Romans 9:5

Checkbaiter quoted:

" Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”

I explained, contrary to robbie's comment that this was an attempt to nullify the eternal Father to be some OTHER kind of divine father.

IE - The "eternal Father" means the father of the messianic age. That is the essence of the comment. He is saying that the Father there in Isaiah is not the Divine Father of the whole Bible but another divine father of the age to come.

So he ends up with TWO divine fathers in the universe. One is the Father who is Jehovah God in the book of Isaiah and elsewhere and the other is a concocted different divine father of the age to come.

Witness Lee addresses this unfortunate tendency to stagger at the pure utterance of Isaiah's prophecy in a chapter on Various Twistings of Isaiah 9:6 in the book "What a Heresy, Two Divine Fathers, Two Life Giving Spirits, and Three Gods."

Some of the critics, however, may reply, “Don’t you say that the Son is the Father and that Christ is the Spirit? This is exactly what the modalists say.” To this I would answer that I do not care for modalism, but only for the pure word of the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 says that a child is born unto us, that a son is given unto us, that the child is called the mighty God, and that this son is called the everlasting Father. To say that the Son is the Father is not an interpretation; it is a quotation. If you read this verse carefully, you will see from the context that the mighty God refers to the child and that the everlasting Father refers to the Son. Throughout the centuries, all fundamental students of the Bible have agreed that the child born in the manger was the mighty God. Only Jews and unbelievers would deny this. However, the vast majority of Christians only believe half of this verse. They either neglect or twist the other half regarding the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. Let us now consider this verse in some detail along with the different ways of twisting it.

The first twisting is exemplified by a brother who said, “The Son is called the Father, but He is not the Father.” I said, “Brother, isn’t it ridiculous to say this? Can we say that Mr. Smith is called Mr. Smith, but that he is not really Mr. Smith? Can we say that the Bible is called the Bible, but that it is not the Bible? The same is true with the matter of the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. How can we say that He is called the everlasting Father but is not the everlasting Father? What kind of logic is this?”

A second twisting claims that because, according to the Hebrew, “the everlasting Father” should be rendered “the Father of eternity,” the Son cannot be the Father. I agree that “the Father of eternity” is a better translation than “the everlasting Father.” But who is this Father of eternity? Is He not the Father among the Three of the Godhead? Apart from the Father in the Godhead is there another divine Father who is called “the Father of eternity”? Certainly not! Nevertheless, some twist Isaiah 9:6 to say that the Father of eternity is not the Father in the Godhead. They say that He is another Father, the Father of eternity, which, according to them, means the origin, the source, of the ages. This twisting implies that they believe in two divine Fathers—the Father in the Godhead and the Father of eternity. This is really heretical. According to the Bible, the Father of eternity is the Father in the Godhead. I appeal to you to be honest, fair, and sincere. Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead there is another Father who is the Father of eternity?

A third twisting claims that, according to the Hebrew, the everlasting Father is the Father of creation. To this, I would ask, “Who is this Father of creation?” If they answer that He is Jesus, I would reply, “Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead, Jesus is another Father, the Father of creation?” They would have to admit that they believe this. If they do, then they have two divine Fathers. While they condemn us for being heretical, they themselves are exposed as being heretical.

According to the fourth way of twisting, the “Father” in this verse is the Father of Israel. The ones who twist the verse in this way use Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 as their basis. They say that the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is the Father of Israel. But I would ask, “Who is this Father, the Father of Israel?” Surely, it must be the Father in the Godhead. If anyone says that this Father, the Father of Israel, is not the Father in the Godhead, he implies that there are two divine Fathers. This is certainly heretical.

A fifth twisting is based upon a note in an edition of the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.) This note renders “the Father of the age to come” for “the everlasting Father.” Some say that, based on this, the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is not the Father in the Godhead, but the Father of the coming age. They claim that He is the Father who brings in the new age, just as Edison was the father who brought in the age of electrical science. But the Hebrew word for “everlasting” in this verse means eternity, eternal, everlasting, evermore, perpetually, old, world without end (see Strong’s Concordance). However they twist this verse, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father.”

From http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/heresy.html

Originally posted by sonship
Checkbaiter quoted:

" Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”

I explained, contrary to robbie's comment that this was an attempt to nullify the eternal Father to be some OTHER kind of divine father.

IE - The "eternal F ...[text shortened]... the Father.” [/quote]

From http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/heresy.html

Hi, sonship. Does Witness Lee recognize the biblical authorization of the Local Church in the Dispensation of the Church Age?

Originally posted by sonship
Checkbaiter quoted:

" Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”

I explained, contrary to robbie's comment that this was an attempt to nullify the eternal Father to be some OTHER kind of divine father.

IE - The "eterna ...[text shortened]... Father.” [/quote]

From http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/heresy.html

Since this Witness Lee does not care for Modalism, he must agree with the oneness Pentecostals. What else could he be, since he obviously is not a Trinitarian Christian?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since this Witness Lee does not care for Modalism, he must agree with the oneness Pentecostals. What else could he be, since he obviously is not a Trinitarian Christian?

No, Witness Lee never taught Modalism as you hear taught in oneness Pentecostalism. This is going to call for some other than cursory research on your part.

Here are three short booklets in which Lee and/or Lee's co-workers concisely outlined the Bible's basic revelation of the Triune God.

1.) The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God by Witness Lee

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/triune.html

2.) The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible by Witness Lee

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/revelation.html

3.) Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God by Ron Kangus

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/modalism.html

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Hi, sonship. Does Witness Lee recognize the biblical authorization of the Local Church in the Dispensation of the Church Age?

I do not understand exactly the question. But I think of the books I sent you you should have been able to learn something about "one city - one church". Your questions sounds like something I glanced over but not studied carefully in the books that you sent me.

I think I sent you one on The History of the Local Churches.

And I think in the Elder's Training Conference there were also explanations of the Lord's recovery of the proper ground of the church.

Incidently, I dropped the discussion on the Revelation passages on the surrounding nations. I decided not to argue about it further or refer to links explanaing it.

It is not a crucial tenet of the common faith. So I just stopped writing about it on the Forum. Discussion was not taking place really anyway.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Isaiah 9:6
“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)

1. Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Fath ...[text shortened]... zzard, pp. 45 and 51

Farley, pp. 47-49

Morgridge, pp. 105 and 106

Snedeker, pp. 397-403

2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that.

The Mighty God is Jehovah according to Jeremiah 32:17,18 .

Ah Lord Jehovah! behold, thou hast made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by thy outstretched arm; there is nothing too hard for thee, (v17)

who showest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them; the great, the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his name .. (v.18) [1901 ASV]

Isaiah 9:6 intends to reveal that Jehovah God will become a man in incarnation. Jehovah is the mighty God.

Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.

I would encourage people to understand that these caveats are not the issue in Isaiah 9:6. But rather Jehovah becomes a man. The Mighty God becomes the child born.

Jesus identified Himself as the God of the Old Testament in the synoptics, let alone the Gospel of John.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not." (Matt. 23:37)

Footnote 37(1) of the Recovery Version explains -

" It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa. 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Hence, when the Lord Jesus said, "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself. " [my bolding]

So indeed, the Mighty God became a born child.

3. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God&rdquo😉 with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler&rdquo😉. If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.

Taking all the titles together, it should be obvious that the Divine, uncreated, eternal and everlasting God - Jehovah, is Who is being referred to as being incarnate as a man.

If you follow checkbaiter's logic you end up with an exact negation of what the passage reveals.

IE. The child born is [NOT] the Mighty God.
The son given is [NOT] the Eternal Father.

I believe that checkbaiter's labors are to negate the passage and place NOT there making it say the opposite of what the prophecy reveals.

The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”

The net effect of this kind of exegesis is to make Isaiah 9:6 deny what it appears to say. The passage is about incarnation of God as the Man who is the Messianic King. This matches the New Testament exactly.

Originally posted by sonship

2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that.

The Mighty God is Jehovah according to [b]Jeremiah 32:17,18 .

[quote] Ah Lord Jehovah! behold, thou hast made ...[text shortened]... rnation of God as the Man who is the Messianic King. This matches the New Testament exactly.[/b]

I would encourage people to understand that these caveats are not the issue in Isaiah 9:6. But rather Jehovah becomes a man. The Mighty God becomes the child born.

Jesus identified Himself as the God of the Old Testament in the synoptics, let alone the Gospel of John.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not." (Matt. 23:37)



Footnote 37(1) of the Recovery Version explains -

" It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa. 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Hence, when the Lord Jesus said, "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself. " [my bolding]



So indeed, the Mighty God became a born child.

Could it be that Jesus is speaking the words his Father commanded? Is he not representing his Father? Nowhere does it say God "became" a man.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

Could it be that Jesus is speaking the words his Father commanded? Is he not representing his Father? Nowhere does it say God "became" a man.

Yes, Jesus spoke the words that the Father commanded Him to speak. But this is much more profound than Jesus having in his ear an earphone like device dictating to Him word by word what to recite. I think you should think of Jesus speaking the words of His Father to be more profound then a dictaphone type recitation in a purely mechanical way.

He said that His speaking was the Father's working:

"The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

As for the Bible not saying that God "became" a man, we do have John 1:14 telling us that "the Word became flesh" .

"[T]he Word was God" (John 1:1)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (1:1)

"And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality." (1:14)

This is virtually "God became a man". Otherwise you would have to argue like the Jehovah's Witnesses that "the Word" is not God. But Scripture says " and the Word was God". And this "Word [God] BECAME flesh" (John 1:14)

Do you not believe in the incarnation ?
Followers of Jesus Christ believe that God became a man.

I believe that you refered to Athanasius previously. Athanasius also confessed that God became man.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
[quote]
I would encourage people to understand that these caveats are not the issue in Isaiah 9:6. But rather Jehovah becomes a man. The Mighty God becomes the child born.

Jesus identified Himself as the God of the Old Testament in the synoptics, let alone the Gospel of John.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who a ...[text shortened]... his Father commanded? Is he not representing his Father? Nowhere does it say God "became" a man.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(John 1:1-3, 14 KJV)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

The problem with the Jehovah's Witnesses and many others is their mistaken belief that Jehovah or YHVH (YaH for short) is God the Father. In actuality, YaH is Yahshua (Jesus) the Son of God, who is the one called the WORD in the beginning with God the Father, according to John 1:1.

It was the second person of the Trinity that appeared to Moses as the angel of the LORD and spoke to him out of the burning bush and said to Moses: I AM the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

(Exodus 3:6 KJV)

And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Exodus 3:14 KJV)

You must understand that in the Hebrew the name for God is YHVH translated (I AM That I AM) and the short version of the name of God in Hebrew is YH translated (I AM). Yahshua (Jesus) made the Pharisees very angry when He said to them,

“Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 8:58 NKJV)

It was the second person of the Trinity that said,

Let US make man in OUR image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)

Do you not understand that HalleluYaH means praise the LORD? YaH is YaHshua, the LORD and Savior, Christ Jesus.

By the way, YaHshua means Yah saves. Jesus mean God saves.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

(Matthew 1:21 KJV)

Originally posted by sonship
No, Witness Lee never taught Modalism as you hear taught in oneness Pentecostalism. This is going to call for some other than cursory research on your part.

Here are three short booklets in which Lee and/or Lee's co-workers concisely outlined the Bible's basic revelation of the Triune God.

1.) [b]The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Tr ...[text shortened]... b] by Ron Kangus

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/modalism.html

He claims to believe in the Triune God in your references. However, according to the video below and from what I got from your earlier postings on what he said, can you not see why there seems to be some troubling contradictions, as the commentator is stating?

Witness Lee on the Trinity

YouTube

This could possibly be explained by the fact that he stated the Trinity was a mystery and that he admits he does not understand it. However, perhaps he should have been more careful in his teachings.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He claims to believe in the Triune God in your references. However, according to the video below and from what I got from your earlier postings on what he said, can you not see why there seems to be some troubling contradictions, as the commentator is stating?

Witness Lee on the Trinity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZGaLpAwJY

This could possibl ...[text shortened]... he does not understand it. However, perhaps he should have been more careful in his teachings.

RJ,

Rather than I listen through the video, why not tell me exactly what troubles you ?

If Witness Lee said that God is a mystery he would only be quoting the word of God.

You recently refered to First Timothy 3:16

"And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in Spirit, .... etc."

So if Lee stated that the Triune God is a mystery or mysterious he would simply be saying what the Scripture says. Right?

"Great is the MYSTERY of godliness, He [God] who was manifested in the flesh ..."

If I watch that video will I see the speaker criticize Witness Lee for saying that the Triune God is great mystery ?

In Isaiah 9:6 the first title of the incarnate God is "Wonderful" .

"For a child is born to us, And a son is given to us; ... And His name shall be called Wonderful [pehleh] Counselor, ..."

The word pehleh means

something unusual,
unheard of, extraordinary,
hard to understand,
beyond one's powers,
too difficult,
incomprehensible.

This Hebrew word pehleh appears also in the following verses -

"Is anything TOO HARD for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14)

"Such knowledge is TOO WONDERFUL for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it." (Psalm 139:6)

"But the angel of the Lord said to him, Why do you ask My name, seeing it is WONDERFUL?" (Judges 13:18)

So the very name of the incarnated God / Child and Son / Father is "Wonderful". He is therefore mysterious. And Lee would be biblical to state that the Triune God is mysterious.

I have not listened to the video. But I have heard since 1974 many would be cult fighters or apologists level criticisms at Witness Lee.

Preachers often speak in hyperbolic language. So by taking snippets of portions of messages it is not too hard to claim you have caught a Bible teacher saying something wrong.

For this reason when you want to know what a teacher teaches about something, you should go to the specific messages dealing with THAT particular matter. This should be your primary way to find out what Witness Lee taught concerning the Triune God.

You know that the Internet always has its critics claiming that they caught someone saying something they didn't approve of.

I have never had any doubt or problem with the presentation of the Trinity by Witness Lee. And over the decades I have seen more than one critic end up with mud on their faces attempting to portray Witness Lee as heterodox or cultic.

The lattest attempt that I know was by Norm Giesler and Ron Rhodes. (Authors whose books on other subjects I would recommend, but not on critiquing Witness Lee accurately) And systematic rebuttals of their criticisms of Witness Lee and his co-workers can be studied by the astute researcher at -

www.contendingforthefaith.org [Contending For the Faith]

Check it out and explore whatever topic you feel concerned about from the ministry of Witness Lee.

Originally posted by sonship
RJ,

Rather than I listen through the video, why not tell me exactly what troubles you ?

If Witness Lee said that God is a mystery he would only be quoting the word of God.

You recently refered to [b]First Timothy 3:16

[quote] "And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was manifested in the flesh, ...[text shortened]... eck it out and explore whatever topic you feel concerned about from the ministry of Witness Lee.

I have no problem with the fact that Witness Lee stated that the Trinity was a mystery. I was

just speculating about his statement that he did not understand it, so I could give a possible excuse for his errors concering the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The Following are some of his statements that the commentator on the video and I find

troubling:

1. Witness Lee, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ, 1969, pp. 4-5.

"God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is

given, yet His name is called 'The everlasting Father.' This very Son who has been given to us

is the very Father."

The very Son of God cannot be the very Father becausee that violated the Doctrine of the

Trinity.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons,

expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in

three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In

this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

2. Witness Lee, God's New Testament Economy, 1986, p. 230.

..."the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh."

Only the Son became flesh, not the Father or the Holy Spirit, according to the Christian

doctrine of the Incarnation. The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that

the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), "became

flesh" by being conceived in the womb of Mary, also known as the Theotokos (God-bearer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)

3. Witness Lee, Life Messages, p. 164

"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...."

In the above statement, Lee seems to be criticizing those that believe in the Trinity Doctrine as if he knows better.

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

"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."

The above violates the Christian Trinity Doctrine (See the Shield of the Trinity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity

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

"The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate Persons or three Gods; they are

one God, one reality, one person."

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.

For more on these complaints from other christians see the following:

http://open-letter.org

Originally posted by sonship
But I think of the books I sent you you should have been able to learn something about "one city - one church".

I think I sent you one on [b]The History of the Local Churches.

Hi sonship - a question, please. Are you a member of one of the Witness Lee Local Churches?

For the information of the others, here is my experience.

In the 1980s I was a member of a Home Church that consisted of about six families. We were studying (and trying to practice) the biblical model of NT churches. One of our members had to go overseas on a business trip to Stuttgart, Germany, and when he came back he was a changed person. He met in Stuttgart a group of believers that called themselves The Church in Stuttgart, based on Witness Lee teachings.

He then broke away from our home church and stared his own church, calling it The Church in Pretoria. He had about ten members at peak.

Now this person was a good friend of mine, highly intelligent. He was President of the Human Sciences Research Council and later became Rector of the University of Stellenbosch.

Yet all our discussions on the model of the church ended in a total stalemate.
Our arguments would go something like this:

"Rolf, I agree that there should be only one church in one locality. That is the NT model. But the reality is that there are already a large number of churches in Pretoria, why start another one?"

"Because all the other churches are not based on Locality, but on Doctrine. We will represent the Locality, and are hence the only True church in Pretoria"

"But can you not see that you are only making the problem worse, not better? Do you realistically think all the other churches will now disband and join you?"

"Well, if they don't, that is THEIR problem, and they will have to answer to God for that."

They continued and became the most closed new denomination that i know. They get their Bible Study material from HO in Anaheim, California.

Thirty years later they are still the same ten people and believe that they represent the Church in Pretoria.

How terribly sad. So much for Witness Lee.

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi sonship - a question, please. Are you a member of one of the Witness Lee Local Churches?

For the information of the others, here is my experience.

In the 1980s I was a member of a Home Church that consisted of about six families. We were studying (and trying to practice) the biblical model of NT churches. One of our members had to go overseas on a b ...[text shortened]... elieve that they represent the Church in Pretoria.

How terribly sad. So much for Witness Lee.

So much for Wtiness Lee indeed. Sonship has the same attidude like your friend.

Originally posted by RJHinds

I have no problem with the fact that Witness Lee stated that the Trinity was a mystery. I was just speculating about his statement that he did not understand it, so I could give a possible excuse for his errors concering the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Not only he doesn't fully understand the three-one God. Neither do you or I or the 70 or so signers of the "open-letter".

Though we do not fully understand we can, however, partake of and enjoy the experience of the Triune God. So with out limited understanding we still can receive God and participate in the fulfillment of the Triune God's eternal purpose.

The Following are some of his statements that the commentator on the video and I find

troubling:

1. Witness Lee, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ, 1969, pp. 4-5.

"God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is given, yet His name is called 'The everlasting Father.' This very Son who has been given to us is the very Father."

The very Son of God cannot be the very Father becausee that violated the Doctrine of the Trinity.

I do not see Witness Lee saying anything different from what the Bible says in Isaiah 9:6.

" ... A son is given to us; ... And His name will be called ... Eternal Father ..."

If a Son is given to us and His NAME will be called Eternal Father then Lee is confirming the Scripture exactly.

If a "child is born to us" and His name will be called "Mighty God" then Witness Lee was confirming the Bible exactly.

Alternatives are as follow as I see it:

1.) The child born is not the Mighty God. - To be rejected.

2.) The Son given is not the Eternal Father. - To be rejected.

3.) The child is CALLED Mighty God but is not really the Mighty God. - Also to be rejected.

4.) The Son is to be called Eternal Father but is not Eternal Father. - Likewise to be rejected.

5.) The Mighty God is not the Eternal Father. - This too is to be rejected.

So I count Witness Lee as faithfully teaching the Wonderful and mysterious nature of God as we Christians should teach.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

People have struggled with expressions for many years attempting as best as possible to systematize an explanation for the three-one God. You cannot blame a teacher for emphasizing what the word of God says.

Unless you believe that to CALL the Eternal Father is a vanity and an untruth, then you should believe that Christ the Son IS that which He is called.

So though there is indeed a distinction among the three of the Trinity, there is no separation. Add this word to your vocabulary - coinherance. That means that EACH of the three of the Trinity LIVES within the OTHER.

"Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me." (John 14:11)

You see, Jesus Himself taught that He lived in the Father and the Father lived in Him. This is why the prophet Isaiah said that the Son given will have the name "Eternal Father".

If you believe that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) then why do you not affirm that the Son was sent by the Father and the Son is the Father ?

This is the mysteriousness of the Triune God. And Witness Lee simply affirmed at different times the paradoxical aspects of this Wonderful and mysterious God.

2. Witness Lee, God's New Testament Economy, 1986, p. 230.

..."the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh."

Only the Son became flesh, not the Father or the Holy Spirit, according to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), "became flesh" by being conceived in the womb of Mary, also known as the Theotokos (God-bearer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)

The problem with this criticism is that the Scripture says that the FULLNESS of the Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ -

"For in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell" (Col. 1:19)

Notice that it did not say "one third" of the fullness was pleased to dwell.
Notice that it did not say 33.3333% of the fullness was pleased to dwell.

It says " ... ALL the fullness was pleased to dwell" in Christ. And it repeats the revelation in Col. 2:9 - stating - "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

So we can affirm that the child is the Mighty God.
And we can affirm that the Son is the Eternal Father.
Because bodily all of the fullness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell in Christ.

It may be difficult to explain. But the plain words of the Bible take precedence over creeds of theology, even though such creeds may be of some help.

3. Witness Lee, Life Messages, p. 164

"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...."

In the above statement, Lee seems to be criticizing those that believe in the Trinity Doctrine as if he knows better.

But if you were like Hank Hanegraf, the successor of Walter Martin - "The Bible Answer Man", you would study not just one isolated portion of Lee's speaking.

Spend a little time to hear apologist Hank Hanegraff saying that though he has some disagreements with us in the local churches on "secondary issues" he finds all the teachings well within the scope of orthodoxy.

Hear it for yourself in this short video -
- "A Brief Affirmation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"

YouTube

Christian apologist Hank Hanegraff studied the teachings and practices of the local churches and messages of Witness Lee for six years.

And the result of his six year examination which took him around the world was an issue of "Christian Research JOURNAL" with the front cover reading -

'We Were Wrong A Reassessment of the "Local Church " Movement of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee '

You can download the issue by surfing on this website -

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/

On your right hand side look for the words "We Were Wrong" .

You should also check the resultant statement made by Fuller Theological Seminary after a two year examination of Witness Lee's messages.

That statement can be downloaded and read from here -

http://www.lctestimony.org/FullerDialogue.html


Cont. latter with your # 4.

Now if you are serious in looking into your problems, you will spend some at least equal amount of time to view the other side of the story.

An Open Letter from the Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry Concerning the Teachings of Witness Lee

http://an-open-letter.org/
Cont. Below