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”.
Quote:
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
|
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.