Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

Originally posted by gswilm
[b] The Error of Insisting on three 'Persons' as a Litmus Test of Orthodoxy.

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Persons-as-test-of-orthodoxy.html

A sample of the article:

Augustus H. Strong, whom Geisler and Rhodes referred to as "the noted Baptist theologian," said:

The term ‘person’ only appro ...[text shortened]... them, who shall constrain him to use them? I cannot.9

sonship (from gswilm's ID)[/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds

The Creed declares:

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.

Therefore, the Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. And the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.

" ... if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit [human spirit] is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, ..." (See Romans 8:9-11)

Therefore, the Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. And the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.

But we must not forget this from the creed:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.

For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another.

Isaac typified Christ. We have seen that Abraham answered God's call to go to Mount Moriah to offer Isaac. This is history. However, if we view this matter from the perspective of God's revelation, we shall see that what Abraham did to Isaac is a vivid picture of what the Father did to His beloved Son. When Abraham journeyed to Mount Moriah with Isaac, two young servants accompanied him. On the third day, Abraham put the two servants aside, saying, "I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you" (v. 5). From that point on, the story was different. It was no longer a story of four people—the father, the son, and the two servants; it was now a story of Abraham and his son Isaac. Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and laid it upon Isaac, who bore it to the top of Mount Moriah. Compare this with John 19:17, which says, "And bearing the cross Himself, He went out to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha." Isaac walked the same path on the way to Mount Moriah that the Lord Jesus later walked on the way to Golgotha. Before Christ bore the cross and walked to Calvary, Golgotha, Isaac bore the wood for the burnt offering and walked along the same way. And Jesus was crucified on the same mount where Isaac was laid on the altar. Thus, we see that Abraham was a type of the Father, and Isaac, with the wood upon him, was a type of the Only Begotten Son of God. Isaac was brought as a lamb to the altar. Jesus was also "brought as a lamb to the slaughter" (Isa. 53:7).

. Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and laid it upon Isaac, who bore it to the top of Mount Moriah. Compare this with John 19:17, which says, "And bearing the cross Himself, He went out to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha." Isaac walked the same path on the way to Mount Moriah that the Lord Jesus later walked on the way to Golgotha. Before Christ bore the cross and walked to Calvary, Golgotha, Isaac bore the wood for the burnt offering and walked along the same way. And Jesus was crucified on the same mount where Isaac was laid on the altar. Thus, we see that Abraham was a type of the Father, and Isaac, with the wood upon him, was a type of the Only Begotten Son of God. Isaac was brought as a lamb to the altar. Jesus was also "brought as a lamb to the slaughter" (Isa. 53:7).

As Abraham and Isaac were climbing Mount Moriah, Isaac said, "Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" (v. 7). Abraham replied, "My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering" (v. 8). Here we see that the son fellowshipped with the father. Do you not believe that while Jesus was bearing the cross on the way to Calvary He fellowshipped with the Father? And do you not believe that the Father talked with His Son? I do. If you say that the Bible does not tell us of this, I would say that Genesis 22 tells us so. We need to have the sight and the listening ear to hear the heavenly conversation on the way to Mount Moriah. Abraham and Isaac typified the Father and the Son, and their fellowship on the way to Mount Moriah was a vivid picture depicting how Jesus the Son fellowshipped with the Father as He was bearing the cross to Calvary. Although we do not have a clear explanation of this in plain words in the New Testament, we do have the picture in the Old Testament, and a picture is better than a thousand words. The picture in Genesis 22 portrays something which words cannot explain. Although the writers of the New Testament did not describe the loving fellowship between the Father and the Son on the way to Calvary, it is clearly portrayed in the picture in Genesis 22.

The picture in Genesis 22 portrays something which words cannot explain. Although the writers of the New Testament did not describe the loving fellowship between the Father and the Son on the way to Calvary, it is clearly portrayed in the picture in Genesis 22. How we all need to see this picture. As we shall see, nearly every point regarding the type in Genesis 22 is covered in John 1.

Let us consider now some details of Isaac as a type of Christ. Isaac was Abraham's only son (vv. 2, 12, 16). This typifies Christ as God's only Son (John 3:16). Isaac was Abraham's beloved son (v. 2), and Christ was the Father's beloved Son in whom He delighted (Matt. 3:17). In 22:5 we see that Isaac took his father's will, and in Matthew 26:39 we see that Christ chose the Father's will. In the picture in Genesis 22, we see that Isaac, a full-grown man, was obedient unto death (vv. 9-10).

Likewise, when the Lord Jesus was about to die, He said, "Not as I will, but as You will" (Matt. 26:39). In Philippians 2:8 we are told that Christ was obedient unto death. Look again at the picture: Isaac was obedient unto the altar. He not only followed the father to the foot of the mount; he also obeyed him in taking up the wood and in being bound. He did not resist. Even when the father laid him on the altar, took the knife, and stretched out his hand to slay him, he did not rebel. He was obedient unto death. If we consider all these aspects of Isaac as a type of Christ as portrayed in the Old Testament, we shall see that they were sovereignly arranged, matching the clear word of the New Testament revelation.

Originally posted by sonship

The Creed declares:

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.

I suppose that the [b]REASON the creed states that is because the Word of God states something -

"All that the Father has is Mine; for this reason I have said that He receives of Mine and will declare it to you." (John 16:15) [/b ...[text shortened]... nd the Son on the way to Calvary, it is clearly portrayed in the picture in Genesis 22. [/quote]

Many churches use singular arguements in defending their church. One line that defines their church as being "God's" church.

Just as all the scripture is all (40+ books) one Word. So the philosiphy of a church must agree with All of the one Word.

"I have not come to do away with the Law, but to fulfill the Law."

Originally posted by RJHinds

Lee is criticizing Christians who believe in the Trinity Doctrine when he makes the following statement:

"They think of the Father as one Person, sending the Son, another Person, to accomplish redemption, after which the Son sends the Spirit, yet another Person.... To split the Godhead into three separate Persons is not the revelation of the Bible...."

Witness Lee, Life Messages, p. 164

I believe the following is enough for me to identify Mr. Lee as a cult leader. Even though he may actually know the true teachings of Christianity, he chooses to revel in his false teachings.

Erroneous Concepts of the Trinity

The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism. When the Spirit of God is joined with us, God is not left behind, nor does Christ remain on the throne. This is the impression Christianity gives. They think of the Father as one Person, sending the Son, another Person, to accomplish redemption, after which the Son sends the Spirit, yet another Person. The Spirit, in traditional thinking, comes into the believers, while the Father and Son are left on the throne. When believers pray, they are taught to bow before the Father and pray in the name of the Son. To Split the Godhead into these separate Persons is not the revelation of the Bible, but the doctrine of the Nicene Creed.

When I was in Rome, I saw two paintings in the Vatican. One was of an old, bearded man sitting down, with a young son standing at his side, and a dove flying overhead. This picture, we were told, represented the three Persons in the Trinity. There was another painting right next to it, similar to it, with an old man sitting, a young man standing, and a dove flying above; however, this one also had a young woman standing there. Here were four persons, with Mary included! Should we not battle against such teachings until there is no place for them?

"Many passages off the Nicene Fathers have unquestionably a Tri-Theistic sound."

"THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS THE SPIRIT ....and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the Eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father."

Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God, p. 18-19.

Furthermore, Hebrews 1:8-9 says, "Of the Son he saith...O God...thy God...." First it says, "Of the Son he saith...O God." This means the Son is God. But later it says "thy God." This is rather difficult to explain! Since the Son is called "O God," why does it also say "thy God"? According to our mental understanding, this simply means "God's God." Based upon this concept, it is no wonder that not long ago I received a book saying that this passage speaks of two Gods. Actually, it is not speaking here of two Gods, but of one God from different aspects. From the aspect of the Son being God, He is God; therefore, it says "O God." And from the aspect of the Son being man, God is His God; therefore, it says "thy God." We must see the various aspects of our Lord. On one hand, He is God, and on the other hand, He is also man. As God, He is God; as man, God is His God. On one hand, He is the One who prays, and on the other hand, He is also the One who listens to the prayer. He is both.

The Triune God—the Father, Son, and Spirit—has the aspect of being three-in-one and also the aspect of being one-in-three. As the three-in-one, He is "I," as the one-in-three, He is "us." From the aspect of the three-in-one, "the Word was God"; from the aspect of the one-in-three, "the Word was with God" (John 1:1). From the aspect of the three-in-one, "the Lord is the Spirit"; from the aspect of the one-in-three, it is "the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:17). From the aspect of the three-in-one, the Son and the Father are one (John 10:30; 14:7-11); from the aspect of the one-in-three, the Son is with the Father (1:1-2), the Son shares the glory with the Father (17:5), the Son is the beloved of the Father (v. 24), the Son has become one with the Father (vv. 11, 21-22), and the Son takes the same action with the Father (14:23).

Originally posted by RJHinds

"The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate Persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person."

Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripaetite Man, 1970, p. 48.

... in the case of this heresy [Modalism], which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity [that is] of substance; while they mystery of the dispensation [economy] is still guarded which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from Whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

THE VISION OF THE MARK OF GOD'S ECONOMY

The economy of God with its mark was unveiled at the beginning of this book, but after reading all the foregoing chapters, it is still possible to miss this economy. In simple words, God's economy is to work Himself into us, and in order to accomplish this, He must do it in three Persons —the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

On the day of resurrection and on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit who includes all the aforementioned elements, came into and upon the early Christians (John 20:22; Titus 3:5-6). On the one hand, this Spirit comes into us, and on the other hand, He comes upon us. In this way God in His three Persons mingles Himself with us.

God never intended to give us the doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Divine Trinity only involves us in many different concepts. But the Scriptures do reveal how God accomplished His divine economy in three distinct persons.

The word "person" is used to describe the three members of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self-aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three persons in the Trinity demonstrates these qualities.

We must not overlook the following statement from a former student of Mr. Lee"

"The doctrinal matters are harder to pin on them, because Lee has said just about everything and its opposite. I even remember him bragging in trainings about being able to contradict himself and get away with it. The example I recall is him advocating tritheism in one long message, and in the next, modalism. He said both were biblical. He seemed to revel in the nonsense of it all."

I don't believe this student was lying, because from what I have seen the shoe fits Mr. Lee.

All I am doing is defending my Christian faith.

Originally posted by sonship
You continue:

"The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate Persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person."

Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripaetite Man, 1970, p. 48.

What is wrong with that?

The Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are not three God's for sure.

Would you a ...[text shortened]... to present a balanced presentation of the exceedingly mysterious revelation of God in the Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds

You don't seem to get what I am defending. I am defending the Christian Creeds of the undivided Christian Church, NOT the Roman Catholic denomination.

Also you are deliberately misrepresenting my position. I said nothing about (SEPARATE) Persons in the TRINITY.

Let me repeat the main portion of the Creed that the cult leader Mr. Lee disagrees with below:

Now this is the catholic (universal) faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,

neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another.

Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

First, this Universal Christian Creed says we are not to blend their Persons, which Mr. lee does when denies that God is three Persons, but only one Person.

Two great Mysteries in God's Economy

Is this the Father’s name, the Son’s name, or the Spirit’s name? If the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct persons, how could three distinct persons have just one name? The Lord wisely spoke in this way. If He had said, “baptizing them into the Father and the Son and the Spirit,” this would have caused the disciples to understand that these are three separate Beings.

Life Study of Genesis

Regarding the matter of the Trinity, according to the Bible we believe in the one God, the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. We believe exactly in what the Bible says. But some say, in their definition of the Trinity according to their concept, that the "Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons in the nature of one God." Then what about this one God?

Second, this Universal Christian Creed says that each of these three persons are DISTINCT from one another.

That means they are not the SAME Person. The cult leader Mr. Lee says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

It is the same "Person". So no wonder the prophet said that "unto us" a born child is called the Mighty God and a Son given is called Eternal Father.

Lift the word of God ABOVE your Creed and you will do better.

Second, this Universl Christian Creed says we are to confess each person individually as both God and Lord....

That settles it for me that the Father is a distinct and individual Person

and the Son is a distinct and individul Person and the Holy Spirit is a distinct and individual Person and we are not to blend these three Person into One Person. They are not the SAME Person.

This prove to me that Mr. Lee is a false teacher and is teaching false doctrine.

Originally posted by sonship

You don't seem to get what I am defending. I am defending the Christian Creeds of the undivided Christian Church, NOT the Roman Catholic denomination.

I understood that. I am saying that [b] FIRST we defend the statements of the Holy Bible.

The local churches are not "anti-creeds". We hold the creeds of Christiandom ...[text shortened]... word of God ABOVE your Creed and you will do better.

[quote]
Second, this Universl Ch.....[/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds

I already informed you that the Hebrew scholars disagree with Mr. Lee on his understanding of Isaiah 9:6 where the KJV has "The everlasting Father" for the translation of the Hebrew. I looked it up myself in the Gesenius HEBREW-CHALDEE LEXICON of the OLD TESTAMENT. It has those exact combination of Hebrew letters used in the Hebrew scriptures and

Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes claim that Witness Lee’s statement that “the Son is the Father” based on Isaiah 9:6 is modalistic. In their critique they attempt to explain how the name “Eternal Father” does not mean what it plainly says. When the same arguments were advanced over thirty years ago, Witness Lee thoroughly dismantled them in the booklet What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods!2 Geisler and Rhodes completely ignore the points made by Witness Lee in that booklet and simply rehash the same accusations. In examining the present critique, it is instructive to compare Witness Lee’s treatment of the words of the Bible with that of Geisler and Rhodes and to see where each approach leads.

Witness Lee starts from the conviction that the Bible means what it says. His hermeneutic is based on God’s eternal purpose and plan, that is, His economy. He saw that in God’s economy the coinherence of the Triune God is a model of the believers’ relationship with God in Christ. Geisler and Rhodes, on the other hand, start from the presumption that the words of the Bible cannot mean what they say. On that basis they:

Errantly insist that the Father in the Godhead is not mentioned in the Old Testament;

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

Negate the word “Father” in Isaiah 9:6, relying on a rabbinical paraphrase to undergird their preconceptions;

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

Support their interpretation using a rabbinical paraphrase that changes key passages in Isaiah;

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

Contradict Geisler’s own statements concerning the identity of Yahweh; and

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

Subvert the plain meaning of the Bible to promote a doctrine lacking any power to edify its readers.

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

I agree with your earlier statement that God can use cult leaders to teach us things.

Originally posted by RJHinds

I don't wish you to misunderstand that I am saying there are three different Spirits in the Godhead. I am simply maintaining the teachings of the Church that there are three different Persons made of one Spirit in the Triune God. That is, God is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and the Holy Ghost is Spirit. Satan and his angels are also spirit beings, but of a different spirit.

If Christ Jesus the Son of God is the very same Person as the Holy Spirit and the very same Person as the Father, why did He say I will ask the Father to send ANOTHER comforter, the Holy Spirit, if they are all the SAME? It does not make sense for Jesus to speak of ANOTHER, if He were actually talking about His very own Spirit within Him as Mr. Lee falsely teaches.

And why must the Son ask the Father anything, if He is that very Father. It is nonsens to believe Jesus was saying He was going to ask Himself to send Himself to the disciples. Mr. Lee is suggesting that Jesus is a deceiver, like Satan.

Do you see why that student of Mr. Lee's said that he taught tritheism and then modalism, saying they were both Biblical, and seemed to revel in the nonsense of it all?

As the church Fathers discussed the inner nature of the Trinity, they attempted to avoid the extreme of modalism on the one hand and the extreme of tritheism on the other. As they sought to formulate an adequate definition of the Trinity, they themselves were often accused of being either modalists or tritheists, depending upon their emphasis, at any given time, of one aspect of truth at the expense of the other. Their difficulty lay in trying to avoid sounding modalistic while speaking of the fact that we have one unique God, and to avoid sounding tritheistic while speaking of the three Persons and Their economy.37 “Many passages of the Nicene fathers have unquestionably a tritheistic sound, but are neutralized by others which by themselves may bear a Sabellian construction; so that their position must be regarded as midway between these two extremes.” 38 [my bolding]

Originally posted by sonship

I don't wish you to misunderstand that I am saying there are three different Spirits in the Godhead. I am simply maintaining the teachings of the Church that there are three different Persons made of one Spirit in the Triune God. That is, God is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and the Holy Ghost is Spirit. Satan and his angels are also spirit beings, but ...[text shortened]... ition must be regarded as midway between these two extremes.” 38 [my bolding]

[/b]

How come RJHinds doesn't list the number of experts that call his cherished young earth creationism crack pot science and bad theology as well ?

How come he doesn't as easily link us to a handy website announcing that his views on a 6,000 year old universe are the occasion of suspicion for many people from both science fields and Christian theology as well ?

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

Medieval (AD 600–1517) theologians, until later years, followed Augustine. They viewed creation as instantaneous, and the six days as a literary framework. An example is Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109).

Bede (c. 673–735) moderated Augustine’s view. He believed creation had occurred instantaneously but was formed over six 24-hour days. Others, such as Andrew of St. Victor (c. 1110–1175), rejected Augustine’s view and interpreted Genesis 1 literally.

The medieval church continued to believe that creation was sudden, not gradual, and occurred fewer than 6,000 years in the past. As interpreters began returning to a literal reading of Scripture, they began restoring the literal view of the days of creation.

The Reformation leaders (AD 1517–1700) believed the Bible is the final authority (sola scriptura). The Reformers rejected allegorization and returned toward a literal, grammatical-historical interpretation. Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–1564) argued that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, fewer than 6,000 years in the past.

Luther said, “We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago.” He also rejected Augustine’s view and said that “Evening and morning became one day” meant that Moses was “speaking of the natural day, which consists of twenty-four hours.”

Calvin believed that God’s creation was completed not in a moment but in six days. He concluded, based on Genesis 1:5, that God Himself took six days to accommodate His works to the capacity of men. Creation occurred little more than five thousand years in the past, not innumerable ages.

The Westminster Confession (1647) clearly affirmed that God created the world and all things in it “in the space of six days” (chapter 4, paragraph 1). “In the space of six days” was based on Calvin’s Genesis 1:5 comment. In Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (the Westminster Annotations, 1645), the Westminster authors specified concerning Genesis 1:5 that in the latter part of the verse, the word day is the natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours. This Presbyterian Confession, with its traditional view of creation, was also adopted by British and American Congregational and Baptist denominations.

Originally posted by CalJust
Members of this forum may have noticed that I am fairly tolerant and inclusive of other people's views, interpretations and opinions. This extends also to the Witness Lee movement, or called here the LC movement.

I readily concede that the doctrine of the Trinity is a hugely complex one. There seem to be many contradictory verses in the Bible, (e.g. some ...[text shortened]... ymore either.

But after all is said and done, if that is what floats your canoe, row with it!