The Trinity - a sample of Witness Lee

A joke was made about Samarai warriors. I suppose the intention was to portray Eastern martial arts disciplines as humorously reminiscent of the relationship of these two Christian workers from China - Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.

Seriously though, God created the people of the East as well as those of the West. And as God used Western preachers somewhat influenced by their Western cultures, who is to say He could not use Eastern workers somewhat influenced by positive aspects of Eastern culture.

5.) Dropping concepts to be in one accord for one spiritual flow

THE MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FLOW

Because I knew I was in the Lord's flow and that this flow had already started, I also realized that there was a ministry responsible for that flow. As the result of seeing this, I strongly decided to forget all my past learning and experience. The fact that I had been able to conduct a detailed study on Song of Songs indicates that I had some knowledge and that I could do something. I had learned a good deal about the Bible in my seven and a half years with the Brethren. I knew the types, the prophecies, and various other things. Moreover, a church had been established through me. Nevertheless, I realized that the Lord's flow on the earth must be one, that the flow had already begun, and that there was a ministry carrying on this flow. I knew that I had to be in the flow and to be under the ministry responsible for the flow.

Those who were with us in the early years can testify that, apart from the messages I gave in the meetings, I never said anything. In view of the fact that Brother Nee was present, I dropped all my concepts, all my learnings, and all my experiences. He was the one used by the Lord to start the flow and he had the ministry to carry on the flow. There was no need for my opinion. However, this does not mean that I did nothing. During the next eighteen or twenty years, I did a great deal. But everything was according to Brother Nee's leading, not according to my opinion. I never ministered anything according to myself; I only ministered the messages delivered by Brother Nee. In those years I never expressed my opinion or concept; instead, I wholly followed Brother Nee.

The Lord is flowing in His move on earth. This flow was not started by you, but by others. Furthermore, there is a ministry responsible for the flow. It is difficult for me to speak about this because now the matter is very much related to me. If I were still on the mainland and the flow were related to Brother Nee's ministry, I would have the ground to say much more.

The flow of life in the Body of Christ can move from East to West just as easily as it can move from West to East.

We in the West can suffer from too much pride, laughing that God could start a major move from a country that received Western missionaries. The move on the earth of God's Holy Spirit is from heaven.

Originally posted by RJHinds
😀

You not going get into sonship's good books by laughing at my jokes. Just warning you. I am like the antichrist to him. 🙂

Originally posted by Rajk999
You not going get into sonship's good books by laughing at my jokes. Just warning you. I am like the antichrist to him. 🙂

Me too, I guess. 🙁

Concerning the error of making Creeds the ultimate standard of truth rather than the Scriptures.

Geisler claims to have sent a letter to Ron Kangas, editor-in-chief of the Living Stream Ministry publication Affirmation & Critique.4 This letter is attached to the article posted by Geisler and Rhodes criticizing CRI’s reassessment of the teachings of the local churches. In his letter, Geisler criticized the following excerpts from a statement of faith printed near the front of the journal:

Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate.

and:

We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God. 5

In the following statements Geisler makes the explicit use of the word "person(s)" in reference to the Trinity a requirement for orthodoxy:

First, if you desired to be considered orthodox in your "Statement of Faith," then why did you leave out the word "person" of the three members of the Trinity. To be orthodox you should have said "three [persons] being distinct" and "we confess the third [person] of the Trinity."

Judged by Geisler’s standard, the Bible itself is not orthodox, and neither are the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, as none of them use the word "person" when speaking of the three of the Trinity. Furthermore, in Geisler’s letter to Ron Kangas, Geisler proffers the following definition of heresy:

Based on biblical usage, the word heresy refers to a divisive teaching or practice that is contrary to the historic Christian Faith as based on the Bible and expressed in the early Christian creeds.

This definition is itself absurd. How could the "biblical usage" of the term "heresy" refer to something as "expressed in the early Christian creeds," which did not even exist at the time of the completion of the writing of the Bible? Geisler’s criticism exhibits a preoccupation with formulaic expressions rather than a proper discernment of biblical truth, and it supplants the words of the Bible with those of the creeds.

More at Contending For the Faith [my emphasis]

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/creeds.html

The Coinherence of the Father and the Son

Witness Lee further considered the truth concerning the incarnation of Christ that is spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 in the context of the entire divine revelation. In particular, the Gospel of John shows us a unique revelation concerning the relationship between the Son and the Father. For example, in John 1:14—”the only Begotten from the Father”—the Greek word for “from” is παρὰ (para). As Witness Lee explained in his footnote on this word, para:

… means by the side of, implying with; hence, it is, literally, from with. The Son not only is from God but also is with God. On the one hand, He is from God, and on the other hand, He is still with God (8:16b, 29; 16:32b).

In John 10:30 the Lord said, “I and the Father are one.” In John 14:9 He said, “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” These verses themselves must be understood in the light of the relationship shown in the Gospel of John between the Father and the Son. Witness Lee is not alone in making this association as the following examples demonstrate:

Clement of Alexandria:

Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end.” O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son.5

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown:

The everlasting Father. This marks Him as “Wonderful,” that He is “a child,” yet the “everlasting Father” (John x. 30; xiv. 9).6

B. B. Warfield:

Here [in John's writings] He not only with great directness declares that He and the Father are one (x. 30; cf. xvii. 11, 21, 22, 25) with a unity of interpenetration (“The Father is in me, and I in the Father,” x. 38; cf. xvi. 10, 11), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (xiv. 9; cf. xv. 21); but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity (“Before Abraham was born, I am,” Jn. Viii. 58), His co-eternity with God (“had with thee before the world was,” xvii. 5; cf. xvii. 18; vi. 62), His eternal participation in the Divine glory itself (“the glory which I had with thee,” in fellowship, community with Thee “before the world was,” xvii.5).7

The oneness the Three in the Godhead share is not just a common purpose nor is it merely a shared nature. It is a oneness of mutual indwelling. The Lord’s word in John 10:38—”the Father is in Me and I am in the Father”—is an explanation of verse 30—”I and the Father are one.” Similarly, his words to His disciples in John 14:10—”Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?”—explain why it is that to see the Son is to see the Father in verse 9. Thus, the oneness spoken of in the Gospel of John is a oneness of coinherence.

From http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Christ-and-the-Father.html

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] [b] The Coinherence of the Father and the Son

Witness Lee further considered the truth concerning the incarnation of Christ that is spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 in the context of the entire divine revelation. In particular, the Gospel of John shows us a unique revelation concerning the relationship between the Son and the Father. For example, in J ...[text shortened]... rom http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Christ-and-the-Father.html[/b]

Amen, sonship