Minister of the Age

KSA · 07-08-2008, 05:44 AM

Here is an article that I wrote regarding the minister of the age teaching. I think that this teaching is one of the most dangerous teachings in the LC. I remember when I discussed the events of 80's with a brother who is in the current LC leadership, he told me that Philip Lee was not a main issue. The main issue, according to this brother, was the matter of the minister of the age. So the main "sin" of those who had left then was that they did not recognize Witness Lee as the minister of the age.

TLFisher · 07-08-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

So the main "sin" of those who had left then was that they did not recognize Witness Lee as the minister of the age.

KSA, so the improprieties of PL, the manner LSM operated in the 1980's, and the points John, Godfred, and Al laid out on August 28, 1988 were considered minor issues?
As to the point you lay out, recognizing Witness Lee as the minister of the age I would consider a serious error. Of course many of us who met under the ministry of Witness Lee's work respected his speaking. However we should never give a brother or sister a free pass. There was only one worthy of a free pass and that is Jesus Christ.
I will need to continue my thought later....

Terry

KSA · 07-08-2008, 11:12 PM

Actually these improprieties were considered, according to that brother, "a smokescreen for real issues" which issue is the minister of the age. I somewhat agree with this brother. The real issue was indeed the development of "ministry theology". Only this "ministry of the age" mindset allowed to overlook serious problems that exested then. This "ministry theology" underwent a certain development. First it was oneness with "the Office", then oneness with the "minister of the age", and now the oneness with the "ministry of the age" embodied in Blended Brothers and One Publication.

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Here is an article that I wrote regarding the minister of the age teaching. I think that this teaching is one of the most dangerous teachings in the LC. I remember when I discussed the events of 80's with a brother who is in the current LC leadership, he told me that Philip Lee was not a main issue. The main issue, according to this brother, was the matter of the minister of the age. So the main "sin" of those who had left then was that they did not recognize Witness Lee as the minister of the age.

I believe that in the local church there was no mention of the "minister of the age" as you have posted. Your argument is blurred with the wrong terminilogy.

However, with regards to the "ministry of the age" a message was given by Brother Watchman Nee as follows:

Quote:

CONCERNING FOLLOWING THE MINISTRY OF THE AGE

Question: How should Jonathan in the Old Testament (Saul's son—1 Sam. 14:1-46) choose his way?

Seeing the Ministry of the Age

Brother Nee answered: In the Old Testament, both Solomon and David represented the Lord. The two persons represented the one ministry in two separate ways. In the Old Testament, there were many ministries. After Moses, the judges were raised up. After that, there was Solomon, the kings, and the prophets. After the Israelites were taken into captivity, the vessels for the recovery were raised up. The Old Testament is filled with different kinds of ministries. In every age, there is the ministry of that age. These ministries of the ages are different from the local ministers. Luther was a minister of his age. Darby was also a minister of his age. In every age, the Lord has special things that He wants to accomplish. He has His own recoveries and His own works to do. The particular recovery and work that He is doing in one age is the ministry of that age.

Forsaking the Past Ministries

Jonathan stood between Saul and David. He was one man standing between two ministries. What he should have done was to follow the second ministry. However, because Jonathan's relationship with the first ministry was too deep, he could not disentangle himself from it. In order to catch up with the ministry of the age, there is the need for us to see the vision. Michal was married to David, yet she did not see anything. She only saw David's condition before God, and she could not tolerate it. As a result, she was left behind (2 Sam. 6:16, 20-23).

All Being a Matter of God's Mercy

It is God's mercy that a person can see and come into contact with the ministry of that age. Yet, it is altogether a different thing for a man to take up the courage to forsake the past ministry. It is a precious thing to see, and it is a blessed thing to come into contact with something. Yet whether or not one can set aside his past ministry is entirely up to God's mercy.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 01:43 AM

There was! it is indeed strange that you would deny it. When I was mentioning it to brothers, they did not deny it, they tried to defend it.

BTW, I disagree completly with what Watchman Nee wrote about the ministry of the age. There is no such a teaching in the New Testament. There is only one ministry - new covenant ministry, and it is not limited by "one age". We all have part in this ministry.

One more thing: have you noticed that brothers never refuted my article. Had I misrepresented their position, they would have jumped on me right away. The thing is they cannot defend their teaching from the Bible. For them this teaching is probably part of the "traditions in the Lord's recovery" (Benson's expression). In my article I purposely did not include any "ministry" quotes, but stuck exclusively to the Bible.

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

There was! it is indeed strange that you would deny it. When I was mentioning it to brothers, they did not deny it, they tried to defend it.

BTW, I disagree completly with what Watchman Nee wrote about the ministry of the age. There is no such a teaching in the New Testament. There is only one ministry - new covenant ministry, and it is not limited by "one age". We all have part in this ministry.

One more thing: have you noticed that brothers never refuted my article. Had I misrepresented their position, they would have jumped on me right away. The thing is they cannot defend their teaching from the Bible. For them this teaching is probably part of the "traditions in the Lord's recovery" (Benson's expression). In my article I purposely did not include any "ministry" quotes, but stuck exclusively to the Bible.

If you do not believe in the "ministry of the age" that's fine with me. We are all entitled to our own opinion. However, please consider the following scriptures that there was a time that "the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God."

Quote:

Ephesians 3:8-10
8Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Again, there was no such "minister of the age" in the local church, and perhaps, that is the very reason there was no reaction from them. I believe, they must have adhered to the following Word:

Quote:

2 Timothy 2:23
Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 02:25 AM

The apostled are the foundations of the church with Christ being the cornerstone. They released the New Testament teaching which is also the apostles' teaching. Now we are to abide in this teaching. There are no additional "ministers of the age" who would give us "new light", "up-to-date Lord's speaking" or "the high peaks of truth (I should call them "picks"). The apostles teaching is embodied in the New Testament. Of course, there are teachers in the Body who are gifted to teach, but there are no special "teachers" who are one per age with some "special revelation".

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

The apostled are the foundations of the church with Christ being the cornerstone. They released the New Testament teaching which is also the apostles' teaching. Now we are to abide in this teaching. There are no additional "ministers of the age" who would give us "new light", "up-to-date Lord's speaking" or "the high peaks of truth (I should call them "picks"). The apostles teaching is embodied in the New Testament. Of course, there are teachers in the Body who are gifted to teach, but there are no special "teachers" who are one per age with some "special revelation".

Again, there is no "minister of the age" in the local church, but a "ministry of the age". There is much difference between the two. You are claiming something from the local church which is not in existence.

From the message of Brother Watchman Nee, "What Are We?", your arguments above is fully covered. Please bear with me to read a portion of his message:

Quote:

ESTABLISHED IN THE PRESENT TRUTH

Second Peter 1:12 mentions the words “established in the present truth.” The “present truth” can also be rendered the “up-to-date truth.” What is the up-to-date truth? Actually, all the truths are in the Bible; there is not one truth that is not in the Bible. Although they are all in the Bible, through man’s foolishness, unfaithfulness, negligence, and disobedience many of the truths were lost and hidden from man. The truths were there, but man did not see them or touch them. Not until the fullness of time did God release certain truths during particular periods of time and cause them to be revealed once more.

These freshly revealed truths are not God’s new inventions. Rather, they are man’s new discoveries. There is no need for invention, but there is the need for discovery. In past generations God revealed different truths. During certain periods of time, He caused men to discover these specific truths. We can see this clearly from the history of the church.

Take, for example, the raising up of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century. God opened his eyes to see the matter of justification by faith. He was a vessel raised up by God to unveil the truth of justification by faith. This does not mean that before Luther there was no such thing as justification by faith. The fact already existed before Luther’s time. Luther was merely the one who realized this truth in a stronger way; he was particularly outstanding in this truth. For this reason, this truth became the “present truth” in that age.

Every worker of the Lord should inquire before God as to what the present truth is. We need to ask: “God, what is the present truth?” Although there are many major and crucial truths in the Bible, what we need to know is God’s present truth. Not only do we need to know the general truths, we must also be clear about God’s present truth.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Again, there is no "minister of the age" in the local church, but a "ministry of the age". There is much difference between the two. You are claiming something from the local church which is not in existence.

It is a lie! You misrepresent the teaching of LC. I have heard this teaching with my own ears. Ron Kangas shared that to build up God's building we have to be one with the minister of the age who is an acting God.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 02:57 AM

“In every age there is a particular vision. This vision is released not through many persons but through one person who is the minister of that age. There is the vision of the age, and the one who receives this vision becomes the minister of the age. All the others who are with him are led through this one, … they speak … according to the leading of the one whom the Lord has chosen to give the vision of the age.” (The Ministry, vol. 7, No. 6, Aug., 2003, p. 34).

“The Lord raised up our brother Nee in approximately the first half of the twentieth century. The vision of the age was with him. He was the minister of the age.” (The Ministry, ibid, p. 35)

“In the twentieth century the minister of the age was Watchman Nee and then Witness Lee as the continuation of Watchman Nee. These brothers were ministers of the age. There is no doubt about this.” (The Ministry, vol. 9, no. 6, June 2005, p. 114)

KSA · 08-03-2008, 05:38 AM

Paul Miletus seems to a very knowledgeable brother as far as LC teaching is concerned. I wonder why would he deny that there is a teaching in LC about the minister of the age (and not just ministry of the age). Paul, are we to think that LSM guys saw the folly of their minister of the age stuff and decided to stop teaching it? If this is the case, why not openly confess, "Hey, guys, we goofed here"? Why hide the ends? And if they still hold this stuff, why would you deny it?

cityonahill · 08-18-2008, 05:52 PM

Ok Paul,
Let's assume you truly believe there is no "minister of the age" and that you think there is only the "ministry of the age"...

In WNee's teaching you posted as well as your own "opinions" which were merely recycled LC teachings, You represented each "ministry of the age" by a "minister"...!!!!

such as Saul to David = two ages of ministries

My problem with this is that the only thing that defines a ministry in your book is a person who acts as the minister of that age. Therefore, in your own argument, you confirm that you do indeed believe in a "minister of the age"

BTW: reading an old testament narrative story and building a "recovery" theology out of it has no biblical fidelity or historical orthodoxy. The jehova's witness do the same thing with the apocalyptic literature found in daniel, ezekiel, and revelation.(not saying Lee and Nee are anywhere near the heresy found in the JW, but rather I'm trying to show how dangerous it can be to take a narrative passage from the OT and turn it into an abstraction on which to build a movement or justify a "ministry of this age")

cityonahill · 08-18-2008, 06:15 PM

Paul,

2 peter chapter 1:12 is not referring to a new revelation of "present truth" that was a "new discovery" or that makes the "old truth" obsolete! The "new covenant" is the only new truth. You have let a man's teaching make the most simple passage into a complicated doctrine of recovery and "present truth"!

2 Peter 1:12

"So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the "truth you now have"(or present truth)

This "truth you now have" is not a "present truth" that signifies a new revelation or age of ministry, but rather it is the truth that they knew (which was the truth of Christ of the new covenant) That New Testament truth was still a new concept in the first century because the Church was still young. That's why it was "the truth you now have" or the "present truth" because it was new to them. But 2,000 years later we still know nothing but "Christ and him crucified" and we are still in the age of the New Covenant!
WN and WL are crafty when it comes to playing word games and taking parts of scripture out of context, but the bible is there to defend itself.
I would encourage you Paul, to study the bible on your own without Lee's and Nee's (or anyone's) biased doctrines!

Paul Miletus · 08-19-2008, 12:38 AM

As Brother Witness Lee taught, the "present truth" --

Quote:

is the truth that is present with the believers, which they have already received and now possess. In the first section of this chapter, vv. 3-11, Peter used the provision of the divine life for the proper Christian life to inoculate against the apostasy. In the second section, vv. 12-21, he used the revelation of the divine truth, as the second antidote, to inoculate against the heresy in the apostasy, a heresy similar to today's modernism. The provision of life and the revelation of truth are the antidotes used by Peter in dealing with the apostasy.

cityonahill · 08-19-2008, 12:51 AM

Paul,

Why do you not answer my posts directly? Are you only able to pop-off LSM material? I presented the case as to why you believe in a ministry of the age and a minister of the age. Furthermore, I presented why I disagree with that philosophy based on the word of God.

the present truth is simply the New Covenant...it still is the present truth today and will be until Christ returns. Do you agree or disagree?

can you answer that without the help of Lee or Nee?

Paul Miletus · 08-19-2008, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityonahill

Paul,

Why do you not answer my posts directly? Are you only able to pop-off LSM material? I presented the case as to why you believe in a ministry of the age and a minister of the age. Furthermore, I presented why I disagree with that philosophy based on the word of God.

the present truth is simply the New Covenant...it still is the present truth today and will be until Christ returns. Do you agree or disagree?

can you answer that without the help of Lee or Nee?

the present truth is simply the New Covenant...it still is the present truth today and will be until Christ returns. Do you agree or disagree?

Please allow me to explain further and perhaps you would fully understand the local church teaching regarding the "ministry of the age".

There is only one ministry and that is the "New Testament ministry". This "New Testament ministry" is what the local church is referring to at all times when the "present truth" or the "up-to-date truth" is mentioned.

As an illustration, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob though they are three individuals but their spiritual experience is only one entity. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent three aspects of one spiritual man, and their biographies portray different aspects of the complete life of a saint. We can venture in saying that Abraham had a ministry, Isaac had a ministry, and Jacob had a ministry. However, with these three individuals it does not make sense to conclude that there are three ministries among them, but rather there is only one ministry and each one of them is a continuation of one another to fulfill this one unique ministry.

With the above illustration, there may be different number of persons who have been used by the Lord (e.g. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee) but it does not mean that these persons will have a unique ministry for each one of them. The ministry of Brother Witness Lee is just a continuation of the ministry of Brother Watchman Nee which they inherited from other saints before them. Overall, the works of these saints are summed up only to one unique ministry, which is the New Testament ministry.

Again, I would like to share my opinion that any minister of the age, if there are any, are immaterial to emphasize since all these ministers are not counted individually but fragments that support the one unique ministry, which is the New Testament ministry.

As Brother Witness Lee wrote in the "Life Study of Genesis" --

Quote:

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are three aspects of one person, somewhat like the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are the three of the Godhead. In the record of Genesis, God revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not three separate Gods; He is one Triune God. In a similar way, spiritually speaking, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not three separate persons, but three aspects of one complete person. Therefore, we have not only the Triune God, but also a complete man of three aspects.

KSA · 08-19-2008, 12:51 AM

though ye know them, and be established in the present truth; for those that know the most, know but in part; and may have their knowledge increased; and those that are the most established in the truths of the Gospel, may be confirmed yet more and more. This the apostle mentions as an apology for himself, and to prevent an objection that might be made, as if he had suggested that they were ignorant and unstable; or which might insinuate that there was no necessity of such frequent putting in remembrance; since they were both knowing and stable: by "the present truth" may be meant, either the whole scheme of the Gospel, which was now come by Christ, in opposition to the exhibition of it under the former dispensation, by promise and type; and it being so called, shows that it is always now, and new; that there will be no alteration in it, nor addition to it, it being like the author of it, the same yesterday, today, and for ever, and will not give place to another scheme of things; or else the particular truth of the coming of Christ, either to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, or to judge the world in righteousness, and introduce his own people into the new heavens, and new earth, 2Pe 3:1.

Taken from the commentaries of John Gill

TLFisher · 05-25-2013, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

I remember when I discussed the events of 80's with a brother who is in the current LC leadership, he told me that Philip Lee was not a main issue. The main issue, according to this brother, was the matter of the minister of the age. So the main "sin" of those who had left then was that they did not recognize Witness Lee as the minister of the age.

1. Where is scriptural support for minister of the age in the New Testament economy?
2. If Paul considered himself to be MOTA, would he had said 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. (1 Cornithians 1:13-15)?
3. "There is also an implication that to be one with the wise master builder the saints today must be one with the group of brothers who call themselves “blended coworkers”. So to speak, the oneness with the blended brothers is considered as indispensable for the one accord in the churches." If I may be so frank to paraphrase brother Sergei's last sentence here to reveal what the full implications of oneness really means.

So to speak, partiality towards the blended brothers is considered as indispensable for the one accord in the churches.
4. Agreed Philip Lee was not the main issue, but he was an issue. When you say the main issue was minister of the age, the brothers in question were not some 30-something gifted, yet spiritually immature brothers, but 50-something gifted yet with more measure of spiritual maturity. Brothers who in their youth were influenced in their Christian life by other servants of the Lord. In the late 80's many of these ones who left saw the writing on the wall most other saints did not see. Watchman Nee spoke it well from page 85 of Spiritual Authority:

We should not uplift ourselves, but at the same time we should not make others despise us. We should always sanctify ourselves and should not jest lightly. We have to learn to separate ourselves in the Lord. A worker should not be arrogant, but neither should he give reason for others to despise him. Once a worker becomes too common, he is disqualified from his work.

ZNPaaneah · 05-27-2013, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

1. Where is scriptural support for minister of the age in the New Testament economy?

Hebrews says that

8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

The book of Hebrews presents Jesus as the Minister of the Age of Grace.

In 1Cor Paul says that he has received this ministry, which based on chapter 3 is to pull the veil away from the glorious Jesus.

Clearly Jesus is the Minister of the Age of Grace and our part is to merely pull the veil away from Him which is blinding so many.

However, MOTA is being applied to Watchman Nee, Witness Lee and others. This is referred to by Jesus when He said "Call no man Rabbi". Clearly, if we are forbidden from calling a man Rabbi, or our spiritual leader, then surely we are forbidden from calling them the Minister of the Age and even referring to the "Age of Luther" or "the age of Lee". To do that is to replace Jesus.

Jesus is the anointed one, the Christ. All of these other flim flam men claiming to be the anointed ones are merely "false Christs" as Jesus predicted.

zeek · 05-27-2013, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Hebrews says that

8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

The book of Hebrews presents Jesus as the Minister of the Age of Grace.

In 1Cor Paul says that he has received this ministry, which based on chapter 3 is to pull the veil away from the glorious Jesus.

Clearly Jesus is the Minister of the Age of Grace and our part is to merely pull the veil away from Him which is blinding so many.

However, MOTA is being applied to Watchman Nee, Witness Lee and others. This is referred to by Jesus when He said "Call no man Rabbi". Clearly, if we are forbidden from calling a man Rabbi, or our spiritual leader, then surely we are forbidden from calling them the Minister of the Age and even referring to the "Age of Luther" or "the age of Lee". To do that is to replace Jesus.

Jesus is the anointed one, the Christ. All of these other flim flam men claiming to be the anointed ones are merely "false Christs" as Jesus predicted.

Excellent post ZNP. This is a critical distinction. I submit that this was the vision we saw when we first believed...when we proclaimed "Jesus is Lord". Our conception of authority hinges on this vision. Isn't it astounding that the LSM would have us believe otherwise? They have made their extra-biblical doctrine of MOTA the basis of oneness and excommunicated those who do not accept it. How can we have two grounds of oneness? It's an absurdity. Insofar as we are Christians, our oneness is in Christ. Don't ask me to accept another as my authority. And don't hide behind obedience to authorities as a means to evade personal responsibility as WN recommends.

countmeworthy · 05-27-2013, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Excellent post ZNP. This is a critical distinction. I submit that this was the vision we saw when we first believed...when we proclaimed "Jesus is Lord". Our conception of authority hinges on this vision. Isn't it astounding that the LSM would have us believe otherwise? They have made their extra-biblical doctrine of MOTA the basis of oneness and excommunicated those who do not accept it. How can we have two grounds of oneness? It's an absurdity. Insofar as we are Christians, our oneness is in Christ. Don't ask me to accept another as my authority. And don't hide behind obedience to authorities as a means to evade personal responsibility as WN recommends.

and a great response Zeek!! Here is my additional .02 worth for the benefit of lurkers.

The LC, be it through Nee or Lee got a few things right. First and foremost, was the biblical way of sharing the gospel in the heyday of early to mid seventies. We used various gospel accounts to bring to Light the fact and Truth, without Jesus in our lives, we are empty vessels, hungry and thirsty.

So we pointed and led people to Jesus. We had our bibles with us and pointed them to the scriptures so they could read and see the Word for themselves.

While Lee may have been laying the groundwork to become the MOTA, the working class believed Jesus was/is Lord and King.

We became aware of the Sanctifying work of the Cross, the Precious Blood of the Lamb, and we read our bibles to ourselves and with each other. We encouraged one another in Christ as best we could. We made a lot of mistakes along the way, but we had good intentions..Christ was always first.

But soon the MOTA dictated what we should read and he interpreted it for us. He inadvertently or on purpose perhaps, pushed the "Life Giving Spirit" out of the church.

He made people believe The church -UNDER his leadership- was God's eternal purpose. It became our goal to bring people into the church, his church, not to bring people to Jesus. Jesus was second to the church.

Fast forward, the only bible they use is the RcV although I heard Ron Kangas sometimes refers to the Amplified.

We know the drill: if the blendeds refer to it, then it's ok for the peons to have one too. (Just as they did with TVs. The blendeds began to have TVs, the "elders" followed suit as did the members).

Why did this happen? Because people stopped reading and studying the scriptures for themselves. Their revelation and insight came from Lee's footnotes, Lee's morning revival and their adulation of Lee. So as a whole, the Presence of God is no longer there. They replaced their First Love.

They forgot Jesus is the Author and Perfector (Finisher) of our Faith. They forgot or perhaps never read Jesus is our Great High Priest, The Intercessor between God and Man. Jesus the Lord is our Shepherd. He is our Fortess and High Tower, our Strength. We put our trust in Jesus because He ALONE is our Savior, our Redeemer, our Friend, our Bridegroom, Who is, Who was and is to come, The Almighty. Those that held on the Living Spirit in our spirit stood up for the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. That ruffled up the spirit of idolotry, the spirit of deception, it really ruffled up the spirit of fear for sure! The Life giving Spirit in our spirit surely ruffled up the spirit of deception and the spirit of Sin.

Jesus IS the Living Word of God Who became flesh and dwelt among us. He was with the God the Father and God the Holy Spirit before He put on flesh. In fact before He became flesh, Jesus' "real" Name was and still is the WORD of God.

Many of us did not know we were created with a spirit, soul and body when we came into the LC because we did not read/study the Word!

I am pretty sure that while the LC boasts in this Truth, they could not tell us where these scriptures are found! (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Zechariah 12:1 and John 4:24 for starters).

If Lee would have trusted the Holy Spirit to guide us and would have kept pointing us to our Creator, our boast in Christ would have been a testimony of our Oneness in Him and thus we would have been a role model to all brethren.

We would disciple the babes in Christ, encouraged the down trodden, healed the sick by the Power and Anointing in us...and brought many, many more people into the Kingdom to the Glory, Honor and Praise of the Father, the Spirit and the Word-- Jesus.

Sorry for the long post. I needed to vent!

Blessings all,

Carol G.

TLFisher · 05-28-2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

But soon the MOTA dictated what we should read and he interpreted it for us. He inadvertently or on purpose perhaps, pushed the "Life Giving Spirit" out of the church.

He made people believe The church -UNDER his leadership- was God's eternal purpose. It became our goal to bring people into the church, his church, not to bring people to Jesus. Jesus was second to the church.

Thank you sister CMW. You have spoken a word that's been on my heart. The relationship between the ministry and the gospel. The attitude has been the work of the ministry supercedes that of the gospel. You can lead someone to receive Jesus Christ as their savior and be baptized. However, if the newly regenerated brother or sister does not have the vision of the ministry, time spent bringing someone to know the Lord is considered all for naught. That is because the recent attitude has been if time spent laboring isn't fruitful for the ministry, it's unprofitable.

Ohio · 05-28-2013, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

This is a critical distinction. I submit that this was the vision we saw when we first believed...when we proclaimed "Jesus is Lord". Our conception of authority hinges on this vision.

I agree this is absolutely crucial.

Paul was obedient to the heavenly vision. That vision was the resurrected Jesus as the Christ. It was firstly who God was, and then subsequently how Paul would serve God.

Lee has transmuted "the vision" in LC doublespeak to an absolute loyalty to himself and his ministry. This is to take the heavenly vision and make it merely earthly. Would not our Heavenly Father take exception to His children sharing their affection for the Firstborn with another ... fallen man.

to be continued ...

ZNPaaneah · 05-28-2013, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree this is absolutely crucial.

Paul was obedient to the heavenly vision. That vision was the resurrected Jesus as the Christ. It was firstly who God was, and then subsequently how Paul would serve God.

Lee has transmuted "the vision" in LC doublespeak to an absolute loyalty to himself and his ministry. This is to take the heavenly vision and make it merely earthly. Would not our Heavenly Father take exception to His children sharing their affection for the Firstborn with another ... fallen man.

to be continued ...

As a wise master builder Paul certainly had a "vision". Being faithful to the vision Paul had would be useful if you were a coworker of Paul and serving with him in the ministry.

However, "the vision" would refer to the architectural plans for the design of the church, this is a vision of Christ. This is not Paul's vision, this is a vision of Christ. In Galatians Paul said that God revealed His son in him, and it was this vision that he labored in without going to see those who were apostles before him. Yes, Peter and John had a vision, but Paul recognized that his vision came from God, not from the apostles. Peter was clearly the "MOTA" by LSM definition when Paul was saved, yet there is no thought in the NT that Paul needs to see Peter to be one with his vision otherwise he is a dissenter.

Ultimately Paul does go to see the apostles to lay out his vision. He doesn't accuse them of being "blind" rather he says that God gave him the gospel to the uncircumcision just as He gave Peter the gospel to the circumcision.

Based on the LSM teaching Paul was wrong to not see Peter and to become aligned with Peter's vision. However, according to the NT the vision is not from Peter or Paul, but from God, and we need to be faithful to God and to the vision he gives us.

The NT thought is that Paul can receive a word directly from God, if that word is truly from God then the other apostles will receive it and recognize that, which they did. You could argue that Paul was concerned for the "feeling of the Body", which is why he went to see the apostles, but it is clear that he labored for years before he felt it was necessary to do that. There was no oversight by the apostles as to every word that Paul spoke. Rather, when he felt it was necessary to get the approval of the other apostles he did so, but prior to that he felt it was acceptable to labor without it.

So then, you can take the teaching of "deputy authority" and apply it to the ministry. If you want to work at LSM then you need to recognize the mission of that ministry and understand that everyone at LSM is laboring with the same goal. This is not the same with the church. There is no such requirement to align yourself with WL before becoming a member of the church or after becoming a member. If you are laboring in a Christian ministry you should at some point be able to fellowship with other Christian leaders concerning your ministry and they should be able to approve of what you are doing. If all other Christian leaders do not approve of what you are doing then that should be a major red flag. If you meet with 10 or 20 Christian leaders you respect and they all reject your ministry then you should take that fellowship to heart. It doesn't mean they are blind, perhaps you are the one who is blind.

Ohio · 05-30-2013, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree this is absolutely crucial.

Paul was obedient to the heavenly vision. That vision was the resurrected Jesus as the Christ. It was firstly who God was, and then subsequently how Paul would serve God.

Lee has transmuted "the vision" in LC doublespeak to an absolute loyalty to himself and his ministry. This is to take the heavenly vision and make it merely earthly. Would not our Heavenly Father take exception to His children sharing their affection for the Firstborn with another ... fallen man.

to be continued ...

Witness Lee saw himself more as a latter day Moses than a Paul. He liked to believe that if anyone, including Moses' own sister Meriam, challenged his own leadership, that one would become immediately leprous. We often heard Lee's stories confirming such. Neither Jesus Himself nor the Apostle Paul ever exhibited such power and authority in the New Testament age. This explains why Lee's many quarantines over the years always referenced Levitical regulations about lepers, than they do actual New Testament heresies.

Moses was privileged to lead all the children of God. Apart from Israel at that time, we are not aware of any other of God's people on the earth. Lee assumed this same mentality. Outside of his command, Lee categorized both believer and unbeliever alike as outside of the kingdom and the blessings of God's unique testimony on earth. Often he had kinder things to say about the Gentiles than he did about "poor, poor, Christianity."

Moses also saw the heavenly vision of God's tabernacle. He was able to pass on the minutest of details, leaving nothing to the imagination of the actual builders. No one else shared in his experiences on the mountain. Moses was the earthly architect, the wise master builder, and the commander in chief of the army. Paul never enjoyed such privileges. Paul never directed any of the twelve original Apostles. We may not have the details of their work, as we have Paul's, yet each of them was directed by the Head of body, our Great high Priest, who alone should be considered the Minister of the Age.

In Lee's construct, based on some errant misunderstanding of the pattern of Moses, the movements of the Twelve Apostles, just as we learned about Barnabas and Apollos, should be considered renegade, since they did not actively submit to the "one work" under Paul. In this matter, Lee approached the Roman Catholic thought of the Vicar of Christ, considering God has placed one man on earth who alone is authorized to teach and direct the entirety of His children. Yes, God the Father has indeed done this -- but the Man on earth is His Son, and none other.

Since Moses was a type of Christ, and not a type of some New Testament minister to come along later, both Nee's and Lee's teachings about deputy authority, the one work, and the minister of the age are all seriously flawed. Flawed with a purpose. That purpose is extremely self-serving to say the least, and it has more to do with the history of Chinese dynasties than it does with the New Testament pattern.

07-08-2008, 05:44 AM	#1
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Minister of the Age Here is an article that I wrote regarding the minister of the age teaching. I think that this teaching is one of the most dangerous teachings in the LC. I remember when I discussed the events of 80's with a brother who is in the current LC leadership, he told me that Philip Lee was not a main issue. The main issue, according to this brother, was the matter of the minister of the age. So the main "sin" of those who had left then was that they did not recognize Witness Lee as the minister of the age.

07-30-2008, 01:43 AM	#5
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	There was! it is indeed strange that you would deny it. When I was mentioning it to brothers, they did not deny it, they tried to defend it. BTW, I disagree completly with what Watchman Nee wrote about the ministry of the age. There is no such a teaching in the New Testament. There is only one ministry - new covenant ministry, and it is not limited by "one age". We all have part in this ministry. One more thing: have you noticed that brothers never refuted my article. Had I misrepresented their position, they would have jumped on me right away. The thing is they cannot defend their teaching from the Bible. For them this teaching is probably part of the "traditions in the Lord's recovery" (Benson's expression). In my article I purposely did not include any "ministry" quotes, but stuck exclusively to the Bible. Last edited by KSA; 07-30-2008 at 01:46 AM.

08-18-2008, 05:52 PM	#12
cityonahill Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 67	Ok Paul, Let's assume you truly believe there is no "minister of the age" and that you think there is only the "ministry of the age"... In WNee's teaching you posted as well as your own "opinions" which were merely recycled LC teachings, You represented each "ministry of the age" by a "minister"...!!!! such as Saul to David = two ages of ministries My problem with this is that the only thing that defines a ministry in your book is a person who acts as the minister of that age. Therefore, in your own argument, you confirm that you do indeed believe in a "minister of the age" BTW: reading an old testament narrative story and building a "recovery" theology out of it has no biblical fidelity or historical orthodoxy. The jehova's witness do the same thing with the apocalyptic literature found in daniel, ezekiel, and revelation.(not saying Lee and Nee are anywhere near the heresy found in the JW, but rather I'm trying to show how dangerous it can be to take a narrative passage from the OT and turn it into an abstraction on which to build a movement or justify a "ministry of this age") __________________ "If anyone is confident that they belong to Christ, they should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as they do..."(2 Cor. 10:7)

08-18-2008, 06:15 PM	#13
cityonahill Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 67	Paul, 2 peter chapter 1:12 is not referring to a new revelation of "present truth" that was a "new discovery" or that makes the "old truth" obsolete! The "new covenant" is the only new truth. You have let a man's teaching make the most simple passage into a complicated doctrine of recovery and "present truth"! 2 Peter 1:12 "So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the "truth you now have"(or present truth) This "truth you now have" is not a "present truth" that signifies a new revelation or age of ministry, but rather it is the truth that they knew (which was the truth of Christ of the new covenant) That New Testament truth was still a new concept in the first century because the Church was still young. That's why it was "the truth you now have" or the "present truth" because it was new to them. But 2,000 years later we still know nothing but "Christ and him crucified" and we are still in the age of the New Covenant! WN and WL are crafty when it comes to playing word games and taking parts of scripture out of context, but the bible is there to defend itself. I would encourage you Paul, to study the bible on your own without Lee's and Nee's (or anyone's) biased doctrines! __________________ "If anyone is confident that they belong to Christ, they should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as they do..."(2 Cor. 10:7) Last edited by KSA; 08-19-2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason: correction of scripture refference

08-19-2008, 12:51 AM	#15
cityonahill Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 67	Paul, Why do you not answer my posts directly? Are you only able to pop-off LSM material? I presented the case as to why you believe in a ministry of the age and a minister of the age. Furthermore, I presented why I disagree with that philosophy based on the word of God. the present truth is simply the New Covenant...it still is the present truth today and will be until Christ returns. Do you agree or disagree? can you answer that without the help of Lee or Nee? __________________ "If anyone is confident that they belong to Christ, they should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as they do..."(2 Cor. 10:7)

07-08-2008, 11:12 PM	#3
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Actually these improprieties were considered, according to that brother, "a smokescreen for real issues" which issue is the minister of the age. I somewhat agree with this brother. The real issue was indeed the development of "ministry theology". Only this "ministry of the age" mindset allowed to overlook serious problems that exested then. This "ministry theology" underwent a certain development. First it was oneness with "the Office", then oneness with the "minister of the age", and now the oneness with the "ministry of the age" embodied in Blended Brothers and One Publication.

07-30-2008, 02:25 AM	#7
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	The apostled are the foundations of the church with Christ being the cornerstone. They released the New Testament teaching which is also the apostles' teaching. Now we are to abide in this teaching. There are no additional "ministers of the age" who would give us "new light", "up-to-date Lord's speaking" or "the high peaks of truth (I should call them "picks"). The apostles teaching is embodied in the New Testament. Of course, there are teachers in the Body who are gifted to teach, but there are no special "teachers" who are one per age with some "special revelation".

07-30-2008, 02:57 AM	#10
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	“In every age there is a particular vision. This vision is released not through many persons but through one person who is the minister of that age. There is the vision of the age, and the one who receives this vision becomes the minister of the age. All the others who are with him are led through this one, … they speak … according to the leading of the one whom the Lord has chosen to give the vision of the age.” (The Ministry, vol. 7, No. 6, Aug., 2003, p. 34). “The Lord raised up our brother Nee in approximately the first half of the twentieth century. The vision of the age was with him. He was the minister of the age.” (The Ministry, ibid, p. 35) “In the twentieth century the minister of the age was Watchman Nee and then Witness Lee as the continuation of Watchman Nee. These brothers were ministers of the age. There is no doubt about this.” (The Ministry, vol. 9, no. 6, June 2005, p. 114)

08-03-2008, 05:38 AM	#11
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Paul Miletus seems to a very knowledgeable brother as far as LC teaching is concerned. I wonder why would he deny that there is a teaching in LC about the minister of the age (and not just ministry of the age). Paul, are we to think that LSM guys saw the folly of their minister of the age stuff and decided to stop teaching it? If this is the case, why not openly confess, "Hey, guys, we goofed here"? Why hide the ends? And if they still hold this stuff, why would you deny it?