Therefore when I look at this I see this letter by Witness Lee proves he knew what the will of the Lord is, but he neglected to do that will.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

I understand that you see those events differently than I do. You see them all part and parcel to a big conspiracy. I don’t. I evaluate each event on its own merits in their time and place. I do not say that mistakes were not made, they were, but not everything that happened can be attributed to a common initiative other than they happened in the Lords Recovery in that era.

Life goes on brother and so does the Lords Recovery. I only hope you find the peace you seek after all these years.

Drake

[Ohio]

-1

ZNP,

I understand that you see those events differently than I do. You see them all part and parcel to a big conspiracy. I don’t. I evaluate each event on its own merits in their time and place. I do not say that mistakes were not made, they were, but not everything that happened can be attributed to a common initiative other than they happened in the Lords Recovery in that era.

Life goes on brother and so does the Lords Recovery. I only hope you find the peace you seek after all these years.

Drake
You would characterize the libelous and slanderous actions taken against John Ingalls et. al. as "mistakes were made?"

Drake, your integrity is on the line here.

[ZNPaaneah]

-1

ZNP,

I understand that you see those events differently than I do. You see them all part and parcel to a big conspiracy. I don’t. I evaluate each event on its own merits in their time and place. I do not say that mistakes were not made, they were, but not everything that happened can be attributed to a common initiative other than they happened in the Lords Recovery in that era.

Life goes on brother and so does the Lords Recovery. I only hope you find the peace you seek after all these years.

Drake

The standard for those bearing the testimony of Jesus is higher than it is for others. They are not to just avoid sin, they are avoid the appearance of sin.

If you do not properly deal with sin, then it has the appearance not just of that sin, but of an ulterior motive behind that sin -- hence a conspiracy.

For example you can view Ed Marks replacing John Ingalls as simply a matter of necessity after the Anaheim elders left. The fact that Ed knew Ray and Benson is nothing more than reasonable since they would choose someone they knew.

Therefore my interpretation that these elders were forced out and replaced with yes men can appear paranoid and conspiratorial. However, when you include the apology letter to PL that they all signed it no longer supports your view, but gives a lot of credence to my view. When Ed tells us 30 years later he "isn't ready to deal with this at this time" it further supports my view and gives no credence at all to your view. Finally, when Ed justifies this saying "it made Witness Lee happy" then I cannot see any other way to interpret these events than the way I have.

I have found peace and grace multiplied.

As you said earlier in a previous post, confessing Jesus can result in divisions. I feel my confession of Jesus caused me to be "walked out of the meeting hall". It has been a great source of grace and peace to me. I have since seen that all of the overcomers in Philadelphia were "forced out" at some point in time, hence the promise to them that they will no longer go out.

I am very thankful and full of joy that I do not need to be ridiculed and mocked the way EM, RG, BP, KR, RK, and others are for their actions. When you obey the Lord it may seem you are losing everything but on the other side you realize you have gained everything.

[Drake]

-1

Okay brother. Then I pray that you will find the grace to experience His peace that passes all understanding between you and both God and man.

Drake

[Ohio]

Therefore my interpretation that these elders were forced out and replaced with yes men can appear paranoid and conspiratorial.

Many in the GLA considered Ed Marks nothing more than a WL cheerleader and "yes man." Back in the 90's, one GLA brother counted in one training message how EM invoked the glorious name of Witness Lee 33 times.

I guess that's not at all excessive to ones like Drake and Evangelical.

ZNP thanks for adding that little historical detail about how EM was elevated to Anaheim elder for pleasing WL and expunging Philip Lee's excommunication.

Please note also that the profligate son of WL, the LSM equivalent of Harvey Weinstein, was the only one in LC history to have his excommunication officially overturned.

[ZNPaaneah]

This thread has yet to address the key questions:

1. Is there a NT "vision of the age"? I would argue yes, it is displayed in the epistles. Most notably Ephesians and Colossians.

2. Is there are NT "ministry of the age"? Once again I would argue yes, most notably displayed in 2Corinthians, but key principles show up in 1 and 2nd Timothy, Titus, etc.

3. Is there a NT "minister of the age". Once again I would say that is strongly a yes, and the book of Hebrews clearly refers to Jesus as this minister of the age.


This is why I find this doctrine, like many of the LSM doctrines, to be so reprehensible. They take something that is truly Biblical, hence the ease with which they can find types in the OT to support their doctrine, truths that reveal Jesus Christ, and then they apply these to themselves (WN and WL).

To do this they need the smoke and mirrors of innumerable "ages" which they do not in any way illuminate other than to refer to Peter, Paul and Martin Luther. They rely on the laziness of the hearers that they are not willing to study church history so will simply take this on face value.

They also build a preposterous theory that the vision was released, lost and then the purpose of each age is to "recover" these lost truths. Once again the laziness of the hearers is critical. Since they never "heard" of this lost truth it is easy to assume no one else did either. But this doctrine of "recovery" is so central to their belief and practice that it is the unofficial name of the church / movement -- "The recovery".

Central to this "recovery" is the idea that the "Ground of the Church" doctrine is actually a NT truth.

Yes it is true that the temple, a major type in the OT, is a type of the Church.

Yes it is true that the ground of the temple was critical, just as the ground of the Church is critical.

Using those two facts they can spin and spin wonderful messages using OT typology because so far this is true.

But then what exactly is this ground that we are standing on and building on? What is the ground purchased for us with Jesus blood as a peace offering to God? What is this ground that reminds us of the Father being so absolute that He would give his only begotten son that we could live?

Well according to LSM it is the boundary of the city!?

This separates them from all other Christians see Jesus redemption redeeming sinful man to be built up into a spiritual house. The Lord's table reminds us of this sacrifice and we are charged to keep this sacrament.

In 1Cor 11 Paul says that "the woman needs a sign of authority on her head". The church needs a sign of authority on it's head. That sign needs to read "Jesus is Lord". However, the "Ground of the church" doctrine changes this (just as other sects and divisions). You have to take our doctrine in order to eat the Lord's table, hence "The Ground of the Church" is the sign of authority on the LRC table.

So then this doctrine denies the Lord who redeemed us.

What is most disturbing to me is that you can make a few subtle changes to the LSM "Ground of the Church" doctrine and it would be something that every Christian has been taught and would accept. Is that what WN and WL did? Make a few subtle changes to the doctrine of Jesus redemption so that they could make themselves "The Minister of the Age" with "The Vision of the Age" as "The Ministry of the Age"?

[awareness]

To do this they need the smoke and mirrors of innumerable "ages" which they do not in any way illuminate other than to refer to Peter, Paul and Martin Luther. They rely on the laziness of the hearers that they are not willing to study church history so will simply take this on face value.
I asked awhile back for an official list of all the MOTA's down thru the ages.

You've revealed that, they don't have one.

[ZNPaaneah]

I asked awhile back for an official list of all the MOTA's down thru the ages.

You've revealed that, they don't have one.

We are on post #430, we have gone over the relevant quotes in LSM, we have listened to Evangelical and Drake defend this doctrine and yet we still have

Unanswered Questions

1. What is the official list of MOTA’s from Peter, to Paul to WN and WL?

2. If the MOTA gets the vision from God and gives it to the people, what is the difference between a MOTA and a mediator?

3. If all the elder’s pledge to follow the MOTA then what is the difference between the MOTA and the head of the church — Jesus?

4. If you require something other than the blood of Christ to be a church in good standing (i.e. the “ground of the church”) then isn’t this a denial of the Lord who redeemed us?

and

Unsatisfactory answers

1. MOTA and Ground of the Church are used as a justification for dividing themselves from other Christians, for judging the meetings of other Christians and for condemning the Lord's table held by other Christians. When asked that since this doctrine is a justification for division, it is something they cannot compromise on, then doesn't that mean it is an item of the faith?

The only answer to that question given is that "they are being faithful to what the Lord has told them". This is unsatisfactory because the Lord does not justify division except in an item of the faith. Likewise, if saying that "Witness Lee is the Minister of the Age" is an item of the faith you have equated confessing Witness Lee with confessing Jesus Christ -- a very clear heresy.

Unacceptable Answers

We have been told that this is one persons "least favorite" doctrine, another says it is not important and we are also told in effect it is a "take it or leave it" doctrine (if you haven't seen the matter of the ground of the church then logically you would also not see the MOTA).

None of these responses are acceptable seeing that this is the basis of division. They do not deny that there are other genuine Christians who received Christ by faith and were washed in His blood. To justify division from the Body, to condemn their meetings, simply not acceptable to say that this is not something very important, something that must be explained.

[Drake]

-1

Hi ZNP,

I will leave it for you and others to deal with those questions. Personally for me they look like rock fetch questions, questions of presumption, and they are superficial since there is no answer to the questions that would satisfy your disagreements with the Lords Recovery.

Others here really like questions like that so you should look to them to support your viewpoints and they will gladly.

Thanks
Drake

[Koinonia]

-1

Hi ZNP,

I will leave it for you and others to deal with those questions. Personally for me they look like rock fetch questions, questions of presumption, and they are superficial since there is no answer to the questions that would satisfy your disagreements with the Lords Recovery.

Others here really like questions like that so you should look to them to support your viewpoints and they will gladly.

Thanks
Drake

How embarrassing.

[awareness]

-1

Hi ZNP,

I will leave it for you and others to deal with those questions. Personally for me they look like rock fetch questions, questions of presumption, and they are superficial since there is no answer to the questions that would satisfy your disagreements with the Lords Recovery.

Others here really like questions like that so you should look to them to support your viewpoints and they will gladly.

Thanks
Drake
I don't know bro Drake, but surely you can you provide a list of the MOTA's from at least Luther.

[ZNPaaneah]

3Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

This is not a useless exercise as Drake claims, rather his claim confirms that there will be mockers in the last days.

4For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Yes, that is also my conclusion as well.

9But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing judgment, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Amen, the Lord rebuke them.

11Woe unto them! for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.

Woe to them for they have gone in the way of lawsuits. The error in Daystar, LSM, PL, etc was fundamentally the error of becoming a prophet for hire, like Balaam. The "Ground of the church" doctrine and the claim of "Minister of the Age" is their "running riotously in this error". The apology letter to PL is the gainsaying of Korah.

16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts (and their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.

Great swelling words like "Minister of the Age", "Vision of the Age", and "Ministry of the Age". Showing respect for the sake of advantage (i.e., pleasing Witness Lee for the sake of advantage).

20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; 23and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24Now unto him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy, 25to the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.

[Drake]

I don't know bro Drake, but surely you can you provide a list of the MOTA's from at least Luther.

Bro awareness,

Brother Née did a really thorough explanation of that... I try to find the link...

Drake

[Evangelical]

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

[awareness]

Bro awareness,

Brother Née did a really thorough explanation of that... I try to find the link...

Drake
Thanks ... you're a peach.

[ZNPaaneah]

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

They would identify with every one in which Jesus is Lord. By that I mean that the only requirement to partake is being baptized into the name.

Likewise, even if you are baptized you still need to deal with sins, i.e. examine yourself, and that requires the blood of Jesus.

They would have a problem with any group that lifted up another name besides Jesus, that bowed the knee to some other authority other than Jesus. For example, if you required circumcision in addition to the Lord's saving work on the cross.

This is why we feel it is important to examine this doctrine.

1. Is the doctrine of MOTA lifting up another name besides Jesus?

2. Is the MOTA a mediator of the covenant in addition to Jesus?

3. Why were the elder's of every church required to pledge loyalty to WL if Jesus is Lord?

4. Why do they justify division from born again believers who have been redeemed by the Lord's blood?

5. Why do they mock this examination, saying it is a "rock fetch" exercise when Paul clearly charged us to examine ourselves?

[Drake]

Thanks ... you're a peach.

Why, I thought you’d never notice...

:angel4:

[Ohio]

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

Here's my response from 2 Timothy 2.19 ...

Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who belong to Him," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must depart from unrighteousness."

[zeek]

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

[leastofthese]

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

The obvious answer (to you) would be that they would identify with the LSM churches? Or am I presupposing?

If this is true, how would Peter or Paul know about the church unless they were considered "good material"? What if Peter and Paul never went to undergrad?

[ZNPaaneah]

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

Good point, this is completely the wrong attitude. Paul said to examine ourselves, not others.

[awareness]

Good point, this is completely the wrong attitude. Paul said to examine ourselves, not others.
Besides, all the Lord's Table's today are just symbolism. Cuz the original "Lord's Table" was a Lord's supper, where they ate, and drank wine. But some were getting there early and eating and drinking it all, leaving some hungry, some even to the point of starving to death.

[Koinonia]

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

Surely, Peter, Paul would recognize Witness Lee as the present and final MOTA. Maybe the Blended Brothers would even let them join their coworkers' meetings.

[Ohio]

The obvious answer (to you) would be that they would identify with the LSM churches? Or am I presupposing?

If this is true, how would Peter or Paul know about the church unless they were considered "good material"? What if Peter and Paul never went to undergrad?

Peter, and John too, are definitely OUT since they were unlearned and unlettered. (Acts 4.13) They both totally flunked the "Good Material" qualifying exams. In addition, Peter was the first Pope. Three strikes he is OUT. If he disagrees, there is a Whistler Resort holiday in his future.

Paul, however, was definitely "Good Material." He had a PHD from Princeton or Dallas Theological. He would get a handshake from Ron Kangas, and a front row seat with Benson at the Seven Feasts.

[awareness]

Peter, and John too, are definitely OUT since they were unlearned and unlettered. (Acts 4.13) They both totally flunked the "Good Material" qualifying exams. In addition, Peter was the first Pope. Three strikes he is OUT. If he disagrees, there is a Whistler Resort holiday in his future.

Paul, however, was definitely "Good Material." He had a PHD from Princeton or Dallas Theological. He would get a handshake from Ron Kangas, and a front row seat with Benson at the Seven Feasts.
. . . rotflmao . . . :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[zeek]

Surely, Peter, Paul would recognize Witness Lee as the present and final MOTA. Maybe the Blended Brothers would even let them join their coworkers' meetings.

Now you're just being ironic. ;)

[Evangelical]

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because weren't Peter, James, John and the 12 disciples the "right people"? It seems to me that Jesus hung out with these 12 the most. So yes while Jesus hung out with sinners and even religious people (pharisees etc) I think it's better to be part of the disciples am I right? So my point is proven.

[Evangelical]

If any group requires more than Baptism to receive a brother or sister at the Lord's table then yes, I agree.

Okay so we can rule out Roman Catholic, Orthodox and many denominations.

Glad we agree.

[ZNPaaneah]

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because weren't Peter, James, John and the 12 disciples the "right people"? It seems to me that Jesus hung out with these 12 the most. So yes while Jesus hung out with sinners and even religious people (pharisees etc) I think it's better to be part of the disciples am I right? So my point is proven.

Of course not. Jesus was the right person. If Jesus is in your midst that is the only thing that matters. This concept opens the door to the flesh, racism, sexism, bias based on social standing, money, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Okay so we can rule out Roman Catholic, Orthodox and many denominations.

Glad we agree.

I was in the Episcopal denomination as a child. When I was 12 or 13 I took the catechism class and when that was over we were permitted to take the Lord's table.

I was too young at the time and too green to know exactly what we were being taught. It seemed they were teaching us the basic truths of the Bible and I have no recollection of having to make any pledge to the Episcopal church. I do recall being tested on the creeds. So yes, I would agree with you that this might be a violation, but this may simply be something that they do to help 12/13 year olds make the transition from child to adult. What I don't know is what happens with adults. Do they question them or do they simply instruct them that if they have received Christ as their savior they are welcome to the table. I am no expert on how the various denominations are handling this.

However, it has been my experience that over the last 50 years that all the various groups I have met with understand that the Lord's table is open to all believers who have received Christ as their savior, regardless of where they meet.

[leastofthese]

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because...So my point is proven.

Classy.

Care to answer your own question there champ?

"please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why."

[Ohio]

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because weren't Peter, James, John and the 12 disciples the "right people"? It seems to me that Jesus hung out with these 12 the most. So yes while Jesus hung out with sinners and even religious people (pharisees etc) I think it's better to be part of the disciples am I right? So my point is proven.

Even the Jewish leaders realize that these Galileans were not the "right people" because they were unlearned and unlettered. According to LSM's current standards, none of the original apostles could qualify for the FTTA.

During the Peter Training, Witness Lee even claimed he got an ulcer trying to understand Peter's epistles. Good reason for putting Greek classes on the FTTA qualifications list.

So ... what point have you proven?

[ZNPaaneah]

Even the Jewish leaders realize that these Galileans were not the "right people" because they were unlearned and unlettered. According to LSM's current standards, none of the original apostles could qualify for the FTTA.

During the Peter Training, Witness Lee even claimed he got an ulcer trying to understand Peter's epistles. Good reason for putting Greek classes on the FTTA qualifications list.

So ... what point have you proven?

"It's better to hang out with the disciples" instead of pharisees, etc.

Would Nicodemus be a pharisee or a disciple? Is Matthew a publican or a disciple? How about Saul of Tarsus?

It seems those in the LRC are the elite of the elite when it comes to discerning disciples from the riff faff.

Also, it makes you wonder, since "it is better" not to hang out with pharisees, publicans, tax collectors, etc. How did they hear the gospel? How did they get saved?

"How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good tidings" -- except to those in the LRC.

[Evangelical]

Classy.

Care to answer your own question there champ?

"please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why."

We only have to look in the Bible for which Lord's Table's Peter and Paul met with:

2 Corinthians 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. 2 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Corinthians 4:21.


Which church did you meet with last Sunday? The church in the city like Peter and Paul, or some denomination?

No where did Paul or Peter say "I am coming to the blah blah denomination"

If there were other "Lord's tables" happening at the time, perhaps a Judaistic one or a gnostic one, I am sure Peter and Paul would have not visited.

[Evangelical]

I was in the Episcopal denomination as a child. When I was 12 or 13 I took the catechism class and when that was over we were permitted to take the Lord's table.

I was too young at the time and too green to know exactly what we were being taught. It seemed they were teaching us the basic truths of the Bible and I have no recollection of having to make any pledge to the Episcopal church. I do recall being tested on the creeds. So yes, I would agree with you that this might be a violation, but this may simply be something that they do to help 12/13 year olds make the transition from child to adult. What I don't know is what happens with adults. Do they question them or do they simply instruct them that if they have received Christ as their savior they are welcome to the table. I am no expert on how the various denominations are handling this.

However, it has been my experience that over the last 50 years that all the various groups I have met with understand that the Lord's table is open to all believers who have received Christ as their savior, regardless of where they meet.

One can even take the Lord's table in a LGBT church. Is that a Lord' table?

What about a Lord's table that offers communion to gay couples? I am sure there are some Episcopal ones that do that. Are they the Lord's table?

[Evangelical]

Of course not. Jesus was the right person. If Jesus is in your midst that is the only thing that matters. This concept opens the door to the flesh, racism, sexism, bias based on social standing, money, etc.

I think my point is that Jesus was "in the midst" of many people. Just because Jesus was in their midst does not make them the kind of people we should desire to be part of.

I think some people use the "Jesus hung out with sinners" argument to almost justify or imply that we should be sinners. But Jesus hung out with Pharisees and devils as well.

The Lord's table was something reserved for his closest disciples and not something offered just to any person.

[leastofthese]

We only have to look in the Bible for which Lord's Table's Peter and Paul met with:

2 Corinthians 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. 2 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Corinthians 4:21.


Which church did you meet with last Sunday? The church in the city like Peter and Paul, or some denomination?

No where did Paul or Peter say "I am coming to the blah blah denomination"

If there were other "Lord's tables" happening at the time, perhaps a Judaistic one or a gnostic one, I am sure Peter and Paul would have not visited.

The question (remember...this was your question) wasn't where Peter and Paul met, but "With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why."

So where would they meet buddy boy - you seem to have all the answers (wink)

[Evangelical]

The question (remember...this was your question) wasn't where Peter and Paul met, but "With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why."

So where would they meet buddy boy - you seem to have all the answers (wink)

You are contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you said the question wasn't where they met. In your last sentence you asked "where would they meet".

Anyway I am sure that they would not meet or identify with any of the denominations existing today. They would be thinking of the church in Corinth, church Ephesus etc, not the "Roman Catholic church at blah blah" and "lutheran church at blah blah".

[awareness]

You are contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you said the question wasn't where they met. In your last sentence you asked "where would they meet".

Anyway I am sure that they would not meet or identify with any of the denominations existing today. They would be thinking of the church in Corinth, church Ephesus etc, not the "Roman Catholic church at blah blah" and "lutheran church at blah blah".
Bro Evangelical, I'm sorry to tell you this, but, you don't have a clue what Peter and Paul would do today.

Peter was charged with the circumcision, and Paul with the uncircumcised.

So Peter would likely work with the Jews, and Paul with the gentiles. I don't think they'd care a bit about the denominations, or the local church. And would probably bust out laughing at The Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age, and Minister of the age.

[Evangelical]

Bro Evangelical, I'm sorry to tell you this, but, you don't have a clue what Peter and Paul would do today.

Peter was charged with the circumcision, and Paul with the uncircumcised.

So Peter would likely work with the Jews, and Paul with the gentiles. I don't think they'd care a bit about the denominations, or the local church. And would probably bust out laughing at The Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age, and Minister of the age.

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

[Koinonia]

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

Evangelical, would Paul be a speaker in the seven feasts? Would he be an editor at LSM?

[Evangelical]

Evangelical, would Paul be a speaker in the seven feasts? Would he be an editor at LSM?

Paul would have his own publishing house, surely.

[Ohio]

We only have to look in the Bible for which Lord's Table's Peter and Paul met with:

2 Corinthians 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. 2 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Corinthians 4:21.


Which church did you meet with last Sunday? The church in the city like Peter and Paul, or some denomination?

No where did Paul or Peter say "I am coming to the blah blah denomination"

If there were other "Lord's tables" happening at the time, perhaps a Judaistic one or a gnostic one, I am sure Peter and Paul would have not visited.

No where did Paul or Peter say "I'm coming to LSM and its LC's, you know the ones who only read Lee's books."

[Ohio]

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

Then you don't know the Apostle. Read Acts again. Paul would go to the first church he saw, just like he would go to the synagogues. He would walk right into the Catholic Church and preach the Gospel.

But if he walked into the LC's, and started hearing "BruLee said, BruLee said," then he would walk out.

[least]

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

Based on the bible, Paul "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, ... "

Ha! who then is MOTA? WL? Paul?
If you invoke Paul from the dead to prove your point, you have to invoke WL too, so that they can debate. Otherwise WL might be in danger of 'denied Paul's gospel'.

If Paul is past, and LSM MOTA is the one NOW, why bring Paul back.

Evang, you are calling up numerous dead people. King Saul only called Samuel. And king Saul called Samuel because The Lord was not speaking to him anymore. Irk ... bro. Take good care of yourself ...
-

[UntoHim]

Ohio and Evangelical...last couple of posts about the LBGT stuff deleted. Let's steer clear of that angle here on the main forum.
-

[Koinonia]

Paul would have his own publishing house, surely.

Then, which would be the One Publication--Paul's publishing house, or LSM?

[ZNPaaneah]

I think my point is that Jesus was "in the midst" of many people. Just because Jesus was in their midst does not make them the kind of people we should desire to be part of.

I think some people use the "Jesus hung out with sinners" argument to almost justify or imply that we should be sinners. But Jesus hung out with Pharisees and devils as well.

The Lord's table was something reserved for his closest disciples and not something offered just to any person.

I would say there are three things that distinguish the closest disciples of the Lord:

1. What things soever they shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever they shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

2. If two of them agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father who is in heaven.

3. The Lord Jesus is in the midst of them.

Would you agree with this?

[Evangelical]

I would say there are three things that distinguish the closest disciples of the Lord:

1. What things soever they shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever they shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

2. If two of them agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father who is in heaven.

3. The Lord Jesus is in the midst of them.

Would you agree with this?

Agree but don't forget that they had no denominational affiliation.

[least]

Then, which one would be the One Publication--Paul's publishing house, or LSM?

whala !
R.k. in tears besieging 'elders' of the blended order to pledge in writing absolute loyalty to LSM. It's the 'body feeling' you know.
Another written pledge from lc (all over the globe) of the blended order to quarantine 'this dissenting one' for not prophesying according to the hundreds of thousands of pages 'richness'.
-

[Evangelical]

Then, which one would be the One Publication--Paul's publishing house, or LSM?

It would be Paul, and if Paul was alive today Witness Lee would not exist. Remember this is time travel.

[leastofthese]

You are contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you said the question wasn't where they met. In your last sentence you asked "where would they meet".

Anyway I am sure that they would not meet or identify with any of the denominations existing today. They would be thinking of the church in Corinth, church Ephesus etc, not the "Roman Catholic church at blah blah" and "lutheran church at blah blah".

Wow. Just wow.

So the past tense “met” is the same as “would meet”? No wonder you’ve been suckered. I’m usually embarrassed for you after reading your posts, but this one may take the cake.

[Evangelical]

Wow. Just wow.

So the past tense “met” is the same as “would meet”? No wonder you’ve been suckered. I’m usually embarrassed for you after reading your posts, but this one may take the cake.

A person quibbling over semantics indicates a person who doesn't have an argument. You haven't actually written anything yet in relation to the topic.

[awareness]

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age,
Because he wasn't. There were no "the minister of the age" back then. That's a Nee/Lee construct.

I see Peter bringing thousands to Christ. He was Jesus' chief disciple, his right hand man. His shadow would heal people.

So just that example is enough to debunk this minister of the age nonsense ... not even considering that, there were many more ministers back then ... including many women.

[ZNPaaneah]

Agree but don't forget that they had no denominational affiliation.

That is fine. These three criteria are the promises given in Chapter 18 of Matthew, it answers the question "who is the greatest in the kingdom" and the way to identify them are also given in Chapter 18.

1. They have humbled themselves as children, a key criteria without which you cannot enter the kingdom. We can discuss what exactly this means, I have my ideas, but clearly "humbling yourself as a child" is contrary to claiming you are the "Minister of the Age". It would be similar to Paul saying "he was less than the least", Peter accepting the rebuke of Paul, and James repenting of his involvement with the Judaizers.

2. These seek out the lost sheep. This includes the warning not to stumble one of these little ones, better to tie a grinding stone to your neck and be tossed into the sea. (As it turns out a "rock fetch" exercise that Drake was calling our examination is simply trying to find these grinding stones at the bottom of the sea).

3. This process of seeking the lost sheep can include those who were offended by others. Your responsibility is to hear their offense, and if appropriate go with them to the offending party. For example, going to Ed Marks concerning those offended by his apology letter to PL. As predicted by the Lord and justified by Drake they "refused to hear me".

Only when you have these three does the Lord give the promises that you agree represent those special ones who eat with Him at the His table.

[leastofthese]

A person quibbling over semantics indicates a person who doesn't have an argument. You haven't actually written anything yet in relation to the topic.

So are you going to answer the question? Or squiggle over semantics?

For the record, I don’t have an argument for which church Peter and Paul would attend. It is a ridiculous question, you asked it.

[ZNPaaneah]

So are you going to answer the question? Or squiggle over semantics?

For the record, I don’t have an argument for which church Peter and Paul would attend. It is a ridiculous question, you asked it.

Why is it ridiculous? Why would the apostles warn us of false brethren who sneak in to bring us into captivity if it were not true? We see the Judaizers in Acts, we see references to this by James, and Peter and Paul. In the book of Revelation we see the 7 churches, almost all with major deficiencies.

This is clearly the central issue to Evangelical and to many who are in the LRC. They came from "churches" that were deficient and they are seeking "the true church". If you want to have a conversation with them over this subject then you have to address their concern.

[Ohio]

Why is it ridiculous? Why would the apostles warn us of false brethren who sneak in to bring us into captivity if it were not true? We see the Judaizers in Acts, we see references to this by James, and Peter and Paul. In the book of Revelation we see the 7 churches, almost all with major deficiencies.

This is clearly the central issue to Evangelical and to many who are in the LRC. They came from "churches" that were deficient and they are seeking "the true church". If you want to have a conversation with them over this subject then you have to address their concern.

But ... can we ever have real "conversations" when Evangelical and Drake never address our concerns?

[Drake]

ZNP>"2. These seek out the lost sheep. This includes the warning not to stumble one of these little ones, better to tie a grinding stone to your neck and be tossed into the sea. (As it turns out a "rock fetch" exercise that Drake was calling our examination is simply trying to find these grinding stones at the bottom of the sea)."

No. A rock fetch is asking questions that presume guilt for which there is no answer that can satisfy the questioner because of outstanding offenses that have never been dealt with before God and man.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP>"2. These seek out the lost sheep. This includes the warning not to stumble one of these little ones, better to tie a grinding stone to your neck and be tossed into the sea. (As it turns out a "rock fetch" exercise that Drake was calling our examination is simply trying to find these grinding stones at the bottom of the sea)."

No. A rock fetch is asking questions that presume guilt for which there is no answer that can satisfy the questioner because of outstanding offenses that have never been dealt with before God and man.

Drake

The definition on the urban dictionary is "a useless exercise". Worrying about these grinding stones instead of the least of the Lord's brothers who are being stumbled is, by definition, a useless exercise. Since it involves fetching stones from the bottom of the ocean, it is a "rock fetch" exercise by any and all definitions.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

Its a useless exercise to try to answer questions like that because there is no answer that satisfies the underlying issue you have.

For example a question like one from Maxine Waters, or others like her, about Trump.... there is no answer that would satisfy her underlying need.... nothing can be said in response to her questions that would deter her from anything less than impeachment. Her mind is made up completely. So, any questions are just a means to restate the underlying issue and the question itself is immaterial.

To you the verdict is already in, judgement has been passed, and at this point you are just litigating the matter in the court of public opinion over and over. At some point you just have to accept the principle of 70 X 7, else you will go to your grave never having forgiven your brothers or anyone you feel that wronged you. In the principle of 70 X 7 who is right and who is wrong about the many offenses is not relevant.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

-1

ZNP,

Its a useless exercise to try to answer questions like that because there is no answer that satisfies the underlying issue you have.


These are not useless questions because they are crucial. We see in the book of Acts Paul and other apostles preventing others from lifting their name up, or treating them as the mediator of the covenant, etc.

1. Is the doctrine of MOTA lifting up another name besides Jesus?

2. Is the MOTA a mediator of the covenant in addition to Jesus?


This is not a useless question. This is something that has to be addressed. If it was a mistake say so, but not saying this was a mistake allows it to be codified. Yes, I feel it is a mistake, but the fact that no one makes a defense of this only contributes to this conclusion. The claim that Witness Lee's words somehow change what he did does not justify it, rather it confirms he knew what he was doing was condemned by the Bible.

3. Why were the elder's of every church required to pledge loyalty to WL if Jesus is Lord?


This is not a useless question, you have answered this, but I feel your answer is unsatisfactory. You feel you are being faithful to the vision the Lord has given you yet you also feel that there are many believers who have been redeemed that have not been given this vision. So the question is focusing on why the LRC condemns other tables as being sinful.

4. Why do they justify division from born again believers who have been redeemed by the Lord's blood?

Paul said to examine ourselves when we take the table. I feel these questions are part of that process. We each hold to doctrines and opinions that could be something we need to let go of. This is part of the process of sanctification. It addresses the Lord's point about not stumbling the weaker brother (i.e. the one without your vision).

5. Why do they mock this examination, saying it is a "rock fetch" exercise when Paul clearly charged us to examine ourselves?

[Drake]

ZNP,

Here you go.... still wont make a difference to you because the underlying issues you carry with you have not been resolved. These questions are just so you can go back to litigating with brothers in a public setting instead of following the Lord's charge of forgiving offenses 70 X 7.

1. Is the doctrine of MOTA lifting up another name besides Jesus?

NO.

2. Is the MOTA a mediator of the covenant in addition to Jesus?

NO.

3. Why were the elder's of every church required to pledge loyalty to WL if Jesus is Lord?

A question of presumption... it assumes they were required.

4. Why do they justify division from born again believers who have been redeemed by the Lord's blood?

A question of presumption... it assumes they justify division. Evangelical has answered this question thoroughly ad nauseam. It is not those that stand for unity that are the perpetrators of division.

5. Why do they mock this examination, saying it is a "rock fetch" exercise when Paul clearly charged us to examine ourselves?

I'll own that one gladly. It is a rock fetch because you are using questions as a means to an end. The end is you want to slander brothers in a public forum and the means are questions that cannot solve the underlying issues you still have with some of them.

However, let's find some point of agreement here. Paul says we should examine ourselves. Therefore, why do you spend so much time examining others? How about you take the Apostle's charge seriously and the Lord's charge of forgiving offenses 70 X 7?

Drake

[Evangelical]

So are you going to answer the question? Or squiggle over semantics?

For the record, I don’t have an argument for which church Peter and Paul would attend. It is a ridiculous question, you asked it.

I already answered in post 455.

[ZNPaaneah]

However, let's find some point of agreement here. Paul says we should examine ourselves. Therefore, why do you spend so much time examining others? How about you take the Apostle's charge seriously and the Lord's charge of forgiving offenses 70 X 7?

Drake
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

I am not conscience of any offense with anyone in the LRC.

Why did I move on? Because I examined myself.

However, this discussion is not about offenses, it is about "contending for the faith" which we have been charged to do.

[ZNPaaneah]

3. Why were the elder's of every church required to pledge loyalty to WL if Jesus is Lord?

A question of presumption... it assumes they were required.

One elder that was there testified that he was.

There are numerous testimonies from elders about how they were driven out due to their "not being one with the ministry". For example, consider the "quarantine of Titus Chu". The letter written by the Blendeds over this is a powerful witness that elders were required to be loyal to Witness Lee or else they would be removed.

[ZNPaaneah]

4. Why do they justify division from born again believers who have been redeemed by the Lord's blood?

A question of presumption... it assumes they justify division. Evangelical has answered this question thoroughly ad nauseam. It is not those that stand for unity that are the perpetrators of division.


I heard this in Houston. Ray Graver taught us that if we took the Lord's table outside of the Local Church you could get sick and die. He actually gave examples of people who did get sick.

When I talked to others they also heard this teaching, so much so that I felt my experience was commonplace.

Witness Lee has taught in great detail about the sins of every other group including free groups and that their table is not a legitimate one.

Yes we have heard Evangelical claim that you have to choose where to meet, and that some places would be better than others for the table. But that isn't the question. In the LRC we were regularly warned against taking the table in other churches, they realize that we might visit family, go to funerals, weddings, etc. That was obviously necessary, so long as we don't take the table.

That is what I am asking, why is that condemned?

[ZNPaaneah]

1. Is the doctrine of MOTA lifting up another name besides Jesus?

NO.

2. Is the MOTA a mediator of the covenant in addition to Jesus?

NO.


That was my opinion as well until I read the Blended's explanation for the quarantine of Titus Chu.

Let's look at what they said were some of the reasons for the quarantine.

1. The “blended brothers” allege that Titus Chu & his co-workers are “separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”.

2. Point 2a –Titus & some of his co-workers are allegedly “challenging and rejecting the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee”.

3. Titus & co. are accused of “slandering Living Stream Ministry...declaring that Living Stream Ministry is a headquarters exercising control over the churches throughout the earth.” [Point 2b]

7. The “Warning Letter” says Titus opposes the practice of “One Publication,” which is not an item of the common faith, but a matter of “one trumpet sound of the ministry.” [Point 2f]

8. Titus & his co-workers are condemned for “promoting their own publications” [Point 2g.]

[Drake]

I have no offenses with anyone in the LRC.

Why did I move on? Because I examined myself.

However, this discussion is not about offenses, it is about "contending for the faith" which we have been charged to do.

ZNP,

Sorry brother. According to your posts, their content and frequency, and the continual citing of decades old offenses.... you have not moved on, you have not forgiven those that offended you, and your approach of besmirching others for their failures, sins, and shortcomings of others is not "contending for the faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you have examined yourself and found yourself to be without sins, failures, or shortcomings on what basis do you flip the Apostle's charge to examining others day in and day out?

Drake

[Drake]

One elder that was there testified that he was.

There are numerous testimonies from elders about how they were driven out due to their "not being one with the ministry". For example, consider the "quarantine of Titus Chu". The letter written by the Blendeds over this is a powerful witness that elders were required to be loyal to Witness Lee or else they would be removed.

ZNP,

Then why did that elder sign?

418 automatons and one conscientious objecting elder who was forced to hold a pen in his hand while the other 418 stared him down?

C'mon...

[Drake]

I heard this in Houston. Ray Graver taught us that if we took the Lord's table outside of the Local Church you could get sick and die. He actually gave examples of people who did get sick.

When I talked to others they also heard this teaching, so much so that I felt my experience was commonplace.

Witness Lee has taught in great detail about the sins of every other group including free groups and that their table is not a legitimate one.

Yes we have heard Evangelical claim that you have to choose where to meet, and that some places would be better than others for the table. But that isn't the question. In the LRC we were regularly warned against taking the table in other churches, they realize that we might visit family, go to funerals, weddings, etc. That was obviously necessary, so long as we don't take the table.

That is what I am asking, why is that condemned?

The table is a serious thing that could lead to sickness and it is not Brother Ray who first said it. What does Paul say about it?

Still brother, if you will not receive Evangelical's lengthy investment of time and research then you will not receive mine either. So I recommend that you pick this back up with Evangelical if he is still willing.

Drake

[Drake]

That was my opinion as well until I read the Blended's explanation for the quarantine of Titus Chu.

Let's look at what they said were some of the reasons for the quarantine.

1. The “blended brothers” allege that Titus Chu & his co-workers are “separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”.

2. Point 2a –Titus & some of his co-workers are allegedly “challenging and rejecting the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee”.

3. Titus & co. are accused of “slandering Living Stream Ministry...declaring that Living Stream Ministry is a headquarters exercising control over the churches throughout the earth.” [Point 2b]

7. The “Warning Letter” says Titus opposes the practice of “One Publication,” which is not an item of the common faith, but a matter of “one trumpet sound of the ministry.” [Point 2f]

8. Titus & his co-workers are condemned for “promoting their own publications” [Point 2g.]

All that is factual.

It is a matter of the work. I love and respect Brother Titus and he has helped me personally and some of the things he ministered decades ago have stuck with me all these years.

Yet, there was something going on there that was not in coordination and fellowship as a co-worker with other co-workers. That never works out and it didn't then either. In the NT the work needed a lot of fellowship and oftentimes it just did not work out as the accounts of contention in the work clearly demonstrate. Titus was not opposed to Brother Lee, nor with the role of Brother Lee's ministry, rather..... there was a disagreement between Titus and the other brothers regarding the work and frankly a schism was festering that could have damaged all the churches. It had to be addressed and many attempts were made to do just that.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,

Sorry brother. According to your posts, their content and frequency, and the continual citing of decades old offenses.... you have not moved on, you have not forgiven those that offended you, and your approach of besmirching others for their failures, sins, and shortcomings of others is not "contending for the faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you have examined yourself and found yourself to be without sins, failures, or shortcomings on what basis do you flip the Apostle's charge to examining others day in and day out?

Drake

All of my posts concerning past offenses do not refer to any offenses against me. You either have not paid attention or do not realize. I had no personal offense from PL, did not know Titus Chu other than meeting him once, did not invest in Daystar.

However, according to Matt 18 it is the responsibility of all of us to hear the offenses others have and to stand with them if your conscience so dictates.

Since I served in LSM for many years I felt a special responsibility to respond to the things said.

Again, have no conscience of any offense with anyone in the LRC.

What I am conscience of is the warnings given by Paul, Peter and James concerning false prophets and the charge given by Jude to contend for the faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,

Then why did that elder sign?

418 automatons and one conscientious objecting elder who was forced to hold a pen in his hand while the other 418 stared him down?

C'mon...

Reasonable question. Same could be said of all these women who are claiming #metoo.

[ZNPaaneah]

The table is a serious thing that could lead to sickness and it is not Brother Ray who first said it. What does Paul say about it?

Still brother, if you will not receive Evangelical's lengthy investment of time and research then you will not receive mine either. So I recommend that you pick this back up with Evangelical if he is still willing.

Drake

I did pick it up with him, you obviously have not been paying attention.

[ZNPaaneah]

All that is factual.

How is it a basis for excommunication that you are not seeking to "be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"?

[Ohio]

ZNP,

Then why did that elder sign?

418 automatons and one conscientious objecting elder who was forced to hold a pen in his hand while the other 418 stared him down?

C'mon...
Always citing extremes to make your case.

How many at the ITERO could endure the slander, libel, and public shaming endured by John Ingalls et. al. in the '80s and Titus Chu et.al. in the '00s?

Dear Drake, W. Nee taught that the first step in man's salvation was honesty, but all I ever see from you is denials.

With a trail of victims a half century long, when will you ever admit?

[ZNPaaneah]

All that is factual.


How is challenging and rejecting the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee a basis for excommunication?

[ZNPaaneah]

All that is factual.


If Titus was excommunicated for "slandering LSM" doesn't that prove they are exercising authority over the churches? So then how can claiming that LSM exercises authority over the churches be slander?