Nee's 'Ministry to the House or to the Lord'

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Those may be facts. But they are not relevant to this passage.

In Ezekiel 44, This is long after David. It is a vision given to Ezekiel 25 years into the captivity concerning how the priestly service would be after the return from exile. It may be that Zadok was the only clan of Levites that remained in Judah at the split in the kingdom. But the cause of this punishment was allowing the idols to be brought into the Temple, not going with the Northern Kingdom to serve God there. And there was only one Temple. It was in Judah, not the Northern Kingdom. So the sins that these "punished" clans were receiving occurred in Jerusalem.

In 1Sam2 the prophecy is that God will remove the sons of Eli and get a reliable priest. That priest was Zadok at the time of David. The idolatry and sins that were brought in at the time of Judges and then Eli were removed by Zadok who ministered to the Lord, not to the people.

Eze 44 makes it very clear that God needs priests to minister to him. In the NT Mary is set forth as an example of one who ministered to Jesus as a priest.

[OBW]

The problem with the whole thing is not that there is a NT priesthood, or that there are not specific things spoken concerning the actions that Mary took, but that there is a presumption that you can just find a common word or idea and force them together. In effect Nee and Lee (and now you) continually ran all over the scripture forcing things together that do not clearly go together and declaring that it is so. They created directives.

In effect they created more law than the law had. There are now more hurdles to jump through to arrive at "genuine NT fellowship" than it took a really good Jew to keep in good standing with God in the OT.

NT "sacrifices" become more convoluted than those in the OT. But the evidence is that simply presenting your body — not as something special off-line, "in the Temple" kind of thing, but as a tool at His disposal in everything we do — is the real sacrifice.

And the NT repeats the OT declaration that obedience is desired more than "sacrifice." Now it is clear in the context of this statement, both in the OT and the NT, that "sacrifice" is talking about overt acts of worship. You know, things like bringing bulls, rams, lambs — or things to show-and-tell in worship.

That does not mean that those things are despised or denied and rejected. But they have their place and it would seem to not be the primary thing.

Instead, the main thing is still the main thing. God's people bearing his image in the world. Obeying his commands rather than arguing them away. Being righteous and just in all that they do. It would seem that this was God's desire from the very beginning.

Despite the relatively short bit of ink given to the pre-fall lives of Adam and Eve, there is no clear time line for that era. But the little account given would make it seem that the main thing about their lives was caring for the garden according to God's command. The time that God actually spent with them in direct fellowship would seem to be rather short by comparison.

When you return to God's desire for obedience ahead of sacrifice, it would seem that his real desire is for humans to be according to their created position — busy obeying his directives. And those directives are not much about how we "worship" or have meetings. Or how we lavish praise upon God. Yes, there is a place for this. And it is not insignificant. But it is not the goal of life.

In fact, I sometimes wonder if that old line from, among various places, the Westminster catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever" is true — or at least is not understood correctly. I just looked it up and some of the verses attached to it and there is a hollow ring in the way that it is so often heralded. Most of the verses refer to God's glory and in a couple, to some of that glory being given to Jesus, then it is also given to man (that they may be one). But none of these make that man's "chief end." Such a claim of ranking is not found in anything that is supplied as support for the little question in the catechism.

The real question is, how is it that we glorify God? By having better worship services? By being more doctrinally correct? By having better songs? By doing better penance? By doing more evangelism?

I would assert that the answer is "none of the above" or anything else like it. Instead, glorifying God really occurs when we live life as God directs, the world takes note and we attribute our lives to his life rather than our own. When God is seen in the earth through his people as truly righteous, just, honest, etc., and is actively loving their neighbors.

When that happens, it will not matter how "high" or how "low" anyone thinks their mode of "worship" is. God will be glorified and praised.

Now, if you want to assert that we will fail to be those righteous representatives if we don't start with God, I will agree. But I do not find that there is some prescriptive means of "ministry" or "service" to God that this entails. One of the ways Paul puts it is "setting your mind." And "walking according to." Yes, we will not do either of these simply because we want it to be so. It is going to require some kind of dealing with God. It does not fall on us. But it is also not some kind of special "ministry to God" that has the kind of nearly over-the-top appearance of priestly service within the Temple or of Mary's pouring out the oil on Jesus. Not "dissing" either. But they are not given a patterns for worship. In the case of Mary, it was something special. Her act is declared to be a memorial to her, not the pattern of the first of many such acts.

The real thing is that Nee's "discovery" and so much of what springs from that and from the rest of his and Lee's ministries are more complicated lives, not simplicity in Christ. I watched a few minutes of the news this morning in my hotel room and saw a procession of Cardinals heading out of the chapel to get lunch, two abreast, spaced and moving so perfectly. How much more difficult was it to meet all the criteria put upon us by our LRC taskmasters that constantly told us that we were learning things that were beyond us. That we had "premature knowledge" of things, so don't worry about them yet. (Which, of course, put us into an inner turmoil about how poor we must be.) Who were constantly being berated for not being up to par on issue after issue.

We do need to take stock of our lives at times. But we mainly need to set our minds and step out in faith. Walk in the Spirit. Give the glory to God.

Such a booklet as "Ministry to the House or to the Lord" misses the mark. It is, as is too common in LRC theology, too focused on ethereal and "spiritual" things and is nearly of no earthly good. The main ministry is to the earth. To our fellow man. That is our daily life. It is where we are day by day. It is the primary place of ministry. Not in or around the Temple.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Such a booklet as "Ministry to the House or to the Lord" misses the mark. It is, as is too common in LRC theology, too focused on ethereal and "spiritual" things and is nearly of no earthly good. The main ministry is to the earth. To our fellow man. That is our daily life. It is where we are day by day. It is the primary place of ministry. Not in or around the Temple.

OBW, methinks you have taken your rejection of Lee and Nee way too far, to the point that you reject scripture just because they taught from it. The Lord Jesus, who was God Himself, come in the flesh, was a pattern for us. Did He not often minister to the Father in prayer? Yes He came to serve, and He did so incessantly for the span of 3+ years, but the gospel writers record numerous times when He isolated Himself for prayer.

Prayer is not just a series of requests we mail off to heaven when things go awry. It is also a ministry, a fellowship, a living conversation between us and God. It becomes the source for all real spiritual vitality and service. Take away this ministry to the Lord and we are left with nothing of lasting value.

Wise would be heeding the admonition to "Talk less, Pray more."

[Cassidy]

"Prayer is not just a series of requests we mail off to heaven when things go awry. It is also a ministry, a fellowship, a living conversation between us and God. It becomes the source for all real spiritual vitality and service. Take away this ministry to the Lord and we are left with nothing of lasting value."

This is excellent.

Thanks Ohio.

[UntoHim]

I don't think Mike is rejecting scripture per se, but rather he is rejecting Nee and Lee's interpretation of something illustrated within scripture. (he can correct me if I'm wrong)

I don't think Lord Jesus was "ministering to the Father" in prayer, rather He was praying to seek the Father's will for himself and to those whom the Father "gave him". Furthermore, when the Lord Jesus gave the disciples instruction on how to pray, it was more along the lines of worshiping and seeking that his "will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

This all goes to what I believe is a foundational and fundamental error in the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee - that God somehow and in some sense NEEDS man. Witness Lee went even so far as to intimate (many times implicitly and sometimes explicitly) that man somehow completes God or fulfills God in his person and his purpose. Where Nee got this kind of concept from is not very clear to me, all I know is that he did not get it from the Bible. As far as Lee....well many of us know full well that he had a great tendency to make things up out of whole cloth.

I'm reminded of that song we sang back in the 70s -

O I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I’m the center and the meaning of the universe.
Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/1293#ixzz2NR8Gr47y

No other song that I'm aware of illustrates as well this foundational and fundamental error in Nee/Lee. Yes, yes, YES, you will find that Nee and Lee taught that God was the center and meaning of the universe....but the fact that they did does not even begin to mitigate, much less cancel out, such a grievous error in teaching, which no doubt spilled over into our practice in the LC movement as well.

The bottom line is that God does not need to be ministered to by us (at least not in the sense that is being discussed in this thread), in fact to hold and teach such a concept can be rather damaging, especially to a new and/or young believer. The Lord Jesus clearly told us (directly and through many of the parables) that the way to "minister" to him is to be a servant and minister to each other (the body of Christ) and even to our fellow man. Watchman Nee did in fact give this a passing mention within his booklet, however this seems to get overwhelmed and even drowned out by the rest of his impractical, hyper-spiritualistic dogma.

[Cassidy]

Furthermore, when the Lord Jesus gave the disciples instruction on how to pray, it was more along the lines of worshiping and seeking that his "will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

This all goes to what I believe is a foundational and fundamental error in the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee - that God somehow and in some sense NEEDS man.

Since God desires that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven then of course God needs man.

[UntoHim]

Desire does not equal need.

I think the words of this song will be of a great help to. More than once, when I've hear this song, I've stopped everything I was doing and went to my knees and thanked the God of heaven and earth that part of his plan is that HE NEEDS NOTHING from us...that's just the way it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xPzTSpbYmk

In general, I don't recommend that anybody "pray-read" the words of men...but I might make an exception for you in this case:

You are not a God
Created by human hands
You are not a God
Dependant on any mortal man
You are not a God
In need of anything we can give
By Your plan, that's just the way it is

[chorus]
You are God alone
From before time began
You were on Your throne
You are God alone
And right now
In the good times and bad
You are on Your throne
You are God alone

You're the only God
Whose power none can contend
You're the only God
Whose name and praise will never end
You're the only God
Who's worthy of everything we can give
You are God
And that's just the way it is


Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/philli...#ixzz2NRVWvCN3
LetsSingIt - Your favorite Music Community

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Desire does not equal need.

The point is that for God's will to be done on Earth indicates it will be done in, by and through man. This desire of God cannot be accomplished without man. Hence, man is needed.

God placed man in the garden to tend and keep it. I have always been fascinated by the interplay between species and how, for example, the Acacia tree creates a home for ants which in turn protect the tree and are fed by the tree.

Yet what is undeniable is that all trees require a man to prune them in order to be very fruitful. So although plants can survive without man, they cannot thrive apart from man.

Man has been given a job. To say "I gave you a job but I don't need you" is an insult.

In Revelation it says that we have "been made kings and priests to our God". Once again, God has a job for man to do, that implies a need. Based on Jesus insisting he was "the Son of Man" I have to believe these are jobs that God needs man to do.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Desire does not equal need.

I think the words of this song will be of a great help to. More than once, when I've hear this song, I've stopped everything I was doing and went to my knees and thanked the God of heaven and earth that part of his plan is that HE NEEDS NOTHING from us...that's just the way it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xPzTSpbYmk

In general, I don't recommend that anybody "pray-read" the words of men...but I might make an exception for you in this case:

You are not a God
Created by human hands
You are not a God
Dependant on any mortal man
You are not a God
In need of anything we can give
By Your plan, that's just the way it is

[chorus]
You are God alone
From before time began
You were on Your throne
You are God alone
And right now
In the good times and bad
You are on Your throne
You are God alone

You're the only God
Whose power none can contend
You're the only God
Whose name and praise will never end
You're the only God
Who's worthy of everything we can give
You are God
And that's just the way it is


Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/philli...#ixzz2NRVWvCN3
LetsSingIt - Your favorite Music Community

UntoHim,

Thanks for the pointer. Great musically, inspiring, and well done vocals.

Yet, the song lacks revelation concerning the incarnation of God.

If God does not need man then why was He incarnated as a man?

A man was needed to carry out His plan and now men are needed to continue to carry out His will on earth as it is in heaven. A will is more than just a desire. God has a desire and He makes a plan to carry it out which involves man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You are not a God
Created by human hands
You are not a God
Dependant on any mortal man
You are not a God
In need of anything we can give
By Your plan, that's just the way it is

I hope your theology is not based on this song, but it actually does little to support your point. The writer says that, "You are not a God, In need of anything we can give." Of course that is true. What do I own that God could actually own? Who would vainly think that God needs my money?

This song is written from a common OT view of idolatry. Idols are made with hands, God is made by no one. Idols need man to make them, God does not. From that point of view, man must realize that he and his idols are nothing, and that God is everything.

This is a common Bible theme spoken to proud man. Romans 11 reiterates the notion ... "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Furthermore, when the Lord Jesus gave the disciples instruction on how to pray, it was more along the lines of worshiping and seeking that his "will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

This all goes to what I believe is a foundational and fundamental error in the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee - that God somehow and in some sense NEEDS man.

Since God desires that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven then of course God needs man.

Good point.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

It is insulting to give someone work to do if you don't need the work to be done.

How often did Satan refer to Jesus as the Son of God and He replied He was the Son of Man. Doesn't that indicate God needed to be Man?

The idea that man is unnecessary and not needed is an insult.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm reminded of that song we sang back in the 70s -

O I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I’m a man—
I’m the meaning of the universe.
God made me such,
I am so much;
I’m the center and the meaning of the universe.
Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/1293#ixzz2NR8Gr47y

No other song that I'm aware of illustrates as well this foundational and fundamental error in Nee/Lee. Yes, yes, YES, you will find that Nee and Lee taught that God was the center and meaning of the universe....but the fact that they did does not even begin to mitigate, much less cancel out, such a grievous error in teaching, which no doubt spilled over into our practice in the LC movement as well.

Kind of ironic that you go back to an old LC song to prove your point while ZNP attempts to employ scripture from both the OT and the NT.

How in the world is "ministering to the Lord" any different from the Lord's word here, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." -- John 4.23

Seems to me the "problem" lies in semantics and attitudes of certain posters rather than being a bona fide discussion of the truth. God desires, God longs for, God wants, God needs, God seeks, God etc. etc. etc. -- are we not just playing word games here in order to prove Nee and Lee wrong -- one more time?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Seems to me the "problem" lies in semantics and attitudes of certain posters rather than being a bona fide discussion of the truth. God desires, God longs for, God wants, God needs, God seeks, God etc. etc. etc. -- are we not just playing word games here in order to prove Nee and Lee wrong -- one more time?

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs. It is exactly this kind of concept that leads to heretical teachings such as Witness Lee's "four-in-one God". And no amount of provisos, addendums or exception clauses can make them biblical. None of the passages provided have established that God actually needs man. He does not need man to be "represented" (Adam and Eve blew that gig for us in Genesis 3) He does not need man to do a job for him. (for all the details read the Bible). God does not need man to be "expressed" (Only ONE person on earth was/is God's "express image") and God certainly does not need man to be glorified ("I will not share my glory with another")

Don't downplay semantics too much now. Words mean things. If we have any technical questions regarding the semantics of the Bible we might be better off consulting true experts in the field, and not fly-by-night theologians like Witness Lee. And by the way it does not take word games to prove Nee and Lee wrong....it's just a matter of going to the source material itself and maybe consulting some real scholars, theologians and linguistic experts to help us out a bit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs. It is exactly this kind of concept that leads to heretical teachings such as Witness Lee's "four-in-one God". And no amount of provisos, addendums or exception clauses can make them biblical. None of the passages provided have established that God actually needs man. He does not need man to be "represented" (Adam and Eve blew that gig for us in Genesis 3) He does not need man to do a job for him. (for all the details read the Bible). God does not need man to be "expressed" (Only ONE person on earth was/is God's "express image") and God certainly does not need man to be glorified ("I will not share my glory with another")

Don't downplay semantics too much now. Words mean things. If we have any technical questions regarding the semantics of the Bible we might be better off consulting true experts in the field, and not fly-by-night theologians like Witness Lee. And by the way it does not take word games to prove Nee and Lee wrong....it's just a matter of going to the source material itself and maybe consulting some real scholars, theologians and linguistic experts to help us out a bit.

OK, let's get our definitions straight so we are all on the same page.

1. Did God need Ananias to go speak to Paul? If not what is the correct term to use?

2. Did God need Mary in order for Jesus to be incarnated? If not what is the correct term to use?

3. If the church is the Body of Christ, does Christ need His body? If not what is the correct term to use?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Forget about attitudes, they are not relevant to the discussions - besides it's just a not-so-thinly veiled ad hominem attack. (against Forum rules) Don't worry about my attitude, please address what I have written. Semantics...well now that's fair game.

I have addressed some of what you have written, and attempted to bring some objectivity to a discussion which seemed to possess none, and you are calling my post an ad hominem? Please tell me you are being facetious.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

God desires does not = God needs. God longs for does not = God needs. God wants does not = God needs. God seeks does not = God needs.

You certainly are entitled to your opinions.

But you seem to have no clue why this God of the universe would sell all He had, leave his eternal glory in the heavens, take the wretched form of a slave, make that awful humiliating sacrifice, hang for hours from some stupid pole, pay the ultimate price, suffer the worst atrocities, be forsaken by the Father, be hated without a cause, rejected by His own chosen people, etc etc ... all for something He doesn't even need.

Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your viewpoint.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW, methinks you have taken your rejection of Lee and Nee way too far, to the point that you reject scripture just because they taught from it. The Lord Jesus, who was God Himself, come in the flesh, was a pattern for us. Did He not often minister to the Father in prayer? Yes He came to serve, and He did so incessantly for the span of 3+ years, but the gospel writers record numerous times when He isolated Himself for prayer.

Prayer is not just a series of requests we mail off to heaven when things go awry. It is also a ministry, a fellowship, a living conversation between us and God. It becomes the source for all real spiritual vitality and service. Take away this ministry to the Lord and we are left with nothing of lasting value.

Wise would be heeding the admonition to "Talk less, Pray more."

There is no quarrel with your statements. The quarrel has been with some assertion that there is a "first" and "second" ministry set forth in Ezekiel 44. We have been given a grand tour of other verses talking about other things. My response to them is not that they are not true in themselves for the things they say, but they do not speak to the meaning of Ezekiel 44.

Barber (or whoever) read Ezekiel 44 and encouraged Nee to do the same and they came away with this "important" understanding of how there is a "first" and "second" ministry.

So ZNP has been running all over scripture talking about all kinds of things. But none of them cast even a shadow onto Ezekiel 44 to give it meaning that was not already there. And an ordering of worship was not there. There were roles assigned. Not chosen, but assigned.

You and he have been mistaken as to my complaint. It is not about Mary and what she did. It is about how it is evidence that Ezekiel 44 is about an order of service.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with the whole thing is not that there is a NT priesthood, or that there are not specific things spoken concerning the actions that Mary took, but that there is a presumption that you can just find a common word or idea and force them together.

OK. let's walk through this account concerning Mary in Mark 14.

The chapter begins with the chief priests and scribes coming together to plot how they might take Jesus by craft and put him to death. The chapter ends with Judas and soldiers coming from the chief priests and scribes and elders to take Him by force in the garden. In between these two is Mary anointing Jesus.

I read that to be a fulfillment of Psalm 2:2 "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed"

Now if you read Psalm 2:2 most everyone will readily admit it is referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. But without this chapter in Mark would you connect "his anointed" with Mary anointing Jesus? I wouldn't. Earlier in the gospel Jesus quoted Isaiah saying "the Lord has anointed me to preach the gospel". Likewise Jesus was baptized for ministry. But Mark in his gospel is clearly placing Mary's anointing of Jesus as being related to the prophecy in Psalm 2.

So then, immediately after this anointing they prepare to eat the Passover.

Now according to Paul, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. The NT makes it very clear that the Passover is a shadow of Jesus crucifixion. Now according to Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. So in this Shadow Christ is the lamb that must be killed, which He explains saying this is my Body and this is my blood.

In Mark's record immediately before this passover Mary anoints Jesus body for the burial. In the shadow she has prepared the passover Lamb, Jesus then goes and serves this to the disciples. According to the actions Mary was acting as a priest to prepare the passover lamb.

I am not forcing these things together, Mark put them together. The reference to Psalm 2:2 presents Jesus as a King. The reference to the Passover presents him as the Passover lamb. She was anointing Him as king, she was also preparing the Passover lamb. By law the Passover lamb had to be roasted with fire. Therefore it is common to anoint the lamb with oil before cooking. But regardless how you want to season the lamb you must prepare the lamb the same day that Mary anointed Jesus.

In Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

What is funny is that all of these evil people grasping and clawing for power, could never understand that our king is a lamb. I understand that to refer to Christ putting the devil to an open shame at his crucifixion. They plotted, they betrayed Him, they put him on the hill of golgotha thinking they would defeat Him.

Psalm 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion


There is a lot of hate and betrayal of Jesus in this story. But Psalm 2 concludes with the warning to "Kiss the Son". If you did not have Mary's anointing of the Jesus in the middle of this story it would be ugly. But with her anointing it is a beautiful story, all the more so with the black background. So yes, her service was necessary.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK. let's walk through this account concerning Mary in Mark 14.

The chapter begins with the chief priests and scribes coming together . . . . ends with Judas and soldiers coming from the chief priests . . . [i]n between these two is Mary anointing Jesus.

I read that to be a fulfillment of Psalm 2:2 "The kings of the earth set themselves . . ."

Now if you read Psalm 2:2 most everyone will readily admit it is referring to the crucifixion of Jesus. . . .

So then, immediately after this anointing they prepare to eat the Passover.

Now according to Paul, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. . . .

In Mark's record immediately before this passover Mary anoints Jesus body for the burial. . . .

All very true and meaningful. But not in a way that would change the meaning of Ezekiel 44. There is no priority of services designated. Nothing in it that would designate that we can choose one part over another. Or should place the parts in a chronological order. We probably can do that, but it does not provide such a directive.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not forcing these things together, Mark put them together.

As I said to Ohio, if you think that I was trying to dismiss anything about the NT meaning of Mary's service, you are mistaken. I basically set aside the strictly NT analysis to find how it should be meaningful to arrive at Nee's conclusions that he got out of Ezekiel.

And even if you simply admit that Ezekiel 44 doesn't get you there, for all its specific and meaningfulness, I don't see how this story in Mark 14 does it either.

That is what I am saying. If you think I have been saying that Mary's story is irrelevant, then you misunderstood. It is only (as far as I can see) irrelevant to the kind of nearly prescriptive issue of priorities and "choice" of service as laid out in Nee's booklet.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is no quarrel with your statements. You and he have been mistaken as to my complaint.

Originally Posted by OBW

As I said to Ohio, if you think that I was trying to dismiss anything about the NT meaning of Mary's service, you are mistaken. That is what I am saying. If you think I have been saying that Mary's story is irrelevant, then you misunderstood.

With all respect OBW, sometimes I'm just not sure what exactly you are saying, and trying not to assume anything, it's easily to be "mistaken."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all respect OBW, sometimes I'm just not sure what exactly you are saying, and trying not to assume anything, it's easily to be "mistaken."

The problem I see with your complaint to me is that you are not addressing what I am addressing, but something else.

I did not say that there is no ministry to God. Whether, as some others have suggested, that prayer is not always in that category, I cannot say.

What I did say was that the assignments in ministry in Ezekiel were based upon past sins of the particular clans, not upon choice. So if there is something to glean from Ezekiel 44, it would be to always be setting your mind and will on the Spirit. And repenting for your failure to always do it (which we will all need all the time).

And at least on portion of my prior posts that you quoted was concerning the nature of an order or priority of ministries by the Levites as a whole. There was surely something different about serving in the inner courts. We probably would equate that in these days to our worship to God, and our prayer (or at least certain parts of it). (BTW. I'm not sure why you had to make a disparaging remark to me about what prayer is. I had not even addressed prayer specifically (if I recall correctly). And in you comment, you acknowledge that some prayer is a kind of request to God. Not sure why it should be treated as something so poor and low as to warrant the comments about "send off to God." That just seems like some old LRC observations about how low Christianity's prayers are.)

But Ezekiel makes no comment about which comes first. It also doles out the lower assignments based on punishment/reward. Surely we are not to view the various aspects of our service/ministry to God in that way. Not in this life. And how would we apply Ezekiel in this day? Pray that God is not finding that my grandfather wasn't much of a follower and sought more after money than after God?

So I request an alternate passage to establish the priority that Nee seems to find in Ezekiel 44. The responses are good passages. But not for the purpose of the current "quest." And I keep getting dissed as if I am dismissing anything about those passages when all I am doing is failing to find a link back to this thing that Nee tried to teach in this little booklet.

It is as if ZNP, and now you, are changing the subject and accusing me of arguing against other things not related to the topic of this thread. I am not arguing against prayer as a ministry. I am not arguing against what the scripture clearly says about what Mary did.

I am arguing that those are not being linked to Nee's assertions. The only commonality is the word "ministry" or even "service." That does not make the instruction in those passages relevant to the question raised by this booklet of Nee.

I am not just trying to disprove Nee and Lee. I am actually quite dumbfounded as to how much I am now seeing Nee as nearly as bad as Lee. The only difference is how he acted toward his followers. He is being seen more and more to have played very loose with scripture. I think he sincerely believed what he was teaching. Probably the same for Lee.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem I see with your complaint to me is that you are not addressing what I am addressing, but something else.

I did not say that there is no ministry to God. Whether, as some others have suggested, that prayer is not always in that category, I cannot say.

What I did say was that the assignments in ministry in Ezekiel were based upon past sins of the particular clans, not upon choice. So if there is something to glean from Ezekiel 44, it would be to always be setting your mind and will on the Spirit. And repenting for your failure to always do it (which we will all need all the time).

I understand your point. The Sons of Zadok learned to minister in the inner court and were entitled to do so because of their father's stance and as a result of their father's lessons.

The other Levites ministered in the outer court because of their forefathers failures.

However, for those of us reading this passage why can't we take this as a warning to make the choices that Zadok made and stand against the choices the other Levites made?

Why can't the lesson that I take today from this passage is to not be swayed by all the foolish priests who say "even if we are wrong as long as we are following Lee we are right"?

Why can't I say that the error was to bring idolatry into the LRC, making WL and WN idols?

How is it any different from where James speaks about not having the faith of our Lord with respect of persons ?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Ezekiel makes no comment about which comes first. It also doles out the lower assignments based on punishment/reward. Surely we are not to view the various aspects of our service/ministry to God in that way. Not in this life. And how would we apply Ezekiel in this day? Pray that God is not finding that my grandfather wasn't much of a follower and sought more after money than after God?

You have argued that this passage refers to the sons who were not involved in the original sins. But I do not understand why this is so. I read this chapter as a warning. Like looking at a car crash, what caused the crash becomes a warning to me as someone who drives a car.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But Ezekiel makes no comment about which comes first. It also doles out the lower assignments based on punishment/reward. Surely we are not to view the various aspects of our service/ministry to God in that way. Not in this life. And how would we apply Ezekiel in this day? Pray that God is not finding that my grandfather wasn't much of a follower and sought more after money than after God?

You've built up this entire argument that we can ignore the warning because the children were not the ones who went astray. I don't understand this. Why can't this be viewed as a warning to you that taking this path can result in consequences to you and your children after you.

To me, the chapter reveals how God thinks. That is the point. The consequences are merely the evidence that supports this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is as if ZNP, and now you, are changing the subject and accusing me of arguing against other things not related to the topic of this thread. I am not arguing against prayer as a ministry. I am not arguing against what the scripture clearly says about what Mary did.

Can you provide me with the quote and the post where I "changed the subject and then accused you of arguing against things not related to the topic of this thread."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am arguing that those are not being linked to Nee's assertions. The only commonality is the word "ministry" or even "service." That does not make the instruction in those passages relevant to the question raised by this booklet of Nee.

This is how I understood Ohio's post. You make an assumption as to what the "question" is and then everyone else's comments are off topic, or "changing the subject" or something else.

1. It is not clear, until this post, what the "question" is that you are addressing.
2. You assume that this is "the question" for all of us.

To me, the parts that are discordant in that booklet is the part that UntoHim raised about the self reflection on your personal ministry and the part about being self satisfied.

If the Lord has not revealed to me that there is a problem why do I now need to be introspective as though there is a problem. If the Lord has revealed a problem why can't I deal with that without becoming caught up in this introspection.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not just trying to disprove Nee and Lee. I am actually quite dumbfounded as to how much I am now seeing Nee as nearly as bad as Lee. The only difference is how he acted toward his followers. He is being seen more and more to have played very loose with scripture. I think he sincerely believed what he was teaching. Probably the same for Lee.

I do not feel as extreme as you do, but my esteem of WN has been seriously undermined as of late. The only thing I would object to here is the part about you being "quite dumfounded". Generally I understand that to mean greatly astonished to the point you can't speak, or "found dumb because you have been amazed".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all respect OBW, sometimes I'm just not sure what exactly you are saying, and trying not to assume anything, it's easy to be "mistaken."

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem I see with your complaint to me is that you are not addressing what I am addressing, but something else.

If I am saying that you are easily misunderstood at times, then I cannot, by definition, be addressing something you are not addressing, because perhaps I am only mistaken, and not really complaining.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Eze 44 makes it very clear that God needs priests to minister to him.

Once again, you lite upon a fortune cookie and make rather strong declarations. This chapter says a lot. And if we assume that God is not going to do his own ministry within the inner courts, then there will surely have to be some humans to do it.

But the chapter, in its entirety, does not suggest that God needs anything. Actually, it is man that needs. But even if you can elsewhere find such a need (in those terms) it does not create a "first" and "second," which was the main thrust of Nee's booklet. It would seem that, based on the sheer number constantly serving in the outer courts, that man's need was far greater. He needed (and still needs) a sacrifice for his sin. But, once again, this passage does not actually say anything about it in terms of need.

It is silent on need.

You may be able to go somewhere else and find a reference to need. But it is not here. Yet you say "makes it very clear."