Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Second, there are many ministries in the body. That is a very scriptural and well supported statement. To say that WL was "A" minister of the age does not in any way, to my opinion, cause serious problems with the NT. To say that he was "The" minister of the age does. I heard RG for over a year develop his teaching but never once did he supply any scriptural evidence that, in my opinion, ever warranted changing "A" to "the".
They did use the analogy of Elijah and Elisha. The basic principle is that you don't create a teaching based on a type, rather their should be a clear NT teaching, such as for Baptism, and the types should then fill in some of the picture. Creating this teaching that WN passed the mantle to WL was in my mind, very poor Biblical scholarship and had no foundation in the NT. On the contrary I felt that analogy was much better suited to the OT ministry and the NT ministry. As a result I didn't take RG seriously. His writings were not published by LSM and his speaking could just as easily demonstrate that there was no central control over what brothers spoke.
|
I don't know about RG's writings, but everything you're describing here
has been published by LSM. Minister of the age, passing the mantle from Nee to Lee, etc.
Let's be clear, nobody is teaching anything about "
A minister of the age". (What would that even mean, anyway, wouldn't it just be "A minister"?) Ron Kangas teaches that "you can't pick and choose from the ministry of the age". I've heard him say this with mine own ears. Others here have testified hearing the same thing. There's nothing "A" about it.
Let's face it, LSM teaches that in every "age", God has one man on the earth, and if you want to be a part of God's "present up-to-date move", you must be with this one man's ministry. This teaching is explicit.