One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's a good point. I know this thread isn't on the MOTA, but the city church and the MOTA are so intertwined and dependent upon each other that it is hard to talk about one and not the other.

It's interesting that Nee and Lee came up with the idea of MOTA. The people who they identified as past MOTAs never claimed the title, as far as I know. But Nee and Lee did. But once they did, after them, suddenly God abandoned the MOTA effort. No more MOTAs. Lee was the last one. He comes along, invents the idea of MOTA which he applied to himself, and then after he is gone... no more MOTAs. How convenient.

Can someone point to where Nee or Lee called themselves MOTAs? I know some LCers who don't agree with the MOTA thing but say that it really came into play after Lee's death and that it's the BBs who use the term MOTA. They think that Nee and Lee wouldn't have agreed with it.

Did Nee and Lee ever refer to themselves this way (either explicitly or implicitly)?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can someone point to where Nee or Lee called themselves MOTAs? I know some LCers who don't agree with the MOTA thing but say that it really came into play after Lee's death and that it's the BBs who use the term MOTA. They think that Nee and Lee wouldn't have agreed with it.

Did Nee and Lee ever refer to themselves this way (either explicitly or implicitly)?

I believe it was Nee who formalized the doctrine of the MOTA. Lee reiterated it. He stated plainly that "the Lord's recovery" was always with the MOTA, and he plainly claimed the Lord's recovery was with him. I heard him do that several times. He regularly talked about how the progression of God's revelation culminated with his ministry. Although I never heard him say flatly, "I am the minister of the age," he clearly believed it and and expected us to believe it as well. He claimed to have no peer in his lifetime other than Nee. He bragged about his ministry, claiming it had no peer. It makes no sense that he would teach about the MOTA, and make such other high-falutin' claims about himself, and not believe he was the MOTA.

He was coy about it, a kind of unconvincing humility. But he believed it, and expected us to.

It goes without saying that the BBs' whole reign of terror depends on them having people believe it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can someone point to where Nee or Lee called themselves MOTAs?

I never heard WL refer to himself as a MOTA and I heard him rebuke others when they said it. However, you knew that if WL really wanted to put a stop to people saying it he would have.

Rather the book the "vision of the age" is one of the basic pieces of what he would teach.

In this book he talks about T. Austin Sparks, how his vision differed with the LC on the matter of the church ground. He then goes through history making the point that at any one point in history you have to have the vision of that age. The very obvious context is that we in the LC have that vision, which is how this book concludes.

He rebukes James for not having the vision, even saying this "The fact that Jerusalem was burned to the ground and that thousands of people were killed was altogether James’s fault."

He rebukes Barnabas for not having the vision. etc.

So in this message he teaches that individuals like Paul got the vision for that age, that there were many godly men who didn't have the vision (like James, Barnabas and T. Austin Sparks) and that you could be pious, preaching the gospel, and spiritual without having the complete vision.

Then in other places you will see him teach about there being one minister per age with the vision for that age and will teach that WN was the minister of his age and that the ground of the church was the vision for that age.

Put these two teachings together and you come to the conclusion that WL has the vision for his age and is therefore the MOTA. Though he would not say it, rather he would leave it to RG and others to say it.