Originally Posted by Gideon7

Good evening folks. I wanted to jump back in here and give a big thanks for all the info and stories and encouragement that was shared in response to my query. I deeply appreciate what was shared- although I'm sure I didn't quite catch nearly all of it- I don't claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have decided to move on and not continue to fellowship with the LC in my area. I honestly can't nail it down to one reason- or even a couple- I guess I didn't find my "smoking gun". But I do sense the Holy Spirit moving me away from this group and on to... well, I don't really know exactly what. There are some things I will miss and honestly doubt I will easily find in another fellowship. The open sharing, the lack of the One Man in Charge (Pastor X), the apparent equality, the use of biblical lingo- so much of it had the feeling of Acts. I'll be honest and say I'm sorta sad- kinda like I found out that a person I was getting to know had horrible character defects and I needed to cut off the relationship. I'm gonna miss the "what I hoped it coulda been". I know God has someplace for my wife and I to serve/grow/give/get/share. This hasn't at all lessened my appreciation for Christ or who I am in Him. But it has been another apparent example of the insidious nature of pride- at least in my opinion that was the main downfall of WL- but I could easily be wrong and ultimately that's between he and Christ. So I rejoice that I've been adopted, cleaned up a bit and loved by an Awesome Savior- how eternally grateful I am to be His and know where I'm going when this crazy ride is done. And what a mission He has put us on- to know Him and make Him known- and I hope I'm faithful to Him til He takes me home. Thanks again for all the input. May we each take seriously and joyfully the opportunity we have been given through Christ- all glory to Him!

Originally Posted by Terry

There was no fact-checking in FOTPR. There was no checking of the facts by WL, but withholding the facts. It's no different how DWS took care of the DNC in the 2016 Democratic primaries. There were manipulations towards a predetermined outcome.

Originally Posted by Terry

It goes both ways......"The book The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion includes my spoken messages, but its content was edited afterward by me personally. I have carefully checked all the facts and have tried my best to be accurate, to be without any mistakes." - spoken by Witness Lee 4/18/90.

Originally Posted by Gideon7

With this in mind, I'm wondering if some of you ex-LCers might share your biggest complaint/grudge/issue/false-teaching/heresy/etc… you personally found in relation to the LC. If you could only pick one- what would it be?

Originally Posted by Ohio

And DCP is the "Defense and Confirmation Project" which is little more than the legal arm of LSM ready to sue any publisher who speaks up. They are doing their best to shut down this website.

When I left, I reminisced my many years there, putting together all my stories with a few other brothers I knew and discovered online, and then I got hit with the awful conclusion one day that this program turns beloved brothers into bullies.

Originally Posted by Drake

The lack of due diligence to present the facts is absolutely astounding.

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Your starting point is always doctrine which I have already stated is a non-starter for me personally.

In any case, I don’t understand your question. Please rephrase.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Was it the "Ministry of the Age" because of the "Ground of the Church" doctrine, or were there other factors that were necessary?

Originally Posted by Drake

No, not in those terms.

It was apparent that he was the one who was the lead minister in the ministry of the age. I got that idea because he obviously was.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, did you believe that Witness Lee was "the minister of the age" while he was alive? If so, where did you get that idea?

Originally Posted by Drake

JJ>"Sorry for the confusion, Drake. I’m trying to respect LSM copyright by not copying. Do you not see which books, chapters, sections, are cited? Read them in their context.

My point is not that a singular sentence or phrase tells you “I am the Minister of the Age”. Like Watchman Née before him, Witness Lee never said those words directly. He said it over and over in different ways indirectly"

JJ,

Sure. so just type a sentence you want us to go look at if there is quote. We can use it as a keyword.

Now to your point.... I think the reason that Brother Lee did not say it explicitly is because he was not promoting it. Consider this.... did Brother Lee strike you as a person that went out of his way to avoid controversy in stating something he really believed in? Rather he leaned into the things he believed in even it would be misunderstood. If he believed that a special title and office of "MOTA" was important for him to appropriate then his ministry would have been explicitly with it... no need to skirt it or hint about it.

I stated several posts ago that it recently occurred to me that I never heard him say "Minister of the Age" or "MOTA"... and my sense was right...

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, did you believe that Witness Lee was "the minister of the age" while he was alive? If so, where did you get that idea?

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay... produce an audio then.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It is not printed. That does not mean he never said it.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

It is not printed. That does not mean he never said it.

Originally Posted by Drake

I stated several posts ago that it recently occurred to me that I never heard him say "Minister of the Age" or "MOTA"... and my sense was right...

Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

I got in trouble, and stirred up all the sisters, who stirred up their husband, stirring up a ruckus, when I pointed out Peter was naked. The response was, "No he wasn't." And when the preacher confirmed it the remark was, "Why would they put that in the Bible?"

Later, after getting home, the preacher called me, quite upset, and that's when I was told I was feeding meat to milk drinkers.

The motto of the church was, "No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ." They believe the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God, but have little interest in reading what they believe is Gods' very own words. I don't get it. Eventually I was run out of that church. (Will it ever end?) I was speaking out of their comfort zone.

But in their defense. Here, in Ky, I've heard from many believers that, they believe the preacher speaks for God. So the Bible isn't all that important. All they have to do is listen to the preacher. Ring a bell?

As to why the Spirit isn't teaching them, maybe they aren't listening.

Thanks for your reply brother Evangelical. Blessings.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to some the Spirit is supposed to teach them and no man is needed. Why didnt it work?

In fact in a bible study i used to attend I had to defend the idea of unbelievers going to hell. Everyone was against me even the pastor. Why the Spirit teaches different things?

Originally Posted by awareness

I can testify bro EvanG that this is true in churches here in my neck of the woods, except for the devoted conservative believers. They know and read their Bible, but are few in numbers. Some of them are my Southern Baptist family members.

That doesn't mean that I've haven't been called out for feeding meat to milk drinkers, in the adult Sunday School class, by the preacher, who was leading the class.

But I should also point out that, eating lunch with them after services I found out that they were similar to the early NT church days, in that they didn't read anything, not just the Bible. And they didn't have the excuse that NT believers had, unlike 90% back then, that were literate. In their defense, most of them are farmers, with little time and energy to read anything. Having lunch with one of the elders I was told they get their Bible from the preacher, who had massive amounts of the Bible memorized (like David Koresh of Waco fame).

Still, I must point out that teaching young people the Bible is not a magic pill. Example, one daughter of a brother I knew in the LC knew her Bible well enough to write a thesis in high school on how David and Jonathan were gay, or at least bisexual. I read it. It was a strong argument, with many Bible references. She knew her Bible. She was gay.

I mentioned David Koresh, a cult leader. When I joined the LC I had a choice to join the Children of God. They had to memorize 10 verses of the Bible every day. The Children of God was/is a personality cult too, just like Lee's local church, that's not quite as extreme. Proving that, just because a Christian group teaches the Bible doesn't mean they aren't a cult. Cults memorize the Bible too.

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi JJ,

As you read the online document at lsm.org just highlight and copy a sentence or phrase and then paste into your post on this site.... that way, we can use your copied sentence or phrase as a search criteria on the lsm.org site.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by least

I usually quickly glanced over Awareness' post. I had this: this one bitter and mean ...
This quoted post I actually calmly read through all of it, and I understand.
Hope you are serving the Lord and members of Christ body, with love; and preaching the gospel fervently.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How is "getting between" even possible? Doesn't that apply to any devotional or bible assist?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How is "getting between" even possible? Doesn't that apply to any devotional or bible assist?

I think you are mistaken about the context of those verses, but anyway - no one has ever gotten between me and the Word when I have morning revival. Everyone is encouraged to develop their own relationship with God. In fact "go to the Lord" is one of the most frequently heard sayings.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are teenagers in the local church who know the Bible better than a person in the denominations who has attended church all their lives for decades and being only drip fed by the pastor's sermons (which in many cases are not even biblical, being merely only instructional or concerned with ethics or social justice issues etc). This is also evident by the fact that a young person can deliver a biblical message in the meeting, almost as good as any adult, whereas most teenagers in any local denomination would struggle. Two reasons for this - the teenagers are treated like adults and expected to read the Word like everyone else (rather than play games), and secondly unlike in the denominations, the meeting environment encourages people to overcome their shyness and speak.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You may not hear this in the Recovery, but Heb 8.10-12 says:
I John 2.27 also speaks of the anointing teaching us, and we not needing the teachings of men.

Evangelical, here is the difference between the Bible and Lee -- Lee's teachings get between the Word and the children of God. Lee takes away their liberty to directly follow the Lord. I told you about how elders would be chastised publicly for attempting to follow the Lamb directly.

Real Shepherds and Teachers lead the saints and open up the Word, but do not get between them. In Acts 20.30 Paul warns us about those who rise up teaching perverted things, and drawing the saints after themselves, rather than leading them to the Lord. This aptly describes Lee and his ministry.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What's the point of "Sunday school" then? This idea that we don't need teachers is a modern one, not found in the early church period, or in the Bible. The disciples of Jesus themselves had disciples under them, and these had disciples under them. Jesus established a pattern of discipleship which continued into the early church period.If a person has a teacher they can grow in their knowledge of God much faster than on their own.

Originally Posted by Meribah

And he did not DARE quote anyone living and still be able to say "poor, degraded Christianity" and not have some holes in his argument against them.

Originally Posted by Meribah

While there is truly only ONE mediator between GOD and man (our precious Lord Jesus), the LC has another mediator--one between them and the Word. So, from the ground up you have everyday saints, WL, the Word, Jesus, and God. Only WL could rightly divide the Word. Only WL can "see" the deeper things. Only WL's version is acceptable. This is the applied infallibility that I discussed--and it DOES exist. If it did not, there would be no need to remove things from the writing/speaking of WL that don't mesh with what is appropriate. They could leave it and just say, "Well, he is human and could NOT have been right about everything."

Originally Posted by Meribah

When I was growing up in an evangelical church, some of us young people would ask, "How can newly saved people learn about the Lord enough from the Bible if no one is there to teach them?" They answered, "The Lord is faithful to guide a seeker to the food he needs in the Bible for his maturity level at that time." Made sense then. Makes sense now. I reject any mediator between me and the Word. Everyone else should also.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which two NT verses?

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm not sure why, awareness. There is a Section 13 of Chapter 1. Can you advance one section at a time, by clicking in the upper right corner?

Here's the link to what I'm trying to share again.
https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think many of his points about the church being local were valid based on the NT. It still doesn't explain building a whole teaching whole cloth out of an OT typology of the Temple. IMO his use of inference on those two NT verses were incredibly weak and ultimately a misapplication.

I get that he might have been biased. But every time they "take the ground" they give a message on the Ground of the Church. How many times could he have done that before seeing the error in the doctrine? I guess I have more respect for WN's understanding than others do. I just can't imagine him not recognizing the error.

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm not sure why, awareness. There is a Section 13 of Chapter 1. Can you advance one section at a time, by clicking in the upper right corner?

Here's the link to what I'm trying to share again.
https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

Originally Posted by awareness

It must be me again. For me chapter 1 only goes up to section 10.

Originally Posted by awareness

I didn't use that term back then, but that's exacting what I thought was happening when the MOTA thing came along : Morphing. Being a Bible thumper I termed it falling into Laodicea.

I can't tell you all the hours I spent praying over it. I honestly felt the Lord wanted me to do all I could to prevent it.

Fat chance. It was time that the rank and file fall in line under the one supreme leader.

I was reading books on oneness back then. I saw clearly that the ground of oneness wasn't living up to its claims.

I don't remember now which book it was, maybe "The Spirit of Love" but William Law pointed out, in a nutshell, that, we're all one in the Spirit but, it is brotherly love that works it out.

So I thought we were falling out of Philadelphia into Laodicea. I went around sharing what Law said about brotherly love. It fell on deaf ears.

Those were the days when we were to fall in line with the supreme leader. That's what it was all about.

And so, me, a brother speaking about brotherly love, me, a brother that loved Christ and the Church, me, a brother that loved God and the Bible, me, a brother that loved Nee and Lee, me, a burning brother, got booted out for not accepting the MOTA Flow of Oneness.

That's right, in those days the MOTA doctrine came down from Anaheim as : "The Flow of Oneness."

Weren't we standing on that already? That wasn't enough. And brotherly love wasn't enough. Now we had to declare brotherLee love too. And good burning brothers like me, and many others, were pushed off 'the ground of oneness' over the new ground of oneness : Witness Lee as the MOTA.

That wasn't just a little bit divisive. Now we weren't only one with all Christians in the city, we weren't even one with our own members.

And talk about divisive. I have it from good authority, from the brother that caused it, a early Elden Hall brother. A couple years or so after I left the Church in Ft. Lauderdale, they had a meeting that almost broke out into a fist fight over the MOTA.

The end result. Those loyal to the MOTA, around 40 of them, left and declared the ground in Boca Raton. And after 3 decades they are still there. All 40 of them, minus some that have passed. And last time I checked, the church in Ft. Lauderdale isn't list as a local church by LSM.

"The Flow of Oneness?" Bahahahahahaha

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nee was convinced, possibly by Chinese xenophobic sentiments, that the churches should be local, so-called Antioch style, based exclusively on Revelations chapters 2 and 3. This all changed in the end when Nee adopted the Jerusalem principle, with centralized authority over all LC's. Lee in the US also made the same transition, starting out with Antioch and ending with Jerusalem. Localism in today's LC's is merely a ruse.

Concerning the MOTA paradigm, Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life was spoken/written by Nee before his excommunication in the 1930's. His book Spiritual Authority was spoken/written after his return to ministry in the late 1940's. Nee went thru serious changes while in ministerial exile. Types and shadows were then used when plain scripture was lacking. Lee also passed thru the same transition, initially during the January 1974 elders training and finalizing during the "New Way."

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't tell you all the hours I spent praying over it. I honestly felt the Lord wanted me to do all I could to prevent it.

And so, me, a brother speaking about brotherly love, me, a brother that loved Christ and the Church, me, a brother that loved God and the Bible, me, a brother that loved Nee and Lee, me, a burning brother, got booted out for not accepting the MOTA Flow of Oneness.

That's right, in those days the MOTA doctrine came down from Anaheim as : "The Flow of Oneness."

Originally Posted by Ohio

And anyone that resists the "morphing" will be eliminated!

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is why it doesn't make sense to me. Nee was obviously an educated, intelligent man who knew how to expound the Bible. He taught that when you teach the word you have to discern between the black and white teaching and teachings based on types and shadows. Nee taught that you can't use types and shadows to build a teaching, only to support and develop a black and white teaching from the NT.

So then, how could the centerpiece of his ministry, the teaching he would have spent the most time speaking on and defending, how is this teaching based on types and shadows and inferences?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Possibly, but Nee's book was popular in the US long before Lee came, and LSM's furtive tactics were developed.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Like WL's messages I suppose WN's spoken messages were quite different from the edited written ones.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And this is exactly why the LC is not what it claims to be--at all. Over the years, it has morphed from an attempt at oneness into the affiliation of Witness Lee, and LC leaders have done everything to enforce this.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And this is exactly why the LC is not what it claims to be--at all. Over the years, it has morphed from an attempt at oneness into the affiliation of Witness Lee, and LC leaders have done everything to enforce this.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is exactly true.

The "Ground of Oneness" was explicitly defined by Nee's book The Normal Christian Church Life. Read that book.

It specifically states, in no uncertain terms, that nothing like a MOTA could exist, and anything like a MOTA would divide the church.

When Lee was asked about these glaring contradictions, he basically responded, "who do you think you are, I was there when Nee spoke those messages?"

Originally Posted by zeek

But, the real problem came when brothers were ousted from meeting with the church because they didn't accept the Lee-as-MOTA doctrine. That was a violation of the principle of the ground of oneness, the very principle upon which the local churches were supposed to be established. At that moment if not before the local churches became sectarian. Is Christ divided? Was Witness Lee crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by zeek

But, the real problem came when brothers were ousted from meeting with the church because they didn't accept the Lee-as-MOTA doctrine. That was a violation of the principle of the ground of oneness, the very principle upon which the local churches were supposed to be established. At that moment if not before the local churches became sectarian. Is Christ divided? Was Witness Lee crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by JJ

“Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God’s Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move” Chapter 1 Section 13 has quotes of Witness Lee on ministers of the age, the ministry of the age, and its leader.... clearly himself.

https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was also told specifically when working with LSM to edit transcripts that Ben McPherson and others in that work would specifically edit out comments made by WL that were not appropriate for the written ministry. However, I am unable to fulfill Drake's request for a specific example of editing out comments by WL that he was the MOTA because I do not have any audio or video tapes of messages.

I remember specifically during the Ephesians training WL talked about how we were all "apostles" and "prophets". If we speak for God then we are a prophet. If we are sent to speak to a person, then we are an apostle. In that context he was referred to as "The Apostle" by many, and frequently after that the label stuck.

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not going to tear down what Ron Kangas and others are doing. But, don't deceive yourselves into thinking that the realization that Witness Lee was the unique minister of the age was something that dawned independently in the minds of people in the local churches. No. He explicitly claimed the mantle of MOTA in messages that were shared among the brothers, I being one of them. That's a fact that has been suppressed. Why?

But, the real problem came when brothers were ousted from meeting with the church because they didn't accept the Lee-as-MOTA doctrine. That was a violation of the principle of the ground of oneness, the very principle upon which the local churches were supposed to be established. At that moment if not before the local churches became sectarian. Is Christ divided? Was Witness Lee crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Witness Lee?

If the leaders have ever acknowledged their error in making belief in Lee as MOTA a condition of fellowship, I am unaware of it. Instead, I read of their quarantine of other speakers and churches, and their setting up LSM as their sole sanctioned publisher and suing Christians who disagree with them. Where's the oneness?

Originally Posted by awareness

Nope. You won't hear that from Kangas. Nee and Lee are saints to him ... at least that's his public persona.

Originally Posted by JJ

“Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God’s Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move” Chapter 1 Section 13 has quotes of Witness Lee on ministers of the age, the ministry of the age, and its leader.... clearly himself.

https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

Originally Posted by Drake

JJ

Your links are to the search page so we cannot see your reference.

Just cite the book name and chapter ... or if online the section so we can read it and understand what you are referring to. We probably already discussed the Nee reference but missing a reference from a Brother Lee.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So this means the MOTA is a mediator between us and God so that we could know God's word. Once again, denying Christ who bought us with His blood and according to the NT is the only mediator between God and man.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

The apostle Paul was not a mediator, he was "ordained a preacher". Why is it that WN and WL have to claim some special status above Paul? Why doesn't Drake respond to post #223 and clear up this mess?

Once again, this is a damnable heresy which denies the Lord who redeemed us.

Originally Posted by awareness

And also. What the special vision is, is not the Ground of the Church. No, no, no. maybe I don't read you correctly, but .... LISTEN UP .... The vision, this most wonderful of all visions is -- drum roll -- that there's a minister in every age. Did you get that bro ZNP?

The minister of the age -- I paraphrase Kangas -- ministers Gods' Word. How can we know Gods' words if we don't have a minister of God's Word?, Kangas more or less says.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now Drake uses these verses to justify separating from other Christians over the doctrine that WL was the Minister of this recent age commissioned to release the truth concerning the Ground of the Church.

Originally Posted by Drake

Least,

It is more than clear that God raises up leaders in every age to carry out His will in that time and place. Call them whatever you like but don’t reject the biblical and historical record.

Drake

Originally Posted by least

That said (above post), LSM MOTA is not biblical.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It was edited out at the time of the printing. Yes, if you have video tapes or audio tapes you would have heard extensive teaching on this, but the leaders knew that this was "the smoking gun" that would tie them to damnable heresies, hence it was edited out of their written work. These books often took six moths to become available so many people were unaware of the editing process taking place.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks least. Maybe it's me but I can't find anything about either Minister of the Age, or Ministers, on their ministrybooks.org. How come?

Originally Posted by least

Correction to above post by me.
Ministers Of The Age, according to Ron Kangas, are WN and WL. He said as the Lord is coming soon, there will not be another minister of the age.

WL is not outdated MOTA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3RwQgTCgc

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And (here) is the outline for that message. The outline clearly says that WN and WL are "ministers of the present age." The outline carefully avoids using the specific phrase "the minster(s) of the age," although Kangas says it a number of times in his message. (Good thing we have video, right, Drake?)

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks least. Maybe it's me but I can't find anything about either Minister of the Age, or Ministers, on their ministrybooks.org. How come?

Originally Posted by least

2.) In a FB post dated Sept.
2017 SoCal Blending Conference
“The Vision of the Age”,
“The Ministry of the Age”, and
“The Ministers of the Age”.

Originally Posted by least

Correction to above post by me.
Ministers Of The Age, according to Ron Kangas, are WN and WL. He said as the Lord is coming soon, there will not be another minister of the age.

WL is not outdated MOTA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3RwQgTCgc

Originally Posted by least

Correction to above post by me.
Ministers Of The Age, according to Ron Kangas, are WN and WL. He said as the Lord is coming soon, there will not be another minister of the age.

WL is not outdated MOTA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3RwQgTCgc

Originally Posted by least

1.) LSM owns copyright to Lee's works, LSM gets the monies from selling Lee's works (in print or digital version); but LSM the publisher has no right to edit/alter the dead author's works. Lee is dead. Similarly applied to Nee's work (but I don't know how much copyright LSM has over Nee's work). There are others publishing Nee’s writings. None has the right to edit/alter Nee’s writings except Nee himself. Nee is dead.

2.) In a FB post dated Sept.
2017 SoCal Blending Conference
“The Vision of the Age”,
“The Ministry of the Age”, and
“The Ministers of the Age”.

If now is the LSM time of the ministers (plural) of the age, and no longer the time of the minister (singular) of the age, as MOTA now stands for Ministry Of The Age and Ministers Of The Age (according to LSM); I pity the one who is fighting so hard to defend the MOTA (as if is defending his beloved Bro. Lee, which previously LSM promoted to be the minister of the age of the ministry of the age).

MOTA - Ministry Of The Age
MOTA - Minister Of The Age (had been LSM promoted WL, outdated in 2017)
MOTA - Ministers Of The Age (newest LSM/LC flow. If you don't know, pay the LSM blended brothers to tell you in their hundreds of thousands of pages publications and training sessions and conferences.)
Read LSM, listen to LSM. Pay LSM. ONLY LSM. To get the vision of the age.

If anyone wants to walk with Christ, know Him and make Him known, then read the Bible and listen to God's dear son. By oneself and together with the ones who read the Bible and listen to God's dear son.
-

Originally Posted by awareness

LSM & Co. don't hold to the MOTA doctrine any longer. In fact, I heard they are scrubbing any reference to it from all Lee publications.
But of course. If Lee was the MOTA, if the Lord has a minister in every age, who is it now? No one. If the MOTA doctrine was/is something God has been doing, according to them, now God has changed His mind and plan, and no longer has a MOTA.
As a result LSM & Co. can no longer teach the MOTA doctrine. That's why they are working to remove it from all Lee publications.
Now they are pushing the Blended Brother's doctrine. Cuz now God is doing the Blended thing. Haha ... Just who do they think they are fooling? First they say -- from Nee by the way -- God has a MOTA, and now, after Nee and Lee are gone, God no longer has a MOTA. Haha again. What a joke!
How can any except the most gullible and credulous buy into it? Maybe they don't know about or admit to the MOTA doctrine taught by Nee and Lee. That's possible. And even more possible if Kangas removes all references to it from both LSM Nee and Lee documentation. I think that cat is already out of the bag. Ya can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Because they've been unable to keep a lid on The One Publication, at least not all Nee docs can be scrubbed. Kangas can, however, scrub it from all Lee publications, since Lee is LSM's exclusive domain.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Points of agreement.

In order to receive the teaching that Witness Lee is the Minister of the Age you must also agree with the teaching concerning the Ministry of the Age and that in this age that ministry is the release of the truth concerning “the Ground of the Church”.

We also agree that this is a divisive issue, that not all Christians would accept this. However, there is the issue that the Lord said following him would be divisive. Families would be split, etc.

The verses you are referring to are here:

“32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

So if you apply these verses to justify the MOTA doctrine you are saying that this truth is equivalent to confessing Jesus or denying Jesus! Is this what you are saying or would you like to tweek that a little? Using these verses to justify MOTA on this forum is similar to hitting a hornets nest with a baseball bat.

It seems to me that verse 37 absolutely condemns the MOTA doctrine and therefore it demonstrates that the MOTA doctrine is equivalent to denying Christ before men.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Absolutely Moses could be considered the MOTA, The Minister of The Age of the LAW, which btw Paul called the Ministry of Condemnation.

BUT ... Moses was a type of Christ, building God's house. (Hebrews 3)

For Nee and Lee to use Moses as a type of some N.T. MOTA is a perverted teaching acc. to Paul (Acts 20.30), and a destructive heresy acc. to Peter (2 Peter 2.1)

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that a thing?

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”This is another issue I have with this doctrine, it is divisive. It is not reasonable to think all Christians would accept those two points as being true. This is just another example of how this doctrine denies Jesus who redeemed us. The only requirement for you to meet in oneness with the church is that you have been redeemed by Jesus, but now you add this whole Ministry of the Age doctrine which you must receive to receive that WL was the Minister of the Age, which you must receive to accept that he is "the apostle" who appoints elders and takes the lead in this ministry.”

I recall the Lord saying something to the effect of bringing in a dividing. For instance, many through their believing in the Lord Jesus and becoming christians divided their personal relationships with unbelieving loved ones yet they must be faithful to the Lords revealing Himself to them as their Savior. In the same principle, those who follow the call for the oneness of the believers may cause a similar unprovoked division. Yet, they must be faithful to what the Lord has shown them concerning the practical oneness of the believers even if it appears to be creating a division. If it is the Lord then we have to be faithful.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Neither am I part of an FTTA hit squad

Originally Posted by Drake

Nml,

Let’s drop the term MOTA for a round because it has been morphed by detractors into loaded term to mean something like an office in the church..... far from its original and intended meaning when mentioned by Brother Nee.

You say that Gods using of a unique leader in a particular time and place is extra-biblical. Yet, the biblical record really conveys that Moses, for instance, was God’s unique oracle, or mouthpiece, in his time. Would you agree that at least in that one case Moses was the unique leader in that age? If not, then who else?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Nml,

Let’s drop the term MOTA for a round because it has been morphed by detractors into loaded term to mean something like an office in the church..... far from its original and intended meaning when mentioned by Brother Nee.

You say that Gods using of a unique leader in a particular time and place is extra-biblical. Yet, the biblical record really conveys that Moses, for instance, was God’s unique oracle, or mouthpiece, in his time. Would you agree that at least in that one case Moses was the unique leader in that age? If not, then who else?

Drake

Originally Posted by JJ

Watchman Nee talks about ministers of the age: https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=0C1EC5E0D0
Witness Lee talks about ministers of the age: https://www.ministrybooks.org/Search...?id=031ECEEDD3

Originally Posted by Drake

Still, I thought maybe I missed something and wanted to see if anyone anywhere at anytime or anyplace ever heard Brother Lee use the term or acronym.
So far, the silence is deafening.
Im not playing games Koinonia. I think you and others are. Let’s just put the facts on the table and then we can decide what to think.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, Let me make it very clear:
In #182, ZNP wrote: In #187, you responded: In #188, I asked you: In #200, you responded: In #204, I responded: In #207, you responded: I am going to say again--what you wrote in your post #167 is unrelated. In #187, you appear to equate the practice of the oneness of believers with Witness Lee being the "minister of the age."

How are those two things related?

Originally Posted by Drake

First one was when someone made the outrageous statement that Witness Lee was our Head. That comment violated the headship of Christ and I became very concerned for the one who made the statement. Yet, I hoped that the statement was made in ignorance and not a conscious fabrication as the latter is blasphemy. Still, I wondered what might mislead a person’s thinking in ignorance that the brothers and sisters in the local churches even had that thought.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,
You are engaging in a skeet shooting exercise. I post and you shoot. Frankly, for that reason I can’t keep track of what you are asking about.
Post 167 was my thoughtful and considerate reply to your direct request for an explanation. If you want to have a brotherly dialogue I am happy to do that with you. If you prefer to engage in some other exercise then you have the freedom in this forum to do that too. However, you don’t need my participation to do that.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. Let me just clarify the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Spirit (The Holy Spirit) and His role in the process of deification. For us, the Holy Spirit (the Spirit) is God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity. He is equal to the other two persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son. Just like the Son, He is eternal, uncreated, and divine.

All of God’s actions toward man and the world—in creation, salvation and final glorification—are from the Father through the Son (Word) in the Holy Spirit; and all of man’s capabilities of response to God are in the same Spirit, through the same Son to the same Father.

The Holy Spirit is of the same substance with the Father and the Son in the Godhead of the Trinity. He is the agent of deification whose task it is to incorporate us into the life of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit moves through the life of the Church to reveal our common humanity in Christ and to unite us with the Father. We acquire the Holy Spirit through our celebration of the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion, through our participation in the Sacraments, through our discipline of daily prayer, though our struggle against our passions, and through purification of our soul, all of which result in a Christ-like life.

The Holy Spirit is also He who inspires the saints to speak God’s word and to do God’s will. He anoints the prophets, priests, and kings of the Old Testament; and “in the fullness of time” it is this same Spirit who “descends and remains” on Jesus of Nazareth, making him the Messiah (anointed) of God and manifesting him as such to the world.

The coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is the final fulfilment of Christ’s earthly messianic mission, the beginning of the Christian Church. It is the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecy that in the time of the messiah-king, the Spirit of God will be “poured out on all flesh”.

A person can abide in Christ, accomplish His commandments and be in communion with God the Father only by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in his life. Through the Holy Spirit we become citizens of heaven, we enter into eternal happiness, and abide in God, through the Spirit we acquire a likeness to God.

God bless.

Originally Posted by Meribah

Question: It has never occurred to me even remotely to go on to the sites or forums of those sharing their sorrows and hurts about a past experience to try and argue them down from their perspective or feelings--or even their errors (unless it would mean that they will not be saved if they continue). So, what is the real reason for Drake and Evangelical to come on this site so often throughout the day to fight and counterpoint about the experiences of all those here? Are they paid to do this? Are they FTTA trainees assigned to this task? They do puzzle me. Drake and Evang, what do you answer? Just curious.

Originally Posted by Drake

First one was when someone made the outrageous statement that Witness Lee was our Head. That comment violated the headship of Christ and I became very concerned for the one who made the statement.

Originally Posted by Drake

Secondly, unreg said, concerning Brother Lee, that “MOTA paved the way for his rule”. Again, such an important instrument for paving the way “for his rule” was never spoken by the man who allegedly wanted to rule, and it was a term that was first introduced by people who opposed him because they had their own ambitions about being rulers. Also, if MOTA was such a powerful influencer to put one in power then it came a little to late.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

What you wrote in #167 is unrelated. In #187 you appear to be connecting the practice of the oneness of believers with Witness Lee as "minister of the age." I asked what the one had to do with the other. Please stop playing games.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then If I understand you correctly you believe that there are genuine Christians who do not receive WL as the Minister of the Age. Why then would you describe this doctrine as "Being absolute for the oneness" if at the same time you know that it will divide you from other Christians?

Originally Posted by Meribah

Zeek, this means he had to have said it more than once. I heard it around 1979 or 1980. He clearly said, "I am your apostle". Everything after that was a kind of blur because it upset me so.

Originally Posted by Drake

My point was articulated in post 167... in detail.

What can I clarify for you there?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>"In the LRC the saints realize that this is a divisive issue and are willing to justify it because those who do not "believe" WL was the MOTA are "unbelievers"."

ZNP,

I don't believe that and I do not know anyone who does.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'd like to compare that audio tape to the highly edited printed message.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

What does any of this have to do with Witness Lee being the "minister of the age"?

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok.... that dismisses the notion that he ruled.

And I have no objection to pointing out the obvious pattern in both church and biblical history that the Lord raises up someone to lead his move in that age. Why wouldn’t He? Watchman makes a compelling case for “minister of the age”.

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee did claim to be the unique minister of the age. I was shocked to hear him make the claim plainly and directly on an audio tape played at a meeting of the brothers of the Church in Fort Lauderdale in the '70s. Brothers who did not accept that he was the MOTA were ejected from the meetings.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So now we are finally getting to the crux of the matter. In the LRC the saints realize that this is a divisive issue and are willing to justify it because those who do not "believe" WL was the MOTA are "unbelievers".

However that is contrary to my definition of unbeliever which is anyone who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Once again this doctrine denies the Lord who bought us with His blood.

Originally Posted by Drake

In the same principle, those who follow the call for the oneness of the believers may cause a similar unprovoked division. Yet, they must be faithful to what the Lord has shown them concerning the practical oneness of the believers even if it appears to be creating a division. If it is the Lord then we have to be faithful.

Originally Posted by Drake

I recall the Lord saying something to the effect of bringing in a dividing. For instance, many through their believing in the Lord Jesus and becoming christians divided their personal relationships with unbelieving loved ones yet they must be faithful to the Lords revealing Himself to them as their Savior. In the same principle, those who follow the call for the oneness of the believers may cause a similar unprovoked division. Yet, they must be faithful to what the Lord has shown them concerning the practical oneness of the believers even if it appears to be creating a division. If it is the Lord then we have to be faithful.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree that the descriptors used for Brother Lee ( “unique person”, “particular man”, “the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age”) were used.... and I agree with them.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

With all this talk about ‘The Age’. What exactly is the definition or length of an age and how does this apply to the one unique minister of this so-called age?

Originally Posted by Drake

I recall the Lord saying something to the effect of bringing in a dividing. For instance, many through their believing in the Lord Jesus and becoming christians divided their personal relationships with unbelieving loved ones yet they must be faithful to the Lords revealing Himself to them as their Savior. In the same principle, those who follow the call for the oneness of the believers may cause a similar unprovoked division. Yet, they must be faithful to what the Lord has shown them concerning the practical oneness of the believers even if it appears to be creating a division. If it is the Lord then we have to be faithful.

Drake

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

With all this talk about ‘The Age’. What exactly is the definition or length of an age and how does this apply to the one unique minister of this so-called age? For example, if both WN and WL are both the unique minister of ‘the age’ then the term unique cannot be used. To me this is where the argument falls apart. First you need to define age as length of time and then there can be only one person if the term unique is used. If your argument is that only WL is the MOTA then who was the MOTA before WL, as an age certainly must be more than 100 years. If there was another MOTA during the same age then WL is not unique. When did this LC definition of age start start and when does it end? How do you fit one unique MOTA into this time frame while including Paul, WN, WL. Sorry LSM your reasoning is illogical and even worse -extra-biblical. There is no such thing as a MOTA specifically mentioned in the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”What bothers me and what no one has explained is why this "particular man" is not Jesus? This is what Peter and Paul both said when someone tried to call them the "particular man". Jesus gave us the blueprint. He is the one through whom the vision was released.”

ZNP,

I agree that the descriptors used for Brother Lee ( “unique person”, “particular man”, “the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age”) were used.... and I agree with them. Of course, their veracity depends what definition of the ministry of the age is held. If one believes that the ministry of the age in our age is encapsulated in the local churches as the procedure to accomplish Gods eternal purpose and to close the age then those descriptors apply to Brother Lee. Yet, if one does not agree on the definition of the ministry of the age then it does not matter how one describes the one taking the lead.

Therefore, I think the objection with most is that they do not agree with our definition of the ministry of the age.

The leading Apostle for any ministry is Jesus but acting through His agents on earth doing His bidding.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

What can I clarify for you there?

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Then, what is your point?

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

You can address my points or you can ignore my points and stick to the opposers standard talking points. Which will it be?

If you want a dialogue then address the points of my argument starting with #166. Am very familiar with Brother Kerry’s response to Tomes’ attempt to establish many ministers of the age.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

No, I don’t.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Drake's request for a direct reference to WL saying this word for word about himself is merely a last ditch effort to conceal the truth. WL knew this was being said, enjoyed it, and never publicly spoke out against it. This is proof enough.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

You can address my points or you can ignore my points and stick to the opposers standard talking points. Which will it be?

If you want a dialogue then address the points of my argument starting with #166. Am very familiar with Brother Kerry’s response to Tomes’ attempt to establish many ministers of the age.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is false. That Witness Lee is the "minister of the age" is LC teaching. See here.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, do you disagree with the current LC teaching that Witness Lee is the "minister of the age"?

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok.... that dismisses the notion that he ruled.
The epiphany I had from recent comments in this forum, is that the term “Minister of the Age” or “MOTA” was never invoked by the man who allegedly used it to grab the reigns of power, but rather he rebuked those did apply it to him, and yet it has become a favorite whip of opposers who introduced the term and jawboned it till it became an assumption that he used the term and created an office like POTUS, except in the church.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Based on two comments made recently it forced me to rethink my assumptions.

First one was when someone made the outrageous statement that Witness Lee was our Head. That comment violated the headship of Christ and I became very concerned for the one who made the statement. Yet, I hoped that the statement was made in ignorance and not a conscious fabrication as the latter is blasphemy. Still, I wondered what might mislead a person’s thinking in ignorance that the brothers and sisters in the local churches even had that thought. I realized that the introduction of the term “MOTA” which sounds a lot like POTUS... and has similar positional connotations , like an office only in the church is the source. I then realized that I never actually heard Brother Lee use the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym “MOTA”. Seeing how important that office would be I searched Brother Lees ministry but cannot find it. Maybe I missed something.... so I asked.

Secondly, unreg said, concerning Brother Lee, that “MOTA paved the way for his rule”. Again, such an important instrument for paving the way “for his rule” was never spoken by the man who allegedly wanted to rule, and it was a term that was first introduced by people who opposed him because they had their own ambitions about being rulers. Also, if MOTA was such a powerful influencer to put one in power then it came a little to late.

Still, I thought maybe I missed something and wanted to see if anyone anywhere at anytime or anyplace ever heard Brother Lee use the term or acronym.

So far, the silence is deafening.

Im not playing games Koinonia. I think you and others are. Let’s just put the facts on the table and then we can decide what to think.

There is no smoking gun, but there is plenty of smoke and mirrors.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my experience it was Ray Graver who was the most vocal and explicit in this "rule". Witness Lee would frequently "rebuke" saints for saying this from the pulpit, but I always thought that if he was serious about rebuking them it would stop immediately.

That said Witness Lee did teach that Luther was the "Minister of the Age", that Watchman Nee was the "minister of the Age" and that in every age the Lord is releasing some truth -- Justification by faith or ground of the church. He said that WN was releasing the truth of the "ground of the church" in this age and that he was carrying on that ministry. Hence Ray Graver was correct in connecting the dots and claiming that WL was the Minister of this age. Ironically WL was also correct in condemning this teaching that he was the MOTA.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Based on two comments made recently it forced me to rethink my assumptions.

First one was when someone made the outrageous statement that Witness Lee was our Head. That comment violated the headship of Christ and I became very concerned for the one who made the statement. Yet, I hoped that the statement was made in ignorance and not a conscious fabrication as the latter is blasphemy. Still, I wondered what might mislead a person’s thinking in ignorance that the brothers and sisters in the local churches even had that thought. I realized that the introduction of the term “MOTA” which sounds a lot like POTUS... and has similar positional connotations , like an office only in the church is the source. I then realized that I never actually heard Brother Lee use the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym “MOTA”. Seeing how important that office would be I searched Brother Lees ministry but cannot find it. Maybe I missed something.... so I asked.

Secondly, unreg said, concerning Brother Lee, that “MOTA paved the way for his rule”. Again, such an important instrument for paving the way “for his rule” was never spoken by the man who allegedly wanted to rule, and it was a term that was first introduced by people who opposed him because had their own ambitions about being rulers. Also, if MOTA was such a powerful influencer to put one in power then it came a little to late.

Still, I thought maybe I missed something and wanted to see if anyone anywhere at anytime or anyplace ever heard Brother Lee use the term or acronym.

So far, the silence is deafening.

Im not playing games Koinonia. I think you and others are. Let’s just put the facts on the table and then we can decide what to think.

There is no smoking gun, but there is plenty of smoke and mirrors.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, why are you playing games with us? Do you disagree with this teaching, or are you just being deceptive?

(Gideon7, take note of what is going on here. "Minister of the Age" is a smoking gun)

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

I’m still missing the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym MOTA from Brother Lee’s writings.

MOTA is being presented in this forum like POTUS, like an office and the highest one in the land or in the church. An office like that, were it to exist in the church, would be mentioned at least someplace by the person that holds it.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

I’m still missing the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym MOTA from Brother Lee’s writings.

MOTA is being presented in this forum like POTUS, like an office and the highest one in the land or in the church. An office like that, were it to exist in the church, would be mentioned at least someplace by the person that holds it.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You can't cut and paste active links from ministrybooks.org (I'm sure this is by design). Give it the book titled, "Remaining in the Unique New Testament Ministry of God's Economy under the Proper Leadership in His Move" a read. Here is a small snippet:

"It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications."

You can also read Words of Training for the New Way, Volume One.

"Now we have already seen clearly that the ministry spoken of in the Bible does not refer to a person, but to God’s building work. Moreover, in God’s building ministry, there are those who take the lead in that ministry in every age. May the Lord open our eyes to see that as long as we are human beings, we should be Christians; as long as we are Christians, we should enter into the Lord’s ministry in this age."

It is pretty brutal to read Witness Lee, but the more you read the more truth you will see. This guy was either delusional or a deceiver. Also, is it just me or does it seem like there has been some heavy editing?

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks LofT,

Appreciate that. Rather, I am looking for references where Brother Lee specifically used the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym MOTA. Either one will suffice.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

There are a couple of things that my wife was not able to explain:

1 If Christ became life-giving spirit after His resurrection, then Who had He been before that? Isn't God spirit? Hasn't He always given life, being the source of it? What is the difference in Christ's spirit before and after His resurrection?

2 What is the essence of Christ as the life-giving spirit? Is it divine? If so, how divine essence can interact with human nature, body and soul? How can human nature mingle with divine essence and "stay alive", without turning into the divine essence?

Originally Posted by A little brother

From what you are saying, this "truth" of man becoming god was known long long ago (Athanasius) and also currently believed by many (Mommons, Orthodox, and a whole lot of Christians).

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The influence of Watchman Nee is far greater than Witness Lee. Witness Lee sought to humble brag his way into influence... but outside of his circle of yes-men, he has been the opposite of popular. I have found that the leadership in my locality loved to take credit (on behalf of their leader) for different positive aspects of modern Christianity. I found/find this hilarious - but not surprising.

For example - Taking credit for the non denominational church movement. Taking credit for increased discussion in regards to the Holy Spirit in the church. Before Witness Lee it was just the nasty Pentecostals talking about the holy spirit - most people don't know that.

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks LofT,

Appreciate that. Rather, I am looking for references where Brother Lee specifically used the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym MOTA. Either one will suffice.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks LofT,

Appreciate that. Rather, I am looking for references where Brother Lee specifically used the term “Minister of the Age” or the acronym MOTA. Either one will suffice.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

http://www.afaithfulword.org/article....html#Minister

This may be helpful for you. I'm surprised you're not more familiar with one of the core tenants of your church. The flow comes from Witness Lee.

Are you not in the states Drake?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Look, WL was a stubborn man who bullied others into parroting only what HE said and doing what HE wanted to do...to whomever. He was, again, a bully, and the title MOTA certainly paved the way for his rule.

I do not believe and have never believed that he received any Revelation from the Lord to do these types of things. His behavior does not reflect the behavior of Our Lord. Our Lord would have left the ninety and nine and gone and gotten the one lost sheep. Our Lord bound up the brokenhearted and lifted their burdens. He went in search of the poor, the hurting, the damaged, and all of those that WL would refer to as poor building material. Our Lord was a man of consummate kindness and compassion who served others. It is not serving others merely to get up and speak. Serving is many actions. And these actions should be displayed in every arena in which our Lord displayed his actions of kindness and compassion.

It is supremely interesting to note that during all the time I was in the LC, I never heard one testimony of any saint receiving any kind of shepherding care for his financial needs, his physical needs, or his emotional needs from WL. No one ever repeated his many acts of kindness. They only spoke of his revelation and speaking as well as his admonishment and discipline. As they say in the secular world, not my hero.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The influence of Watchman Nee is far greater than Witness Lee. Witness Lee sought to humble brag his way into influence... but outside of his circle of yes-men, he has been the opposite of popular. I have found that the leadership in my locality loved to take credit (on behalf of their leader) for different positive aspects of modern Christianity. I found/find this hilarious - but not surprising.

For example - Taking credit for the non denominational church movement. Taking credit for increased discussion in regards to the Holy Spirit in the church. Before Witness Lee it was just the nasty Pentecostals talking about the holy spirit - most people don't know that.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

http://www.afaithfulword.org/article....html#Minister

This may be helpful for you. I'm surprised you're not more familiar with one of the core tenants of your church. The flow comes from Witness Lee.

Are you not in the states Drake?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Very few Christians have ever heard of him.

He is also dead.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

http://www.afaithfulword.org/article....html#Minister

This may be helpful for you. I'm surprised you're not more familiar with one of the core tenants of your church. The flow comes from Witness Lee.

Are you not in the states Drake?

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Where is the reference for the term Minister of the Age.?

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yet you all believe that Witness Lee is the "Minister of the Age."

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Very few Christians have ever heard of him.

He is also dead.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He surely is because he is so popular.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yet you all believe that Witness Lee is the "Minister of the Age."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats right. Many even dont like to talk about the Spirit openly. Some see the Spirit only as power or force. Others who do see that the Spirit is Jesus only mean that in a metaphorical way. The "real Jesus" is in heaven they say. The Spirit is just the helper.

Originally Posted by Drake

I think that is the typical held belief. The Father is pictured on the throne in heaven, the Son will come back someday, and the Spirit is here with us now.

This general idea neglects the scriptural truth that the Spirit that indwells us is the Spirit of the glorified Jesus.

Drake

Originally Posted by zeek

Really? Did you take a poll?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you've touched on another matter which is that most of Christianity believes that only the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is in their heart and not the Father and the Son as well.

Originally Posted by A little brother

F. The existence of the universe is according to God’s eternal purpose to have the church—Rev. 4:11; Eph. 3:9-11:
1. The full revelation of the Scriptures unveils to us that all things in the universe are for the church—v. 9.
2. Even the three persons of the Godhead are for the divine purpose of having the church to fulfill God’s eternal plan through the dispensing of God in His Divine Trinity into humanity so that the church may come into existence—1:3-23; Matt. 28:19; 16:18; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1:1.
3. The heavens, the earth, a multitude of other things, and the tripartite man are required in order that the church may exist to express God; without these things God cannot have the church in the universe to be His corporate expression—Zech. 12:1; Rev. 4:11.

If they are talking about the obvious you mentioned, don't see why they use the word "even".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you've touched on another matter which is that most of Christianity believes that only the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is in their heart and not the Father and the Son as well.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think you've touched on another matter which is that most of Christianity believes that only the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is in their heart and not the Father and the Son as well.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I don't think your statement about "Most of (Western) Christianity thinks we are only adopted sons of God." is correct though there may not be any real statistics to prove. But at least most can read the plain fact stated in 1 John 3:1 (NIV) See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

I totally agree with Unregistered. There is a fine line between "son of God" and "God but not in godhead". Putting emphasis on the later can cause lots of trouble. As an example, in the recent training outlines (ITERO Autumn 2017, Leipzig, Germany), there was a statement like:

I F 2: Even the three persons of the Godhead are for the divine purpose of having the church to fulfill God’s eternal plan through the dispensing of God in His Divine Trinity into humanity so that the church may come into existence

It shows the fine line has been crossed.

Originally Posted by Drake

Where does it say in that statement that the three Persons of the Godhead “exist for” that purpose. They are for that purpose. Perhaps it will help if you post the relevant sections of the outline before or after.

Since God is triune then anything God does will be done in a triune way. Since the church is God’s purpose hidden in Him since eternity past then of course the three Persons of the Godhead are for that purpose and the church is produced from the interaction of all three in the Godhead.

It seems you are objecting to something so obvious and rational that I think you must be misunderstanding the statement.

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

Exo 3:14 And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM....

The three persons have a role in producing the church, but they do not exist "for" this purpose.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Most of (Western) Christianity thinks we are only adopted sons of God or considered to be sons of God rather than in actuality. Lee emphasized the fact that the born again experience (as it is known in Evangelical circles) makes us truly sons of God.

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb>”I F 2: Even the three persons of the Godhead are for the divine purpose of having the church to fulfill God’s eternal plan through the dispensing of God in His Divine Trinity into humanity so that the church may come into existence

It shows the fine line has been crossed.”

A little brother,

I don’t think you understand what was meant by the statement. Did the Father, Son,and Spirit have a role in the producing the church? If you don’t think so then which of the Persons of the Godhead were involved and which were excluded? Please provide scriptural support for your position.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even saying "son of God" is not acceptable to many. Even to call ourselves sons of God is a blasphemous thing to say to the Jewish mind (John 10:33-36). Jews and Muslims will kill people who say they are even sons of God, so to them we may as well call ourselves God. That's what got Jesus into trouble and why they wanted to kill Him.

I don't think Lee's intention was to make us ever more than a son of God though. The question is around the type of son we are. When we understand where Lee is coming from it makes sense. Most of (Western) Christianity thinks we are only adopted sons of God or considered to be sons of God rather than in actuality. ...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Bible repeatedly says that we are sons of God if we had believed in to Christ. Why is being a Son of God not enough? Why can we not simply say what the Bible says?

When a woman marries a man, they become one flesh according to scripture. But she does not become exactly like him. She has access to all that he has and enjoys his presence hopefully for their entire lives.

If a man has a son, that son has much of him in him. The son has his life since the Bible states clearly that it is the father who gives life. The son therefore is a partaker of his father's life. He enjoys all the rights and privileges of the household and is his heir if he dies. He is, again, the son of his father. As long as his father lives, that is his position.

The LC has stated, quite correctly, that we are never a part of the Godhead. That is good. But they would do far better by moving away from teaching that we are gods (which I believe we are not) back to what the Bible actually says, which is that we are sons of God. You have to ask yourself why it is not enough to be a son of God. In my opinion it is and I need no other terminology to describe it. In fact, I tremble at saying that I am a baby god. There is a verse in the Bible, applied to another being who decided that he should be God and share all that God has, that says: "Ye have said that ye are gods but ye shall die as men." I think I shall continue to be a son of God and feel deeply and profoundly content to be just that.

Originally Posted by aron

Let me ask you a question: did you ever hear the phrase "go after the good building material" in the LSM/lc?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Who is "our"?
What's funny about the worship of Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Drake

Are you attempting a bit of humor yourself?

I hope so but even so, do not blasphemy Christ our Head.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

This is the heavenly vision that turned Saul on the road to Damascus. He was persecuting believers and the Lord said “Why are you persecuting Me?” then the Lord drove the point home by sending Saul to get healed by a little member of the Body, Ananias. By this Saul the great persecutor became Paul the lead Apostle for the universal truth of the great corporate entity of Christ and the Church.

Drake

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The Bible repeatedly says that we are sons of God if we had believed in to Christ. Why is being a Son of God not enough? Why can we not simply say what the Bible says?

When a woman marries a man, they become one flesh according to scripture. But she does not become exactly like him. She has access to all that he has and enjoys his presence hopefully for their entire lives.

If a man has a son, that son has much of him in him. The son has his life since the Bible states clearly that it is the father who gives life. The son therefore is a partaker of his father's life. He enjoys all the rights and privileges of the household and is his heir if he dies. He is, again, the son of his father. As long as his father lives, that is his position.

The LC has stated, quite correctly, that we are never a part of the Godhead. That is good. But they would do far better by moving away from teaching that we are gods (which I believe we are not) back to what the Bible actually says, which is that we are sons of God. You have to ask yourself why it is not enough to be a son of God. In my opinion it is and I need no other terminology to describe it. In fact, I tremble at saying that I am a baby god. There is a verse in the Bible, applied to another being who decided that he should be God and share all that God has, that says: "Ye have said that ye are gods but ye shall die as men." I think I shall continue to be a son of God and feel deeply and profoundly content to be just that.

Originally Posted by Drake

Are you attempting a bit of humor yourself?

I hope so but even so, do not blasphemy Christ our Head.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is an attempt to be humorous?

The interesting thing is, it is not far from the truth. The LSM doesn't care how much she would speak through the power of the Spirit or from scripture - but is she flowing from the head - which is Witness Lee. Even if she adopts a blind worship of Lee, SHE would eventually be put in her place...

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Yep!!
I was an usher at her conference in San Antonio around 2008 I think. She indeed flashed picture of Nee and LEE before the conference started each day. It was a 3 day conference. I was flabbergasted when I saw Lee's picture. To be sure, she had many, many pictures of old time preachers that probably made an impact on her walk.

I don't follow her but back in the day between 2005- 2011, I watched many TV evangelists. I don't anymore but I don't despise them. My season in watching them is up.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we see her putting out more one-liners from Lee and then some, then I think we'd have to consider.

Originally Posted by Drake

Certainly Joyce Meyer read Brother Lee... even flashed a picture of him in a sermon some years back.

But you know, I could not be happier when it happens. This truths need to spread to every corner of the earth even when it's done without acknowledging the source or document. Who knows what the Lord will do and with whom?

Although, I have witnessed firsthand the effects of new wine in an old wineskin. Doesn't always work out.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You think the Local Church movement is a "new wineskin"?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm tempted to pop that information into the Ron Kangas discussion about the MOTA and "most widely circulated" material. Joyce Meyer is huge, and generally considered one of the most stable of the tv evangelists, unlike some of the more extreme hand waving and knocking people over ones.

Originally Posted by Drake

Certainly Joyce Meyer read Brother Lee... even flashed a picture of him in a sermon some years back.

But you know, I could not be happier when it happens. This truths need to spread to every corner of the earth even when it's done without acknowledging the source or document. Who knows what the Lord will do and with whom?

Although, I have witnessed firsthand the effects of new wine in an old wineskin. Doesn't always work out.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

And ..... there it is.., post 95.

You know Evangelical this is the proof point to the situation I mentioned earlier. It is very difficult for a person to have rationale conversation if they have never processed an experience and allowed the Lord to heal them. So they fall back on the only thing they know. Therefore, a conversation will, most of the time, end up in the same place... PL, John Ingalls, Titus Chu.. The answer to everything. Does not matter what the topic is.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Is Meyer "in more circulation" than Witness Lee? Maybe she's the MOTA (it helps that she is actually still living)...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm tempted to pop that information into the Ron Kangas discussion about the MOTA and "most widely circulated" material. Joyce Meyer is huge, and generally considered one of the most stable of the tv evangelists, unlike some of the more extreme hand waving and knocking people over ones.

Originally Posted by Drake

Certainly Joyce Meyer read Brother Lee... even flashed a picture of him in a sermon some years back.

But you know, I could not be happier when it happens. This truths need to spread to every corner of the earth even when it's done without acknowledging the source or document. Who knows what the Lord will do and with whom?

Although, I have witnessed firsthand the effects of new wine in an old wineskin. Doesn't always work out.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Certainly Joyce Meyer read Brother Lee... even flashed a picture of him in a sermon some years back.

But you know, I could not be happier when it happens. This truths need to spread to every corner of the earth even when it's done without acknowledging the source or document. Who knows what the Lord will do and with whom?

Although, I have witnessed firsthand the effects of new wine in an old wineskin. Doesn't always work out.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The timing of all these tv-evangelists revealing the teaching on "little gods" is suspicious to me. I wonder if they are on the LSM mail order too?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The timing of Lee's recovery of high peak truths strikes me as quite suspicious.

Do you really expect us all to believe that the holy and ascended Head of the church would unveil the mystery of the ages to a solitary minister in Anaheim who had just excommunicated and slandered dozens of devoted men of God because they dared to expose the minister's abusive and molesting reprobate son whom he placed in charge of his ministry?

Is that what "becoming God" looks like?

Originally Posted by Drake

Evangelical>"Instead I expect a reply from you with some reference to one of the turmoils or rebellions which have nothing to do with the subject"

Yep. It's coming.

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

From what you are saying, this "truth" of man becoming god was known long long ago (Athanasius) and also currently believed by many (Mommons, Orthodox, and a whole lot of Christians). So what exactly was lost and then recovered by WL's "high peak truth"?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you studied what W. Nee and early Lee have said about becoming God?

And no, I don't get my teachings from Benny Hinn. Have you ever watched him prance around the stage knocking over people who supposedly got healed, but no one could verify it?

Actually, now that you mention it, W. Lee began teaching this "high peak" stuff during the midst of the turmoils in the late 80's-early 90's. It was quite the diversionary tactic, don't you think? Oh that's right, you weren't around in those days to know what happened.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Instead I expect a reply from you with some reference to one of the turmoils or rebellions which have nothing to do with the subject.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually, now that you mention it, W. Lee began teaching this "high peak" stuff during the midst of the turmoils in the late 80's-early 90's. It was quite the diversionary tactic, don't you think?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

thanks for bringing us back to topic. I'll head to bennyhinndiscussions.com to warn people about his teachings.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It takes a whole 5 seconds to find that not only Mormons, but also Orthodox believe it, and therefore your use of the term "only aberrant cults like Mormons" is probably not appropriate. I asked you to check your facts not because I thought you were ignorant (we've discussed this topic before, a while ago, and you seemed knowledgeable) but because I know you are not typing from ignorance, but deliberately ignoring that Orthodox believe in deification in order to make the local churches and Witness Lee look worse.

But when examined Lee's teaching is no worse than the Orthodox teaching, as unlike the Mormons, Lee qualifies his statements by saying we do not become part of the God-head. Also the teaching is found in pentecostalism and word-faith teaching, in Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paul and Jan Crouch, Fred Price, and Joyce Meyer.

So there are a whole lot of Christians believing it outside of the local churches.

Here is Benny Hinn saying "God came from heaven, became a man, made man into little gods", and "I am a God-man"

https://youtu.be/S_2A7gS5eUE

But I have yet to see you or anyone come out and say these American TV evangelists are cults?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you studied what W. Nee and early Lee have said about becoming God?

And no, I don't get my teachings from Benny Hinn. Have you ever watched him prance around the stage knocking over people who supposedly got healed, but no one could verify it?

Actually, now that you mention it, W. Lee began teaching this "high peak" stuff during the midst of the turmoils in the late 80's-early 90's. It was quite the diversionary tactic, don't you think? Oh that's right, you weren't around in those days to know what happened.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here is Benny Hinn saying "God came from heaven, became a man, made man into little gods", and "I am a God-man"

But I have yet to see you or anyone come out and say these American TV evangelists are cults?

Instead I expect a reply from you with some reference to one of the turmoils or rebellions which have nothing to do with the subject.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan, long before you heard of W. LEE, I studied both the scriptures, the church fathers, and the Reformers. THE FACTS you allude to are both sparse and scarce. Years ago I did myself no favor by spending hours and days researching this subject, and that's why I posted as I did.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For Evangelical,

Your tone in your last sentence to Ohio and it's content are inappropriate and rude. There is no way that ANYONE can be aware of all the "facts" and none of us can afford to take the position of "schoolmaster" sending an inferior "student" back to the books. If you are aware of some "facts", just share them.

Originally Posted by Ohio

1. Martin Luther also believed in transubstantiation, that the communion bread is literally the body of Christ. Do you believe that too?

2. I am not aware that Catholics believe in deification. I was raised Catholic, with 12 years parochial education, and 6 years of Latin. I never heard of the teaching while I was there. But, for that matter, I never heard the gospel either.

3. The Eastern Orthodox church does believe in deification, so you are correct on that point. One of our long time posters InChristAlone left the LC and now meets with the E.O. church.

4. 2 Peter 1.4 says that "Jesus our Lord ... has granted us great promises, that thru these we might become partakers of the divine nature." How does that mean that "we become God in nature?" We also partake of God's marvelous grace. Does that also mean "we become God in grace?" How about we become God in promises? Do we become God in love?

5. Yes, I understand the exact quote is from the early church, Athanasius to be more specific. Now, while I have great respect for Athanasius and many of the church fathers, they are not the Apostles, and they did not write the scripture. I do appreciate the creeds, and while they are all helpful, they are not scripture either.

6. When I refer to orthodox evangelical scholars I am not referring to scholars from the E.O. churches.

Conclusion: Both WN and WL repeatedly claimed to be those uniquely "returning to the pure Word of God." They boasted that even if the whole world believed something, if it were not in the Bible, they would never believe it. WN's quote here is even plastered on the LSM "Shin Gee" building in downtown Taipei.

Now why the change? Both early Lee and Nee both rejected deification. If the Lord wanted something this crucial to be believed by the church, he surely would have spelled it out for us.

Don't you think it's really amazing that the two primary teachings for which LSM condemns all of Christianity -- the ground of oneness and man becoming God -- are not even spelled out in the Bible?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats not true. Catholic and Orthodox believe in it and the Scripture is 2 Peter 1.4. It was also believed by Luther. The quote as stated is from the early church.

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg,

So Evangelical's last sentence is inappropriate but the mocking and derision found in abundance in others posts toward him is fine with you.

I'll join you in a call for civil discourse but not with your selective outrage.

The fact is, this is less a forum about discussion of facts and often more about opinions based on others opinions. The lack of due diligence to present the facts is absolutely astounding.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats not true. Catholic and Orthodox believe in it and the Scripture is 2 Peter 1.4. It was also believed by Luther. The quote as stated is from the early church.
You would do yourself a favor if you spend more time checking facts before posting.

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg,

So Evangelical's last sentence is inappropriate but the mocking and derision found in abundance in others posts toward him is fine with you.

I'll join you in a call for civil discourse but not with your selective outrage.

The fact is, this is less a forum about discussion of facts and often more about opinions based on others opinions. The lack of due diligence to present the facts is absolutely astounding.

Drake

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For Evangelical,

Your tone in your last sentence to Ohio and it's content are inappropriate and rude. There is no way that ANYONE can be aware of all the "facts" and none of us can afford to take the position of "schoolmaster" sending an inferior "student" back to the books. If you are aware of some "facts", just share them.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would basically agree with this ...

Until the end of Witness Lee's life, that is, where he radically departed from the core teachings of both the Reformers and Watchman Nee and moved into a highly speculative and controversial arena of doctrine which he called his "High Peak" teachings.

These teachings can be summarized by the oft repeated phrase, "God became man to make man God." This teaching has no scriptural support, and must draw on verse inference only. If true, why didn't Jesus or the Apostles actually say it? Why is it that only aberrant cults, like the Mormons, promote this unorthodox teaching? Why do you think that nearly all orthodox Christian evangelical scholars have trouble with this assertion?

Originally Posted by Drake

The last category is concerning the work and it is here where the fiercest allegations arise and in some cases with legitimate objections. For example, there is no question that mistakes were made when it came to Philip Lee in the management of LSM office. At minimum a workplace harassment should have been filed. If the worst allegations were verified it should have resulted In engaging law enforcement.

Originally Posted by Drake

PLs actions never defined my experience of Christ. The misstep his father made in trusting his son did not define my experience of Christ and the Church. The difference between me and others on this matter is that I processed the experience and moved on. Others never moved on and are stuck in events of decades ago.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

In some sense, all of this is true. Most LC members love the Lord and are very well-intentioned. But try sharing someone from a book or author other than WL and see what happens. As a newbie, you will probably get away with it--until you don't.

Originally Posted by Drake

The last category is concerning the work and it is here where the fiercest allegations arise and in some cases with legitimate objections. For example, there is no question that mistakes were made when it came to Philip Lee in the management of LSM office. At minimum a workplace harassment should have been filed. If the worst allegations were verified it should have resulted In engaging law enforcement. Some here accuse me of turning a blind eye to this. I don't and never have. As serious as it was, it does not negate everything else. I am just not obsessed with it as others here are. PLs actions never defined my experience of Christ. The misstep his father made in trusting his son did not define my experience of Christ and the Church. The difference between me and others on this matter is that I processed the experience and moved on. Others never moved on and are stuck in events of decades ago. I understand many here were devastated, crushed, and disillusioned about that matter. I get that, but I only care that they are emotionally and spiritually bogged in a slough of discontent and often anger. When I read their posts I pray they will be able to climb out and be at peace with God and men, even fallen men they once put on a pedestal. Perhaps that is another difference between me and others. I never put Brother Lee on a pedestal and my expectations were moderated by the biblical record of the weaknesses and mistakes of his servants.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

In some sense, all of this is true. Most LC members love the Lord and are very well-intentioned. But try sharing someone from a book or author other than WL and see what happens. As a newbie, you will probably get away with it--until you don't. Also, some of the HWMR material is innocuous, but much is silly stuff like this:

F. We need to be on the third story of the ark, under the skylight, the unique window, receiving light from the Lord through
the ministry of the age—Gen. 6:16:

1. In God’s economy and in God’s church there is only one
window, one revelation, and one vision.
2. We need to serve God according to the vision of the age,
which comes through the ministry of the age.

Did you know that the overhead window in the ark is a picture of Witness Lee's ministry? Remember--this is supposed to be your morning devotional material.

Originally Posted by Gideon7

Just a quick thought I wanted to share- in an effort to give credit where it is due. I've gone to maybe 5-6 Sunday meetings at the LC. I've heard here- and other places- that only LC approved "stuff" can get shared during prophecy time. There seems to be one guy who sorta opens the floor- and he very clearly mentions we are welcome to share things from the weekly readings OR... something from the Lord (or words to that effect).
Admittedly- most folks have their nice little weekly booklets and share from it when they speak- but others share something that happened- or something they felt the Lord worked in them that week- and they get "Amen" when they are done. Again- I"m just a newbie- but it seems most of the folks are focused on their walk with Christ. I'm sure most of what is uttered is WL restatements- but most folks seem sincerely intent on their walk with Christ. I just wanted to share this so I don't come off as close-minded to things or unfairly skewed against the LC. Thx

Originally Posted by Gideon7

You mention that the Lord’s Recovery began with Luther. I’m certainly no world class historian, and it seems pretty obvious that Luther did indeed make a dramatic and costly stand- and things changed in the “Christian world” at large from him on. But… (and here’s where my lack of history possibly kicks in…), weren’t there groups that stayed faithful to the Word even through the dark ages? I believe the Anabaptists were one? (Maybe others?) So how would WN/WL view these faithful brethren? Were they part of the Recovery? Pre-Recovery?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once there was something contradictory in one of the messages. Some were open to discuss it over lunch and others did not care if Lee was right or wrong. But this is within the realm of normal human behavior I think, as I have asked questions before in churches and people don't seem interested to discuss a matter.

Originally Posted by Drake

Concerning truth. The ministry in the Lords Recovery adheres to fundamental bible teaching concerning the Person and work of Jesus Christ. There is no departure from fundamental Christianity in this regard. What began as the Lords Recovery with Martin Luther progressed to recover the truth concerning the Church and the churches ...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once there was something contradictory in one of the messages. Some were open to discuss it over lunch and others did not care if Lee was right or wrong. But this is within the realm of normal human behavior I think, as I have asked questions before in churches and people don't seem interested to discuss a matter.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the majority of "Christians" believe the Pope is never wrong. Or ask a Benny Hinn supporter if Benny is ever wrong. You get the idea. You sound naive.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well the majority of "Christians" believe the Pope is never wrong. Or ask a Benny Hinn supporter if Benny is ever wrong. You get the idea. You sound naive.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Most likely, this is because LC members do not wish to acknowledge (with specifics) that Lee was ever wrong.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have also asked irritating questions before and if you question Lee the response you will get is "who cares if Lee is wrong" or something like that.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do you mean asking the questions in your church? Can you elaborate a bit more and share what it means to you? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have also asked irritating questions before and if you question Lee the response you will get is "who cares if Lee is wrong" or something like that.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Welcome Gideon7, you can also find my feedback to Drake's vision along that thread...

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=562

I am a current member of the LC but with a different opinion. There is no doubt many brothers and sisters in LC love God. What troubles me is somehow many of them choose to know God through the teaching of one man - WL. When you read his books, regardless of his questionable theology, you should easily see there is something wrong with his heart, especially the pride. He just loved to belittle others (especially Chritianity in general) in order to elevate his "high peek truth".

So from time to time I ask irritating questions to fellow LCers in the local meetings and in this forum hopefully someday somehow, we will see how much we as a whole have gone astray from the original vision. But I am just the minority so not seeing much progress at the moment.

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Gideon7,

Here is my testimony summary.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=554

Hope that link works.

Drake

Originally Posted by Gideon7

I’m gaining much from the discussion everyone- thx for all the input. I realize I’m a newbie here and I hope this doesn’t come across as rude- but I’d really like to hear from Drake and Evangelical specifically here. (And any other current LC supporters- I think I’m correct in believing they are pro-WN/WL/LSM/LC? Please forgive me if I’m misunderstanding…).
My original post requested any sort of “smoking gun”- why folks left the LC… OR reasons from LC adherents “if you would maybe share the main reason you choose to stay in the LC given this (apparently) lengthy list of “smoking guns”. It certainly at least appears there are myriad reasons to have some serious questions concerning the LC.”

I’m really not trying to be sarcastic/divisive here- but if I was invited to “church XYZ” down the street, but found out they had a fraction of the controversy/complaints/lawsuits/sexual abuse allegations/power struggles/borderline false teaching/authoritarian practices/divisions/etc… that seem pretty well founded concerning the LC (*I’m sure some would argue this… but there’s plenty of LC “smoke”)- I’m pretty sure I’d not bother visiting. I’ve been quite involved in different types of Christian ministries for over 25 years- they admittedly all have their issues- but I’d say the LC/WN/WL/LSM seems to have a longer list than most.

But perhaps I’m really missing something? So I politely and sincerely ask- how do you overlook all these things? Some of them seem quite serious- are ALL of these accusations unfounded from your perspective? What is SO special about WN/WL/LC/LSM that it’s worth taking so much negative with the positive? It seems most Christian teachers/preachers/leaders down through the centuries have their pros and cons- I’m not grasping what makes the LC SO special? And for you non-LCer’s- why do/did you see folks stick with the LC- in light of all the allegations? I hope you hear my heart here- this seems to be a pretty open forum where people speak their minds- and I’m deeply curious- with so many other (apparently) healthier choices in town- why would/should someone visit the LC?

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron>"So I'll take the people like William Bennet, and the books I cited, because that's the best source I have."

Certainly. Quote them then. But don't quote them and say it is a quote from Witness Lee.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Interestingly, the word cult is not in the Bible.

Strictly speaking, JW, LDS and every denomination is a sect because it is a "cut"(i.e. sect) in the Body. Cults are those groups like the KKK etc.

Originally Posted by Gideon7

But perhaps I’m really missing something? So I politely and sincerely ask- how do you overlook all these things?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This was and is taught and practiced all the time. College students, "typical Americans," middle/upper-class people, etc., are "good material." Go after those people. We are not here for "good works." Witness Lee and other LC leaders place high value on the outward appearance of success and prosperity.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This was and is taught and practiced all the time. College students, "typical Americans," middle/upper-class people, etc., are "good material." Go after those people. We are not here for "good works." Witness Lee and other LC leaders place high value on the outward appearance of success and prosperity.

Originally Posted by Drake

Fair question.

I never heard Brother Lee say that. On the contrary, I was with a group of brothers in a meeting with Brother Lee many years ago and something similar came up. The idea about reaching professors on campus, big fish. His response was along the lines of it being better to pray and not move to quickly. I felt the Lords enlightening from that and had the sense that though the idea had made sense yet it was in the wrong realm.

So, no, I never read that in any of his books, never heard it in any messages, nor did I expect to.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Frankly, Aron, I am very concerned that a brother would do such a thing to anyone much more that a brother would do that to another brother. We are not worldly people like those who create fake news about something the president said when he did not.. You are a brother, I am a brother, and Witness Lee is a brother. Or do you not also see it that way?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I could ask you the same thing how do you know that he said the "age of the Word is over", just because Aron quoted some Chinese villager?

Originally Posted by aron

Let me ask you a question: did you ever hear the phrase "go after the good building aterial" in the LSM/lc?

And if so, where is this printed in one of Lee's books?

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Aron>"Sorry that my citation lacked the rigour you require."

This isn't about me, Aron.

Why did you elect to use "quotes" about something Brother Lee supposedly said when you had no reference? Yet, you knew while doing it that you also were quoting another unsubstantiated statement but you presented it here as if it were fact.

Frankly, Aron, I am very concerned that a brother would do such a thing to anyone much more that a brother would do that to another brother. We are not worldly people like those who create fake news about something the president said when he did not.. You are a brother, I am a brother, and Witness Lee is a brother. Or do you not also see it that way?

Look, I am not saying we cannot or should not disagree. Nor am I saying we should not disagree sharply. I am saying that the integrity of your argument matters, else where is your testimony? Don't make stuff up. Don't say Witness Lee said this or that when he did not. Can you not find enough substantive material to disagree with in the thousands of messages readily available online and searchable with key phrases at lsm.org? Or is there no "smoking gun" there and therefore you use resort to fake news out of some obscure place in China?

Exactly, what do you hope to gain by doing that?

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

How would you know what Lee said in every meeting in the USA? Were you there in every one?

You now live in Australasia, I doubt if you ever heard Lee speak live.

Have you ever compared some of his live "off-script" messages with what his editors put in the book?

Originally Posted by Drake

Is that where Princess Leia is from?

There is a pattern emerging here!

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee never said that the age of the Word was over in the USA or wrote it down anywhere.
.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do we really think that Lee would say the age of the Word is over after having written so much on the Word even a new bible version?
.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a Chinese village said it's true then it must be true!

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

That reference is less credible than your unsubstantiated quote.... unsubstantiated on top of unsubstantiated.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Ha. I've always pictured you as older...maybe not.

Originally Posted by Drake

LOT>"My locality was a top dog, I ran in the circle with the top dogs. They would never admit to it... I mean... why give up the perks?"

Perks?

Not in this life...

Drake

Originally Posted by aron

Drake,

Did you ever hear this one: "The age of spiritual giants is over; it is now the age of the small potatoes"? We heard that in 1997 when Witness Lee passed on. Why does an age pass when a Christian minister dies? What Bible verse comes to mind here, if any?

And it probably never got published in the LSM/lc. . . . don't want to make a paper trail. A 'smoking gun'.

Regarding the quote you wanted, it's from

https://www.chinasource.org/resource...deas-come-from

And I think I read it elsewhere also. There are several books on contemporary Christian experience in China, and Watchman Nee & Witness Lee obviously loom large. There's quite a bit of data if you are interested.

One book is called "Redeemed by Fire" and another book is called "China's Christian Millions". There are easily a half-dozen books like this.

Originally Posted by aron

Drake,

Did you ever hear this one: "The age of spiritual giants is over; it is now the age of the small potatoes"? We heard that in 1997 when Witness Lee passed on. Why does an age pass when a Christian minister dies? What Bible verse comes to mind here, if any?

And it probably never got published in the LSM/lc. . . . don't want to make a paper trail. A 'smoking gun'.

Regarding the quote you wanted, it's from

https://www.chinasource.org/resource...deas-come-from

And I think I read it elsewhere also. There are several books on contemporary Christian experience in China, and Watchman Nee & Witness Lee obviously loom large. There's quite a bit of data if you are interested.

One book is called "Redeemed by Fire" and another book is called "China's Christian Millions". There are easily a half-dozen books like this.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well then you wen't listening very well.

Did you ever hear Witness Lee say that "the process of sanctification" is only taking place in the Local Church? Did you ever hear him say "if you go away from" the Local Church of Witness Lee you will never be "a great spiritual person", but instead be spiritually "bankrupt"? Well these cult-like declarations came from none other than Mr. Benson Phillips, the President of LSM and undisputed most blended of the Blended Brothers. So where did brother Phillip come up with such absurd notions? He didn't just dream up this garbage from the words of John MacArthur, Billy Graham or R.C. Sproul, now did he? No, he was a devout follower and intense listener to the words of Witness Lee. When I read this scary damnation from Phillips it didn't surprise me one bit. I sat at the feet of Witness Lee for about 2 decades and heard him speak hundreds upon hundreds of "messages" IN PERSON, AND NOT THE EDITED VIDEOS/AUDIOS/PUBLICATIONS. What Phillips said is in perfect alignment with the teachings of Witness Lee, and so are the things aron has recently pointed out.
-

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gideon7, this forum has had LSM advocates like Drake and Evangelical for years.

Keep reading, and you will see first hand all the diverse tactics they will use to dismiss legitimate concerns and discredit those who voice their concerns. It's kind of like watching our political news each night.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This comment has no historical basis.

Gnosticism and endless Greek philosophies existed long before the Apostles.

Read the story about Paul's first visit to Athens, Greece in Acts 17.

Originally Posted by Gideon7

I really don’t want to invest my time in a group that is off concerning some of the basic doctrines/practices of the faith- and when there’s this much "smoke", there tends to be a fire somewhere…

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron>""The age of the Word is over; it is now the age of the Spirit""

What? I never heard this from Brother Lee nor anything like it. His life's work was completely centered on Life studies of the Bible followed by Crystallizations of the books of the Bible.

Aron, since you put that in quotes, meaning it is an exact statement, please provide the reference so we can read it in context.

Drake

Originally Posted by Gideon7

Ohio- thx for the heads up. And thx again to all the other input. Honestly- I appreciate hearing both sides. I have only had good to very good experiences at the LC- admittedly only about half dozen visits so far. I almost wonder if it might be as others have said- they don't have issues with the people in LC- but the leadership? (But I must keep in mind- those "leaders" came from within LC most likely...) The few folks I've gotten to know seem to sincerely love Christ and His word- joyful, thankful, faithful, reasonably healthy doctrine, etc...
I am pondering- WL died about 2 decades ago- his seemingly authoritarian church politics happened before that- I believe his apparently un-Godly sons are even passed? (I know nothing of the "Blended Brothers"- and who is/was "GLA" btw?) I don't see any recent claims about scandalous RV money schemes, sexual assault, people/churches getting quarantined/excommunicated... I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here- but perhaps positive changes have come about in the last 20+ years? That's a loooong time... just wondering? I'm not trying to pull this post in a different direction- I think I might start a new thread somewhere else about "what changes have come since WL passed?" Sorry- new to this...

Originally Posted by Gideon7

A very big thx again for your responses! Please know this means a lot to my wife and I as we try to dig through the details of a complicated group and see what’s really at the bottom of it all- I sincerely hope it’s the one true God and His word, but…?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LSM/LC cannot be blamed for Eastern Lightning just as the apostles cannot be blamed for Gnosticism which arose out of the teachings of Paul and John.

Originally Posted by Drake

What? I never heard this from Brother Lee nor anything like it.

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron>""The age of the Word is over; it is now the age of the Spirit""

What? I never heard this from Brother Lee nor anything like it. His life's work was completely centered on Life studies of the Bible followed by Crystallizations of the books of the Bible.

Aron, since you put that in quotes, meaning it is an exact statement, please provide the reference so we can read it in context.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LSM/LC cannot be blamed for Eastern Lightning just as the apostles cannot be blamed for Gnosticism which arose out of the teachings of Paul and John.

Originally Posted by aron

LSM/lc have tried to stay right on the limits of orthodoxy, where they can be the same as everyone else, but different, too.

But if you want to see LSM/lc & Lee off the rails, look up the truly cultic off-shoots in the PRC. They went in aggressively in 1979, when China opened to the west. Within 15 years they had millions of acolytes, it seemed.

Read about the Eastern Lightning, an LSM/lc sect. Or the Lord Changshou Shouters, or the Three Grades of Servants. If you read the ELrecruiters guide, readily available, it's lifted right out of the LSM/lc playbook. Just not as subtle - it's quite forthright.

Quite the eye-opener.