The Lord Called Me Out Of The Church Life

[aron]

Originally Posted by sandwichboy

Regarding Witness Lee not being the minister of the age. I never really came to that conclusion. It is a subjective statement that cannot be proven. It is the same as saying that the Eiffel Tower is the best tower on the earth. If it cannot be proven then it is an irrelevant statement.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Where in the NT does it say that there's one ministry per age? Only Jesus gets that title. Not Paul - Paul was the "apostle to the uncircumcision, just as Peter was to the circumcision". Paul never claimed primacy, nor did his ministry supersede another.

The claim by WN/WL that there's one ministry per age directly benefits the one making the claim. So it's suspect that there's bias, and motive, since humanity is not perfected. Any claim to there being one person in charge (not Jesus) as "deputy God" should be held with extreme care until it's shown definitively. Otherwise it's probably what it looks to be - someone making up the rules as they go, to benefit themselves.

If you look at the pattern of church history, you see periods where God was evidently doing something of import in various locations, yet neither location was subservient to the ministry evident in the other. Think of Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards. There was some communication, some acknowledgement, some fellowship, but where was the primacy? Nowhere. Nor was there, for that matter, when James and John gave Paul the "right hand of fellowship" to minister abroad.

Where did Philip tell the Ethiopian to report to HQ? Didn't happen. Yet Christianity thrives in Ethiopia 20 centuries after the book of Acts, without evidently ever having the "headship" of some ministry of the age.

And that one gets disfellowshipped simply for pointing out the obvious is testament to what sinking sand it's built on.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by aron

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Where in the NT does it say that there's one ministry per age? Only Jesus gets that title. Not Paul - Paul was the "apostle to the uncircumcision, just as Peter was to the circumcision". Paul never claimed primacy, nor did his ministry supersede another.

The claim by WN/WL that there's one ministry per age directly benefits the one making the claim. So it's suspect that there's bias, and motive, since humanity is not perfected. Any claim to there being one person in charge (not Jesus) as "deputy God" should be held with extreme care until it's shown definitively. Otherwise it's probably what it looks to be - someone making up the rules as they go, to benefit themselves.

If you look at the pattern of church history, you see periods where God was evidently doing something of import in various locations, yet neither location was subservient to the ministry evident in the other. Think of Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards. There was some communication, some acknowledgement, some fellowship, but where was the primacy? Nowhere. Nor was there, for that matter, when James and John gave Paul the "right hand of fellowship" to minister abroad.

Where did Philip tell the Ethiopian to report to HQ? Didn't happen. Yet Christianity thrives in Ethiopia 20 centuries after the book of Acts, without evidently ever having the "headship" of some ministry of the age.

And that one gets disfellowshipped simply for pointing out the obvious is testament to what sinking sand it's built on.

The counter argument here is the pattern through out the Bible, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah.. etc. the Bible doesn’t say it explicitly, but it’s clear God uses specific people for specific things.

Did Lee ever call himself the minister of the age? Or was that what the “brothers” crowned him with?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Zezima

The counter argument here is the pattern through out the Bible, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah.. etc. the Bible doesn’t say it explicitly, but it’s clear God uses specific people for specific things.

Did Lee ever call himself the minister of the age? Or was that what the “brothers” crowned him with?

The counter to that counter argument from LSM is that all of those were leading up to one man - Jesus. They were all for a time, and some of them were explicitly types/shadows of Jesus.

But once Jesus came, He's the fulfillment. All authority was given to Him. If they try to say that there are more singular figures after Jesus (which they do, as they try to continue that line through the NT and after and onto the present day), then Jesus wasn't really the fulfillment.

The hilarious part is that they create this line of unique ministers one successive one after the other, and yet try to pretend that it's not something exactly like a papal lineage. It's classic "when they do it it's bad, when we do it it's God". The co-workers logical gymnastics is just a clown show.

Wrapped up in the concept of the minister of the age is the sibling of a teaching that the co-workers try to claim that God has "deputy authorities" who act as God's delegated authority on the earth. The very glaring problem with this is simple - neither God nor Jesus ever granted their authority to anyone else. God gave all authority to Jesus. And Jesus gave the disciples power and authority to cast out demons and heal disease (Luke 9:1). But that's authority over demons and disease. Jesus never granted His authority to anyone to be over anyone. The biblical record of that kind of thing is just not there. There is no pyramid structure. We each are connected directly to the Lord.

If you read Lee's The Vision of the Age, Lee traces his way through his contrived MOTA lineage, through the OT giants, into the New Testament, touching on Jesus, moving on to Peter, Paul, etc, through Luther, Wesley, etc, and finally, no joke, Witness Lee literally says "I'm not selling myself here, but....."

*side eye*

Says the man with a lucrative publishing business that makes more money the more people think he's special.......

As is typical for Lee, he didn't say it outright. But he built the house, laid the pathway, walked you up the pathway, and expected you to walk right through the door. So yes, he ultimately did claim it himself.

Numerous issues with MOTA teaching:

1. it's a known teaching often found in cults (different title maybe, but same concept)
2. it's too convenient that Lee crowned himself minister of the age, and the support for it came from his closest followers and subsequent followers after that. No one outside of Lee's controlling group thinks he's the, or even a, minister of the age. It's entirely of his own making.
3. New Testament support simply isn't there. Peter gave Paul the right hand of fellowship. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles. Concurrently. The co-workers somewhere have Jesus nestled in the list of MOTA's like Jesus is just some regular MOTA chilling with the other MOTAs.
4. In the LC's case, the MOTA doctrine sticks a crowbar between believers and the cross of Christ. Witness Lee says if you don't follow the MOTA (or, if you don't follow the vision released by the MOTA, and, oh by the way, the way to follow the vision is to follow the one who releases the vision....the MOTA) then your service isn't accepted by God. The teaching makes your right-standing with God contingent on following Witness Lee! It's dead at the start line.

The co-workers have injected steroids into the teaching and have said some wacky things the past few years. Ron in particular. It's sad to think of all the people trapped in the LC who have been unduly influenced to believe it.

Trapped