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

[UntoHim]

------------------------------------------------------

[UntoHim]

From the following excerpt of:
http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent months a few dissenting brothers have attacked the co-workers' fellowship that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee served as "the ministers of the age." These critics substitute their own watered-down definition of "minister of the age" in what would appear to be an attempt to justify applying that appellation to themselves or to a certain worker associated with them. In the line of teaching on this subject initiated by Watchman Nee, developed by Witness Lee, and continued by the co-workers, these three terms are used as follows:

*The vision of the age is the present advance of the revelation or the recovery of the revelation contained in the Bible that God intends to govern the life and service of His people.
*The ministry of the age is the service that carries out the vision of the age.
*The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the *lead in carrying out the ministry of the age.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If everyone could please point me to the posting in
the "Smoking Gun" thread that should be moved over to this thread that would be appreciated.

-

[Ohio]

That's a tough task.

First mention of MOTA was in post #50, so that might be a good point to start moving, but do not move OBW's post #195, since he goes back to the OP.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

From the following excerpt of:
http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent months a few dissenting brothers have attacked the co-workers' fellowship that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee served as "the ministers of the age." These critics substitute their own watered-down definition of "minister of the age" in what would appear to be an attempt to justify applying that appellation to themselves or to a certain worker associated with them. In the line of teaching on this subject initiated by Watchman Nee, developed by Witness Lee, and continued by the co-workers, these three terms are used as follows:

*The vision of the age is the present advance of the revelation or the recovery of the revelation contained in the Bible that God intends to govern the life and service of His people.
*The ministry of the age is the service that carries out the vision of the age.
*The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the *lead in carrying out the ministry of the age.

This stuff is absurd.

The vision of the age is the New Covenant.
The ministry of the age is the gospel of grace.
The minister of the age is Jesus.

The age is the age of grace. It began when Jesus was crucified and ends at his second coming.

Claiming anything else is to deny the Lord who redeemed us. It is a different gospel, and preaches a different Jesus. Try as they might to twist the explanation they are forced to make WL into a mediator between God and Man, a damnable heresy.

Any honest person knows that this doctrine is divisive and that there are many blood washed Christians who would not receive it. They know it is divisive but justify this because Jesus said He would cause a division in families, etc. However, the context of that word is that you must confess that Jesus is Lord to others. To put this doctrine on the same level as that is to equate confessing WL as MOTA with confessing Jesus Christ as Lord. Once again, this doctrine denies the Lord who bought us.

The ground of the church is a big deal in the Bible and in the NT. Paul talks about the 7 things that make us one. These are the things we stand on. If you wish you can simplify this to say that we stand on the Lord's blood -- that is our ground. Why? Because that is the price that was paid for the ground we stand on. Therefore the "ground of the church" doctrine in LSM denies the Lord who redeemed us. It is a damnable heresy which causes divisions in the Body. It was necessary that someone would teach this heresy so that those who are approved could be manifested by rejecting it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The vision of the age is the New Covenant.
The ministry of the age is the gospel of grace.
The minister of the age is Jesus.

If we discuss Paul's "Heavenly Vision," then we must mention him taking the Gospel to the Gentile nations. The book of Acts is filled with this truth.

[least]

“Least-
Please define 'the age'.” #14
“Evangelical-
I think of ages in terms of what God wants to accomplish. It is not necessarily referring to a time period, although what God wants to accomplish occurs in space and time, an age to me refers to neither. Peter was the minister of the age for what God wanted to accomplish at Pentecost, but then later Paul was the ministry of the age with what God wanted to accomplish with Paul. Luther did something and then Darby, then Nee, then Lee. There may be a stock standard definition for an "age" in one of Lee or Nee's books, but that's my perspective.” #15
“ZNPaaneah-
In my recollection the "age" was defined by the truth being released. So if the truth being released is "justification by faith" then that is the age. Once that truth is established you might move onto a new truth.” #18

Thank you for the replies to my request- (Please define 'the age').
Evangelical’s definition of ‘the age’ is what he thinks it is …
ZNPaaneah’s definition of ‘the age’ is what in his recollection was …

E and Z, can any one or both of you say your definition of ‘the age’ is a/are bible record(s)?
Drake, please show bible record of ‘the age’.

Another request: can anyone
Please define ‘minister of the age’ and ‘ministers of the age’.
Drake, please show bible record(s) of ‘minister of the age’ and ‘ministers of the age’. If you like, please show two versions; one 'bible record of mota' and another 'LSM mota'.

Thank you.

[ZNPaaneah]

I have already answered this. Their doctrine is total bunk. According to the NT this is the age of grace. It began at Christ's crucifixion and ends at Christ's 2nd coming. Then we have the "restoration of all things" or the "millennial kingdom", either way the next age is a thousand years.

[Evangelical]

Regarding ages, the concept of ages are man made attempts to order or structure the Bible or God's movements. As such it is not scriptural, however it is true because we can observe from the Bible and history that God has moved in different ways in different stages. It is only possible to define ages because God moves in an ordered way. If God was chaotic or haphazard then it would not be possible to define ages.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

From the following excerpt of:
http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent months a few dissenting brothers have attacked
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

To describe brothers as dissenting that's okay in my opinion, but over the past 30 years I've always had a problem with the usage of the word "attacked" in regard to differing views between brothers. If anything I find usage of the word divisive and does nothing to foster unity.
If one happens to meet a dissenting brother in person, their passive disposition is far from aggressive and attacking. Their dissent is mainly over the direction Living Stream Ministry began taking in the late 1980's to present day.

[Evangelical]

In following the discussions of the Smoking Gun thread ( I presume any MOTA topic should be continued here) I have a few observations:

I think the definitions provided on afaithfulword website would clear up a number of matters of confusion and debate.

Not many people realize that ministry is an individual matter and if that ministry is to release the vision of the age then clearly that person is the minister of the age. In other words, no one except Lee himself can claim to be the "minister of the age", and there is no such thing as "ministers of the age". Just as there is not many ministers of Paul's ministry (it is his own). Even though a ministry can have co-workers it does not mean the co-workers are "ministers of the age" as well.

[least]

Very confusing, between what Evangelical wrote and what Ron K said in the video message 'Ministers Of The Age'.

Would like to see Ron K and Evangelical discuss in this forum.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Very confusing, between what Evangelical wrote and what Ron K said in the video message 'Ministers Of The Age'.
Would like to see Ron K and Evangelical discuss in this forum.
-

That was my perspective, and unless things have changed or I misunderstood originally, I could be wrong and stand to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable such as Ron. To me the only ministers (plural) of the age were Nee and Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That was my perspective, and unless things have changed or I misunderstood originally, I could be wrong and stand to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable such as Ron. To me the only ministers (plural) of the age were Nee and Lee.

How exactly did they demonstrate this "truth" from the NT, that the "only ministers of the age" were Nee and Lee?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How exactly did they demonstrate this "truth" from the NT, that the "only ministers of the age" were Nee and Lee?

Good question. Did it come by subjective revelation rather than the NT? It's hard to justify this idea from the NT alone. Some may spin that and say "it's unbiblical" but I'm not saying that, I'm saying it's hard to justify it, it's not written plainly in black and write. Spiritual maturity and revelation may be needed to see it. Once you see it you can't "unsee" it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Very confusing, between what Evangelical wrote and what Ron K said in the video message 'Ministers Of The Age'. Would like to see Ron K and Evangelical discuss in this forum.
-

Actually, there's no contradiction between what I said and what Ron K said. Ministers of the age refers to Luther , Darby, Nee, Lee etc.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually, there's no contradiction between what I said and what Ron K said. Ministers of the age refers to Luther , Darby, Nee, Lee etc.

Please define 'the age'.

I'm afraid this thread's MOTA discussions is just going to repeat the going round and round arguments about MOTA as in the other thread.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Please define 'the age'. I'm afraid this thread's MOTA discussions is just going to repeat the going round and round arguments about MOTA as in the other thread.

I'm trying carefully not to do that because MOTA is my least favorite topic actually.

I think of ages in terms of what God wants to accomplish. It is not necessarily referring to a time period, although what God wants to accomplish occurs in space and time, an age to me refers to neither. Peter was the minister of the age for what God wanted to accomplish at Pentecost, but then later Paul was the ministry of the age with what God wanted to accomplish with Paul. Luther did something and then Darby, then Nee, then Lee. There may be a stock standard definition for an "age" in one of Lee or Nee's books, but that's my perspective.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by least

Please define 'the age'.

I'm afraid this thread's MOTA discussions is just going to repeat the going round and round arguments about MOTA as in the other thread.

In my recollection the "age" was defined by the truth being released. So if the truth being released is "justification by faith" then that is the age. Once that truth is established you might move onto a new truth.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not many people realize that ministry is an individual matter and if that ministry is to release the vision of the age then clearly that person is the minister of the age. In other words, no one except Lee himself can claim to be the "minister of the age", and there is no such thing as "ministers of the age". Just as there is not many ministers of Paul's ministry (it is his own). Even though a ministry can have co-workers it does not mean the co-workers are "ministers of the age" as well.

I am confused by your post. Why is it that WL can claim to be the minister of the age?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am confused by your post. Why is it that WL can claim to be the minister of the age?

I don't know if he himself claimed that. I think these things are given in hindsight by those who appreciate the ministry. I mean, if I lived during the Reformation, I probably would have not have said Luther is the minister of the age. But later on, we appreciate his ministry.

On a practical level, we don't spend time discussion who is and isn't the minister of the age, or even defining properly what it means. As evidenced by my apparent lack of understanding on the matter (as least pointed out). In fact I don't think I have ever discussed the MOTA in a local church, only on this forum have I given my perspective. I have discussed in a local church whether Lee was an apostle, however.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On a practical level, we don't spend time discussion who is and isn't the minister of the age, or even defining properly what it means. As evidenced by my apparent lack of understanding on the matter (as least pointed out). In fact I don't think I have ever discussed the MOTA in a local church, only on this forum have I given my perspective. I have discussed in a local church whether Lee was an apostle, however.

This is obviously not correct, as "The Vision of the Age, The Ministry of the Age, and the Ministers of the Age" is the subject of an entire recent annual "blending conference" in Southern California.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is obviously not correct, as "The Vision of the Age, The Ministry of the Age, and the Ministers of the Age" is the subject of an entire recent annual "blending conference" in Southern California.

It's 3 messages only, out of many. I never said never - my statement about "not much" is accurate. Overall, out of all the messages, training's and conferences, it does not constitute a major part. And, I have never had a conversation along the lines of "who do you think the next minister of the age is or will be?" Trying to anticipate or speculate God's move does not really help a person's spiritual growth IMO.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know if he himself claimed that. I think these things are given in hindsight by those who appreciate the ministry. I mean, if I lived during the Reformation, I probably would have not have said Luther is the minister of the age. But later on, we appreciate his ministry.

On a practical level, we don't spend time discussion who is and isn't the minister of the age, or even defining properly what it means. As evidenced by my apparent lack of understanding on the matter (as least pointed out). In fact I don't think I have ever discussed the MOTA in a local church, only on this forum have I given my perspective. I have discussed in a local church whether Lee was an apostle, however.

Well for a doctrine that has caused so much division and so many to leave it sure is hard to pin down.

Did you discuss the Ground of the Church doctrine?

In that discussion did you highlight WN's "discovery" of this "truth"?

Did you discuss the fact that the release of this truth is "the ministry of this age"?

Did you discuss how WN had the "ministry of this age"? And how that WL has taken up the mantle from WN to carry on this ministry?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

ZNP,

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

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

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

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Shoot, why didn't we think of that?

I hope Indiana is reading this.

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

Or sending an email like Indiana did.

Or sending a letter, like Indiana did.

Or sending a certified letter like Indiana did.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Drake

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

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


Drake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

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

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

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Working definition of MOTA -- "The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age."

As this relates to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee LSM states:

“Through the labor of our senior brothers, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, we have received a spiritual inheritance of all of the crucial revelations in the Bible that have been opened to the Lord's seekers in the last twenty centuries. But that is not all. Brother Nee and Brother Lee stood on the shoulders of those who had gone before to see more.”

Least asked for “the Bible record of MOTA” [please note we use the Acronym MOTA in this thread to refer to “The Minister of the Age” as defined by LSM.

I feel there are many relevant verses to this doctrine and think it is a reasonable request. Therefore I thought this thread could be started. Please — any post that does not relate to the goal of presenting the Bible record of MOTA will be off topic.

I realize that this definition ignores certain actions and events that took place under the guise of MOTA. Therefore Bible verses concerning those events are relevant as well since history has shown us that the way to life is a narrow way and few there be that find it.

[Drake]

ZNP>”If possible I hope we can stay away from Vision of the Age and Ministry of the Age since I think we can all agree there is a vision presented in the NT and there is a NT ministry. No one is questioning the basic fact of either of those two points. This thread is not the place to debate whether WL was or was not the MOTA, or if he had the "Vision of the Age" or even the "Ministry of the Age". This thread is simply the place to lay out the Biblical support and warnings about any and all "Minister's of the Age".

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are. For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age. Under those conditions we would all be asking ....Noah was a minister according to what?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are. For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age. Under those conditions we would all be asking ....Noah was a minister according to what?

The Bible says that "without a vision the people perish". No one on this forum has disputed that. The NT says that "we have received this ministry". No one on this forum disputes that there is a NT ministry. No one disputes that there are many ministers, servants, slaves of the Lord.

The question that we have asked repeatedly is for a Biblical basis to say that there is "The Minister of The Age".

What is the Biblical basis to divide the NT Age of grace into a bunch of mini ages? It is one way to interpret the 7 churches of Asia, so perhaps you could infer 7 ages. The problem with that is that WL's teaching is that the last 4 churches all occur simultaneously. So then the last 2,000 years could be broken into 4 ages.

So then what we are asking for in this thread is a scriptural reference for "The Minister of the Age".

For example, I think it is fair to say that Moses was "The Minister of the Age". In that age they were releasing the truth concerning the law. However, it is also explicitly clear from Moses himself that he was a type of Christ. In the NT it is explicitly clear that Moses is nothing compared to Christ and that we are to hear Jesus, not Moses.

Likewise you can claim that Elijah was a lead prophet in the age of the prophets. The vision in that age was to establish righteousness in the Kingdom. Once again it is explicitly clear that compared to Jesus Christ Elijah is nothing and we should listen to Jesus, the beloved Son.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The question that we have asked repeatedly is for a Biblical basis to say that there is "The Minister of The Age".

I think ZNP, and maybe some others, have made a good case that these three terms, Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age and Minister of the Age are simply man-made constructs that are being misapplied to a mere human minister and to his personal vision and ministry.

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament. The Ministry of the Age is the New Testament Ministry, which does not belong to any one particular person per se. The apostle Paul clearly says "We have this ministry" (2 Cor 4:1). It is THIS ministry that Paul refers to that should be considered The Ministry of The Age. The Minister of the Age is none other then our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Author and perfecter of our faith, our Great High Priest.

All this being said, I think it is incumbent upon the followers to Witness Lee to show how the human constructs concerning a man and his personal vision and ministry should be put on an equal plane with the descriptions I have given above. The authors of the website article have provided a truckload of quotes of Nee and Lee as their main support for these human constructs. Very convenient. Very self-referential. Very unscholarly. When it comes to strong biblical support the brothers at afaithfulword.org are found wanting. They are found wanting because the man who taught them these human constructs was found wanting himself.
-

[least]

Proverbs 29:18
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

Romans 10: 4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Luke 1: 1-2
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

II Corinthians 4: 1
Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

II Corinthians 4: 5
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

*****
After the discussions in this thread, I accept the findings below.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament. The Ministry of the Age is the New Testament Ministry, which does not belong to any one particular person per se. The apostle Paul clearly says "We have this ministry" (2 Cor 4:1). It is THIS ministry that Paul refers to that should be considered The Ministry of The Age. The Minister of the Age is none other then our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Author and perfecter of our faith, our Great High Priest.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think ZNP, and maybe some others, have made a good case that these three terms, Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age and Minister of the Age are simply man-made constructs that are being misapplied to a mere human minister and to his personal vision and ministry.

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

The implication of having a doctrine that is simply a man made construct that is then used to set aside the Lord's word for oneness in the Body. It is with this tradition that the LRC sets aside the word of God.

The reason we are all one is because we all partake of one bread, but according to the LRC tradition that is not sufficient.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

When it comes to strong biblical support the brothers at afaithfulword.org are found wanting. They are found wanting because the man who taught them these human constructs was found wanting himself.
-

No bro Untohim, he was found dead. And with Nee already gone, his death means the death of The Vision of the Age, The Ministry of the Age, and The Minister of the Age ... especially the Minister.

Those doctrines have now fallen down, like the house of cards that they were all along.

Some are slow to catch on. Let's pray for them.

[JJ]

I’ve been reading the book, I’m linking here to learn more about Martin Luther:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mar...781101980019#/

The parallels between the Roman Catholic’s Religious system and its reaction to Luther’s genuine attempts to point out and seek changes to its unscriptural teachings and practices and LSM churches are remarkable!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament.
-

This came up in another thread so posting here for further discussion as the more appropriate thread. I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?


“The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves......”

Grace to you,
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This came up in another thread so posting here for further discussion as the more appropriate thread. I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?


“The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves......”

Grace to you,
Drake

Here you are equivocating.

You say "the vision is not about a man," yet immediately go on to say that you are "always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision."

No one on this form disparages the N.T. vision.

We only point out the failures of leaders at LSM who have damaged the children of God.

Sorry that you are not honest enough to distinguish these.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Drake

I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?

I came across the following web site today... an entire site talking about spiritual delusion. Seems to have some valid points. Probably worth spending time to further read...

http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-i...itual-delusion

Understanding of delusion among the Holy Fathers
.
.
St. Ignatius believed that there are different kinds of delusion corresponding to passions, by which they are generated. Pride is an indication of any kind of delusion. "Terrible pride, like the pride of demons”, St. Ignatius wrote, “is the main feature of those who assimilated one or another delusion" (Ibid, pp. 233).
.
.
Another more extensive kind of delusion is connected to this one; St. Ignatius called it "conceit". A person in this state does not excite the imagination, but he focuses on the experience of a variety of "heart sensations" and erroneously attributes them to the action of grace. Dreaminess also operates in such a man, but "acts solely in the abstract field" (Ibid, pp. 232). The deluded person makes up "false spiritual state, close fellowship with Jesus, the inner conversation with Him, the mysterious revelation, voices of pleasure ..." (Ibid). In addition to striving for grace feelings, people exposed to this error have a high opinion of themselves and attribute to themselves the gifts of grace and spiritual virtues, " they seem to be intoxicated with themselves, with their state of self-delusion, seeing it as the state of grace" (Ibid, pp. 230) . On this basis, St. Ignatius believes that heresies, schisms, impiety, blasphemy originated from this "conceit" (Ibid, pp. 235). Interconnection of both types of delusion is that the mind and the heart, not purified from the passions and not renovated by the Holy Spirit, aspire to see God and to experience His presence in the soul, but, not being able to this, make up imaginary grace gifts for the purpose of enjoyment. Thus, such states "are the actions of subtle vanity and lust"
.
.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Working definition of MOTA -- "The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age."

Jesus was the one singular Christ. There cannot be, by definition, any more than one. Jesus was, is, and remains evermore the Christ of God, the Lord of lords and King of kings.

There's one Messiah, one singular Son of David, one "Holy One of Israel" (Mark 1:24; cf Isa 43:3). God has revealed this to us all, by raising His Son Jesus from the dead. The record is only too plain, and clear.

Any speculation about who's #2, while on this earth in the flesh of sin, is most deluded. Better to take the least place. Otherwise you risk being sent down in shame. ~Luke 14:8-11

I know that such MOTA speculations jive well with Chinese cultural expectations of group leadership and cohesion, but it has no place in the NT record. Casting back for OT scenes of Moses and Noah are vain. Jesus is the new Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:27); Jesus is the true Noah.

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age.

Noah was pointing to Jesus. Peter was pointing to Jesus. Inasmuch as I see others pointing to Jesus, I align. "As I imitate Christ, imitate me"; the implied corollary is that as one doesn't imitate Christ, then I've no burden to imitate them (1 Cor 11:1).