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

UntoHim · 09-02-2017, 08:38 AM

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

UntoHim · 10-29-2017, 10:00 AM

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

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

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

-

Ohio · 10-29-2017, 10:15 AM

That's a tough task.

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

Evangelical · 10-29-2017, 03:02 PM

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

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

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

least · 10-29-2017, 03:54 PM

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

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

Evangelical · 10-29-2017, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

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

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

ZNPaaneah · 10-29-2017, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

ZNPaaneah · 10-29-2017, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

Evangelical · 10-29-2017, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

Evangelical · 10-29-2017, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

Koinonia · 10-29-2017, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

Evangelical · 10-29-2017, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

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

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

Evangelical · 10-29-2017, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

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

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

least · 10-30-2017, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Please define 'the age'.

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

Evangelical · 10-30-2017, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

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

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

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

Ohio · 10-30-2017, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Sure you can. I did. Many, many others have "unseen" it.

When Saul saw the "vision" on the road to Damascus, he diligently studied the scriptures for years, confirming to him convincingly that Jesus the Lord was sending him to the Gentile nations. His vision was real, and plainly written in black and white.

The LC "vision" has no such basis in scripture, as you are discovering.

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2017, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

Did you discuss the Ground of the Church doctrine?

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

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

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

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2017, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

Please define 'the age'.

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

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

awareness · 10-30-2017, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once you see it you can't "unsee" it.

Amen to that. But in the LC I saw the Vision, until I didn't. Then I saw a cult. And can't unsee it.

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2017, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

It is impossible to justify it using the Bible. WN and WL alone are "MOTA" and Paul isn't?!

They have made themselves into the "super apostles" that Paul mocked in 2Corinthians.

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2017, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

This stuff is absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

Terry · 10-30-2017, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

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

Ohio · 10-30-2017, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

least · 10-30-2017, 05:10 PM

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2017, 06:23 PM

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

least · 10-30-2017, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Thank you Z. Z answer- MOTA doctrine is total bunk. That is his opinion. I am indifference. To Z there is none bible record of MOTA.
If I ask for 'age of grace' bible record(s), he might answer. But I am asking about mota.

Evangelical?

Drake ... please ... bible record(s) of MOTA.
You said to me 'don't reject bible record'.
I'm asking for bible record(s) of MOTA.
I said I do not reject bible record.
I have read LSM record MOTA and heard Ron K. record MOTA.
I said LSM MOTA is not biblical.
If there is/are bible record(s) MOTA, show me. I do not reject bible record.
I rejected LSM record MOTA.
-

Evangelical · 10-30-2017, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

The NT does not say this is the age of grace. There is no verse that says that. So if ours is bunk because "no verse says it", then yours is bunk too hehehe. The concept of ages comes from dispensationalism.

Evangelical · 10-30-2017, 06:54 PM

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

least · 10-30-2017, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The NT does not say this is the age of grace. There is no verse that says that. So if ours is bunk because "no verse says it", then yours is bunk too hehehe. The concept of ages comes from dispensationalism.

So E has no bible record(s) of 'the age'. E answer; the concept of ages comes from dispensationalism.
So E has no bible record(s) MOTA?

Again Drake, what bible record(s) MOTA am I not to reject?

-
edited: bible(s) record to bible record(s).

Evangelical · 10-30-2017, 07:04 PM

The Bible is full of examples of God raising up leaders to accomplish something. I think this is the "bible record" being referred to. So I think ministers of the age is biblical - God could have done everything He wanted to do using angels or even coming as a whirlwind or something, without the help of anyone at all.

Drake · 10-30-2017, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

Thank you Z. Z answer- MOTA doctrine is total bunk. That is his opinion. I am indifference. To Z there is none bible record of MOTA.
If I ask for 'age of grace' bible record(s), he might answer. But I am asking about mota.

Evangelical?

Drake ... please ... bible record(s) of MOTA.
You said to me 'don't reject bible record'.
I'm asking for bible record(s) of MOTA.
I said I do not reject bible record.
I have read LSM record MOTA and heard Ron K. record MOTA.
I said LSM MOTA is not biblical.
If there is/are bible record(s) MOTA, show me. I do not reject bible record.
I rejected LSM record MOTA.
-

Least,

We can continue our conversation here.

The definition of minister of the age that I agree with is the one Watchman Nee used in the reference in the other thread.

What is yur definition?

Drake

least · 10-30-2017, 07:10 PM

I have no definition. I rejected LSM MOTA.
I said LSM MOTA is not biblical.
You said 'don't reject bible record'.
Reject LSM record is reject bible record?

Your MOTA is WN terminology.
Is rejecting WN terminology = rejecting bible record?

-

Drake · 10-30-2017, 08:09 PM

Least,

Ok, You have no definition for minister of the age.

Do you agree that throughout biblical history God has raised up leaders to carry out what He wants to do in that time and place?

Drake

least · 10-30-2017, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Least,
Ok, You have no definition for minister of the age.
Do you agree that throughout biblical history God has raised up leaders to carry out what He wants to do in that time and place?
Drake

You said do not reject bible record. If you point out bible record of MOTA and definition of MOTA than I will have definition of MOTA.

Do you agree that throughout biblical history God did what he does before LSM 'economy of God' tells Him who He is and what He should be doing?

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The NT does not say this is the age of grace. There is no verse that says that. So if ours is bunk because "no verse says it", then yours is bunk too hehehe. The concept of ages comes from dispensationalism.

Here is a verse -- Jesus is the MOTA
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Here is a verse -- The gospel of grace is the ministry of the age.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Here is a verse -- the New Covenant is the vision of the age.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Least, Ok, You have no definition for minister of the age. Do you agree that throughout biblical history God has raised up leaders to carry out what He wants to do in that time and place?
Drake

This is very vague. You have to include the fact that receiving WL as the leader in this age was divisive. You have agreed that this is a divisive issue, that not all Christians would accept this. Your explanation was that there is the issue that the Lord said following him would be divisive. Families would be split, etc.

The verses you are referring to are here:

“32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

So if you apply these verses to justify the MOTA doctrine you are saying that this truth is equivalent to confessing Jesus or denying Jesus! I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this position.

But no, God has not raised up any leader before or since Jesus that we should listen to instead of Him. As He said on the mount of Transfiguration: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him!"

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is a verse -- Jesus is the MOTA
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Here is a verse -- The gospel of grace is the ministry of the age.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Here is a verse -- the New Covenant is the vision of the age.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There's nothing about grace or vision in those verses. Nothing explicit, it is all inferred. We could take anything in the bible and call it an age. For example, it is now the age of footwashing, because Jesus commanded us to wash each other's feet.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But no, God has not raised up any leader before or since Jesus that we should listen to instead of Him. As He said on the mount of Transfiguration: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him!"

What about the apostle Paul?

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's nothing about grace or vision in those verses. Nothing explicit, it is all inferred. We could take anything in the bible and call it an age. For example, it is now the age of footwashing, because Jesus commanded us to wash each other's feet.

The command is very clear to preach the gospel, no inference needed. We refer to it as the "gospel of grace". Once again, an all encompassing term similar to Triune God, or dare I say, Tripartite man. Likewise with the "age of grace". These terms (gospel of grace and age of grace) are used by Witness Lee and LSM.

Likewise it is very clear that He defines the age starting at this point and that we should do this "until the end of the age".

If according to the doctrine of MOTA you accept that this age is different from that age then the doctrine of MOTA requires you to deny the Lord's word here since it is very clear that we have not yet arrived at the "end of the age". Likewise, if you agree with the basic premise of the MOTA doctrine that the burden in the age of WL was to release the truth concerning the ground of the church then you are denying the Lord's command that the burden in this age is to preach the gospel and baptize people. Therefore the MOTA doctrine qualifies as "a different gospel" talked about in Galatians.

The point is not that MOTA is not used in the Bible, I have never said that, on the contrary I have repeatedly stated that the MOTA is Jesus, He is the one mediator, He is the Christ, the Messiah, the anointed of God, He is Lord, He is the Head. He is the one with the vision of the age.

Instead my point is that for Witness Lee or Watchman Nee to be the MOTA is to preach another gospel from the one we have received.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about the apostle Paul?

Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ, sent to preach the gospel, and he was a prisoner of Jesus Christ.

According to Kerry the definition of MOTA is a "unique person through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age”

The particular man through whom the vision of the age is released is "the minister of the age."

What bothers me and what no one has explained is why this "particular man" is not Jesus? Jesus is the anointed one, the Christ.

“the co-workers defined the term as applying to the unique person through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age”

If we are talking about NT leadership, say "shepherds and teachers" then of course God raises up many leaders. But when the NT refers to "the great shepherd of the sheep" it is only referring to Jesus. When we talk about “unique person through whom the vision of the age is released” we are talking about Jesus, He is the one mediator between God and man.

If we are talking about leaders (plural), elders (plural), shepherds, teachers, etc. Then yes, I have no problem. But you aren't. You are talking about a "unique" person, a "particular man". The man with a vision given to him from God for the rest of us. That man is Jesus Christ.

zeek · 10-31-2017, 05:53 AM

If you believe Watchman Nee and/or Witness Lee were or are the unique ministers of the age that's fine for you. No problem. When you insist that others believe it in order for them to fellowship with you, you have become a sect. You have divided the Body of Christ.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

If you believe Watchman Nee and/or Witness Lee were or are the unique ministers of the age that's fine for you. No problem. When you insist that others believe it in order for them to fellowship with you, you have become a sect. You have divided the Body of Christ.

The bottom line — the gospel preached by the LRC is of man — WN and WL. It isn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sad thing is it isn’t even another gospel, it is simply the perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And they are condemned because after receiving this perverted gospel they separate themselves from other Christians and will no longer take the Lord’s table with them.

Now we know we are not justified by changing our name, or sitting in a building with a different name, but rather we are justified by faith in the Lord’s redeeming blood. They know they didn’t receive the Spirit by changing their name, no, they received the Spirit by the hearing of faith.

These are weak and beggarly elements that they have chosen to put them into bondage. The LRC church is a bondwoman to LSM.

Drake · 10-31-2017, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

You said do not reject bible record. If you point out bible record of MOTA and definition of MOTA than I will have definition of MOTA.

Do you agree that throughout biblical history God did what he does before LSM 'economy of God' tells Him who He is and what He should be doing?

Least,

No need for you to be combative.

To your last question we agree.

To your request to define define “MOTA” I define it as someone whom God selects and uses to carry out His move in certain time and place. Examples of this from the Bible include Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, Daniel, etc. and in the New Testament first and foremost our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Captain of our salvation and great ascended Head of the universal Body of Christ, and then after His ascension there is Peter with the keys of the kingdom and Paul, etc.

Do you agree with definition? If not, why not?

Drake

Drake · 10-31-2017, 06:41 AM

ZNP>”So if you apply these verses to justify the MOTA doctrine you are saying that this truth is equivalent to confessing Jesus or denying Jesus! I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this position.”

ZNP,

That would be leap in logic I am not willing to make.

My point simple. Not everything we do in following the Lord results in peace and harmony and the Lord said this when He said His coming will set us at variance with others. Therefore, we must be faithful to follow the Lord and what He has shown us knowing that it will sometimes bring about variance with others.

Drake

Ohio · 10-31-2017, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here is a verse -- Jesus is the MOTA

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Here is a verse -- The gospel of grace is the ministry of the age.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Here is a verse -- the New Covenant is the vision of the age.

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

If we closely study Paul and his heavenly vision in the book of Acts, we learn that it was absolutely a fulfillment of the Great Commission given to the disciples to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." Those who remained in Jerusalem, for the most part, failed in this command. 25 years after our Lord spoke the Great Commission, those who stayed in Jerusalem had only become "jealous for the law of Moses." (Acts 21.18-20)

When I served with the college students, I learned a couple stories which changed my view of the Apostles. Listening to Lee all those years one gets the impression that every one of the original 12 Apostles were failures, except for perhaps John at the end of his life. Far from the truth!

I learned from one dear brother from India that Thomas (yes doubting Thomas) was their apostle, and all the Christians in India for centuries credited him with bringing them the Gospel. They were remaining fruit. Another student from Albania told me Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was their apostle, and that Albania was the first country converted to Christ. I had never heard these things before. I worshiped the Lord hearing these stories.

We may not know all the precious stories of the other apostles, like we know of Paul, but they too went out "independent" of Paul, yet one with the Head, spreading the Gospel to THE NATIONS. Jesus alone was our MOTA, the Minister of the age of grace. Elevating any sinful man to that status is no different from the Papal genealogy beginning with Peter, or the papal practice of canonization, which can lead to idolatry. "Little children, guard yourself from idols." (I John 5.21)

Ohio · 10-31-2017, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Least,

No need for you to be combative.

Yet Paul told Timothy to 'fight the good fight' and to 'war the good warfare.'

Least, in his post, was in no way unnecessarily "combative."

Here, you are merely patronizing him.

.................................................. .

Yes, God has used many men in both the OT and the NT.

Only Adam and Moses, as types of Christ, could be considered with an "age." The N.T. clearly supports this.

Jonah, Soloman, and David were also types of Christ, yet never connected with an "age."

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

To your request to define define “MOTA” I define it as someone whom God selects and uses to carry out His move in certain time and place. Examples of this from the Bible include Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, Daniel, etc. and in the New Testament first and foremost our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Captain of our salvation and great ascended Head of the universal Body of Christ, and then after His ascension there is Peter with the keys of the kingdom and Paul, etc.

Do you agree with definition? If not, why not?

Drake

How do you define "move"? How do you define age? What makes this person "unique" and "particular"? Why would you make receiving this person an issue to divide yourself with other Christians over?

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”So if you apply these verses to justify the MOTA doctrine you are saying that this truth is equivalent to confessing Jesus or denying Jesus! I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this position.”

ZNP,

That would be leap in logic I am not willing to make.

My point simple. Not everything we do in following the Lord results in peace and harmony and the Lord said this when He said His coming will set us at variance with others. Therefore, we must be faithful to follow the Lord and what He has shown us knowing that it will sometimes bring about variance with others.

Drake

The Lord and the Bible said a lot of things. For example Paul said "as much as is possible be at peace with all men".

Therefore, when putting the two verses together it means there are some things that it is just not possible to compromise on. We call these things "the faith" -- the seven ones. We don't compromise of Jesus as Lord. We don't compromise on one God, the Father, Son and Spirit. These are items that if necessary we can divide ourselves over.

Why do you put MOTA on the same level as these?

Witness Lee said:

In verse 1 Paul speaks of both the deceiving spirits in the air and the demons on earth. Among Christians today there are deceptive doctrines which come from the deceiving spirits in the air and also teachings which originate with demons. The history of the church has proved that Paul was right in saying that such teachings and doctrines would come in and that those who depart from The faith would give heed to them.

In verse 2 Paul continues, “In the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron.” The phrase “in the hypocrisy of men who speak lies” modifies teachings of demons in verse 1. The teachings of demons are carried out in the hypocrisy of those who lie. This indicates that demons and lying speakers collaborate to deceive people. These hypocrites work together with evil spirits and demons to bring in deceitful teachings and demonic doctrines.

The conscience of hypocritical liars has lost its sense as if seared with a hot branding iron, an iron used to brand the slaves and cattle of a certain owner. This book strongly stresses the conscience. In the church life the love which is contrary to envy and discord is of a good conscience (1:5). Those who thrust away a good conscience become shipwrecked regarding The faith (1:19). The serving ones in the church must hold the mystery of The faith in a pure conscience (3:9). To keep a good and pure conscience is to keep the conscience sensitive in its function. This will safeguard us from the demonic and hypocritical teachings of deceiving liars.

So then please explain to me how I can discern that this MOTA teaching is not from a deceiving spirit in the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron? I am familiar with the teaching of the Faith in the NT and cannot find any basis to include WL as the MOTA.

Thanks

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Least,

No need for you to be combative.

To fight the good fight of the faith is to fight for the contents of the complete gospel according to God's New Testament economy and to fight against the different teachings of the dissenters, so as to accomplish God's economy according to the apostle's ministry concerning the gospel of grace and eternal life for the glory of the blessed God. (Witness Lee, Truth Lesson, Level 4, Vol 3, Chapter 4, section 4)

WL as the MOTA is a different teaching. LSM's version of the "Ground of the Church" is a different teaching. The fact that you divide yourself from the Body of Christ over these teachings makes you "dissenters".

A little brother · 10-31-2017, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Least,
To your request to define define “MOTA” I define it as someone whom God selects and uses to carry out His move in certain time and place. Examples of this from the Bible include Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, Daniel, etc. and in the New Testament first and foremost our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Captain of our salvation and great ascended Head of the universal Body of Christ, and then after His ascension there is Peter with the keys of the kingdom and Paul, etc.

Do you agree with definition? If not, why not?

Drake

How about a definition of who they are from the NT? Many of them, together with others, are mentioned in Hebrew 11-12:1 as a cloud of witnesses, not individual MOTA. Hebrew 12:2 did not tell us to follow them, it told us to "looking away unto Jesus".

Isaiah 66 gives a serious warning to those who follow the wrong one.

66:16 For with fire Jehovah will execute judgment, And with His sword, upon all flesh; And those slain by Jehovah will be many.
66:17 Those who sanctify and purify themselves for the gardens, Following after one in the midst, Eating swine's flesh And what is abominable and even mice, Will come to an end together, declares Jehovah.

10-31-2017, 08:44 AM

It is as it has been said so many times before: these people (Drake and Evangelical as representatives here) are content to have their one minister of the age. Let them have him. And that is all they will have. May God forgive them for turning against the Scripture and AGAINST THEIR OWN LOUDLY PROCLAIMED TEACHING: each one has. If each one has and yet you establish your own camp of the "best", then you do not receive all the riches of the saints, which is your inheritance. No, you despise it. And you are practicing hypocrisy. (We all do. But let's call this for what it is.)

It is a waste of time, at this point, to argue further. They have their pearl of great price. What a great pity.

Ohio · 10-31-2017, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The conscience of hypocritical liars has lost its sense as if seared with a hot branding iron, an iron used to brand the slaves and cattle of a certain owner. This book strongly stresses the conscience. In the church life the love which is contrary to envy and discord is of a good conscience (1:5). Those who thrust away a good conscience become shipwrecked regarding The faith (1:19). The serving ones in the church must hold the mystery of The faith in a pure conscience (3:9). To keep a good and pure conscience is to keep the conscience sensitive in its function. This will safeguard us from the demonic and hypocritical teachings of deceiving liars.

I Timothy 1.5 exposes the irony of ironies in the promotion of Nee and Lee as MOTAs.

This verse is Lee's theme verse supporting the teachings of "God's Economy," yet in the same breath Paul warns us not to occupy ourselves with "myths and unending genealogies."

Is not the list of MOTAs a "myth and unending genealogy," in the same manner as the Papal genealogy?

zeek · 10-31-2017, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Least,

No need for you to be combative.

To your last question we agree.

To your request to define define “MOTA” I define it as someone whom God selects and uses to carry out His move in certain time and place. Examples of this from the Bible include Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, Nehemiah, Daniel, etc. and in the New Testament first and foremost our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Captain of our salvation and great ascended Head of the universal Body of Christ, and then after His ascension there is Peter with the keys of the kingdom and Paul, etc.

Do you agree with definition? If not, why not?

Drake

Hi Drake, Peace be with you brother. Do you believe there is more than one minister of the age in any given age?

zeek · 10-31-2017, 09:45 AM

In Ron Kangas' he made one curious remark which gave me pause. He said "we're still in the age." He gave no explanation for that strange remark. Of course we're in AN age. But he said we're still in THE age. What age was he talking about?

According to Ron "a minister of the age is one who has the vision of the age and the ministry of the age and knows what God is speaking and doing in the present age" This person "knows the special things that the Lord wants to accomplish in his age and knows the Lord’s ministry and work in that age." "The one who can take the lead in the Lord’s move in his age is the one who knows God’s economy and knows what God’s speaking is today." "Whoever has God’s speaking concerning the entire teaching of God’s New Testament economy is the leading one in His move, the minister of the age." And lastly "Brother Nee and Brother Lee were ministers of the present age." [I added the bold print.]

I take that last proposition to be the explanation for Ron's strange statement that "we're still in the age." He must have meant that we are still in the age when Nee and Lee are the MOTAs! So, even though they have passed on are we still in the age of Nee and Lee? If so, what does that mean and how does it work?

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I Timothy 1.5 exposes the irony of ironies in the promotion of Nee and Lee as MOTAs.

This verse is Lee's theme verse supporting the teachings of "God's Economy," yet in the same breath Paul warns us not to occupy ourselves with "myths and unending genealogies."

Is not the list of MOTAs a "myth and unending genealogy," in the same manner as the Papal genealogy?

Great point. The MOTA is based on the Myth of Watchman Nee being excommunicated because he was living with his mother. Endless genealogies, all these ones trying to tie themselves to some "apostle" like Peter or WN.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A little brother

How about a definition of who they are from the NT? Many of them, together with others, are mentioned in Hebrew 11-12:1 as a cloud of witnesses, not individual MOTA. Hebrew 12:2 did not tell us to follow them, it told us to "looking away unto Jesus".

Isaiah 66 gives a serious warning to those who follow the wrong one.

66:16 For with fire Jehovah will execute judgment, And with His sword, upon all flesh; And those slain by Jehovah will be many.
66:17 Those who sanctify and purify themselves for the gardens, Following after one in the midst, Eating swine's flesh And what is abominable and even mice, Will come to an end together, declares Jehovah.

Great point, instead of looking away to Jesus they are being turned aside to look at WL.

UntoHim · 10-31-2017, 09:55 AM

Lots of good and interesting input regarding what our forum members think about these three pillars in the Local Church. As much as I've been enjoying the views, understanding and interpretations of our forum members, I think we may want to track back to the "official" interpretation/understanding of these three terms from the current leaders in the LC Movement. The brothers who run "afaithfulword.org" are either the Blended Brothers themselves, or had the explicit direction and/or permission of the Blended Brothers to post what is contained on this site.

Let's start with the official interpretation/understanding of
The Vision of The Age:
Direct, unedited QUOTES from http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html

Quote:

*The Bible reveals that vision is crucial. Why? Because vision governs and controls both our living and our service as believers (Prov. 29:18; Acts 26:19).
-
*What our vision is governs our Christian life and service. Our living and our service can only come up to the level of our vision.
Furthermore, vision is the source of the practical one accord. From the time of Martin Luther, throughout the history of the Lord's recovery, as the unveiling of the divine revelation has advanced, some of the Lord's people have not responded to the Lord's move. Spontaneously, they are not in one accord with those who are following the Lord's present recovery.
-
*The term "the vision of the age" has its basis in the progressive revelation in the Bible. In the Bible, all of the truths-concerning God Himself, His salvation, His purpose, etc.-are revealed in a progressive way. The divine revelation that is unveiled in a particular age becomes the vision of that age, governing the life and service of the Lord's seekers.
-
*The term "the vision of the age" has its basis in the progressive revelation in the Bible. In the Bible, all of the truths-concerning God Himself, His salvation, His purpose, etc.-are revealed in a progressive way. The divine revelation that is unveiled in a particular age becomes the vision of that age, governing the life and service of the Lord's seekers.
-
*Through the labor of our senior brothers, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, we have received a spiritual inheritance of all of the crucial revelations in the Bible that have been opened to the Lord's seekers in the last twenty centuries. But that is not all. Brother Nee and Brother Lee stood on the shoulders of those who had gone before to see more.
-
*The vision of the age refers to the governing vision that is the level or stage to which the revelation or the recovery of the revelation contained in the Bible has progressed. It does not negate what was seen in previous ages, but inherits from and builds upon the visions of those ages.

-

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

In Ron Kangas' he made one curious remark which gave me pause. He said "we're still in the age." He gave no explanation for that strange remark. Of course we're in AN age. But he said we're still in THE age. What age was he talking about?

According to Ron "a minister of the age is one who has the vision of the age and the ministry of the age and knows what God is speaking and doing in the present age" This person "knows the special things that the Lord wants to accomplish in his age and knows the Lord’s ministry and work in that age." "The one who can take the lead in the Lord’s move in his age is the one who knows God’s economy and knows what God’s speaking is today." "Whoever has God’s speaking concerning the entire teaching of God’s New Testament economy is the leading one in His move, the minister of the age." And lastly "Brother Nee and Brother Lee were ministers of the present age." [I added the bold print.]

I take that last proposition to be the explanation for Ron's strange statement that "we're still in the age." He must have meant that we are still in the age when Nee and Lee are the MOTAs! So, even though they have passed on are we still in the age of Nee and Lee? If so, what does that mean and how does it work?

It is so difficult to find out "what age this is" from those who espouse this doctrine.

According to Drake this doctrine is worth dividing yourself from other Christians. Based on that it is an item of the faith, and we are charged to "fight the good fight of the faith". Yet when you ask specific questions, like "what age is this?" they get all vague, change the subject, and say this is their least favorite doctrine.

Ohio · 10-31-2017, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is so difficult to find out "what age this is" from those who espouse this doctrine.

According to Drake this doctrine is worth dividing yourself from other Christians. Based on that it is an item of the faith, and we are charged to "fight the good fight of the faith". Yet when you ask specific questions, like "what age is this?" they get all vague, change the subject, and say this is their least favorite doctrine.

That is because they only speak these things in their little bubble of like-minded loyalists. These comments are never challenged until one departs the bubble and has to face real live Christians on the outside. These concepts like the MOTA have never been time-tested or truth-tested.

The more we look into these aberrant teachings, the more they appear to be the same ones that enslaved the Catholics and the Plymouth Brethren. Once a minister is elevated to MOTA status, he is no longer accountable to God or man. Any and all unrighteousness must necessarily be covered up, swept under the rug, and all evidence and witnesses must be disposed of.

For Kangas to say that we are still in the age of Lee indicates to all the faithful that they must not read anything but Lee, Nee, and the current Blended reruns. (Did someone say boring?) This is how they make merchandise of God's people. It also keeps them locked up in the sheep pen, separated from direct contact with the Word of God in greener pastures. In the LC's Witness Lee is still their way, he is still their truth, and he is still their life.

Even recently I heard an ex-LCer, who has not met with them for years, speak about reading his Life Studies with the telling comment, "I just want life."

awareness · 10-31-2017, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

In Ron Kangas' he made one curious remark which gave me pause. He said "we're still in the age." He gave no explanation for that strange remark. Of course we're in AN age. But he said we're still in THE age. What age was he talking about?

We're all in this age !!! ... or like Luther, Darby, Nee, and Lee, we wouldn't be here.

But the age Kangas was talking about, I got kicked out of. Thank God. I'd much rather be in THIS age than in THAT age. That age is history to me.

I don't know why, but I'm not surprised, that, Kangas just didn't come right out and tell it like it is, to him, and them. Like :

The Vision of the Age = nee and LEE.
The Ministry of the Age = nee and LEE.
The Minister of the Age = nee and LEE.

It would have been short, on message, to the point, AND HONEST. Plus it would have saved him a lot of hot air. It's even textable, or tweetable

Have I mentioned that the Kangas affectation -- that Kangas at one time made an effort to teach me, by lesson and example -- to practice, now rubs me the wrong way? Listening to him isn't easy for me. Back then I loved it. It now sounds like fingernails scratching on a blackboard.

Still, thanks for the link. It proves beyond a shadow of doubt that they are still teaching this extra-Biblical nonsense. And don't claim Lee never taught it, or claimed it. Where do you think Kangas got it from?

And it would make sense that, now that Nee and Lee are gone, Kanagas would be the MOTA today. But, as smart as he is -- Princeton Theologically educated -- and in spite of his special Kangas affectation, he just doesn't have the MOTA mojo to pull it off. He's just a Nee and Lee scribe ... in charge of editing, cleaning up, and scrubbing, promoting, and selling, Nee and Lee transcriptions.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”So if you apply these verses to justify the MOTA doctrine you are saying that this truth is equivalent to confessing Jesus or denying Jesus! I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this position.”

ZNP,

That would be leap in logic I am not willing to make.

My point simple. Not everything we do in following the Lord results in peace and harmony and the Lord said this when He said His coming will set us at variance with others. Therefore, we must be faithful to follow the Lord and what He has shown us knowing that it will sometimes bring about variance with others.

Drake

If it is a doctrine you are willing to be divided over then logic dictates it must be on par with the Faith once for all delivered to the saints.

If it isn't equal to denying Christ then what could it be? Would you put it on par with the Triune God -- Father, Son, Spirit & WL?

Or would it be equivalent to the cross of Christ?

Drake · 10-31-2017, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Hi Drake, Peace be with you brother. Do you believe there is more than one minister of the age in any given age?

Hi zeek,

Yes, I do. The distinction I make is that God selects a leader to carry out the ministry of that age. If you believe as I do that the Lord has recovered the truth of the local churches as the procedure to build the Body of Christ to close the present age then without question both Brother Nee and Brother Lee were those lead ministers. I also hold that the ministry of the age is a special calling. Anyone may participate but not everyone will. To me that is a matter of being faithful to what the Lord has shown each one.

Therefore, though there are many and varied paths one a christian can take as relates to their church life, I have to take the one that the Lord has shown me and be faithful to that. The ministry of the age will have a leader, a lead minister, and a supporting cast of ministers. Yet, the real question is what is the ministry of the age and if one does not agree that such a thing exists or that it is not of the local churches then it matters not about the minister of the age and the whole conversation is moot.

thanks
Drake

Drake · 10-31-2017, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If it is a doctrine you are willing to be divided over then logic dictates it must be on par with the Faith once for all delivered to the saints.

If it isn't equal to denying Christ then what could it be? Would you put it on par with the Triune God -- Father, Son, Spirit & WL?

Or would it be equivalent to the cross of Christ?

ZNP,

It would be equivalent to obeying or disobeying something the Lord has instructed you to do.

Drake

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is so difficult to find out "what age this is" from those who espouse this doctrine.

According to Drake this doctrine is worth dividing yourself from other Christians. Based on that it is an item of the faith, and we are charged to "fight the good fight of the faith". Yet when you ask specific questions, like "what age is this?" they get all vague, change the subject, and say this is their least favorite doctrine.

If you followed Pauls ministry in the early church and someone tried to pull you away from that wouldn't you divide also?

leastofthese · 10-31-2017, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you followed Pauls ministry in the early church and someone tried to pull you away from that wouldn't you divide also?

ZNP- don't forget that Lee is greater than or equal to Paul and LSM publications are equal to (or greater than?) scripture.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leastofthese

ZNP- don't forget that Lee is greater than or equal to Paul and LSM publications are equal to (or greater than?) scripture.

Now where did I say that? It's a New Testament ministry like the ministry of the apostle Paul. I think many Christians would agree that to reject Paul (like the Ebionites) is to reject Christ.

zeek · 10-31-2017, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi zeek,

Yes, I do. The distinction I make is that God selects a leader to carry out the ministry of that age. If you believe as I do that the Lord has recovered the truth of the local churches as the procedure to build the Body of Christ to close the present age then without question both Brother Nee and Brother Lee were those lead ministers.

I don't rule that out as a possibility, Drake. But I have 13 years of experience where time and time again the principle was violated by Witness Lee and other leaders in the movement. So, sadly, I concluded that it is highly improbable.

Quote:

I also hold that the ministry of the age is a special calling. Anyone may participate but not everyone will. To me that is a matter of being faithful to what the Lord has shown each one.

OK

Quote:

Therefore, though there are many and varied paths one a christian can take as relates to their church life, I have to take the one that the Lord has shown me and be faithful to that. The ministry of the age will have a leader, a lead minister, and a supporting cast of ministers. Yet, the real question is what is the ministry of the age and if one does not agree that such a thing exists or that it is not of the local churches then it matters not about the minister of the age and the whole conversation is moot.

OK. I respect that. Ron Kangas brought us up to date on what the MOTA is supposed to be in the video and outline that Koinonia shared {Thank you.} I think I understand what he proposed. It matters though, because, if the proposition is false, many people are being misled by it.

Ken Gemmer

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

It would be equivalent to obeying or disobeying something the Lord has instructed you to do.

Drake

Matt 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The general principle is that any spoken word from the Lord will not be contrary to the written word. The Lord would not give you a command that violates basic commands in the NT such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "thou shalt have no other Gods besides me".

So that is fine, the Lord gave you a command. But you should still be able to support it with the Bible.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you followed Pauls ministry in the early church and someone tried to pull you away from that wouldn't you divide also?

Paul's ministry was to preach Christ, not Paul. Jesus said that we need to confess Him, if we confess Him then He also will confess us. He also said that this would cause division.

You have it backwards. You have division and think that justifies your doctrine. But you are the ones who are denying Christ and as a result dividing yourselves from the Body.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now where did I say that? It's a New Testament ministry like the ministry of the apostle Paul. I think many Christians would agree that to reject Paul (like the Ebionites) is to reject Christ.

Baloney. Paul did not preach himself.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Paul's ministry was to preach Christ, not Paul. Jesus said that we need to confess Him, if we confess Him then He also will confess us. He also said that this would cause division.

You have it backwards. You have division and think that justifies your doctrine. But you are the ones who are denying Christ and as a result dividing yourselves from the Body.

Your claims are unfounded as Witness Lee's ministry was only to preach Christ, just like Paul's. Christ is always the focus of the gospel preaching, the praying, the singing, and the meetings.

Koinonia · 10-31-2017, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your claims are unfounded as Witness Lee's ministry was only to preach Christ, just like Paul's. Christ is always the focus of the gospel preaching, the praying, the singing, and the meetings.

Then, why would there ever be a conference such as the one being discussed in this thread?

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Baloney. Paul did not preach himself.

He preached Christ therefore to reject Paul is to reject the preaching of Christ.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your claims are unfounded as Witness Lee's ministry was only to preach Christ, just like Paul's. Christ is always the focus of the gospel preaching, the praying, the singing, and the meetings.

When you say that there is a unique, particular man who has the vision, given directly to him from God that we all need to obey, that this is the Lord's focus at the moment and that this particular man will take the lead in carrying out this vision, well then my claims are well founded.

When you say that it is a valid reason to divide yourself from the Body because others don't recognize this particular man as "the minister of the age" with the "vision of the age" that we all need to obey, well then my claims are clearly well founded.

The underlying cause of division in the Body of Christ is to deny Jesus Christ. Perhaps Jesus is telling you to confess your sins and repent, you deny that, hence you must divide. Perhaps the Lord is telling you to swallow your ego and be a small brother, like Paul. You deny that, hence you must divide. In the ultimate analysis if you confess Jesus as Lord and stand on His blood you would not be in division. Since you have admitted to being in division as a result of this doctrine we can conclude that either those who accept the doctrine are denying Christ or those who are rejecting it. However, Drake has already rejected the idea that those who reject the doctrine are rejecting Jesus.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Then, why would there ever be a conference such as the one being discussed in this thread?

? The conference is about Christ.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2017, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He preached Christ therefore to reject Paul is to reject the preaching of Christ.

How absurd. Paul rebuked Peter. Was rebuking Peter equal to rebuking Christ? Of course not.

Likewise Witness Lee rebuked Paul (he said that he was in error when he went to Jerusalem to perform the Nazarite vow). Does that mean that WL was rejecting Christ because he was rejecting what Paul did? Of course not. This is an idiotic argument.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How absurd. Paul rebuked Peter. Was rebuking Peter equal to rebuking Christ? Of course not.

Likewise Witness Lee rebuked Paul (he said that he was in error when he went to Jerusalem to perform the Nazarite vow). Does that mean that WL was rejecting Christ because he was rejecting what Paul did? Of course not. This is an idiotic argument.

You can't have it both ways - if a person like Paul is a minister of Christ, then rejection of that person is rejection of Christ. If a person ministers Christ then any rejection of that person is a rejection of Christ, not the person. It does not make sense to say as you are, that Paul was a minister of Christ yet rejection of Paul is not rejection of Christ.

If you preach the gospel to someone and they don't accept it, are they rejecting you or Christ?

I think we would say rejecting Christ, because as a minister of Christ it is Him they are rejecting, not you.

How then can you say that rejecting Paul, or Witness Lee, is not rejecting Christ, if they are ministers of Christ?

In the example you gave, if Peter did not listen to Paul, it would be rejection of Christ. Christ obviously used Paul to rebuke Peter.

Similarly, according to the Bible child disobeying their parents or disobeying the government would be equivalent to disobeying God. Romans 13:4 - They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Rejection of God's prophets, rejection of the apostles/disciples, these are all examples of rejecting God. We cannot reject all these servants of God and then claim to be obeying God.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When you say that there is a unique, particular man who has the vision, given directly to him from God that we all need to obey, that this is the Lord's focus at the moment and that this particular man will take the lead in carrying out this vision, well then my claims are well founded.

How come? God has done it before (the apostle Paul, Moses etc). This is clearly the biblical pattern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When you say that it is a valid reason to divide yourself from the Body because others don't recognize this particular man as "the minister of the age" with the "vision of the age" that we all need to obey, well then my claims are clearly well founded.

It would be just as valid if an Old testament Israelite said "let's reject Moses", or a New Testament Christian said "let's reject Paul".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The underlying cause of division in the Body of Christ is to deny Jesus Christ.

As evidenced by thousands of denominations (divisions).

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

If you believe Watchman Nee and/or Witness Lee were or are the unique ministers of the age that's fine for you. No problem. When you insist that others believe it in order for them to fellowship with you, you have become a sect. You have divided the Body of Christ.

Almost sounds like something Lee would say - that any group which insists that other believe something in order to fellowship is a sect.

Then we must also believe that Catholics and Orthodox are sects (because they insist that others believe things in order to fellowship), and most denominations. In fact the requirements for fellowship with these denominations are much more stringent than us - they won't even let you take bread and wine unless you are a fully communicated member believing certain things about their church.

If not, then why are we a sect and Catholic/Orthodox aren't?

Here is the definition of a sect in Catholicism:

To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society instituted by Jesus Christ which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

awareness · 10-31-2017, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Almost sounds like something Lee would say - that any group which insists that other believe something in order to fellowship is a sect.

Then we must also believe that Catholics and Orthodox are sects (because they insist that others believe things in order to fellowship), and most denominations. In fact the requirements for fellowship with these denominations are much more stringent than us - they won't even let you take bread and wine unless you are a fully communicated member believing certain things about their church.

If not, then why are we a sect and Catholic/Orthodox aren't?

You're all sects. Own it. Get over it. And Lee's local church is a small one.

Koinonia · 10-31-2017, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

? The conference is about Christ.

Coy deceitfulness and silly games "for all to see, for all to see."

Koinonia · 10-31-2017, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

You're all sects. Own it. Get over it. And Lee's local church is a small one.

awareness, according to Evangelical, the basis for Witness Lee's being "minister of the age" is his popularity.

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

You're all sects. Own it. Get over it. And Lee's local church is a small one.

If there is a sect or sects then by definition there must be a group that is not a sect from which the sects came out of. For Catholicism it is the Catholic church, for us it is the church in the city as the practical Body life, what is it for you? How do you define the (practical) body of Christ of which (you say) every church is (as you say) a sect?

Evangelical · 10-31-2017, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Coy deceitfulness and silly games "for all to see, for all to see."

You sound like someone who hasn't read the message outlines, here are some of the main points:

A minister of the age knows the special things that the Lord wants to accomplish
in his age and knows the Lord’s ministry and work in that age

From this point we can see that the concern is the Lord's ministry, not Lee's ministry.

Again, are the ministers of the age constituted with themself? No, note that it says:

The ministers of the age are constituted by and with the Lord

When the message outline is so clear as to the subject matter being about the Lord and the Lord's ministry, you tell me - who is being deceitful and playing games?

Also, in the message about the Vision of the Age, it says clearly that we should not follow a person.

The topic is about following Christ and the vision that is given by Christ for the Church through ...angels, space aliens and UFOs? No, human beings.

When we read the actual content of the conference we can find that it's more about Christ than Christmas.

least · 11-01-2017, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From this point we can see that the concern is the Lord's ministry, not Lee's ministry.
When the message outline is so clear as to the subject matter being about the Lord and the Lord's ministry, you tell me - who is being deceitful and playing games?
When we read the actual content of the conference we can find that it's more about Christ than Christmas.

Well said.

- The concern is the Lord's ministry, not Lee's ministry. (note: 2 ministries here?)

- the Lord and the Lord's ministry (the outline is so clear)
Tell us who is being deceitful and playing games? MOTA is the Lord, right?

- It's more about Christ than Christmas, read the actual content.
what is the actual content? the outline or later published printed messages?
The outline has no Christmas at all. May be the printed message would have Christmas mentioned or released for Christmas?

That's written content- 'read' the actual content.

Then Listen to the spoken message(s)
- no Christmas at all.
- WN and WL the MOTA.

No deceit. It's the games. Spoken message(s) and printed message(s) not meant to match. You dumb ... never learn the LSM games strategy ... loser.
-

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by least

Well said.

- The concern is the Lord's ministry, not Lee's ministry. (note: 2 ministries here?)

- the Lord and the Lord's ministry (the outline is so clear)
Tell us who is being deceitful and playing games? MOTA is the Lord, right?

- It's more about Christ than Christmas, read the actual content.
what is the actual content? the outline or later published printed messages?
The outline has no Christmas at all. May be the printed message would have Christmas mentioned or released for Christmas?

That's written content- 'read' the actual content.

Then Listen to the spoken message(s)
- no Christmas at all.
- WN and WL the MOTA.

No deceit. It's the games. Spoken message(s) and printed message(s) not meant to match. You dumb ... never learn the LSM games strategy ... loser.
-

The spoken message and printed message is matching. Can't you see in the videos that the speakers are reading from the message outlines and then explaining? I don't see any of them saying that they are there to accomplish their own ministry.

Of course there is no Christmas in the messages. That is a point of irony I made to say that the content of those messages has more Christ in it than the holiday celebration everyone calls Christmas supposedly to celebrate Christ's birthday (which is not really his real birthday anyway).

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You can't have it both ways - if a person like Paul is a minister of Christ, then rejection of that person is rejection of Christ. If a person ministers Christ then any rejection of that person is a rejection of Christ, not the person. It does not make sense to say as you are, that Paul was a minister of Christ yet rejection of Paul is not rejection of Christ.

So just to be clear you are equating a rejection of the MOTA doctrine as being equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ. (Drake said he wasn't doing that). It seems like those in the LRC are the ones who are trying to have it both ways.

I will respond to this when you answer my question --

Is rejecting the MOTA doctrine equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ?

zeek · 11-01-2017, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Almost sounds like something Lee would say - that any group which insists that other believe something in order to fellowship is a sect.

Then we must also believe that Catholics and Orthodox are sects (because they insist that others believe things in order to fellowship), and most denominations. In fact the requirements for fellowship with these denominations are much more stringent than us - they won't even let you take bread and wine unless you are a fully communicated member believing certain things about their church.

If not, then why are we a sect and Catholic/Orthodox aren't?

Here is the definition of a sect in Catholicism:

To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society instituted by Jesus Christ which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

Thanks for the link. According to my experience religious organizations always have the flawed character of a human group. Witness Lee's Local Church Movement is no exception. But, an exception is exactly what it claims to be. Which means that it is doing the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church based on a different interpretation of the Bible. The parallel between the The Local Church's claims and those of Roman Catholic Church is very instructive. People who claim to be better than everyone else are the ones you've got to watch out for. Jesus teaches that. My experience confirms it. The same goes for their groups.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So just to be clear you are equating a rejection of the MOTA doctrine as being equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ. (Drake said he wasn't doing that). It seems like those in the LRC are the ones who are trying to have it both ways.

I will respond to this when you answer my question --

Is rejecting the MOTA doctrine equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ?

ZNP,

Big difference between rejecting doctrine and rejecting a person.

You are over complicating this.

Drake

leastofthese · 11-01-2017, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

You're all sects. Own it. Get over it. And Lee's local church is a small one.

Lee's is a small and flailing church.

They say that they meet in the city as the practical body, but this holds no truth. They meet as a church dedicated to the divisive works of Witness Lee. It is sad sight indeed.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 05:26 AM

Least>” You dumb ... never learn the LSM games strategy ... loser.”

Least,

No one appears to mind your insulting and uncivilized name calling of other posters.... but I do.

Express your views and make your case and let others make theirs without personalizing it. Focus on the argument not the person.

Thanks
Drake

least · 11-01-2017, 05:29 AM

ok, Drake.

I will respond to the other post of yours when I have more time.

Thanks

Drake · 11-01-2017, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Lee's is a small and flailing church.

They say that they meet in the city as the practical body, but this holds no truth. They meet as a church dedicated to the divisive works of Witness Lee. It is sad sight indeed.

LofT,

Let’s say a miracle happens. Imagine every brother and sister in the Lord’s Recovery became convinced overnight that the local churches are not the Lords desire after all. They read your above post and it’s a Saturday night and they come to you and ask where they should meet tomorrow since it’s a Sunday.

Where would you tell them to go to church tomorrow?

Drake

Drake · 11-01-2017, 05:43 AM

ZNP>”The general principle is that any spoken word from the Lord will not be contrary to the written word. The Lord would not give you a command that violates basic commands in the NT such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "thou shalt have no other Gods besides me".

So that is fine, the Lord gave you a command. But you should still be able to support it with the Bible.”

Of course.

To my observation, ZNP, every poster in this forum believes their views are supported from the Bible..... present company included.

Drake

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 05:48 AM

OK

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So just to be clear you are equating a rejection of the MOTA doctrine as being equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ. (Drake said he wasn't doing that). It seems like those in the LRC are the ones who are trying to have it both ways.

I will respond to this when you answer my question --

Is rejecting the MOTA doctrine equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ?

I am not sure what you mean by MOTA doctrine..do you mean the teaching that WL was MOTA? If so then it is not rejecting Christ.

But suppose WL had a vision from Christ to instruct the believers. As Gods servant rejection of the servant is rejecting the Master also.

Let us be clear that this is not about accepting or rejecting some doctrine of who is or who is not MOTA. This is about the Vision.

To give a biblical example. ..we may reject the idea that Paul was an apostle however suppose we reject Pauls gospel and his ministry..what then?

All that matters is whether Christ was speaking through Lee or not. It is Christ's speaking that we should not reject.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK

I am not sure what you mean by MOTA doctrine..do you mean the teaching that WL was MOTA? If so then it is not rejecting Christ.

But suppose WL had a vision from Christ to instruct the believers. As Gods servant rejection of the servant is rejecting the Master also.

Let us be clear that this is not about accepting or rejecting some doctrine of who is or who is not MOTA. This is about the Vision.

To give a biblical example. ..we may reject the idea that Paul was an apostle however suppose we reject Pauls gospel and his ministry..what then?

All that matters is whether Christ was speaking through Lee or not. It is Christ's speaking that we should not reject.

Fine, this is not what I have been talking about or what this thread has focused on.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”The general principle is that any spoken word from the Lord will not be contrary to the written word. The Lord would not give you a command that violates basic commands in the NT such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "thou shalt have no other Gods besides me".

So that is fine, the Lord gave you a command. But you should still be able to support it with the Bible.”

Of course.

To my observation, ZNP, every poster in this forum believes their views are supported from the Bible..... present company included.

Drake

Being commanded by the Lord directly or via messengers is supported by the Bible. However there is surprisingly few examples in the bible of people consulting the scripture following a direct command or command via messenger.

The idea that every command from the Lord should be supported from the Bible is actually not well supported by the Bible lol.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there is a sect or sects then by definition there must be a group that is not a sect from which the sects came out of. For Catholicism it is the Catholic church, for us it is the church in the city as the practical Body life, what is it for you? How do you define the (practical) body of Christ of which (you say) every church is (as you say) a sect?

This is a thought provoking consideration Evangelical poses.

If there are sects then what are they a sect of or from?

It seems that the majority opinion of posters in this forum is that divisions and sects are normal. When awareness says “You’re all sects” he is bringing to the top of the table that unstated view that lives under the table..... and no one seems to mind.

Drake

Drake · 11-01-2017, 06:26 AM

Evangelical >”Let us be clear that this is not about accepting or rejecting some doctrine of who is or who is not MOTA. This is about the Vision.”

Exactly.

Without vision the people perish or run in circles.

Drake

Ohio · 11-01-2017, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

This is a thought provoking consideration Evangelical poses.

If there are sects then what are they a sect of or from?

It seems that the majority opinion of posters in this forum is that divisions and sects are normal. When awareness says “You’re all sects” he is bringing to the top of the table that unstated view that lives under the table..... and no one seems to mind.

Drake

Simple, they are a sect of the Body of Christ, which is defined by all those born of God, not all those on some publisher's (LSM) customer list.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

This is a thought provoking consideration Evangelical poses.

If there are sects then what are they a sect of or from?

It seems that the majority opinion of posters in this forum is that divisions and sects are normal. When awareness says “You’re all sects” he is bringing to the top of the table that unstated view that lives under the table..... and no one seems to mind.

Drake

The question was more for awareness who believes everyone is a sect and curious about what "not sect"looks like to them.

The idea of common or majority opinion seems to be how protestants define the body of Christ whereby a sect would be a group holding to different opinions on some major or key doctrines. Not only is this impractical as it necessitates belief in an ideal invisible church but it is hard to define as to what constitutes key doctrines.

Defining it with respect to some physical and quantifiable entity such as the city boundary is better I think.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 06:37 AM

Evangelical >”Defining it with respect to some physical and quantifiable entity such as the city boundary is better I think.”

And the only scriptural basis for meeting separately or in fellowship from other believers.

Drake

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Evangelical >”Let us be clear that this is not about accepting or rejecting some doctrine of who is or who is not MOTA. This is about the Vision.”

Exactly.

Without vision the people perish or run in circles.

Drake

Well now I am completely confused. How do you distinguish "the Minister of the Age" from everyone else? If there is no distinction, then the entire doctrine is total vanity, troubling everyone over nothing. According to Kerry, the definition I have been working on, it is a "unique" person. What makes this person unique? It is a "particular" person. How is this person singled out from the rest of the Body?

If there is a distinction then you have once again dodged the question.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well now I am completely confused. How do you distinguish "the Minister of the Age" from everyone else? If there is no distinction, then the entire doctrine is total vanity, troubling everyone over nothing. According to Kerry, the definition I have been working on, it is a "unique" person. What makes this person unique? It is a "particular" person. How is this person singled out from the rest of the Body?

If there is a distinction then you have once again dodged the question.

ZNP,

I’ll repeat myself and clarify...

The primary question is “what is the ministry of the age?” First, do you believe there is such a thing? If not, then all considerations about the minister of the age are moot.

If you believe there is a ministry of the age then do you believe the Lord raises up someone to take the lead in that age? If not, then all considerations about the minister of the age are moot.

If you believe that there is a ministry of the age and you also believe that God raises up someone to take the lead in that age then identifying the lead minister in that age is directly tied to the definition of the ministry of the age. Therefore, I believe that the ministry of the age is that the Lord has a special calling to return to the oneness in practicality expressed through local churches as the procedure to build the Body of Christ to consummate the present age and thereby hasten the Lords return to establish His physical kingdom on earth for 1000 years. In this I’m not following a doctrine, I am pursuing a vision. And without question if you believe that is the definition of the ministry of the age then there is also no doubt who the lead ministers of the age are.... Brothers Nee and Lee.

Drake

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 07:19 AM

So on this forum Awareness has pointed out that he was disciplined for not receiving the “MOTA” doctrine. Zeek has also confirmed the way this doctrine was shoved down his throat in a “take it or leave” approach. I was told by Joe Davis that in the LRC we don’t teach anything that WL doesn’t teach, regardless of the truth. Others have also confirmed that in different localities Witness Lee and the elders taught that WN was the “Minister of the Age” because he had the “Vision of the Age”. His ministry was therefore the “Ministry of the Age”. What that meant was that it was unique, particular. Unlike other ministries of preaching the gospel or doing some other inspired service to the Lord, this ministry was actually accomplishing what the Lord wanted accomplished in this “age”. Ray Graver spoke openly that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age because he took up the mantle from Watchman Nee to release the truth concerning the Ground of the Church. Yet despite many, many witnesses having heard this teaching from both elders and Witness Lee all written record of a direct link to Witness Lee seems to have been expunged from the LSM printed materials. In my experience working with LSM as an editor I knew that certain brothers edited content. We were told explicitly that they knew that some things that WL said in the meeting were not to be published. That was not my job, and they did not expound on what items were not for print.

We asked how you define “age” and have not received anything even closely resembling an answer. If a 40 year ministry represents “an age” then logic suggests we have had 200+ ages since Jesus crucifixion. This contradicts Jesus word in Matthew 28 where He says that from that point on till the end of the age — indicating that the period from the resurrection to the second coming is one age. No explanation, no clarification.

We pointed out that the NT makes it very clear that only Jesus is the mediator, there is no other mediator between God and man and describing Witness Lee as a mediator is a damnable heresy that denies the Lord who bought us. Again, no explanation for the message given by Ron Kangas. We pointed out that using OT types of Jesus Christ and applying them to WN and WL is heresy. No response.

We pointed out that this doctrine is the basis for the LRC dividing themselves from other Christians and refusing to eat the Lord’s table with them. Drake and Evangelical agreed but have differing explanations. Drake says he is obeying the Lord’s command to him, similar to where the Lord said He would cause divisions. However, when we looked at that word specifically the division was caused by confessing that Jesus is Lord. So I asked Drake if he equated saying that WL is the MOTA with saying Jesus is Lord. He denied it, agreeing that would be a damnable heresy. Evangelical on the other hand feels that rejecting the doctrine of MOTA is similar to rejecting the gospel or the messages by Paul. So Evangelical equates the doctrine of MOTA with the gospel of Christ.

I would argue that either justification is a perversion of the gospel and they are preaching a different Jesus. However, let’s address Drake’s point in greater detail. It is possible for the Lord to speak something to you that others don’t agree with. For example, the movie about Hacksaw Ridge was a docudrama based on fact. A man joined the army but because of his convictions refused to carry a gun. Yes, you can use the Bible to justify his position as well as to justify the position of those that disagreed. But, he didn’t use this special command of the Lord to justify separating himself from other Christians. I believe the Lord can command him to not carry a gun while at the same time being OK with other Christians who do carry a gun.

But when you justify a sect with this “special command” of the Lord then you have crossed the line into damnable heresy. And this is the line we have crossed. Drake refuses to give a coherent defense of this doctrine using the Bible even though he has elevated it to the items of the faith, things that we cannot compromise on. Evangelical on the other hand is impossible to understand. He refers to "leaders" instead of "unique and particular leader" that Kerry defines. He does not describe the MOTA as a leader but rather a person whose "Ministry he follows". He describes rejecting the doctrine of MOTA as being equivalent to rejecting the gospel of Christ. As though that is somehow different from equating WL with Christ.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 07:29 AM

ZNP>”So I asked Drake if he equated saying that WL is the MOTA with saying Jesus is Lord. He denied it, agreeing that would be a damnable heresy. ”

ZNP,

I did not agree that anything would be a “damnable heresy”. I just said I would not go that far on the point you were making in that post.

I appreciate your flair for the dramatic but just to be accurate on what I said.

Thanks
Drake

Drake · 11-01-2017, 07:36 AM

ZNP>”Drake refuses to give a coherent defense of this doctrine using the Bible even though he has elevated it to the items of the faith, things that we cannot compromise on”

ZNP,

Brother, I did not say this nor did I characterize as above.

My position on this is outlined in my last response to zeek (#62) and then to you (#104) a few posts back. Put those two together and you have my actual view.

Thanks
Drake

Ohio · 11-01-2017, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

I’ll repeat myself and clarify...

The primary question is “what is the ministry of the age?” First, do you believe there is such a thing? If not, then all considerations about the minister of the age are moot.

If you believe there is a ministry of the age then do you believe the Lord raises up someone to take the lead in that age? If not, then all considerations about the minister of the age are moot.

If you believe that there is a ministry of the age and you also believe that God raises up someone to take the lead in that age then identifying the lead minister in that age is directly tied to the definition of the ministry of the age. Therefore, I believe that the ministry of the age is that the Lord has a special calling to return to the oneness in practicality expressed through local churches as the procedure to build the Body of Christ to consummate the present age and thereby hasten the Lords return to establish His physical kingdom on earth for 1000 years. In this I’m not following a doctrine, I am pursuing a vision. And without question if you believe that is the definition of the ministry of the age then there is also no doubt who the lead ministers of the age are.... Brothers Nee and Lee.

Drake

Whoa ... Whoa ... whole lotta hocus pocus going on here.

Drake, you start out real general in scope to get all believers on board, then you waved your hands a few times and came up with Nee and Lee. Paul called this "the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to a system of error." (Eph 4.14)

Firstly, all believers accept there is a ministry of the age. It is the New Testament ministry of the Lord during this age of grace. Jesus Christ is everything in this ministry because He Himself enacted the New Covenant with His own life and His own shed blood. The only One that God has actually "raised up" is Jesus, His son.

Paul's "heavenly vision" was actually no different from the Great Commission. His ministry was not "unique," because like the other apostles he was charged to take the gospel to the Gentile nations. In a previous post I mentioned Thomas, the apostle to India, and Bartholomew, the apostle to Albania.

Yes, there are many ministers throughout the age of grace, too many to mention. Yes, Paul was chosen to be a pattern for the church, but never chosen to be a "minister of the age." Hundreds of verses could be cited where Paul would directly dispute any such claims. During the 1st century church, there were many ministers -- apostles -- who took the lead as "lead ministers." Just because the details of the Twelve are not recorded in Acts, does not mean they never happened, God alone knows the entire history of the church! The Spirit selected a small part to record in the Bible!

Regarding your "special calling to return to the oneness in practicality," I accepted this for decades. I was completely sold on it. Then I witnessed how LSM surreptitiously acted contrary to what they taught. Then I read the testimonies in our history and discovered that this teaching "to return to the oneness in practicality," was actually never practiced. It was merely used by hypocrites to condemn all other Christians and give themselves special standing. I have written hundreds of posts detailing this hypocrisy.

Koinonia · 11-01-2017, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Evangelical >”Defining it with respect to some physical and quantifiable entity such as the city boundary is better I think.”

And the only scriptural basis for meeting separately or in fellowship from other believers.

Drake

Then why has the LC started new (separate) meetings all over the Midwest and South America?

Koinonia · 11-01-2017, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

This is a thought provoking consideration Evangelical poses.

If there are sects then what are they a sect of or from?

It seems that the majority opinion of posters in this forum is that divisions and sects are normal. When awareness says “You’re all sects” he is bringing to the top of the table that unstated view that lives under the table..... and no one seems to mind.

Drake

Drake, of course "you're all sects". You don't believe that? Every kind of distinction among believers is artificial and earthly, including the distinctions you make to define yourselves (chief among them--"minister of the age"). The Lord said that He is building HIS church, but the LC has confused "HIS church" with your group. And you are in good company. Many groups do the same thing, including other pseudo-denominations like the Plymouth Brethren (Open/Closed) or the Church of Christ--groups that you would most likely call "denominations," even though they claim to have the same standing and basis as you do.

When is it okay to separate from the group known as the Local Church? Never? How much corruption or wrong teaching or wrong practice does there need to be? According to the same standards you apply to your own group now, Luther should never have left the Catholic Church. Why does everything become fixed and permanent with Witness Lee?

awareness · 11-01-2017, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK

I am not sure what you mean by MOTA doctrine..do you mean the teaching that WL was MOTA? If so then it is not rejecting Christ.

Sorry for butting in.

Bro EvanG, it's hard putting ourselves into each others shoes. Your experience is nothing like mine, or, that of other brothers and sisters I'm in touch with, concerning the MOTA doctrine.

Maybe I don't understand your question, but if you are asking if the MOTA doctrine results in rejection of Christ, it depends on what's actually done.

As I've pointed out, when the lead elder, Mel Porter (R.I.P), came back from Anaheim with The Flow of Oneness (not called the MOTA but the same thing) I felt the Lord was telling me to do all I could to keep the LC from falling into Laodicea.

The Flow of Oneness was a hot topic in the meetings. Mel Porter was using 14 loyal brothers to seed the meetings. I was brought into the group, but it freaked me out. I thought the meetings were to be led by the Spirit. Silly naive me.

So there were lots of sharing about Lee being God's one and only spokesperson, and many renditions thereof. And when they were shared I'd stand up and share about the oneness in the Spirit, and oneness in Christ. Of course I got lots of "Amen's".

That went on for some time. I kept getting lots of Amen's. Until Mel Porter caught on that what I was saying was, oneness in the Spirit as opposed to oneness by following Lee.

That was hard for him to deal with. How could he come against oneness in the Spirit?

He did that by sending loyal brothers that I had a closeness with to "talk to me," and tell me how "it is."

In a nutshell I was told that Lee was always in his spirit and always hearing from God, so we were to only say what Lee says, which the elders bring to the meetings, and we had no right to share anything unless it reinforces or repeats what the elders bring from Witness Lee.

I disagreed. I said that we were to follow our spirit (the Lord), and if Witness Lee was in his spirit and I was in my spirit we were one. But if either of us weren't in our spirit we weren't one. I was corrected. I was told Witness Lee was always in his spirit.

I said. "Great. Then he and we are to always be in our spirit, which means, we're to follow our spirit, and not Witness Lee."

That stand was taken back to Mel Porter and then my mission to save the church from Laodicea became much more difficult. Cuz now it came down to me against the elders.

So it DID come down to "Christ" or "Lee." And in my case, and eventually in the case of many others, including one of the elders, those that stood for following Christ, and not Lee, were outta there.

Does this answer your question bro EvanG, or am I out in left field, or completely off my rocker?

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”So I asked Drake if he equated saying that WL is the MOTA with saying Jesus is Lord. He denied it, agreeing that would be a damnable heresy. ”

ZNP,

I did not agree that anything would be a “damnable heresy”. I just said I would not go that far on the point you were making in that post.

I appreciate your flair for the dramatic but just to be accurate on what I said.

Thanks
Drake

I have defined Heresy as "a school of thought". I think it is fair to characterize your response as agreeing that the MOTA doctrine is a school of thought.

I have also defined "damnable heresy" as a school of thought that results in division, sectarianism. This definition is very much aligned to WL and LSM doctrine. You have already agreed that the MOTA doctrine causes division, the only point of contention is who is responsible for that division.

So please explain how or why you would not agree that saying "not receiving the doctrine that WL is the MOTA is equal to denying Christ" is not a damnable heresy?

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”Drake refuses to give a coherent defense of this doctrine using the Bible even though he has elevated it to the items of the faith, things that we cannot compromise on”

ZNP,

Brother, I did not say this nor did I characterize as above.

My position on this is outlined in my last response to zeek (#62) and then to you (#104) a few posts back. Put those two together and you have my actual view.

Thanks
Drake

OK, sorry, I was referring to a different post you gave, but here is the summation of those two posts:

God selects a leader to carry out the ministry of that age. If you believe as I do that the Lord has recovered the truth of the local churches as the procedure to build the Body of Christ to close the present age then without question both Brother Nee and Brother Lee were those lead ministers. I also hold that the ministry of the age is a special calling. Anyone may participate but not everyone will. To me that is a matter of being faithful to what the Lord has shown each one.

Therefore, though there are many and varied paths one a christian can take as relates to their church life, I have to take the one that the Lord has shown me and be faithful to that. The ministry of the age will have a leader, a lead minister, and a supporting cast of ministers. Yet, the real question is what is the ministry of the age and if one does not agree that such a thing exists or that it is not of the local churches then it matters not about the minister of the age and the whole conversation is moot.

The primary question is “what is the ministry of the age?” First, do you believe there is such a thing? If not, then all considerations about the minister of the age are moot.

If you believe there is a ministry of the age then do you believe the Lord raises up someone to take the lead in that age? If not, then all considerations about the minister of the age are moot.

If you believe that there is a ministry of the age and you also believe that God raises up someone to take the lead in that age then identifying the lead minister in that age is directly tied to the definition of the ministry of the age. Therefore, I believe that the ministry of the age is that the Lord has a special calling to return to the oneness in practicality expressed through local churches as the procedure to build the Body of Christ to consummate the present age and thereby hasten the Lords return to establish His physical kingdom on earth for 1000 years. In this I’m not following a doctrine, I am pursuing a vision. And without question if you believe that is the definition of the ministry of the age then there is also no doubt who the lead ministers of the age are.... Brothers Nee and Lee.

Clearly, with Drake everything hinges on the doctrine of "The Ground of the Church". If that were proven to be unscriptural, then everything else falls.

I do agree with him that if the "Ground of the Church" as taught bey Nee and Lee were scriptural then it would change a lot. However, I have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is unscriptural.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 10:16 AM

Here are my issues with "The Ground of the Church" doctrine.

I agree that the temple is a type of the church. I also agree that in the OT the ground of the Temple was very significant. I also agree that the ground of the church was specifically identified as something that would keep the oneness. So on these three points I completely agree with WN and WL.

What I don't agree with is the definition of what that ground is. In a bizarre twist WN used two inferential verses (appoint elders in every city / appoint elders in every church) to build his NT doctrine. This doesn't make sense. Why would something this crucial be inferential?

To me the NT gives a very clear black and white answer as to what the ground of the church is: the blood of Christ.

In the OT typology the ground refers to where Abraham offered up Isaac as a type of Christ as our burnt offering. Instead of Isaac he offered a ram, again signifying Christ's substitutionary death for us.

This ground was also the same place where David purchased a threshing floor as a peace offering and sin offering. David was a type of Christ, Christ's crucifixion was a peace offering and a sin offering.

In typology the ground signifies the place where Christ was crucified for us. It demonstrates the price God the father paid and the price God the Son paid.

I was redeemed by Jesus blood. This is why whenever the NT talks about false prophets it reminds us 'the MOTA wasn't crucified for you, Jesus was'. Paul wasn't and the super apostles weren't, it was Jesus. He is our redeemer.

A big part of the teaching involves the point that you can't build on a piece of land until you bought it. Jesus blood was the price paid. He didn't redeem a city boundary line for fluctuating cities in the world. He paid for us.

If you don't agree that the price paid for the ground of the church is the blood of Christ then you are involved in a perverted gospel with a different Jesus. If you do agree that the price paid was the blood of Christ but think that He somehow was purchasing city boundary lines that is idiotic.

It is the blood of Christ that keeps us one, not the fact that we call our building such and such or that we delineate the boundaries of the church by the city boundary. For example, I used to live in Canaan NH, the Local church was minuscule and was in Hanover, NH. No one cared that I lived outside the city boundary. Hypocritical and idiotic to really think that is important. What they did care about was that I stood on the blood of Christ.

Ohio · 11-01-2017, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So it DID come down to "Christ" or "Lee." And in my case, and eventually in the case of many others, including one of the elders, those that stood for following Christ, and not Lee, were outta there.

Does this answer your question bro EvanG, or am I out in left field, or completely off my rocker?

This same thing happened for decades in many LC's, especially during the infamous "New Way," which supposedly was about the Gospel, but Lee's/LSM's hidden agenda was the forced takeover of all the LC's.

But even before the New Way, "flows" came from Anaheim which created conflicts in all the LC's. The first serious conflict I witnessed was in May of 1977, the notorious "Young Galileans" movement. This nearly tore the Church in Cleveland in half. (But apparently that was Lee's plan.) W. Lee was a master at disguising his takeover maneuvers and intimidation of leaders as something "spiritual" and from God. Eventually after decades of this stuff, one is forced to conclude that either Lee is right and everyone else is wrong, or that Witness Lee was merely a flawed, often self-serving, minister.

What Historian Roy Coad said of JN Darby is so applicable here -- "With [Witness Lee] there is so much good, and so much more wrong."

Ohio · 11-01-2017, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you don't agree that the price paid for the ground of the church is the blood of Christ then you are involved in a perverted gospel with a different Jesus. If you do agree that the price paid was the blood of Christ but think that He somehow was purchasing city boundary lines that is idiotic.

It is the blood of Christ that keeps us one, not the fact that we call our building such and such or that we delineate the boundaries of the church by the city boundary.

Excellent points, ZNP.

Paul's polemic letter to the Galatians confirms this exactly. The Judaizers deceived the young believers in Galatia into believing circumcision, not the blood of Jesus Christ, was necessary for salvation, and the oneness of the body. That was another gospel. Paul rightly condemned it.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Excellent points, ZNP.

Paul's polemic letter to the Galatians confirms this exactly. The Judaizers deceived the young believers in Galatia into believing circumcision, not the blood of Jesus Christ, was necessary for salvation, and the oneness of the body. That was another gospel. Paul rightly condemned it.

Also I think it is outrageous to raise this doctrine to the level of "the Faith" on which there is no compromise while at the same time having a "as the lord leads" attitude. If this is a matter of the faith then you should defend it, confirm it, fight the good fight. If it is something that we should be general about then it is not a basis for division.

Drake · 11-01-2017, 12:16 PM

awareness>"am I out in left field, or completely off my rocker?"

Awareness, please open a separate thread to discuss the above topic.

Seriously, thanks for sharing your experience brother. I know from this and other posts that it was difficult for you.

Drake

Drake · 11-01-2017, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have defined Heresy as "a school of thought". I think it is fair to characterize your response as agreeing that the MOTA doctrine is a school of thought.

I have also defined "damnable heresy" as a school of thought that results in division, sectarianism. This definition is very much aligned to WL and LSM doctrine. You have already agreed that the MOTA doctrine causes division, the only point of contention is who is responsible for that division.

So please explain how or why you would not agree that saying "not receiving the doctrine that WL is the MOTA is equal to denying Christ" is not a damnable heresy?

ZNP,

Your logic is yours, not mine. Your definitions are yours, not mine.

First, I do not agree that I am following a doctrine.... I have explained it before.

I'll be more explicit... I do not care one iota for a "MOTA doctrine" nor to follow one. I care for Christ and that I may be found faithful to what He has shown me.

Drake

Koinonia · 11-01-2017, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry for butting in.

Bro EvanG, it's hard putting ourselves into each others shoes. Your experience is nothing like mine, or, that of other brothers and sisters I'm in touch with, concerning the MOTA doctrine.

Maybe I don't understand your question, but if you are asking if the MOTA doctrine results in rejection of Christ, it depends on what's actually done.

As I've pointed out, when the lead elder, Mel Porter (R.I.P), came back from Anaheim with The Flow of Oneness (not called the MOTA but the same thing) I felt the Lord was telling me to do all I could to keep the LC from falling into Laodicea.

The Flow of Oneness was a hot topic in the meetings. Mel Porter was using 14 loyal brothers to seed the meetings. I was brought into the group, but it freaked me out. I thought the meetings were to be led by the Spirit. Silly naive me.

So there were lots of sharing about Lee being God's one and only spokesperson, and many renditions thereof. And when they were shared I'd stand up and share about the oneness in the Spirit, and oneness in Christ. Of course I got lots of "Amen's".

That went on for some time. I kept getting lots of Amen's. Until Mel Porter caught on that what I was saying was, oneness in the Spirit as opposed to oneness by following Lee.

That was hard for him to deal with. How could he come against oneness in the Spirit?

He did that by sending loyal brothers that I had a closeness with to "talk to me," and tell me how "it is."

In a nutshell I was told that Lee was always in his spirit and always hearing from God, so we were to only say what Lee says, which the elders bring to the meetings, and we had no right to share anything unless it reinforces or repeats what the elders bring from Witness Lee.

I disagreed. I said that we were to follow our spirit (the Lord), and if Witness Lee was in his spirit and I was in my spirit we were one. But if either of us weren't in our spirit we weren't one. I was corrected. I was told Witness Lee was always in his spirit.

I said. "Great. Then he and we are to always be in our spirit, which means, we're to follow our spirit, and not Witness Lee."

That stand was taken back to Mel Porter and then my mission to save the church from Laodicea became much more difficult. Cuz now it came down to me against the elders.

So it DID come down to "Christ" or "Lee." And in my case, and eventually in the case of many others, including one of the elders, those that stood for following Christ, and not Lee, were outta there.

Does this answer your question bro EvanG, or am I out in left field, or completely off my rocker?

Awareness, when I raised my concerns about the MOTA concept, on three separate occasions with three different LC coworkers, I was repeatedly encouraged to "leave like a gentleman." This phrase, by the way, is a Witness Lee-ism. But they do not understand the sheer hypocrisy of their position--claiming to be "the church" and at the same time expecting people to leave if they disagree with this ridiculous, extraneous teaching.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Your logic is yours, not mine. Your definitions are yours, not mine.

First, I do not agree that I am following a doctrine.... I have explained it before.

I'll be more explicit... I do not care one iota for a "MOTA doctrine" nor to follow one. I care for Christ and that I may be found faithful to what He has shown me.

Drake

I feel I understand that. In one post I referred to the story about the man who refused to carry a gun in the war, yet served as a medic. It is an amazing story about a man who was faithful to what the Lord told him despite great opposition and personal risk. In addition it is an example of something that the Lord might speak to one person but not another.

That said the only basis for separating yourself from others would be the items of the faith. These are the only items that would justify not taking the table with other Christians and teaching that other Christians take the table in a manner that is unworthy.

So then which is it? Do you elevate MOTA to an item of the faith or not?

If not does that mean you disagree with WL and LSM documents that Christians who do not meet on what he refers to as "the proper ground" are meeting in a manner unworthy?

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well now I am completely confused. How do you distinguish "the Minister of the Age" from everyone else? If there is no distinction, then the entire doctrine is total vanity, troubling everyone over nothing. According to Kerry, the definition I have been working on, it is a "unique" person. What makes this person unique? It is a "particular" person. How is this person singled out from the rest of the Body?

If there is a distinction then you have once again dodged the question.

As Drake said, it is through whom God gives the vision. Your question is like asking, how do we distinguish between Moses and Aaron, Abraham and Lot? Well the big clue is who is God speaking His vision to? How come we esteem Moses and Abraham and not Aaron and Lot? In many cases probably because these are the biblical heroes everyone is taught about at Sunday school, everyone knows them. But how about because they were the ones through whom God gave the vision? As I said before, God could have led His people with angels, aliens and UFO's or even directly with puffs of smoke, but He tends to use people.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical on the other hand is impossible to understand. He refers to "leaders" instead of "unique and particular leader" that Kerry defines.

I'm confused ZNP because you are contradicting yourself about what I said. Here you say I refer to "leaders", but in a few posts back you said I was referring to a unique and particular leader and not leaders:

If we are talking about leaders (plural), elders (plural), shepherds, teachers, etc. Then yes, I have no problem. But you aren't. You are talking about a "unique" person, a "particular man".

I believe I have only been talking about a "unique and particular leader", not leaders. Leaders (plural) in the sense of Lee/Nee combined, or including all the MOTA , Luther etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He does not describe the MOTA as a leader but rather a person whose "Ministry he follows". He describes rejecting the doctrine of MOTA as being equivalent to rejecting the gospel of Christ. As though that is somehow different from equating WL with Christ.

I'm not sure where you got this from. Perhaps the "strawman version" of Evangelical you have invented in your mind. Or maybe you are thinking of somebody else.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Here are my issues with "The Ground of the Church" doctrine.

I agree that the temple is a type of the church. I also agree that in the OT the ground of the Temple was very significant. I also agree that the ground of the church was specifically identified as something that would keep the oneness. So on these three points I completely agree with WN and WL.

What I don't agree with is the definition of what that ground is. In a bizarre twist WN used two inferential verses (appoint elders in every city / appoint elders in every church) to build his NT doctrine. This doesn't make sense. Why would something this crucial be inferential?

To me the NT gives a very clear black and white answer as to what the ground of the church is: the blood of Christ.

In the OT typology the ground refers to where Abraham offered up Isaac as a type of Christ as our burnt offering. Instead of Isaac he offered a ram, again signifying Christ's substitutionary death for us.

This ground was also the same place where David purchased a threshing floor as a peace offering and sin offering. David was a type of Christ, Christ's crucifixion was a peace offering and a sin offering.

In typology the ground signifies the place where Christ was crucified for us. It demonstrates the price God the father paid and the price God the Son paid.

I was redeemed by Jesus blood. This is why whenever the NT talks about false prophets it reminds us 'the MOTA wasn't crucified for you, Jesus was'. Paul wasn't and the super apostles weren't, it was Jesus. He is our redeemer.

A big part of the teaching involves the point that you can't build on a piece of land until you bought it. Jesus blood was the price paid. He didn't redeem a city boundary line for fluctuating cities in the world. He paid for us.

If you don't agree that the price paid for the ground of the church is the blood of Christ then you are involved in a perverted gospel with a different Jesus. If you do agree that the price paid was the blood of Christ but think that He somehow was purchasing city boundary lines that is idiotic.

It is the blood of Christ that keeps us one, not the fact that we call our building such and such or that we delineate the boundaries of the church by the city boundary. For example, I used to live in Canaan NH, the Local church was minuscule and was in Hanover, NH. No one cared that I lived outside the city boundary. Hypocritical and idiotic to really think that is important. What they did care about was that I stood on the blood of Christ.

ZNP I think you are half right because you are correct if speaking about the spiritual side of things but your definition is impractical in the real world. It is true that we are one because of the blood of Christ, and we can apply the blood of Christ to keep the oneness. Yet I believe practically we need something tangible in order to be practically one. Look around you - Christians are not meeting together just because they all have the blood of Christ. Every believer has the Father, the Spirit, has the blood, but look around you - where is the oneness?

If the ground of the church is the blood of Christ, and this ground of the church would keep the oneness - then how do you explain so many denominations? Unless they live in a hole, anyone can see that the blood of Christ which all believers have, has not kept them one in a practical sense.

In practical experience believers have found that something else keeps us one. Each denomination has their own "something else", but we prefer that "something else" to be what the bible/early church reveals it should be (the locality), rather than a Confession, Creed, speaking in tongues, methods of baptism, or allegiance to a centuries old tradition and organized institutions.

Here is a simple analogy - in a family of 10, they all share the same blood and DNA. Now in one sense they are one because they are a family. But practically, trying to get them together for Thanksgiving is incredibly hard because some don't like celebrating Thanksgiving, others hate turkey, others don't want to travel too far. As this simple analogy shows, just having the same blood is not enough for practical oneness.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As Drake said, it is through whom God gives the vision. Your question is like asking, how do we distinguish between Moses and Aaron, Abraham and Lot? Well the big clue is who is God speaking His vision to? How come we esteem Moses and Abraham and not Aaron and Lot? In many cases probably because these are the biblical heroes everyone is taught about at Sunday school, everyone knows them. But how about because they were the ones through whom God gave the vision? As I said before, God could have led His people with angels, aliens and UFO's or even directly with puffs of smoke, but He tends to use people.

So then, you see the MOTA as a mediator between God and Man. God gives the MOTA the vision and the MOTA shares that vision with us. Is this correct?

(Mediator -- link between two parties)

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNP I think you are half right because you are correct if speaking about the spiritual side of things but your definition is impractical in the real world. It is true that we are one because of the blood of Christ, and we can apply the blood of Christ to keep the oneness. Yet I believe practically we need something tangible in order to be practically one. Look around you - Christians are not meeting together just because they all have the blood of Christ. Every believer has the Father, the Spirit, has the blood, but look around you - where is the oneness?

OK, we have been hammering you on the MOTA, Ministry of the Age and Vision of the Age. Since the supposed goal of this vision is the oneness let's look at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the ground of the church is the blood of Christ, and this ground of the church would keep the oneness - then how do you explain so many denominations? Unless they live in a hole, anyone can see that the blood of Christ which all believers have, has not kept them one in a practical sense.

Have you actually visited them? In the last 12 months I have visited 6. I attended a bible study with a group down the street from me while continuing to meet where I have been for the last 20 years. In addition while visiting relatives in St. Louis and Vermont and attending funerals and memorial services I have attended another 4. These have ranged from new life, non denominational, mega church, as well as some very fundamental and traditional denominations. I had no difficulty being one with everyone in every meeting. Remember that included me sharing quite a bit in the Bible studies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In practical experience believers have found that something else keeps us one. Each denomination has their own "something else", but we prefer that "something else" to be what the bible reveals it should be (the locality), rather than a Confession, Creed, speaking in tongues, methods of baptism, or allegiance to a centuries old tradition and organized institutions.

That is what made me one with everyone. I had been redeemed by the Lord and I shared the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here is a simple analogy - in a family of 10, they all share the same blood and DNA. Now in one sense they are one because they are a family. But practically, trying to get them together for Thanksgiving is incredibly hard because some don't like celebrating Thanksgiving, others hate turkey, others don't want to travel too far. As this simply analogy shows, just having the same blood is not enough for practical oneness.

I travel 4 hours for thanksgiving, and have done every year. We generally have at least 30 or more at dinner. We are spread all over the entire North East. I get it that this kind of meeting is "practical". But how is it anymore practical than meeting in cyberspace? Or on the phone?

The boundaries of NYC are not convenient for practical oneness. I can tell you that I very rarely ever go to the Bronx or Staten Island. Just because they are within the boundaries of the city doesn't make them convenient. In contrast when I lived in Odessa Tx we met jointly with saints from Midland Tx. It only takes 20 minutes to drive from Midland to Odessa. By contrast it would take me an hour to go into the Bronx or Staten Island. It would also cost $15 in tolls and parking would be another big cost. This simple reference to real life experience demonstrates that WL's "ground of the church" is not the practical solution you sell it as.

But you asked me to look at denominations, so let me ask you -- how about a divorced couple. Why did they divorce? Would "practical oneness" -- putting them into the same house really be a "practical solution"? On the other hand how about the cross. If both people willingly embrace the cross and the way of the cross would that be the practical solution? The Judaizers taught that circumcision was the answer because they didn't want to embrace the cross of Christ. Now you are pushing this modern day Judaizer cult, the answer is the boundary of the city because you also don't want to embrace the cross. The practice is total hypocrisy:

1. The name is critical, can't have a name except for "The church in ..." unless this isn't convenient. The church in NY can't incorporate as the church in NY, therefore they incorporate as "The Christian fellowship center" and in this case the name is not important.

2. The boundary of the city is "practical oneness" unless that is not convenient. I used to come to the church in NY from a different city than NYC because I didn't live in NYC. No problem. In New Hampshire I lived in Canaan and commuted to Hanover to meet -- no biggie. In Odessa we met with saints from Midland -- no problem. In Taipei there were 22 meeting halls in Taipei, no problem. In some cities now there are two separate "Church in _____" because they had a split. Once again, sanctioned by LSM. Etc., etc., etc. You pretend that you are being faithful to the Lord's command but are more than willing to compromise any and every way.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, you see the MOTA as a mediator between God and Man. God gives the MOTA the vision and the MOTA shares that vision with us. Is this correct?

(Mediator -- link between two parties)

First sentence I disagree, second sentence I agree. I don't see what is wrong with the word minister. Mediation implies some dispute between parties, or even to intercede. A MOTA could intercede , and in this sense mediate, and that is what Abraham and Moses did, but in terms of the vision, mediation is not the right word I think.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

First sentence I disagree, second sentence I agree. I don't see what is wrong with the word minister. Mediation implies some dispute between parties, or even to intercede. A MOTA could intercede , and in this sense mediate, and that is what Abraham and Moses did, but in terms of the vision, mediation is not the right word I think.

OK, you see WL as the MOTA that God gave the vision to and then WL gave the vision to man.

Now this vision included "the ground of the church" -- Christians had left the pure word of God and fallen into denominations, but thanks to this vision which WL ministered these people could leave the denominations (the whore, the Great Babylon, and all the daughters of the whore) and return to the "proper ground".

But we should not infer that there was any dispute between God and these wayward believers in Babylon?

Ohio · 11-01-2017, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Awareness, when I raised my concerns about the MOTA concept, on three separate occasions with three different LC coworkers, I was repeatedly encouraged to "leave like a gentleman." This phrase, by the way, is a Witness Lee-ism. But they do not understand the sheer hypocrisy of their position--claiming to be "the church" and at the same time expecting people to leave if they disagree with this ridiculous, extraneous teaching.

Of course it is.

Definition:
"leave·like·a·gent·le·men" /lēv/līk/ə/jen(t)lmən/

noun 1. walk away politely, do not look back, and keep your mouth shut

Drake · 11-01-2017, 04:12 PM

ZNP>"So then which is it? Do you elevate MOTA to an item of the faith or not?

If not does that mean you disagree with WL and LSM documents that Christians who do not meet on what he refers to as "the proper ground" are meeting in a manner unworthy?"

By " the faith" you mean that which is shared by every born again believer? If you meant that I find the question puzzling. The answer is no, of course.

If you mean do I follow what the Lord has shown me by faith, then the answer is yes and the vision is an item of my faith. And vision includes the local churches meeting on the proper ground of oneness. So the answer to the second question is no.

Drake

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Have you actually visited them? In the last 12 months I have visited 6. I attended a bible study with a group down the street from me while continuing to meet where I have been for the last 20 years. In addition while visiting relatives in St. Louis and Vermont and attending funerals and memorial services I have attended another 4. These have ranged from new life, non denominational, mega church, as well as some very fundamental and traditional denominations. I had no difficulty being one with everyone in every meeting. Remember that included me sharing quite a bit in the Bible studies.

That is what made me one with everyone. I had been redeemed by the Lord and I shared the Bible.

Yes but you are talking about your personal feeling or experience when you visit different churches occasionally. You are experiencing the spiritual reality of oneness (the blood, the Spirit) etc, but I would guess that not everyone is doing what you are doing, particularly not the church pastors/priests. Can you imagine what the pastor./priest would think if everyone in their church visited other churches every Sunday? Suppose that every Christian did not have a "home church" and every Sunday attended a different church. Not only would the pastors complain it would question the need for their very existence. I think most church folk and leaders don't like it when people come and go like the wind. This is for a practical reason , and it matters less that everyone is "blood related".

So I am not talking about visiting churches and blending in or feeling one when we visit churches. I am talking about the very existence of these separate churches. All believers have the blood of Christ, yet different churches exist (when in many cases they don't have to) - why? The blood, as powerful as it is for salvation, has not stopped the situation of denominationalism. Just like being blood related to a person doesn't guarantee them coming to your thanksgiving - you better be sure you got the best turkey around for them to choose your place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is what made me one with everyone. I had been redeemed by the Lord and I shared the Bible. I travel 4 hours for thanksgiving, and have done every year. We generally have at least 30 or more at dinner. We are spread all over the entire North East. I get it that this kind of meeting is "practical". But how is it anymore practical than meeting in cyberspace? Or on the phone?

I think the personal experience of everyone would be similar, but think of this - if everyone was doing what you were doing, going to different churches to experience oneness, how can you accomplish anything meaningful in a corporate way? How can you grow together? Oneness is more than just feeling at one with other believers - every genuine believer should feel that. Even visitors to the local churches can feel one with us and enjoy the Lord. But there is the growth aspect as well - how can we grow together?

Consider the reason why Watchman Nee put forward the ground of locality to satisfy the needs of new converts who did not want to join a particular 'flavor' of Christianity and who could not simply travel around visiting different churches each Sunday with no real place to call home and grow?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The boundaries of NYC are not convenient for practical oneness. I can tell you that I very rarely ever go to the Bronx or Staten Island. Just because they are within the boundaries of the city doesn't make them convenient. In contrast when I lived in Odessa Tx we met jointly with saints from Midland Tx. It only takes 20 minutes to drive from Midland to Odessa. By contrast it would take me an hour to go into the Bronx or Staten Island. It would also cost $15 in tolls and parking would be another big cost. This simple reference to real life experience demonstrates that WL's "ground of the church" is not the practical solution you sell it as.

I understand and practically there is no issue travelling and visiting other churches for convenience. I have never encountered anyone telling me to "stay in my locality" when I visit a church nor are the boundaries so rigid. Blending is encouraged and no one ever asked "why are you here".

But the practical oneness I'm talking about is not actually for convenience, it's for unity/oneness. It's the ability for all different kinds of Christians to come together for Sunday meeting in a simple way, without much dispute.

Consider that when two parties have a dispute, they usually mediate on a third, neutral ground. I think of Catholicism and Protestantism having a long running dispute, and attempts to build bridges (ecumenism) can only go so far. Only if both meet on a third neutral ground can there be genuine unity. I see this neutral ground as the locality. Both Catholic and Protestant have the blood of Christ, yet this is not enough to stop the long running disputes. A third and practical solution is needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But you asked me to look at denominations, so let me ask you -- how about a divorced couple. Why did they divorce? Would "practical oneness" -- putting them into the same house really be a "practical solution"? On the other hand how about the cross. If both people willingly embrace the cross and the way of the cross would that be the practical solution? The Judaizers taught that circumcision was the answer because they didn't want to embrace the cross of Christ. Now you are pushing this modern day Judaizer cult, the answer is the boundary of the city because you also don't want to embrace the cross. The practice is total hypocrisy:

1. The name is critical, can't have a name except for "The church in ..." unless this isn't convenient. The church in NY can't incorporate as the church in NY, therefore they incorporate as "The Christian fellowship center" and in this case the name is not important.

2. The boundary of the city is "practical oneness" unless that is not convenient. I used to come to the church in NY from a different city than NYC because I didn't live in NYC. No problem. In New Hampshire I lived in Canaan and commuted to Hanover to meet -- no biggie. In Odessa we met with saints from Midland -- no problem. In Taipei there were 22 meeting halls in Taipei, no problem. In some cities now there are two separate "Church in _____" because they had a split. Once again, sanctioned by LSM. Etc., etc., etc. You pretend that you are being faithful to the Lord's command but are more than willing to compromise any and every way.

According to the Bible every Christian is in the "same house" whether they like it or not, because of the "same blood". The local churches are a reflection of that fact, in contrast to the denominations who are a reflection of past disputes, wars, and in personal preferences.

Something worked for the early church for achieving and maintaining practical unity for a time, and this was either brought about by a top down hierarchical structure like in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, or it was the ground of locality. There's really few other choices if we are talking about practical oneness.

Of course, anyone can say that they are "one with everyone" despite attending different churches each Sunday of which there are 100 to choose from within a 5 mile radius! Spiritually it's true but practically it's hard for them to grow with others and accomplish anything.

Similarly anyone can meet "over the internet" and claim to be one with the other person on the line but face to face it's a different story.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, you see WL as the MOTA that God gave the vision to and then WL gave the vision to man.

Now this vision included "the ground of the church" -- Christians had left the pure word of God and fallen into denominations, but thanks to this vision which WL ministered these people could leave the denominations (the whore, the Great Babylon, and all the daughters of the whore) and return to the "proper ground".

But we should not infer that there was any dispute between God and these wayward believers in Babylon?

That's right, just like Christians left the pure word of God and fell into Catholicism and thanks to the vision which Luther ministered people could be free from that and Moses brought the people out of Egypt, and Paul out of Judaism. Were any of these men perfect? Of course not. But they had a vision from God (it would seem).

I've never thought of there being a dispute between God and wayward believers in Babylon. I think of Babylon as a place which holds God's people in bondage and God sent WN and WL to help rescue and bring out. The call is to come out so as not to share in Babylon's plagues .The plagues are not meant for God's people but for the enemy.

So all that really matters is not the doctrine about whether this person or that person is the MOTA, but did God give them such a vision? Catholics would say no to Luther just as Judaizers would say no to Paul. Many it seems say no to Nee or Lee and the consequence of that is temporal rather than eternal.

What is going to rescue someone out of Babylon is not believing or not believing that WL was MOTA but whether or not they will follow the vision and actually leave Babylon for themselves. As Drake and I said before (in another thread possibly), WL and WN's ministry is appreciated by many around the world even the likes of Joyce Meyer. It's just a shame if they only appreciate it while staying in Babylon themselves.

ZNPaaneah · 11-01-2017, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, just like Christians left the pure word of God and fell into Catholicism and thanks to the vision which Luther ministered people could be free from that and Moses brought the people out of Egypt, and Paul out of Judaism. Were any of these men perfect? Of course not. But they had a vision from God (it would seem).

I've never thought of there being a dispute between God and wayward believers in Babylon. I think of Babylon as a place which holds God's people in bondage and God sent WN and WL to help rescue and bring out. The call is to come out so as not to share in Babylon's plagues .The plagues are not meant for God's people but for the enemy.

Seriously?

We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God. (Jeremiah 3:25)

No dispute?

And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath. Jeremiah 21:5

Do I really need to go on?

4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Sounds like a dispute.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Yep, that is a dispute.

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So all that really matters is not the doctrine about whether this person or that person is the MOTA, but did God give them such a vision? Catholics would say no to Luther just as Judaizers would say no to Paul. Many it seems say no to Nee or Lee and the consequence of that is temporal rather than eternal.

This is Drake's point -- if you accept that the "Ground of the Church" is "the vision of the age" then you can also accept that WL is the MOTA, if you don't accept the first premise then obviously you won't accept the second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is going to rescue someone out of Babylon is not believing or not believing that WL was MOTA but whether or not they will follow the vision and actually leave Babylon for themselves. As Drake and I said before (in another thread possibly), WL and WN's ministry is appreciated by many around the world even the likes of Joyce Meyer. It's just a shame if they only appreciate it while staying in Babylon themselves.

Which is why I left the LRC, though I would compare it to Sardis and Laodicea.

awareness · 11-01-2017, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>"So then which is it? Do you elevate MOTA to an item of the faith or not?

If not does that mean you disagree with WL and LSM documents that Christians who do not meet on what he refers to as "the proper ground" are meeting in a manner unworthy?"

By " the faith" you mean that which is shared by every born again believer? If you meant that I find the question puzzling. The answer is no, of course.

If you mean do I follow what the Lord has shown me by faith, then the answer is yes and the vision is an item of my faith. And vision includes the local churches meeting on the proper ground of oneness. So the answer to the second question is no.

Drake

Hey bro Drake, please tell me. I'd like to know more about this vision you speak of. Like : What vision? Who's vision? And, have you had a vision? How, when, and in what form?

Drake · 11-01-2017, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro Drake, please tell me. I'd like to know more about this vision you speak of. Like : What vision? Who's vision? And, have you had a vision? How, when, and in what form?

HI awareness,

I posted a detailed explanation a few months back. Tried to find the link but you will find it there.

Drake

awareness · 11-01-2017, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

HI awareness,

I posted a detailed explanation a few months back. Tried to find the link but you will find it there.

Drake

Sorry I missed it. I know others that have had visions, some pretty wild. But they swear by them. That's why I was interested in yours.

Thanks... and blessings in your vision.

awareness · 11-01-2017, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, just like Christians left the pure word of God and fell into Catholicism and thanks to the vision which Luther ministered people could be free from that and Moses brought the people out of Egypt, and Paul out of Judaism. Were any of these men perfect? Of course not. But they had a vision from God (it would seem).

I've never thought of there being a dispute between God and wayward believers in Babylon. I think of Babylon as a place which holds God's people in bondage and God sent WN and WL to help rescue and bring out. The call is to come out so as not to share in Babylon's plagues .The plagues are not meant for God's people but for the enemy.

So all that really matters is not the doctrine about whether this person or that person is the MOTA, but did God give them such a vision? Catholics would say no to Luther just as Judaizers would say no to Paul. Many it seems say no to Nee or Lee and the consequence of that is temporal rather than eternal.

What is going to rescue someone out of Babylon is not believing or not believing that WL was MOTA but whether or not they will follow the vision and actually leave Babylon for themselves. As Drake and I said before (in another thread possibly), WL and WN's ministry is appreciated by many around the world even the likes of Joyce Meyer. It's just a shame if they only appreciate it while staying in Babylon themselves.

WOW!!! brother!!! WOW!!! You're deep into the Nee/Lee bubble.

Well I say, go with gusto, give it your all, hold nothing back, and then see what you are into from that view point. So more power to you brother.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Seriously?

We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God. (Jeremiah 3:25)

No dispute?

And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath. Jeremiah 21:5

Do I really need to go on?

4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Sounds like a dispute.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Yep, that is a dispute.

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

This is Drake's point -- if you accept that the "Ground of the Church" is "the vision of the age" then you can also accept that WL is the MOTA, if you don't accept the first premise then obviously you won't accept the second.

Which is why I left the LRC, though I would compare it to Sardis and Laodicea.

There is obviously a relationship between the ground/vision and the minister.

Suppose a person said "I accept that we are saved by faith alone, but I think Luther was a heretic, and Calvin", and all the other reformers from which the specific terminology of "faith alone" came. Anyone who says "I am saved by faith alone" is really propagating Luther and Calvin's ministry. No one was speaking like that before Calvin/Luther but everyone speaks like that today because of them.

Evangelical · 11-01-2017, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

WOW!!! brother!!! WOW!!! You're deep into the Nee/Lee bubble.

Well I say, go with gusto, give it your all, hold nothing back, and then see what you are into from that view point. So more power to you brother.

We have to magnify our ministry brother.

Meribah · 11-02-2017, 04:19 AM

You see? It is clearly exactly as I said. WL is a mediator between them and the Word. Because he has so carefully planted the seeds of his doctrine and his special position throughout the life studies and the footnotes, these individuals are caught in a circle. They are completely unable to see and find the way out. We have all spent quite a bit of time with them here going round and round in their obstinate reasoning. What is so clear to us is not even there to them. They are obedient and docile. They glory in this. They have been blinded.

And you see that Evangelical's last statement above was that they needed to magnify their leader. This is not biblical and I think it definitely falls into the category of complete adulation and idolatry. I am unable to think of any verse in the Bible that tells us to magnify our Earthly leaders. This is definitely Chinese culture. It most certainly is not mine and it is not Christian culture either. Our brother Paul taught against these kinds of things. But they refuse to see it. They have turned away to their own tales and a person. They have itching ears that only care to hear what WL has to say. So in the end, they must be left as they are. The rest of us are glad that we saw the light and that we walk in liberty. We can only shake our heads in pity at what they have chosen.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meribah

You see? It is clearly exactly as I said. WL is a mediator between them and the Word. Because he has so carefully planted the seeds of his doctrine and his special position throughout the life studies and the footnotes, these individuals are caught in a circle. They are completely unable to see and find the way out. We have all spent quite a bit of time with them here going round and round in their obstinate reasoning. What is so clear to us is not even there to them. They are obedient and docile. They glory in this. They have been blinded.

And you see that Evangelical's last statement above was that they needed to magnify their leader. This is not biblical and I think it definitely falls into the category of complete adulation and idolatry. I am unable to think of any verse in the Bible that tells us to magnify our Earthly leaders. This is definitely Chinese culture. It most certainly is not mine and it is not Christian culture either. Our brother Paul taught against these kinds of things. But they refuse to see it. They have turned away to their own tales and a person. They have itching ears that only care to hear what WL has to say. So in the end, they must be left as they are. The rest of us are glad that we saw the light and that we walk in liberty. We can only shake our heads in pity at what they have chosen.

I said ministry and you changed it to minister which is very dishonest. You then proceeded to claim I am an idolater based upon your misrepresentation of what I wrote. As for a verse try Romans 11.13. Magnifying ministry is biblical and Paul said it.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

WOW!!! brother!!! WOW!!! You're deep into the Nee/Lee bubble.

Well I say, go with gusto, give it your all, hold nothing back, and then see what you are into from that view point. So more power to you brother.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is obviously a relationship between the ground/vision and the minister.

Suppose a person said "I accept that we are saved by faith alone, but I think Luther was a heretic, and Calvin", and all the other reformers from which the specific terminology of "faith alone" came. Anyone who says "I am saved by faith alone" is really propagating Luther and Calvin's ministry. No one was speaking like that before Calvin/Luther but everyone speaks like that today because of them.

What about the Apostle Paul and Romans? Your hypothetical doesn't make the slightest sense since Luther was quoting and expounding Paul.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What about the Apostle Paul and Romans? Your hypothetical doesn't make the slightest sense since Luther was quoting and expounding Paul.

Please quote the verse from Paul that says saved by faith alone then. The term faith alone was not prevalent until the reformation.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Please quote the verse from Paul that says saved by faith alone then. The term faith alone was not prevalent until the reformation.

“Luther taught that salvation and, consequently, eternal life are not earned by good deeds but are received only as the free gift of God's grace through the believer's faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin.”

If you are concerned about sounding like Luther, then quote Paul from Ephesians instead:

“4But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The reason you may think he "sounded like a heretic" is because you were misquoting him.

But let's not lose sight of the relevant conversation to this thread. You saw WL as an intermediary between God and Man, God gave WL the vision, WL gave the vision to us. You didn't agree with the term "dispute", you didn't see God having a dispute with man when they were in division, in Babylon. I provided you with just a few verses that prove without a doubt there was a dispute. So now you change the subject? Should I therefore conclude that you do agree WL was a mediator between God and Man, on the same level as Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and Man and this explains why the LRC separates themselves from all others who do not accept this teaching?

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

“Luther taught that salvation and, consequently, eternal life are not earned by good deeds but are received only as the free gift of God's grace through the believer's faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin.”

If you are concerned about sounding like Luther, then quote Paul from Ephesians instead:

“4But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The reason you may think he "sounded like a heretic" is because you were misquoting him.

But let's not lose sight of the relevant conversation to this thread. You saw WL as an intermediary between God and Man, God gave WL the vision, WL gave the vision to us. You didn't agree with the term "dispute", you didn't see God having a dispute with man when they were in division, in Babylon. I provided you with just a few verses that prove without a doubt there was a dispute. So now you change the subject? Should I therefore conclude that you do agree WL was a mediator between God and Man, on the same level as Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and Man and this explains why the LRC separates themselves from all others who do not accept this teaching?

I ask again..where is the verse where Paul says faith alone? You said Luther was quoting Paul. That keyword "alone" is the only thing separating Luther from Catholic. The term is very unique to Luther and Paul never used it.

I already told you that I disagree with the term mediator, you used that term not me. Now you pretend that I agree with you? My view that it is not a dispute is based on the verse concerned in Revelation which gives the reason for leaving Babylon and Christ's gracious warning and plea. Christ is not in dispute He is pleading. Your dispute theory is based on the shortcomings of the 7 churches and the solution to those is clearly repentance and turning back to Christ not mediation. Jesus calls them to repent..not mediate. Similarly the Israelites did not find themselves in Babylon because of dispute but because of disobedience.

The term mediation properly applies to Christ since unbelievers are Gods enemy. But the ones spoken of in Babylon are Gods people not enemy. So mediation is not required but obedience.

Meribah · 11-02-2017, 06:23 AM

Evangelical, your post clearly says we have to magnify "our ministry brother". Your "ministry brother"is WL. You are clearly magnifying a man. All that the LC does and says is the magnification of a man. It is an obsession.

It is not I who am being dishonest. And dishonest is not even a word that I would choose for you however. Slippery in arguments, yes. But I am certainly not being dishonest here. Go back and read your post. It says what it says.

Drake · 11-02-2017, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meribah

Evangelical, your post clearly says we have to magnify "our ministry brother". Your "ministry brother"is WL. You are clearly magnifying a man. All that the LC does and says is the magnification of a man. It is an obsession.

It is not I who am being dishonest. And dishonest is not even a word that I would choose for you however. Slippery in arguments, yes. But I am certainly not being dishonest here. Go back and read your post. It says what it says.

meribah,

I believe Evangelical is guilty of punctuation malpractice.... I think he meant to type “our ministry, brother”

Drake

Ohio · 11-02-2017, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, just like Christians left the pure word of God and fell into Catholicism and thanks to the vision which Luther ministered people could be free from that and Moses brought the people out of Egypt, and Paul out of Judaism. Were any of these men perfect? Of course not. But they had a vision from God (it would seem).

Did you ever study church history?

Two primary ingredients of the RCC that opened the door for endless corruption were these:

Belief that the Pope was descended from Peter as the Minister of the Age
Belief that their Catholic oneness superseded other tenets of the faith

These two errors opened the door for all manner of evil to later come in. These two formed a wrong foundation for them to build on.

Don't you think that many men of God protested errors in the early church? What silenced them? Firstly the belief that the Bishop of Rome was the MOTA. As such he drew his authority from Peter, the first MOTA, who was given the Keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Himself. Secondly, the demands to be ONE, above all else, silenced the conscience of those who watched errors slowly creep in. These errors opened the gates of hades, and plunged the western world into the dark ages.

The noble Exclusive Brethren followed the same course. Read their history. JNDarby was their first MOTA, then Raven, Taylor Sr, Taylor Jr, and today Hales. So many divisions, yet no group talked more "oneness" then them.

Sound familiar? The elevation of any minister to MOTA status confers on him infallibility. They have no peers, and are accountable to no one.

Drake · 11-02-2017, 06:49 AM

Evangelical >”I already told you that I disagree with the term mediator, you used that term not me. Now you pretend that I agree with you?”

ZNP,

I raised similar objections when you said I believed or stated certain things that I did not. Perhaps this is because you are trying too hard to fit Evangelical’s and my square peg into the round hole you created in your understanding.

Instead of engaging in an exercise in subjective validation why not just accept our explanations as representations of what we believe and then we can agree or agree to disagree. Instead the three of us are spending unnecessary time unpacking things we did not say!

Thanks
Drake

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I ask again..where is the verse where Paul says faith alone? You said Luther was quoting Paul. That keyword "alone" is the only thing separating Luther from Catholic. The term is very unique to Luther and Paul never used it.

Wow! You said that some might think Luther was a heretic, might not want to be associated with his ministry, etc. I said that Luther was quoting Paul in his ministry. I never said that Paul said "faith alone" or that Luther said "faith alone". that was you. All you.

awareness · 11-02-2017, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meribah

You see? It is clearly exactly as I said. WL is a mediator between them and the Word. Because he has so carefully planted the seeds of his doctrine and his special position throughout the life studies and the footnotes, these individuals are caught in a circle. They are completely unable to see and find the way out. We have all spent quite a bit of time with them here going round and round in their obstinate reasoning. What is so clear to us is not even there to them. They are obedient and docile. They glory in this. They have been blinded.

And you see that Evangelical's last statement above was that they needed to magnify their leader. This is not biblical and I think it definitely falls into the category of complete adulation and idolatry. I am unable to think of any verse in the Bible that tells us to magnify our Earthly leaders. This is definitely Chinese culture. It most certainly is not mine and it is not Christian culture either. Our brother Paul taught against these kinds of things. But they refuse to see it. They have turned away to their own tales and a person. They have itching ears that only care to hear what WL has to say. So in the end, they must be left as they are. The rest of us are glad that we saw the light and that we walk in liberty. We can only shake our heads in pity at what they have chosen.

Hear! Hear! Tell it like it is Meribah!

UntoHim · 11-02-2017, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Through the labor of our senior brothers, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, we have received a spiritual inheritance of all of the crucial revelations in the Bible that have been opened to the Lord's seekers in the last twenty centuries.

Direct, unedited QUOTE from http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html

While I appreciate the interesting interpretations and well-crafted mincing of words from our Local Church brothers, I think the viewing public deserves to know what is actually taught and practiced in the Movement. The OFFICIAL position of the Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Ministry is clearly delineated above - "ALL CRUCIAL REVELATIONS IN THE BIBLE" have been properly interpreted and expounded upon by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. There is no need to look anywhere else - anything worth knowing or believing has come through the ministry of these men. God has apparently seen fit to grind to halt the 2,000 year tradition of "wise men still seeking Him" and "fulfilling their ministry". Just read the Life-Studies and Recovery Version footnotes. NO NEED OF ANYTHING ELSE. GOD HAS SPOKEN! AND MOST IMPORTANTLY...GOD HAS STOPPED SPEAKING! ANYTHING WORTH KNOWING OR BELIEVING HAS BEEN SPOKEN BY THESE TWO DEAD GUYS!
-

awareness · 11-02-2017, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Magnifying ministry is biblical and Paul said it.

You're stretching Romans !!:13.

But my problem is, which is prolly not your problem, is : If I sought to magnify a ministry I'd have to figure out which one.

First. I'd need to know if it is the true ministry. How would I go about doing that? I could look to the leader of that ministry, and consider what he has to say, about his ministry, but that wouldn't hold much water, as he'd clearly be biased toward his own.

I could go to the followers in the ministry, but I'd likely find the same problem, from the devotees of that ministry.

So to know the true ministry clearly I'm going to need outside sources to make a determination.

I could use the Bible, but that's talking about what was going on 2, 3, 4, thousand years ago. The true ministry would have to be something God is doing today, right now.

How do I determine that? It seems now that, without divine intervention I'm lost ; there's no hope to determine the true ministry.

But what does it matter? Maybe magnifying a ministry is Biblical, as bro EvanG holds, but maybe it's not one of those Biblical "Laws." Maybe we don't have to magnify a ministry.

Isn't there some thing, or some one, other, that's more important to magnify, other than a ministry?

I don't know. As I said, without divine intervention I'm lost. And God hasn't sent me a vision, telling me I have to magnify a ministry, or a man. He has, however, taught me not to follow men. He seems to be jealous that way.

He tells me of some of His early followers, way back beforeHis son reconciled everyone to God, that wasn't happy to have Him as their king, and demanded one like the other nations. He says, "so I gave 'em one .... bahahahaha."

awareness · 11-02-2017, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Direct, unedited QUOTE from http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html

While I appreciate the interesting interpretations and well-crafted mincing of words from our Local Church brothers, I think the viewing public deserves to know what is actually taught and practiced in the Movement. The OFFICIAL position of the Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Ministry is clearly delineated above - "ALL CRUCIAL REVELATIONS IN THE BIBLE" have been properly interpreted and expounded upon by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. There is no need to look anywhere else - anything worth knowing or believing has come through the ministry of these men. God has apparently seen fit to grind to halt the 2,000 year tradition of "wise men still seeking Him" and "fulfilling their ministry". Just read the Life-Studies and Recovery Version footnotes. NO NEED OF ANYTHING ELSE. GOD HAS SPOKEN! AND MOST IMPORTANTLY...GOD HAS STOPPED SPEAKING! ANYTHING WORTH KNOWING OR BELIEVING HAS BEEN SPOKEN BY THESE TWO DEAD GUYS!
-

Luther's age = dead and gone.
Darby's age = dead and gone.
Nee's age = dead and gone.
Lee's age = dead and gone.
This age = still alive ... but without a or the minister of the age. Why?

Hey the Lutheran age died, but his churches are still with us today. People are still following that dead guy.

Same with Darby.

So of course there will always be people following dead guys. And LSM churches will go on like Luther's churches, following dead guys.

It's a personality cult following a dead personality.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I already told you that I disagree with the term mediator, you used that term not me. Now you pretend that I agree with you?

But let's not lose sight of the relevant conversation to this thread. You saw WL as an intermediary between God and Man, God gave WL the vision, WL gave the vision to us. You didn't agree with the term "dispute", you didn't see God having a dispute with man when they were in division, in Babylon. I provided you with just a few verses that prove without a doubt there was a dispute. So now you change the subject? Should I therefore conclude that you do agree WL was a mediator between God and Man, on the same level as Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and Man and this explains why the LRC separates themselves from all others who do not accept this teaching?

There was no pretense. You changed the subject. I asked a direct question, since you have dropped the complaint about "dispute" does that mean you no longer disagree. Very reasonable question. Mediate is to be a go between between two parties in a dispute. Since you already agreed with the first half it was a reasonable question to ask -- you dropped the complaint about dispute, does that mean you agree with the use of the word "mediate". If you don't agree just say so. The only one guilty of "pretense" here is you.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Evangelical >”I already told you that I disagree with the term mediator, you used that term not me. Now you pretend that I agree with you?”

ZNP,

I raised similar objections when you said I believed or stated certain things that I did not. Perhaps this is because you are trying too hard to fit Evangelical’s and my square peg into the round hole you created in your understanding.

Instead of engaging in an exercise in subjective validation why not just accept our explanations as representations of what we believe and then we can agree or agree to disagree. Instead the three of us are spending unnecessary time unpacking things we did not say!

Thanks
Drake

Read my response in post #156, the only one trying to pretend is Evangelical.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

meribah,

I believe Evangelical is guilty of punctuation malpractice.... I think he meant to type “our ministry, brother”

Drake

He has 24 hours to edit and correct it.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My view that it is not a dispute is based on the verse concerned in Revelation which gives the reason for leaving Babylon and Christ's gracious warning and plea.

My view is this is the definition of Dispute and in blue are verses that are excellent examples of each definition.

Dispute:

1 a :to make the subject of verbal controversy or Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love..
b :to call into question or cast doubt upon Her honesty was never disputed. (They have not obeyed the voice of the Lord their God -- Jeremiah 3:5)
2 a :to struggle against, oppose
b :to contend over ("I myself will fight with you" Jeremiah 21:5)

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ is not in dispute He is pleading. Your dispute theory is based on the shortcomings of the 7 churches and the solution to those is clearly repentance and turning back to Christ not mediation. Jesus calls them to repent..not mediate. Similarly the Israelites did not find themselves in Babylon because of dispute but because of disobedience.

The term mediation properly applies to Christ since unbelievers are Gods enemy. But the ones spoken of in Babylon are Gods people not enemy. So mediation is not required but obedience.

So your position is that there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ -- refers not to Christ mediating between the saints and God, but only to unbelievers that are God's enemy. Is this correct?

Does that also mean He is no longer our High priest, that this stopped the minute we accepted the New Covenant? Because according to Hebrews as our High priest He is the mediator of a better covenant.

Also, why would the new covenant be between God and His enemies?

Meribah · 11-02-2017, 10:57 AM

Regarding the "magnifying" Paul did of his ministry, here is a useful discussion and link:

"I magnify mine office - I honor δοξάζω doxazōmy ministry. I esteem it of great importance; and by thus showing that the gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles, that the barrier between them and the Jews is to be broken down, that the gospel may be preached to all people, I show that the office which proclaims this is one of signal honor. A minister may not magnify himself, but he may magnify his office. He may esteem himself as less than the least of all saints, and unworthy to be called a servant of God Ephesians 3:8, yet he may feel that he is an ambassador of Christ, entrusted with a message of salvation, entitled to the respect due to an ambassador, and to the honor which is appropriate to a messenger of God To unite these two things constitutes the dignity of the Christian ministry."

Albert Barnes https://www.studylight.org/commentary/romans/11-13.html

An ambassador delivers the message of the ruler--he does not receive the adulation of a ruler. He receives respect and honor, not exaltation. WL crossed the line and allowed others to magnify HIM---along with Christ. He was Christ's "sidekick" in his mind and those of the LC. Not in mine, however.

And thank you, ZNP, for your comment about editing within 24 hrs. I, too, am waiting.

Koinonia · 11-02-2017, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Your logic is yours, not mine. Your definitions are yours, not mine.

First, I do not agree that I am following a doctrine.... I have explained it before.

I'll be more explicit... I do not care one iota for a "MOTA doctrine" nor to follow one. I care for Christ and that I may be found faithful to what He has shown me.

Drake

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Luther's age = dead and gone.
Darby's age = dead and gone.
Nee's age = dead and gone.
Lee's age = dead and gone.
This age = still alive ... but without a or the minister of the age. Why?

Hey the Lutheran age died, but his churches are still with us today. People are still following that dead guy.

Same with Darby.

So of course there will always be people following dead guys. And LSM churches will go on like Luther's churches, following dead guys.

It's a personality cult following a dead personality.

This is exactly right, and this will become more and more obvious to (some) people as time goes on. Witness Lee has already been dead for 20 years. How irrelevant will his adulation appear in 30 years more? It will look as bizarre to outsiders as the adulation of James Taylor by members of the Exclusive Brethren.

Evangelical has told us that with Witness Lee is the "minister of the age" because he is "popular." That gives some idea of the level of delusion, and bad thing for the LC, Witness Lee is becoming less and less popular and less and less relevant with each passing day.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Instead of engaging in an exercise in subjective validation why not just accept our explanations as representations of what we believe and then we can agree or agree to disagree. Instead the three of us are spending unnecessary time unpacking things we did not say!

Thanks
Drake

You and Evangelical are the only ones on this forum defending or explaining this doctrine. Therefore I feel I need to ask you two the questions since it is the closest thing I can get to a "fair and balanced" account.

However, I am having a lot of difficulty getting answers to the questions.

1. Why is it obvious to you that WL's ministry was "the ministry of the age"?

2. How is anyone supposed to know what these various ages are? Why isn't there just one age, the age of grace, that began when Jesus was resurrected and ends at the 2nd coming. That is Biblical based on Matthew.

3. Evangelical disputes that WL was a mediator between God and Man. But he says that WL was a "go between", that he had the vision from God which he then shared with man. However, he distinguishes WL acting as a go between and a mediator because there was no "dispute" between the wayward Christians who had gone astray. He can only do this by changing definitions of words from dictionary definitions (something WL also did) and by ignoring Bible verses. Not an acceptable explanation for me.

4. If this doctrine is a basis for division then it must be an item of the faith once for all delivered to the saints by the apostles. Therefore I'd like someone to show me this from the NT. No one has.

5. If this doctrine is an item of the faith then it is something that you should defend, confirm, and fight the good fight for. Yet instead you and Evangelical have tried to avoid doing that. Evangelical has said "this is his least favorite topic". You have said that this is not a doctrine it is a word the Lord has spoken to you privately, you are being faithful to what the Lord has shown you.

6. If this is a command the Lord has given you and not for the rest of the Body it could be quite different from what he speaks to others, but even so it shouldn't contradict any other word or command He has given. He has charged us to be one, so I have not received a suitable explanation for this.

7. UntoHim has shown how your explanation and Evangelical's explanation is quite different from the "unedited post" concerning this doctrine. I think you should respond to that post to clear up the confusion.

8. I am very bothered that you seem to want it both ways. You want this doctrine to be something that you can be general about "I am being faithful to what I have been shown, and if you haven't seen the same thing then that is fine" on the other hand you have admitted that this is a cause of division justifying the LRC not taking communion with other Christians and condemning their meetings as being fundamentally flawed.

9. You have said that the entire concept of WL as the Minister of the Age rests on receiving that his ministry was "the ministry of the Age". I have tried to understand the basis of your saying his ministry was "the ministry of the age" and the only response I can recall from you is "it was obvious".

10. You comment on a message that Ron Kangas gave about restoring those that have left the fellowship. Well, this forum is full of people who have left the LRC primarily or at least in part due to this doctrine of MOTA. Why not practice what Ron preaches? Help us to understand why this is not the basis for a damnable heresy?

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meribah

Evangelical, your post clearly says we have to magnify "our ministry brother". Your "ministry brother"is WL. You are clearly magnifying a man. All that the LC does and says is the magnification of a man. It is an obsession.

It is not I who am being dishonest. And dishonest is not even a word that I would choose for you however. Slippery in arguments, yes. But I am certainly not being dishonest here. Go back and read your post. It says what it says.

I see now,sorry,a misunderstanding because lack of comma.
I called Awareness brother as he also called me.
If referring to Lee I might capitalize the B. Apologies.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is exactly right, and this will become more and more obvious to (some) people as time goes on. Witness Lee has already been dead for 20 years. How irrelevant will his adulation appear in 30 years more? It will look as bizarre to outsiders as the adulation of James Taylor by members of the Exclusive Brethren.

Evangelical has told us that with Witness Lee is the "minister of the age" because he is "popular." That gives some idea of the level of delusion, and bad thing for the LC, Witness Lee is becoming less and less popular and less and less relevant with each passing day.

Thats not what the figures say. People become more popular after death. Just look at Luther,so revered for his contribution,sola fide. But in person he was a crude anti semetic,probably not a nice person. But a revered legend after death.

Meribah · 11-02-2017, 01:56 PM

Dear Evangelical,
Based on your correction, it is not you who needs to apologize but rather me. And I do apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote. It was an honest mistake. And I am very glad that it does not say what I thought it said!

Koinonia · 11-02-2017, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats not what the figures say. People become more popular after death. Just look at Luther,so revered for his contribution,sola fide. But in person he was a crude anti semetic,probably not a nice person. But a revered legend after death.

What "figures"?

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! You said that some might think Luther was a heretic, might not want to be associated with his ministry, etc. I said that Luther was quoting Paul in his ministry. I never said that Paul said "faith alone" or that Luther said "faith alone". that was you. All you.

I have been talking about the terms 'faith alone'. This is a term of dispute between Protestant and Catholic. It has been attributed to Luther mostly. My point is how can anyone believe in "faith alone" yet say Luther was a heretic? The only ones who believe Luther was a heretic are the ones who do not believe in "faith alone" (i.e. Catholics). We can see how the vision or ministry is tied to the minister and respect of one implies respect of the other. Similarly if someone respected the ground of the church yet neglected Nee and Lee it would be strange.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meribah

Dear Evangelical,
Based on your correction, it is not you who needs to apologize but rather me. And I do apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote. It was an honest mistake. And I am very glad that it does not say what I thought it said!

No offense taken, peace be with you. We both made mistakes. Sometimes I type fast on a tiny screen and neglect proper punctuations etc.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So your position is that there is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ -- refers not to Christ mediating between the saints and God, but only to unbelievers that are God's enemy. Is this correct?

Does that also mean He is no longer our High priest, that this stopped the minute we accepted the New Covenant? Because according to Hebrews as our High priest He is the mediator of a better covenant.

Also, why would the new covenant be between God and His enemies?

Christs mediation chiefly refers to the atonement. If believers are in Babylon they are already washed in the blood they need not further mediation/atonement. There is no dispute requiring mediation. They need repentance and obedience as wayward children or foolish virgins but virgins nonetheless.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christs mediation chiefly refers to the atonement. If believers are in Babylon they are already washed in the blood they need not further mediation/atonement. There is no dispute requiring mediation. They need repentance and obedience as wayward children or foolish virgins but virgins nonetheless.

Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. Are you saying the New Covenant chiefly refers to atonement? That is a direct contradiction of WL's ministry.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. Are you saying the New Covenant chiefly refers to atonement? That is a direct contradiction of WL's ministry.

Atonement (Lee used a different word, I know, but let's keep it simple) is the first and most important aspect of the new covenant surely as without it no other aspects of the new covenant would be possible. By "direct contradiction" are you trying to say that Lee did not teach this? Have you considered that I may not be contradicting Lee but I have chosen to ignore the other aspects of the new covenant because it is the aspect of atonement which best disproves your view that Lee is a mediator or that mediation is required?

By the way if anyone believes that believers in Babylon need mediation then they must also by implication believe that believers in Babylon are in fact unbelievers and unsaved. It is well known that Lee taught that believers in Babylon are saved therefore I cannot see how anyone can claim that Lee is a mediator between believers in Babylon and God. Likewise, MOTA Luther was not a mediator. Luther did not "mediate" believers to come out of the Catholic Church.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Atonement (Lee used a different word, I know, but let's keep it simple) is the first and most important aspect of the new covenant surely as without it no other aspects of the new covenant would be possible. By "direct contradiction" are you trying to say that Lee did not teach this? Have you considered that I may not be contradicting Lee but I have chosen to ignore the other aspects of the new covenant because it is the aspect of atonement which best disproves your view that Lee is a mediator or that mediation is required?

Lee taught that the New Covenant was not primarily "atonement". He taught that "atonement" was an Old Testament truth, the NT reality was the propitiation.

"Propitiation means that you have a problem with another person. You have either offended him or else you owe him something. For instance, if I wrong you or am otherwise in debt to you, a problem exists between us. Because of this problem or debt, you have a demand upon me, and unless your demand is satisfied the problem between us cannot be resolved. Thus, there is the need for propitiation."

Reconciliation includes propitiation. To be reconciled is to be "at one" with God. The atoning sacrifice takes place in the outer court.

In contrast Witness Lee equated the New Covenant with the Holy of Holies. (Life Study of Hebrews, Chapter 39, section 2)

Now if Jesus, our High Priest, is the mediator of the New Covenant (in typology the Holy of Holies) then He is the mediator to those who are no longer in the outer court. Hence they are already redeemed yet still have a problem before entering the Holy of Holies.

"If we put all these together, we find that we are in God's presence, at His oracle, and are meeting with God and having fellowship with Him. This is the New Covenant with the law of life." (Witness Lee, Life Study of Hebrews, Chapter 39, Section 2)

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is exactly right, and this will become more and more obvious to (some) people as time goes on. Witness Lee has already been dead for 20 years. How irrelevant will his adulation appear in 30 years more? It will look as bizarre to outsiders as the adulation of James Taylor by members of the Exclusive Brethren.

Evangelical has told us that with Witness Lee is the "minister of the age" because he is "popular." That gives some idea of the level of delusion, and bad thing for the LC, Witness Lee is becoming less and less popular and less and less relevant with each passing day.

What figures do you have to support that Lee is becoming less popular and relevant?

It is quite the opposite from my view and I think you are out of touch with reality. Because figures show that traditional church attendance overall is in decline and denominations are losing numbers rapidly, having aging congregations and not evangelizing or having babies enough to make up the losses. The ones less popular and relevant are the aging denominations.

Popularity - Drake and I covered the popularity of Lee's ministry in the "Ron Kangas Message" thread. A steady increase has been observed, worldwide. In making this assessment, consider that this is all without TV-evangelist type promotion, marketing, and all the other things that most ministries use to attract people. I am sure that if we used television and rock music/concerts it would be on-par with any of the so called "mega churches". It is all without the prosperity gospel "give to us and get a double return" tricks as well. It is a wonder we get as many people as we do, considering how the meetings, conferences and such is, as someone here said, "boring". How can we attract thousands of people to a conference and not have an electric guitar or smoke machine?

Consider that there are 1.6 baptisms per year for the average church (see here:
https://www.johnrothra.com/evangelis...sm-rate-of-12/)

We (my church) are baptizing, quite often, 2 -3 people per week! For a church of size 200 people, that is about 100 people per year or a baptism rate of about 50%. According to that website, they would be happy to achieve 12%.

Relevant - as more and more people are leaving traditional denominations, they are seeking nondenominational alternatives. The house church movement is gaining popularity. You would have to see the number of church-less people we interact with on a weekly basis to know this, and more importantly their reason why. Whenever we interact, they are exposed to the ministry, and therefore it is relevant.

Now from my observation, few denominational churches are going out of their way to seek people who do not attend church. I don't see them on the streets, door knocking, distributing bibles, inviting to homes for dinner, as we are. They merely advertise their Sunday services or events and expect to attract people to them. In comparison, our meeting places are less noticeable and obvious, yet we are interacting with church-less people more than any denomination I would say. With our focus on the small group meetings, we are in fact quite relevant to the increasing number of people who are leaving denominations and seeking alternatives. I believe this is partly responsible for our increase in popularity.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Lee taught that the New Covenant was not primarily "atonement". He taught that "atonement" was an Old Testament truth, the NT reality was the propitiation.

"Propitiation means that you have a problem with another person. You have either offended him or else you owe him something. For instance, if I wrong you or am otherwise in debt to you, a problem exists between us. Because of this problem or debt, you have a demand upon me, and unless your demand is satisfied the problem between us cannot be resolved. Thus, there is the need for propitiation."

Reconciliation includes propitiation. To be reconciled is to be "at one" with God. The atoning sacrifice takes place in the outer court.

In contrast Witness Lee equated the New Covenant with the Holy of Holies. (Life Study of Hebrews, Chapter 39, section 2)

Now if Jesus, our High Priest, is the mediator of the New Covenant (in typology the Holy of Holies) then He is the mediator to those who are no longer in the outer court. Hence they are already redeemed yet still have a problem before entering the Holy of Holies.

I'll take atonement or propitiation, both carry the notion of appeasement between two parties and that is all I need to say to disprove any idea that believers in Babylon need appeasement with God. If a child is disobedient I would not say the child is in "dispute" with their father or that a mediator between them is required. This is just not the language a person would normally use. But if they weren't a child, let's say, a criminal or enemy, then yes they would be in dispute and would need a mediator.

Yes you are right regarding Lee's terminology, but I chose to use atonement as that is the most common term I believe in Christianity. All I need is a word that refers to appeasing two parties and either of those words would do, but of course they both have a specific meaning. Is there a word that is more general than atonement or propitiation? If so I would use that word for this discussion. For now I'll settle with appeasement.

Let's say Lee's ministry helps people get into the holy of holies, what is that called? I would call that ministry, not mediation, as mediation of Christ has already brought them in.

Koinonia · 11-02-2017, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What figures do you have to support that Lee is becoming less popular and relevant?

It is quite the opposite from my view.

Popularity - Drake and I covered the popularity of Lee's ministry in the "Ron Kangas Message" thread. A steady increase has been observed, worldwide. In making this assessment, consider that this is all without TV-evangelist type promotion, marketing, and all the other things that most ministries use to attract people. I am sure that if we used television and rock music/concerts it would be on-par with any of the so called "mega churches". It is all without the prosperity gospel "give to us and get a double return" tricks as well. It is a wonder we get as many people as we do, considering how the meetings, conferences and such is, as someone here said, "boring". How can we attract thousands of people to a conference and not have an electric guitar or smoke machine?

Relevant - as more and more people are leaving traditional denominations, they are seeking nondenominational alternatives. The house church movement is gaining popularity. You would have to see the number of church-less people we interact with on a weekly basis to know this, and more importantly their reason why. Whenever we interact, they are exposed to the ministry, and therefore it is relevant.

Now from my observation, few denominational churches are going out of their way to seek people who do not attend church. I don't see them on the streets, door knocking, distributing bibles, inviting to homes for dinner, as we are. They merely advertise their Sunday services or events and expect to attract people to them. In comparison, our meeting places are less noticeable and obvious, yet we are interacting with church-less people more than any denomination I would say. With our focus on the small group meetings, we are in fact quite relevant to the increasing number of people who are leaving denominations and seeking alternatives. I believe this is partly responsible for our increase in popularity.

Evangelical, most Christians have never even heard of Witness Lee. And most Christians have no interest in the Local Church denomination because they would find the adulation of Witness Lee to be completely bizarre. The people leaving denominations and mega-churches (commonly known as "Dones") are generally looking for something less structured. There are few things as structured and organized as the LC.

Also, because of declining book sales, LSM has been sending a group of coworkers around the USA and Canada exhorting members to buy multiple sets. The idea is that LC members maintain lending libraries and have multiple copies to give away. Yet, most LC members do not even read the books they own themselves. Their standing order arrivals just pile up and go on shelves that look identical to every other member's.

And as we get further and further away from Witness Lee's death, LSM has less material to publish. After they finish publishing The Collected Works of Witness Lee (next year), they will be left to reprints and HWMR and Ministry Magazine rehashes of the same old, same old.

Do you have any evidence that Witness Lee is becoming more "popular"? Of course not. Because the idea is absurd.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, most Christians have never even heard of Witness Lee. And most Christians have no interest in the Local Church denomination because they would find the adulation of Witness Lee to be completely bizarre. The people leaving denominations and mega-churches (commonly known as "Dones") are generally looking for something less structured. There are few things as structured and organized as the LC.

Look where we are on the hype cycle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

We are coming out of the trough of disillusionment (which is what this forum represents) and next is the plateau of productivity. You think it's had its day since the high times of the 60's-80's, but that's what tricks most people.

As we said in the other thread, Bibles for America alone has distributed over 1 million bibles and almost 3 million ministry books. That is just in America.
Overall, there are not many alternatives to denominations. So I think we can expect growth over time, particularly since we are seeking "unchurched Christians" unlike denominations which are trialing gimmicks and marketing.

I think the local churches have a number of features that people might find attractive:
- no priest/pastoral positions
- the ability to function as members of the Body (i.e. participate in a meaningful way)
- no one asking for tithes or donations Sunday after Sunday
- not liberal - solid biblical foundation and fundamental
- small group and family orientated - focus on the small group primarily, and a spread of generations from the very young to very old.
- discipline/devotion and a vision/path for continual spiritual growth with others.

These were some of the things which attracted me, as a good balance between liturgical structure and house church freedoms. Also, the weekly /daily devotionals are a selling point that helps keep everyone involved and on track.. A number of my denominational friends have commented how good it is that everyone in church can grow and learn together in the same way as we all use the same devotionals and bibles - not many churches I know of do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And as we get further and further away from Witness Lee's death, LSM has less material to publish. After they finish publishing The Collected Works of Witness Lee (next year), they will be left to reprints and HWMR and Ministry Magazine rehashes of the same old, same old.

Do you have any evidence that Witness Lee is becoming more "popular"? Of course not. Because the idea is absurd.

As you said before, not many people heard of Lee, and oversupply of material that most people have never heard of before. I would call that "primed for growth". Imagine if that was Coca cola or Apple company, it's the time to buy, I would expect only growth to eventuate. In other words, there's a big "market" out there, as more and more people leave denominations, and I think growth is to be expected.

There's one thing you haven't considered and that is that after death, people become more famous. Just look at Elvis, and others. So increase in popularity is to be expected. To be clear, what is or what should be popular is the ministry material, not the person. We've seen evidence of that, in the figures we've quoted.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2017, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'll take atonement or propitiation, both carry the notion of appeasement between two parties and that is all I need to say to disprove any idea that believers in Babylon need appeasement with God. If a child is disobedient I would not say the child is in "dispute" with their father or that a mediator between them is required. This is just not the language a person would normally use. But if they weren't a child, let's say, a criminal or enemy, then yes they would be in dispute and would need a mediator.

Yes you are right regarding Lee's terminology, but I chose to use atonement as that is the most common term I believe in Christianity. All I need is a word that refers to appeasing two parties and either of those words would do, but of course they both have a specific meaning. Is there a word that is more general than atonement or propitiation? If so I would use that word for this discussion. For now I'll settle with appeasement.

Let's say Lee's ministry helps people get into the holy of holies, what is that called? I would call that ministry, not mediation, as mediation of Christ has already brought them in.

A lot here, let me see if I understand you correctly.

1. Christ is the mediator because it includes the concept of a probationary sacrifice, appeasement. This is uniquely Christ and WL's ministry should not in any way be confused with this.

2. What Witness Lee's ministry did was get people into the holy of holies. It was a "ministry" not a "mediation" because he was....guiding? assisting? helping?

But here is what confuses me about this. If you read (Truth Lessons, Level 3, Vol. 3, Chapter 6, Section 1) it says that we enter the holy of holies in the blood of Jesus. Through a new and living way initiated through the rent veil (Jesus Crucifixion) and that we come forward to find the ascended Christ. There is no mention of needing a guide or help other than the blood of Jesus, the cross of Christ and the ascended Jesus.

But according to your explanation of Ron Kangas Message Witness Lee is acting as a go between to "help people into the holy of holies".

Also according to you we don't need a propitiating sacrifice to enter the Holy of Holies, but according to Witness Lee's ministry we need the blood of Christ and the Cross of Christ to enter. Which is why Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant.

Ohio · 11-02-2017, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thats not what the figures say. People become more popular after death. Just look at Luther,so revered for his contribution,sola fide. But in person he was a crude anti semetic,probably not a nice person. But a revered legend after death.

You must have Martin Luther mixed up with Martin Luther King. Sorry Aus this is the US.

I have never heard the name of Martin Luther mentioned in a church, except the LC.

All those hated denominations you regularly deride only mention the name of Jesus Christ. And quite often. But never the name of Lee.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

You must have Martin Luther mixed up with Martin Luther King. Sorry Aus this is the US.

I have never heard the name of Martin Luther mentioned in a church, except the LC.

All those hated denominations you regularly deride only mention the name of Jesus Christ. And quite often. But never the name of Lee.

I'm not talking about whose name is mentioned in a church. Overall, in Christianity, Luther is famous. Ask any evangelical, they will know who is Luther and what he said "saved by faith alone". They never knew him in person, or what he said about Jews, they don't really care, because he's a Protestant superhero. If someone says "Luther was heretic", it probably means they are a Catholic. Right? Cannot easily separate the person and what they are known for. That's my point, am I right or wrong? Famous people, and especially famous dead people, get known for what they are good for, their legend grows, their bad is forgotten. Same with Nee, his popularity grew after his death. Most Christians consider him a great person, say good things about him. Only on forums like this can people discuss the negative things, but does it impact most Christians? No, they remember him as the man tortured for his faith in Christ, he becomes a legend, a hero.

Ohio · 11-02-2017, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christs mediation chiefly refers to the atonement. If believers are in Babylon they are already washed in the blood they need not further mediation/atonement. There is no dispute requiring mediation. They need repentance and obedience as wayward children or foolish virgins but virgins nonetheless.

This is quite disrespectful to regularly say that other children of God reside in Babylon.

You should get the Lee-log out of your own eye before condemning everyone else for there supposed splinters.

It's hard to see you constantly promote Witness Lee as some MOTA, without thinking of idolatry. The exaltation of a man brings back remembrance of Nimrod, the first exalted man in the land of Babylon.

Evangelical · 11-02-2017, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is quite disrespectful to regularly say that other children of God reside in Babylon.

You should get the Lee-log out of your own eye before condemning everyone else for there supposed splinters.

It's hard to see you constantly promote Witness Lee as some MOTA, without thinking of idolatry. The exaltation of a man brings back remembrance of Nimrod, the first exalted man in the land of Babylon.

Why? The bible says it:

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

So is Rev 18:4 being disrespectful?

Look at the size of Catholicism - it's huge, biggest church by far. If Catholicism is Babylon, and if every Catholic is a true believer, then most believers are in Babylon. That's a fact, and maybe you forgot what Luther/Calvin etc actually stood for.

Koinonia · 11-02-2017, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Look where we are on the hype cycle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

We are coming out of the trough of disillusionment (which is what this forum represents) and next is the plateau of productivity. You think it's had its day since the high times of the 60's-80's, but that's what tricks most people.

As we said in the other thread, Bibles for America alone has distributed over 1 million bibles and almost 3 million ministry books. That is just in America.
Overall, there are not many alternatives to denominations. So I think we can expect growth over time, particularly since we are seeking "unchurched Christians" unlike denominations which are trialing gimmicks and marketing.

I think the local churches have a number of features that people might find attractive:
- no priest/pastoral positions
- the ability to function as members of the Body (i.e. participate in a meaningful way)
- no one asking for tithes or donations Sunday after Sunday
- not liberal - solid biblical foundation and fundamental
- small group and family orientated - focus on the small group primarily, and a spread of generations from the very young to very old.
- discipline/devotion and a vision/path for continual spiritual growth with others.

These were some of the things which attracted me, as a good balance between liturgical structure and house church freedoms. Also, the weekly /daily devotionals are a selling point that helps keep everyone involved and on track.. A number of my denominational friends have commented how good it is that everyone in church can grow and learn together in the same way as we all use the same devotionals and bibles - not many churches I know of do this.

As you said before, not many people heard of Lee, and oversupply of material that most people have never heard of before. I would call that "primed for growth". Imagine if that was Coca cola or Apple company, it's the time to buy, I would expect only growth to eventuate. In other words, there's a big "market" out there, as more and more people leave denominations, and I think growth is to be expected.

There's one thing you haven't considered and that is that after death, people become more famous. Just look at Elvis, and others. So increase in popularity is to be expected. To be clear, what is or what should be popular is the ministry material, not the person. We've seen evidence of that, in the figures we've quoted.

Evangelical, Witness Lee has been dead for 20 years, and he is becoming less famous--not more famous.

I have regular contact with many Christians in all kinds of Christian groups, including Christians who have left organized groups to look for something more fresh. In my experience, very, very few Christians have ever heard of Witness Lee, and the few who have usually have a negative perception. I have never once met anyone who had received a BFA book.

Your hypothesizing about hype cycle is pure conjecture. There is no reason at all to believe people will become more interested in Witness Lee over time. Most likely, he will become a relic of history, like James Taylor, or a religious anomaly, like the Watchtower Society. As I have already

10-29-2017, 10:00 AM	#2
UntoHim Grateful Servant Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,588	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the From the following excerpt of: http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In recent months a few dissenting brothers have attacked the co-workers' fellowship that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee served as "the ministers of the age." These critics substitute their own watered-down definition of "minister of the age" in what would appear to be an attempt to justify applying that appellation to themselves or to a certain worker associated with them. In the line of teaching on this subject initiated by Watchman Nee, developed by Witness Lee, and continued by the co-workers, these three terms are used as follows: *The vision of the age is the present advance of the revelation or the recovery of the revelation contained in the Bible that God intends to govern the life and service of His people. *The ministry of the age is the service that carries out the vision of the age. *The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everyone could please point me to the posting in the "Smoking Gun" thread that should be moved over to this thread that would be appreciated. - __________________ Now Unto Him* that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)

10-29-2017, 10:15 AM	#3
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 11,253	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the That's a tough task. First mention of MOTA was in post #50, so that might be a good point to start moving, but do not move OBW's post #195, since he goes back to the OP. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

10-29-2017, 03:02 PM	#4
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,978	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the In following the discussions of the Smoking Gun thread ( I presume any MOTA topic should be continued here) I have a few observations: I think the definitions provided on afaithfulword website would clear up a number of matters of confusion and debate. Not many people realize that ministry is an individual matter and if that ministry is to release the vision of the age then clearly that person is the minister of the age. In other words, no one except Lee himself can claim to be the "minister of the age", and there is no such thing as "ministers of the age". Just as there is not many ministers of Paul's ministry (it is his own). Even though a ministry can have co-workers it does not mean the co-workers are "ministers of the age" as well.

10-30-2017, 05:10 PM	#24
least Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 147	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the “Least- Please define 'the age'.” #14 “Evangelical- I think of ages in terms of what God wants to accomplish. It is not necessarily referring to a time period, although what God wants to accomplish occurs in space and time, an age to me refers to neither. Peter was the minister of the age for what God wanted to accomplish at Pentecost, but then later Paul was the ministry of the age with what God wanted to accomplish with Paul. Luther did something and then Darby, then Nee, then Lee. There may be a stock standard definition for an "age" in one of Lee or Nee's books, but that's my perspective.” #15 “ZNPaaneah- In my recollection the "age" was defined by the truth being released. So if the truth being released is "justification by faith" then that is the age. Once that truth is established you might move onto a new truth.” #18 Thank you for the replies to my request- (Please define 'the age'). Evangelical’s definition of ‘the age’ is what he thinks it is … ZNPaaneah’s definition of ‘the age’ is what in his recollection was … E and Z, can any one or both of you say your definition of ‘the age’ is a/are bible record(s)? Drake, please show bible record of ‘the age’. Another request: can anyone Please define ‘minister of the age’ and ‘ministers of the age’. Drake, please show bible record(s) of ‘minister of the age’ and ‘ministers of the age’. If you like, please show two versions; one 'bible record of mota' and another 'LSM mota'. Thank you.

10-30-2017, 06:23 PM	#25
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,813	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the I have already answered this. Their doctrine is total bunk. According to the NT this is the age of grace. It began at Christ's crucifixion and ends at Christ's 2nd coming. Then we have the "restoration of all things" or the "millennial kingdom", either way the next age is a thousand years. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

09-02-2017, 08:38 AM	#1
UntoHim Grateful Servant Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,588	The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age ------------------------------------------------------ __________________ Now Unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24)

10-29-2017, 03:54 PM	#5
least Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 147	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Very confusing, between what Evangelical wrote and what Ron K said in the video message 'Ministers Of The Age'. Would like to see Ron K and Evangelical discuss in this forum. -

10-30-2017, 06:54 PM	#28
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,978	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Regarding ages, the concept of ages are man made attempts to order or structure the Bible or God's movements. As such it is not scriptural, however it is true because we can observe from the Bible and history that God has moved in different ways in different stages. It is only possible to define ages because God moves in an ordered way. If God was chaotic or haphazard then it would not be possible to define ages.

10-30-2017, 07:04 PM	#30
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,978	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the The Bible is full of examples of God raising up leaders to accomplish something. I think this is the "bible record" being referred to. So I think ministers of the age is biblical - God could have done everything He wanted to do using angels or even coming as a whirlwind or something, without the help of anyone at all.

10-30-2017, 07:10 PM	#32
least Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 147	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the I have no definition. I rejected LSM MOTA. I said LSM MOTA is not biblical. You said 'don't reject bible record'. Reject LSM record is reject bible record? Your MOTA is WN terminology. Is rejecting WN terminology = rejecting bible record? -

10-30-2017, 08:09 PM	#33
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Least, Ok, You have no definition for minister of the age. Do you agree that throughout biblical history God has raised up leaders to carry out what He wants to do in that time and place? Drake

10-31-2017, 05:53 AM	#41
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,089	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the If you believe Watchman Nee and/or Witness Lee were or are the unique ministers of the age that's fine for you. No problem. When you insist that others believe it in order for them to fellowship with you, you have become a sect. You have divided the Body of Christ. __________________ Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

10-31-2017, 06:41 AM	#44
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the ZNP>”So if you apply these verses to justify the MOTA doctrine you are saying that this truth is equivalent to confessing Jesus or denying Jesus! I have asked you repeatedly to clarify this position.” ZNP, That would be leap in logic I am not willing to make. My point simple. Not everything we do in following the Lord results in peace and harmony and the Lord said this when He said His coming will set us at variance with others. Therefore, we must be faithful to follow the Lord and what He has shown us knowing that it will sometimes bring about variance with others. Drake

10-31-2017, 08:44 AM	#51
Unregistered Guest Posts: n/a	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the It is as it has been said so many times before: these people (Drake and Evangelical as representatives here) are content to have their one minister of the age. Let them have him. And that is all they will have. May God forgive them for turning against the Scripture and AGAINST THEIR OWN LOUDLY PROCLAIMED TEACHING: each one has. If each one has and yet you establish your own camp of the "best", then you do not receive all the riches of the saints, which is your inheritance. No, you despise it. And you are practicing hypocrisy. (We all do. But let's call this for what it is.) It is a waste of time, at this point, to argue further. They have their pearl of great price. What a great pity.

10-31-2017, 09:45 AM	#54
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,089	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the In Ron Kangas' he made one curious remark which gave me pause. He said "we're still in the age." He gave no explanation for that strange remark. Of course we're in AN age. But he said we're still in THE age. What age was he talking about? According to Ron "a minister of the age is one who has the vision of the age and the ministry of the age and knows what God is speaking and doing in the present age" This person "knows the special things that the Lord wants to accomplish in his age and knows the Lord’s ministry and work in that age." "The one who can take the lead in the Lord’s move in his age is the one who knows God’s economy and knows what God’s speaking is today." "Whoever has God’s speaking concerning the entire teaching of God’s New Testament economy is the leading one in His move, the minister of the age." And lastly "Brother Nee and Brother Lee were ministers of the present age." [I added the bold print.] I take that last proposition to be the explanation for Ron's strange statement that "we're still in the age." He must have meant that we are still in the age when Nee and Lee are the MOTAs! So, even though they have passed on are we still in the age of Nee and Lee? If so, what does that mean and how does it work? __________________ Ken Gemmer- Church in Detroit, Church in Fort Lauderdale, Church in Miami 1973-86

11-01-2017, 05:26 AM	#91
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Least>” You dumb ... never learn the LSM games strategy ... loser.” Least, No one appears to mind your insulting and uncivilized name calling of other posters.... but I do. Express your views and make your case and let others make theirs without personalizing it. Focus on the argument not the person. Thanks Drake

11-01-2017, 05:29 AM	#92
least Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 147	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the ok, Drake. I will respond to the other post of yours when I have more time. Thanks

11-01-2017, 05:43 AM	#94
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the ZNP>”The general principle is that any spoken word from the Lord will not be contrary to the written word. The Lord would not give you a command that violates basic commands in the NT such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "thou shalt have no other Gods besides me". So that is fine, the Lord gave you a command. But you should still be able to support it with the Bible.” Of course. To my observation, ZNP, every poster in this forum believes their views are supported from the Bible..... present company included. Drake

11-01-2017, 06:26 AM	#99
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Evangelical >”Let us be clear that this is not about accepting or rejecting some doctrine of who is or who is not MOTA. This is about the Vision.” Exactly. Without vision the people perish or run in circles. Drake

11-01-2017, 06:37 AM	#102
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Evangelical >”Defining it with respect to some physical and quantifiable entity such as the city boundary is better I think.” And the only scriptural basis for meeting separately or in fellowship from other believers. Drake

11-01-2017, 07:19 AM	#105
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,813	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the So on this forum Awareness has pointed out that he was disciplined for not receiving the “MOTA” doctrine. Zeek has also confirmed the way this doctrine was shoved down his throat in a “take it or leave” approach. I was told by Joe Davis that in the LRC we don’t teach anything that WL doesn’t teach, regardless of the truth. Others have also confirmed that in different localities Witness Lee and the elders taught that WN was the “Minister of the Age” because he had the “Vision of the Age”. His ministry was therefore the “Ministry of the Age”. What that meant was that it was unique, particular. Unlike other ministries of preaching the gospel or doing some other inspired service to the Lord, this ministry was actually accomplishing what the Lord wanted accomplished in this “age”. Ray Graver spoke openly that Witness Lee was the Minister of the Age because he took up the mantle from Watchman Nee to release the truth concerning the Ground of the Church. Yet despite many, many witnesses having heard this teaching from both elders and Witness Lee all written record of a direct link to Witness Lee seems to have been expunged from the LSM printed materials. In my experience working with LSM as an editor I knew that certain brothers edited content. We were told explicitly that they knew that some things that WL said in the meeting were not to be published. That was not my job, and they did not expound on what items were not for print. We asked how you define “age” and have not received anything even closely resembling an answer. If a 40 year ministry represents “an age” then logic suggests we have had 200+ ages since Jesus crucifixion. This contradicts Jesus word in Matthew 28 where He says that from that point on till the end of the age — indicating that the period from the resurrection to the second coming is one age. No explanation, no clarification. We pointed out that the NT makes it very clear that only Jesus is the mediator, there is no other mediator between God and man and describing Witness Lee as a mediator is a damnable heresy that denies the Lord who bought us. Again, no explanation for the message given by Ron Kangas. We pointed out that using OT types of Jesus Christ and applying them to WN and WL is heresy. No response. We pointed out that this doctrine is the basis for the LRC dividing themselves from other Christians and refusing to eat the Lord’s table with them. Drake and Evangelical agreed but have differing explanations. Drake says he is obeying the Lord’s command to him, similar to where the Lord said He would cause divisions. However, when we looked at that word specifically the division was caused by confessing that Jesus is Lord. So I asked Drake if he equated saying that WL is the MOTA with saying Jesus is Lord. He denied it, agreeing that would be a damnable heresy. Evangelical on the other hand feels that rejecting the doctrine of MOTA is similar to rejecting the gospel or the messages by Paul. So Evangelical equates the doctrine of MOTA with the gospel of Christ. I would argue that either justification is a perversion of the gospel and they are preaching a different Jesus. However, let’s address Drake’s point in greater detail. It is possible for the Lord to speak something to you that others don’t agree with. For example, the movie about Hacksaw Ridge was a docudrama based on fact. A man joined the army but because of his convictions refused to carry a gun. Yes, you can use the Bible to justify his position as well as to justify the position of those that disagreed. But, he didn’t use this special command of the Lord to justify separating himself from other Christians. I believe the Lord can command him to not carry a gun while at the same time being OK with other Christians who do carry a gun. But when you justify a sect with this “special command” of the Lord then you have crossed the line into damnable heresy. And this is the line we have crossed. Drake refuses to give a coherent defense of this doctrine using the Bible even though he has elevated it to the items of the faith, things that we cannot compromise on. Evangelical on the other hand is impossible to understand. He refers to "leaders" instead of "unique and particular leader" that Kerry defines. He does not describe the MOTA as a leader but rather a person whose "Ministry he follows". He describes rejecting the doctrine of MOTA as being equivalent to rejecting the gospel of Christ. As though that is somehow different from equating WL with Christ. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

11-01-2017, 07:29 AM	#106
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the ZNP>”So I asked Drake if he equated saying that WL is the MOTA with saying Jesus is Lord. He denied it, agreeing that would be a damnable heresy. ” ZNP, I did not agree that anything would be a “damnable heresy”. I just said I would not go that far on the point you were making in that post. I appreciate your flair for the dramatic but just to be accurate on what I said. Thanks Drake

11-01-2017, 07:36 AM	#107
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the ZNP>”Drake refuses to give a coherent defense of this doctrine using the Bible even though he has elevated it to the items of the faith, things that we cannot compromise on” ZNP, Brother, I did not say this nor did I characterize as above. My position on this is outlined in my last response to zeek (#62) and then to you (#104) a few posts back. Put those two together and you have my actual view. Thanks Drake

11-01-2017, 10:16 AM	#114
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,813	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Here are my issues with "The Ground of the Church" doctrine. I agree that the temple is a type of the church. I also agree that in the OT the ground of the Temple was very significant. I also agree that the ground of the church was specifically identified as something that would keep the oneness. So on these three points I completely agree with WN and WL. What I don't agree with is the definition of what that ground is. In a bizarre twist WN used two inferential verses (appoint elders in every city / appoint elders in every church) to build his NT doctrine. This doesn't make sense. Why would something this crucial be inferential? To me the NT gives a very clear black and white answer as to what the ground of the church is: the blood of Christ. In the OT typology the ground refers to where Abraham offered up Isaac as a type of Christ as our burnt offering. Instead of Isaac he offered a ram, again signifying Christ's substitutionary death for us. This ground was also the same place where David purchased a threshing floor as a peace offering and sin offering. David was a type of Christ, Christ's crucifixion was a peace offering and a sin offering. In typology the ground signifies the place where Christ was crucified for us. It demonstrates the price God the father paid and the price God the Son paid. I was redeemed by Jesus blood. This is why whenever the NT talks about false prophets it reminds us 'the MOTA wasn't crucified for you, Jesus was'. Paul wasn't and the super apostles weren't, it was Jesus. He is our redeemer. A big part of the teaching involves the point that you can't build on a piece of land until you bought it. Jesus blood was the price paid. He didn't redeem a city boundary line for fluctuating cities in the world. He paid for us. If you don't agree that the price paid for the ground of the church is the blood of Christ then you are involved in a perverted gospel with a different Jesus. If you do agree that the price paid was the blood of Christ but think that He somehow was purchasing city boundary lines that is idiotic. It is the blood of Christ that keeps us one, not the fact that we call our building such and such or that we delineate the boundaries of the church by the city boundary. For example, I used to live in Canaan NH, the Local church was minuscule and was in Hanover, NH. No one cared that I lived outside the city boundary. Hypocritical and idiotic to really think that is important. What they did care about was that I stood on the blood of Christ. __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God

11-01-2017, 12:16 PM	#118
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the awareness>"am I out in left field, or completely off my rocker?" Awareness, please open a separate thread to discuss the above topic. Seriously, thanks for sharing your experience brother. I know from this and other posts that it was difficult for you. Drake

11-01-2017, 04:12 PM	#130
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the ZNP>"So then which is it? Do you elevate MOTA to an item of the faith or not? If not does that mean you disagree with WL and LSM documents that Christians who do not meet on what he refers to as "the proper ground" are meeting in a manner unworthy?" By " the faith" you mean that which is shared by every born again believer? If you meant that I find the question puzzling. The answer is no, of course. If you mean do I follow what the Lord has shown me by faith, then the answer is yes and the vision is an item of my faith. And vision includes the local churches meeting on the proper ground of oneness. So the answer to the second question is no. Drake

11-02-2017, 04:19 AM	#140
Meribah Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 23	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the You see? It is clearly exactly as I said. WL is a mediator between them and the Word. Because he has so carefully planted the seeds of his doctrine and his special position throughout the life studies and the footnotes, these individuals are caught in a circle. They are completely unable to see and find the way out. We have all spent quite a bit of time with them here going round and round in their obstinate reasoning. What is so clear to us is not even there to them. They are obedient and docile. They glory in this. They have been blinded. And you see that Evangelical's last statement above was that they needed to magnify their leader. This is not biblical and I think it definitely falls into the category of complete adulation and idolatry. I am unable to think of any verse in the Bible that tells us to magnify our Earthly leaders. This is definitely Chinese culture. It most certainly is not mine and it is not Christian culture either. Our brother Paul taught against these kinds of things. But they refuse to see it. They have turned away to their own tales and a person. They have itching ears that only care to hear what WL has to say. So in the end, they must be left as they are. The rest of us are glad that we saw the light and that we walk in liberty. We can only shake our heads in pity at what they have chosen.

11-02-2017, 06:23 AM	#147
Meribah Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 23	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Evangelical, your post clearly says we have to magnify "our ministry brother". Your "ministry brother"is WL. You are clearly magnifying a man. All that the LC does and says is the magnification of a man. It is an obsession. It is not I who am being dishonest. And dishonest is not even a word that I would choose for you however. Slippery in arguments, yes. But I am certainly not being dishonest here. Go back and read your post. It says what it says. Last edited by Meribah; 11-02-2017 at 06:27 AM. Reason: Omission

11-02-2017, 06:49 AM	#150
Drake Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2,063	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Evangelical >”I already told you that I disagree with the term mediator, you used that term not me. Now you pretend that I agree with you?” ZNP, I raised similar objections when you said I believed or stated certain things that I did not. Perhaps this is because you are trying too hard to fit Evangelical’s and my square peg into the round hole you created in your understanding. Instead of engaging in an exercise in subjective validation why not just accept our explanations as representations of what we believe and then we can agree or agree to disagree. Instead the three of us are spending unnecessary time unpacking things we did not say! Thanks Drake

11-02-2017, 10:57 AM	#161
Meribah Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 23	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Regarding the "magnifying" Paul did of his ministry, here is a useful discussion and link: "I magnify mine office - I honor δοξάζω doxazōmy ministry. I esteem it of great importance; and by thus showing that the gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles, that the barrier between them and the Jews is to be broken down, that the gospel may be preached to all people, I show that the office which proclaims this is one of signal honor. A minister may not magnify himself, but he may magnify his office. He may esteem himself as less than the least of all saints, and unworthy to be called a servant of God Ephesians 3:8, yet he may feel that he is an ambassador of Christ, entrusted with a message of salvation, entitled to the respect due to an ambassador, and to the honor which is appropriate to a messenger of God To unite these two things constitutes the dignity of the Christian ministry." Albert Barnes https://www.studylight.org/commentary/romans/11-13.html An ambassador delivers the message of the ruler--he does not receive the adulation of a ruler. He receives respect and honor, not exaltation. WL crossed the line and allowed others to magnify HIM---along with Christ. He was Christ's "sidekick" in his mind and those of the LC. Not in mine, however. And thank you, ZNP, for your comment about editing within 24 hrs. I, too, am waiting.

11-02-2017, 01:56 PM	#166
Meribah Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 23	Re: The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Dear Evangelical, Based on your correction, it is not you who needs to apologize but rather me. And I do apologize for misinterpreting what you wrote. It was an honest mistake. And I am very glad that it does not say what I thought it said!