Minister of the Age

[KSA]

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

[Terry]

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

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

Terry

[KSA]

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

[Paul Miletus]

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

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

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

CONCERNING FOLLOWING THE MINISTRY OF THE AGE

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

Seeing the Ministry of the Age

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

Forsaking the Past Ministries

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

All Being a Matter of God's Mercy

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

[KSA]

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

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

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

[Paul Miletus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KSA]

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

[Paul Miletus]

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

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

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

ESTABLISHED IN THE PRESENT TRUTH

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

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

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

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

[KSA]

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


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

[KSA]

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

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

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

[KSA]

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

[cityonahill]

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

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

such as Saul to David = two ages of ministries

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

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

[cityonahill]

Paul,

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

2 Peter 1:12

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

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

[Paul Miletus]

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

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

[cityonahill]

Paul,

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

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

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

[KSA]

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

Taken from the commentaries of John Gill

[Paul Miletus]

Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kisstheson]

Dear brother Paul,

As a fairly recent escapee from the LC, I must testify that what you are saying is not what was taught or practiced in the entire LC region that I was involved in. If things are as you say, then why is any speaking other than Lee considered "speaking differently"? Why is the HWMR book (the only basis of all the allowable speaking in the "prophecying" meetings) always 95% Lee's speaking with a small smattering of Nee occasionally included? Where are portions from other New Testament ministers not included? Why aren't there ever any excerpts from the ministries of TAS, Ian Thomas, Simon Meek, Stephen Kaung, Bakht Singh, Andrew Murray, A.W. Tozer, JN Darby, etc. in HWMR?

Excellent devotional books which are full of New Testament Ministry speaking drawn from the rich pool of anointed New Testament ministers of Christ down through the centuries certainly exist. Why not use one of them? For example, dear brother Nick Harrison has put together an excellent one-year devotional book entitled His Victorious Indwelling, which includes 366 daily portions drawn from the ministeries of New Testament ministers such as Oswald Chambers, A.W. Tozer, Hannah Whittal Smith, Watchman Nee, T. Austin-Sparks, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Corrie ten Boom, John Wesley, Stephen Kaung, George Mueller, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Hudson Taylor, D.L. Moody, Amy Carmichael, E.M. Bounds, etc. To see the details of this excellent devotional book at amazon.com, which I would definitely recommend all the LC's use for a full year instead of HWMR, click here (http://www.amazon.com/His-Victorious-Indwelling-Nick-Harrison/dp/0310218497/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219154500&sr=1-1).

[Unregistered]

Dear Brother,
Please do understand that Br. Lee's is not just another collection of spiritual books. I have spent almost fifteen solid years reading quite a large number of spiritual books written by varied authors right from second century to the end of 20th century. I can not describe the volume of the materials I have read in those years. I have been greatly benefited from those books in a tremendous way.

With all my experience though all these spiritual books (much much more than what you mentioned), I can confidently say Br.Lee's books are different. It is not just just another collection. Whether you agree or not brother, Br. Lee's is the ministry of the age. This is the fact. Fact remains fact even if the whole world oppose it.

cpthomas
cpthomas64@rediffmail.com

[KSA]

Whether you agree or not brother, Br. Lee's is the ministry of the age. This is the fact. Fact remains fact even if the whole world oppose it.



I am amused! So we gotta believe that W.Lee is the minister of the age solely on the basis of reading preferences of certain people! :thumbsup::justlurking::eek:

Who can argue with such logic? :rollingeyesfrown:

[Terry]

1 Corinthians 12:4-13

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

[OBW]

Whether you agree or not brother, Br. Lee's is the ministry of the age.Two can play that game.

Whether you agree or not, Lee was one of the most lopsided purveyors of an incomplete gospel to manage to remain mostly within Christianity, albeit in a small corner of the whole.

[Ohio]

I am amused! So we gotta believe that W.Lee is the minister of the age solely on the basis of reading preferences of certain people! Who can argue with such logic?

Not me. I was completely convinced ... for too many years.

Then I learned about too many unrighteousnesses by WL and LSM. How can WL be called the "Minister of the Age" when the kingdom of God is firstly righteousness?

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Brother, this argument works against your position - not for it.

Since the Lord founded His Church at Pentecost, He has never used a single man to preach a unique gospel message to anyone. This is how we KNOW the Bible is the Word of God: More than 40 authors, 1600 years apart, writing on three different continents... and there is no discrepancy in the message: because there is One author, who used different hands to record His message to us.

Lee's uniqueness demonstrates that what he preached was in fact NOT the Word of God, but something else...

Christ warned us, "I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him." John 5:23

...and there is much also that Lee taught which was not at all unique. I used to hear, from dear members of the Body, "Where else would I have heard that I have a spirit? Surely no one has ever preached this before!" But that is false - I have heard it from many dear members of the Body who have never set foot within an LSM church or read a whit of LSM literature. Truth is truth, and no man has the right to claim that truth as uniquely his own. When he does, he stops giving glory to God and tries to claim that glory for himself... and by such fruit you will know him.


In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

Dear Brother,
Please do understand that Br. Lee's is not just another collection of spiritual books. I have spent almost fifteen solid years reading quite a large number of spiritual books written by varied authors right from second century to the end of 20th century. I can not describe the volume of the materials I have read in those years. I have been greatly benefited from those books in a tremendous way.

With all my experience though all these spiritual books (much much more than what you mentioned), I can confidently say Br.Lee's books are different. It is not just just another collection. Whether you agree or not brother, Br. Lee's is the ministry of the age. This is the fact. Fact remains fact even if the whole world oppose it.

cpthomas
cpthomas64@rediffmail.com

[Ohio]

Brother, this argument works against your position - not for it.

Since the Lord founded His Church at Pentecost, He has never used a single man to preach a unique gospel message to anyone. This is how we KNOW the Bible is the Word of God: More than 40 authors, 1600 years apart, writing on three different continents... and there is no discrepancy in the message: because there is One author, who used different hands to record His message to us.


NFnL,

You exposed one of those hypocritical ironies which plagues the Recovery. The Bible has one consistent message because it has only one Author.

So ... one would think that the Recovery would have "one consistent message" because it has only one author, WL, but the just the opposite is true. His earlier and later messages are riddled with contradictions, in fact, if it wasn't for "one consistent Princeton-educated editor," the blatant contractions in WL's ministry might have been obvious enough for more members to observe.

[Igzy]

Dear Brother,
Please do understand that Br. Lee's is not just another collection of spiritual books.

I have spent almost fifteen solid years reading quite a large number of spiritual books written by varied authors right from second century to the end of 20th century. I can not describe the volume of the materials I have read in those years. I have been greatly benefited from those books in a tremendous way.

With all my experience though all these spiritual books (much much more than what you mentioned), I can confidently say Br.Lee's books are different. It is not just just another collection. Whether you agree or not brother, Br. Lee's is the ministry of the age.



I guess it must be true because you say so. :rolleyes:

For us to know Lee was the minister of the age we would have to know that the idea of minister of the age is something that exists in God's universe. Since we don't, the idea is subjective and meaningless for all practical purposes.

Second, the words and examples of the New Testament are solidly in the opposite direction of what the idea of ministry of the age implies. In other words, it is not only non-biblical, it is anti-biblical.

Third, what is to be gained for God by making people believe Lee was something the Bible doesn't tell us to identify?

"Ministry of the age" is an artificial construct. Placing such importance on it is a pathology, regardless of if you believe it to be true. In other words, you're off the mark.

[ZNPaaneah]

I guess it must be true because you say so. :rolleyes:

For us to know Lee was the minister of the age we would have to know that the idea of minister of the age is something that exists in God's universe. Since we don't, the idea is subjective and meaningless for all practical purposes.

Second, the words and examples of the New Testament are solidly in the opposite direction of what the idea of ministry of the age implies. In other words, it is not only non-biblical, it is anti-biblical.

Third, what is to be gained for God by making people believe Lee was something the Bible doesn't tell us to identify?

"Ministry of the age" is an artificial construct. Placing such importance on it is a pathology, regardless of if you believe it to be true. In other words, you're off the mark.

If I recall correctly the foundation of this teaching is based on the theory that Paul was "the minister of the Age". This in turn was based on the teaching that Jesus had the earthly ministry of Christ, and Paul represented the heavenly ministry of the ascended Christ. But to say that Peter or John were in some way not as significant in their ministries is truly absurd. For that matter all of the writers of the NT were clearly significant, so the concept of "the" minister of the age is certainly not supported by the New Testament. On the contrary the NT demonstrates time and again how significant brothers and sisters who might otherwise be completely ignored were.

[manna-man]

I guess it must be true because you say so. :rolleyes:

For us to know Lee was the minister of the age we would have to know that the idea of minister of the age is something that exists in God's universe. Since we don't, the idea is subjective and meaningless for all practical purposes.

Second, the words and examples of the New Testament are solidly in the opposite direction of what the idea of ministry of the age implies. In other words, it is not only non-biblical, it is anti-biblical.

Third, what is to be gained for God by making people believe Lee was something the Bible doesn't tell us to identify?

"Ministry of the age" is an artificial construct. Placing such importance on it is a pathology, regardless of if you believe it to be true. In other words, you're off the mark.

A hearty Amen! To that!

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

I would like to take some time to expose the true fallacy of the "Minister of the Age" doctrine, and let me start here - where Lee first raises his demand that there ought only be 'one' for the sake of 'oneness'....

Christ prays to our Father for His Church, in John 17, let us consider what He prays:

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

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

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

It has been rightly noted here, and elsewhere, that our Lord Jesus Christ prays for our "Oneness"... and this is has been expounded from the Catholic (Universal) church to the movement of the Plymouth Brethren to the Home church movement of Nee's Little Flock in China, and beyond. But this is not the only thing our Lord prays for in this prayer, for He asks:

1) That all that have been given to Him be given eternal life.

2) That this prayer is not for the World, but ONLY for those given to Him (His Church).

3) That He be glorified in them.

4) That we be One, even as He and the Father are One.

5) That we might have His joy fulfilled in ourselves.

6) That we should not be taken out of the world, but should be kept from evil.

7) That we might be sanctified (set apart, Holy unto God) through the Truth (His Word is Truth).

8) That as Christ is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, that we might be in Him and so be perfected into One for the World to see the Truth.

9) That we may be with Him, where He is.

10) That His love might be in us.

...There is a lot more to this prayer than a simple call to our being One, and the Oneness spoken of here is not a simple thing, as there is a qualifier given along with it: "one, as We are."

How are Christ and the Father one? This goes to the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity, which I do not suppose any man can adequately explain without being labelled by one faction or another as a heretic; the trinity is a truth beyond our ability to grasp or handle with words - although we can take it by faith.

Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

So while we may argue how to adequately define how Christ and the Father are One, we are more likely to agree how Christ and Father are NOT One.

- Christ and the Father are not together under a supreme authority (and by this, we may say someone who brands themselves a "Minister of the Age" would represent a Supreme Authority as much as a Pope would). No, They ARE the Supreme Authority (John 3:35 "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand." - and so we may rightly declare that Jesus Christ is LORD.)

- Christ and the Father are not together in a hierarchical organization. Again, Colossians 3:11b "Christ is All and in All."

....And so if we agree upon these points, then we must agree that whatever Oneness He prayed for on our behalf, it did not include either the Oneness organized under a supreme authority (beyond His own - for as we read in Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body", nor the oneness of an organization under a hierarchy; for we "are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light;" 1 Peter 2:9

So what kind of Oneness did He mean, and how can we accomplish it?

First off, we can't accomplish anything; did not Christ say "I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18b

There have been a thousand arguments launched against the first part of that verse, but I have read none that touch upon this second part. Christ will build His Church, and of that you can be certain.

So if Christ is to build it, then we must look to see how He began it... let us read what came to pass after these things... John 21

Here, in this last chapter of John which seems so oddly out of place at the end of this book, we read of Christ's third appearance to the disciples after His resurrection - when they returned to Galilee to fish. Here He meets them on the shore, and there prepares a meal for them on the beach to speak with them what is on His heart. Read that chapter, and consider: When Peter is called by Christ to follow Him, Peters' response is to turn and see 'the disciple whom Jesus loved', John, following too. "Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou Me." John 21:21-22

Christ did not call the group to continue on as one to follow Him - He called an individual (in this case, Peter) and asked, "What is that to you? You follow Me." Here we see the Church begun, and it is begun in a way we would never expect; a way in which not Peter nor any other apostle is made the head of all things - but we are called as individual disciples to follow Him.

What became of the other disciples? They were not cast aside and disregarded by Christ; nor did they bow to the authority of Peter. They were each individually used; some we know of through Scripture, and some only tradition can tell us of {read Hippolytus of Rome (236 AD), or Eusebius (260-341)}; regardless, He lead each out to do His work and to spread the good news of His Kingdom.

So what happened to the other disciples? Consider what the evidence tells us (both from the perspective of the historical accounts we have and the evidence of the spread of gospel).

1) Andrew


According to Hippolytus:
Andrew preached to the Scythians [modern day Georgia] and Thracians [modern day Bulgaria], and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia [Greece]; and there too he was buried.


2) Bartholomew


According to Hippolytus, Bartholomew preached in India:
Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia [modern day southern Georgia].

Eusebius, in his Church History, confirms the ministry of Bartholomew in India, and adds an eye witness account:
"About that time, Pantaenus, a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria... Pantaenus...is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time." ---- (Book 5, Chapter 10)


3) James, Son of Alphaeus


Hippolytus identifies that James was stoned to death in Jerusalem:
And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem, was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple.


4) James, Son of Zebedee

James was the brother of John, the disciple "that Jesus loved".

According to the Book of Acts in the New Testament, James was killed by Herod:
Act 12:1 And at that time Herod the king threw on his hands to oppress some of those of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

This is confirmed by Hippolytus:
James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.

Eusebius descibed more precisely what was cut off of James:
First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded... (Book 3, Chapter 5)


5) John, brother of James and son of Zebedee

John was one of the few disciples that did not die a cruel death, but of "old age".

Eusebius discusses the reason that John wrote his Gospel:
"Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity...And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry." (Book 3, Chapter 24)

According to Hippolytus, John was banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, and later died in Ephesus:
John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.


6) Matthew/Levi


Eusebius referenced to Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, as early as c. 110 A.D., bearing witness to Matthew's authorship of his gospel:
....Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39)

According to Hippolytus:
Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia.\224 [Parthia is near modern day Tehran]


7) Simon/Peter


Eusebius, quoting Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110 A.D.), records a tradition that the Gospel of Mark preserved the Gospel as preached by Peter:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.... he accompanied Peter..." ---- (Book 3, Chapter 39)

Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) records a similar tradition, and mentions that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome:
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter..." ---- (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book 3, Chapter 1)

Eusebius records that Peter was put to death under Nero in Rome:
It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. ---- (Book 2, Chapter 25)

(Paul was a Roman citizen can cannot be crucified but got an "easier" death sentence)
Hippolytus confirmed the fact that Peter was crucified by Nero in Rome:
Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.


8) Philip


According to Hippolytus, Philip preached and was executed in what today is eastern Turkey:
Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there.


9) Simon the Zealot


According to Hippolytus, Simon the Zealot was the second Bishop of Jerusalem:
Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude, became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120 years.


10) Thaddaeus/Judas son of James

According to Mat 10:3 (KJV): Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.... Thaddaeus is also known as Lebbaeus.

Hippolytus records:
Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there.


11) Thomas


Hippolytus records that Thomas was an active missionary, and that he met his fate in India:
And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spear at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there.

the above provided courtesy of http://www.ichthus.info/Disciples/intro.html

These 11 were lead, each independently, to follow our Lord - not eachother. None was under the authority of another; only Christ was their Head. They fellowshipped, they worked together on a common purpose and a Great Commission, and this, my brothers and sisters, this is Oneness. The Oneness of Purpose.

If it were Christ's intent that Oneness were achieved by men, in some way we envision, rather than by a means He meant, surely He would have commanded "build My Church", and not "I will build My Church". Surely He would not have broken up the disciples and sent each on their way to do a work separately, but rather would have kept them together and moving forward; leaving no question as to the succession of one over another. Surely He would have kept them close, knowing the folly to which men are prone - and the endless arguments that would be fought were they not strongly managed: perhaps He would even have left tantalizing clues as to who the next "minister of the age" would be, something like: "and in the latter days I will raise up a man from the east, who will interpret My Word anew and recover my Church from fallen Christendom"... But Christ is Lord, and He is in control. Though Satan wages a war against the Saints, it is a war he has already lost. "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Praise the Lord, we will break down the very gates of Hell! Christ WILL build His Church... And He did not build it from Jerusalem only, nor merely from Rome (by whose example Catholics proclaim themselves alone to be the true Church, forgetting entirely the Orthodox churches of the East likewise founded by Christ through the Spirit-inspired proclamation of the gospel by apostles contemporary to those who went to Rome). Brothers and Sisters, whomever and however Christ moved His people, we can know that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The "Minister of the Age" delusion is on that leads to extreme exclusivism and separation, not away from it. By abhoring 'denominations' or Christians who don't practice our particular brand of Christianity we must (although perhaps we do not wish to) abhor those genuine members of the body who 'belong' to one; denying that Christ placed them where He did. By insisting upon our denomination (and by denomination, I mean any group or sect that sets itself apart - be that Catholic, Orthodox, Brethren Assembly, two-by-two, Lutheran, Mennonite, Amish, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. etc. etc.), we are being sectarian and cutting off all other members whom Christ Himself has died for to Save. We are to have a Oneness of Purpose, so let us each fulfill that purpose as we are lead to do, where we are lead to do it.

Consider the letters to the Seven Churches as Paul was commanded to write them from Patmos: Whether you believe that these seven letters were written as prophecy (as some contend), to represent the seven ages of the church, or as letters of warning to the seven kinds of churches that exist even today, or as letters to the persons of the Universal Church, for each of us who were called of God to Faith in Jesus Christ to consider, or even to seven historical churches that are no more - there can be no argument: These seven churches, while contemporary, were NOT One; and though Christ offered warning or reprimand to each - HE never urged them to join together as 'One'. He did not call members of one church into another, He did not condemn members of any one church completely (He offered promises to overcomers in EACH of the seven), and He told us plainly that He not only Walks among the Seven, He also Holds the stars of each in His hand.

Let us each preach Christ, wherever we are, as we are called to do brothers and sisters. Let us give Him the throne, and take every thought captive to Him. Let us fellowship as He allows; sharing and receiving that we may water and be watered and plant and be planted; and let God cause the growth. Our God is an awesome God, and His purposes will not be thwarted. He knows what He is doing, and He knows when His ends will be accomplished.

In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

[11of101]

"Und ze penalty for breaking ze Ziegfreid Oath iz Death"

-from The Producers 2005

[Ohio]

Dear Brother,
Please do understand that Br. Lee's is not just another collection of spiritual books. I have spent almost fifteen solid years reading quite a large number of spiritual books written by varied authors right from second century to the end of 20th century. I can not describe the volume of the materials I have read in those years. I have been greatly benefited from those books in a tremendous way.

With all my experience though all these spiritual books (much much more than what you mentioned), I can confidently say Br.Lee's books are different. It is not just just another collection. Whether you agree or not brother, Br. Lee's is the ministry of the age. This is the fact. Fact remains fact even if the whole world oppose it.

cpthomas
cpthomas64@rediffmail.com

With all respect for your personal views on WL, which I also espoused for nearly 3 decades, I must interject that the concept of "ministry of the age" is identical to the papacy with its papal lineage, which is the foundation of Roman Catholicism, which I grew up in.

[Igzy]

How are Christ and the Father one? This goes to the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity, which I do not suppose any man can adequately explain without being labelled by one faction or another as a heretic; the trinity is a truth beyond our ability to grasp or handle with words - although we can take it by faith.

I just wish to note that this little nugget is priceless.

[11of101]

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.........

You will eat Christ, you will obey the ministry, you will conform to Lee.
you will become the echo of Lee's ego.
......................

I wanna be a producer a great big Broadway flop titled "Springtime for Lee und His Recovery". Sometimes you have to go insane to regain sanity. That's why I say ...

"keep it mad, keep it glad , keep it something that will offend the largest majority possible"