- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
3 edits
Originally posted by CalJust
Hi sonship - a question, please. Are you a member of one of the Witness Lee Local Churches?
The local churches do not belong to any worker. The church in Corinth could not say that they were Paul's church or Peter's church or Apollo's church.
Though these servants of God were instrumental to their spiritual health, it would be wrong to say the church in Corinth or any local church was theirs.
So I have participated in the churches in a number of cities as I am now in Dunn Loring - the church in Dunn Loring.
So your phrase "Witness Lee Local Churches" misrepresents the nature of a genuine local church. I know what you mean. But a local church does not have to accept the teachings of Witness Lee to BE a local church. It happens that God used Watchman Nee and Witness Lee to teach Christians that each locality should be matched with one church. I got persuaded of this revelation and started to meet this way since 1974.
I know that God wants me to be in the practice of the local church.
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?"
Your did not desire to start a new division. He desired to recover the normal ground of churching in Pretoria.
Nee's book "The Normal Christian Church Life" , if I recall rightly, said that if there is another group standing on the ground of the local church then you should join that standing and not attempt to start another local church.
I bet that he decided to stand upon the ground of Pretoria because no other Christians claimed to be standing upon that ground but were self admitted as denominations.
The blessing is on the ground of oneness. And he desired that blessing. The blessing is limited other wise. He came back from Stuttgart somewhat "changed" because he tasted something he never experienced before on the ground of the local oneness. And he desired the same thing for his own city.
The church in Pretoria must have been established. Praise the Lord for His recovery coming to Pretoria South Africa.
http://www.localchurches.org/contact-us/city.htm?1=africa&2=pretoria
"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.
Well, the issue in Corinth is to who should the charge of sectarianism be leveled? Are those who desire to meet as the church in Corinth "sectarian"? Or is the responsibility for sectarianism to be found with those who say -
"I am of Paul"
"I am of Apollos"
"I am of Cephas"
"I am of Christ".
Now sectarianism does not refer to those who stand upon "the church ... which is in Corinth". That is IF they truly receive all the brothers and sisters in Corinth as constituents of the local church.
There may have been more Christians in the divisions in Corinth all told.
And there may have been comparatively fewer standing as the church in Corinth. But though they are fewer, they are on the proper ground established by the apostles. And it is not upon the church in Corinth that the charge of "starting another church" should be leveled. And the charge of being sectarian should not be leveled with those who remain on the proper ground of oneness OR desire to return TO that ground.
Now this is dependent upon whether they not only SAY they are the church in the city but also RECEIVE all brothers and sisters in the city regardless of who their favorite teachers are.
So a local church is not a local church because it studies messages by Witness Lee. It so happens that the help Corinth got from Paul was exceedingly healthy. But Paul said ALL the ministers belong to the saints.
"So then let no one boast in men, for all things are yours.
Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death of things present or thingsto come; all are yours.
But you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (1 Cor. 3:21-23)
So if you personally do not like messages by Witness Lee published in Anahiem California, then you derive nourishment from whomever you find more helpful. There is no need for you to not meet with a local church for that reason. And there is no reason to make an issue of it.
On the contrary, your wanting to meet on the ground of the oneness and prefering books by some other teacher would be a test to the oneness of the church in Pretoria. Did they make it mandatory that you study books by Witness Lee ?
Probably they did not. But they are blessed greatly by doing so perhaps. ALL the ministers are ours - whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or Calvin or Luther or Wesley or Nee or Lee, ALL are ours. We take what is good food spiritually from whomever has food to serve.
So receiving considerable spiritual help from a worker for many years does not make a church HIS or HER church. And the Bible says that we should only discern if a sister or brother has been received by Jesus Christ. If we sense that Jesus Christ has received a person than the local church has to receive that person.
To cut that person off is to cut ourselves off as well. So Paul wrote -
"Therefore receive one another, as Christ also received you to the glory of God." (Romans 15:7)
The local church should simply receive those whom Jesus Christ has received. And on the other hand you should not make a divisive issue of not choosing to read books by Witness Lee. If others in the church in Pretoria are helped by such books, this does not mean that is a criteria for you to be a member of the church in that city.
Your problem kind of evaporates. I'm sorry. But thanks for sharing your experience anyway.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
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
When the word of God says that the Son given is to be called the Eternal Father, we believe that this is true.
For the sake of a creedal system, I am not willing to deny that the Son given will be called Eternal Father. Now do not misunderstand me. Theological creeds may be helpful. We may derive some help from creeds of theologians.
HOWEVER, creeds, creedal statements of Christian theology cannot replace the Scripture. It should be that the Scripture itself be primary in what it SAYS and the creeds of theologians be secondary.
I did not say creeds are bad. I said creeds are secondary. So when you say that a certain statement is against a theological creed, it is the statement of the Bible to which greater weight should be regarded.
Having said that, the word of God says "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
So the Lord is the Spirit - according to the pure utterance of the New Testament.
Creeds may be helpful. But the Scripture takes FIRST place over any man made creed regardless of how helpful.
The Scripture says - "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us; And the government is upon His shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace ... The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will accomplish this."
Is the child to be called Mighty God or not?
If not then why is He to be called Mighty God?
Is the child to be called Prince of Peace or not?
And if He is not the Prince of Peace then why is He to be called what He is NOT?
Is the son given to be called Eternal Father or not?
How is it that He is the Prince of Peace but He is NOT the Eternal Father?
How is it that He is the Wonderful Counselor but is NOT the Eternal Father?
If the passage presents a problem to some systematic theological creed then we just have to accept that. The theological creed is probably limited. The Scripture of God cannot be broken, says Jesus (John 10:35).
"If He said they were gods to whom the word of God came, AND THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN ..." (John 10:35, my emphasis)
Are you willing to declare the Scripture of Isaiah 9:6 wrong for the sake of a systematic theological creedal formula?
The Lord is the Spirit is not an interpretation. It is a QUOTATION - "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom" (2 Cor. 3:17)
Who is "the Lord" in that passage? He must be the Lord Jesus Christ -
"For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord." (4:5)
So the Lord [Christ Jesus] is the Spirit according to the unbroken Scripture of Second Corinthians 3:17.
I do not suggest that we throw creeds away. I suggest that when it comes to a choice as to which has the last word, the Scripture has the last word. Creeds are secondary to the pure utterances of the Bible.
You should not be troubled. And there are theologians and Bible teachers who would quite agree with Witness Lee on 2 Cor. 3:17. For example:
Dean Alford -
"The Lord of v. 16, is the Spirit ... which giveth life, v.6: meaning, 'the Lord,' as here spoken of, 'Christ,' 'is the Spirit,' identical with the Holy Spirit ... Christ, here, is the Spirit of Christ."
Vincent -
"The Lord Christ of v.16 is the Spirit who pervades and animates the new covenant of which we are ministers (v.6), and the ministration of which is with glory (v.8). Compare Rom. 8:9-11; John 14:16, 18"
Williston Walker -
"All that transforming and indwelling Spirit is Christ Himself. 'The Lord is the Spirit' "
RJ, the Scripture OVER creeds of theology.
We may have creeds as some limited helps. They do not replace the pure utterances of the Bible itself.
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
We may borrow briefly the word "Persons" and even Lee elsewhere wrote of three Persons of the Trinity.
We should not stress three Persons too far or it will lead to three Gods. And we know that the Bible repeatedly teaches that there is one God.
So by isolating one or two sentences from thousands in a spoken ministry lasting for decades, one can make issues on a superficial level.
Lee spoke about the Son praying to the Father, obeying the Father, being sent by the Father so as to demonstrate he believed in the distinction between the Son and the Father.
The problem is not that Lee believed something extra. It is that some critics do not believe enough.
When the Son came from the Father He did not leave the Father exactly, but the Father came with the Son -
"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things which are pleasing to Him" (John 8:29)
So when Jesus came from the Father He also came WITH the Father who had not left Him alone. Can you appreciate this utterance also?
"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone ..."
In other profound words the prophet Isaiah expresses this by saying - " .. . is given to us ... His name will be called ... Eternal Father .." (See Isaiah 9:6)
Witness Lee did not teach something extra. The critics you are reading do not teach enough.
Why is not the Lord Jesus also the Spirit when the Bible tells us that the Lord is the Spirit ? Did you not read -
"... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Jesus, the Last Adam, therefore, according to the unbroken Scripture "became a life giving Spirit" . That is the Third of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
" ... for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6)
It is the Holy Spirit that gives the divine life to man. And the Lord Jesus, the last Adam, became a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). So Jesus Christ is also the Holy Spirit giving divine life into man.
He said "I am the way the reality and the life" (John 14:6). Do you believe that He is STILL the life after His resurrection and ascension? The Lord Jesus Christ is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17).
If this troubles some systematic creed that is not God's fault. It is not the fault of a faithful teacher repeating to us what the word of God says - "Now the Lord is the Spirit."
Jesus said He came to give us life and that more abundantly.
" ... I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly." (John 10:10)
After His resurrection and ascension He continues to come to us that we may have life as the life giving Spirit - " the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) . And it is the Spirit that gives life (John 6:63)
"It is the Spirit who gives life;.." (John 6:63)
So the Lord IS the Spirit who gives life. And "In Him was life" (John 1:4a). And in resurrection He also became " life giving Spirit".
So Witness Lee is exceedingly faithful to the whole truth of the Scripture to quote to us that the Lord is the Spirit.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
4 edits
RJHinds,
For more on these complaints from other christians see the following:
http://open-letter.org
An objective third party speaks on your "open letter."
Christian Research Institute - Shortcomings of An Open Letter
Spend some time getting the other side of the story.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL793DA547CA28A410
Originally posted by sonshipYou sound exactly like my friend Rolf, and it is exactly like talking to a pre-programmed robot! You are in your little box and cannot even see that 2 plus 2 equals 4.Hi sonship - a question, please. Are you a member of one of the Witness Lee Local Churches?
The local churches do not belong to any worker. The church in Corinth could not say that they were Paul's church or Peter's church or Apollo's church.
Though these servants of God were instrumental to their spiritual health, it would be wrong ...[text shortened]... .
Your problem kind of evaporates. I'm sorry. But thanks for sharing your experience anyway.
The FACT of the matter is, that there is no virgin territory anywhere left on earth like Corinth and Ephesus was. Even THOUGH we all agree that there should be only one church in one locality, the simple PRACTICALITY of the situation makes it impossible. So ANYONE now claiming that they represent the Locality, are DE FACTO simply adding another denomination. In this case, the LOCALITY denomination.
Our Home Church, from which Rolf split away, was actually a Local Church, standing on the Locality and not representing any denomination (we had a wide spectrum) nor doctrines. Just Christians meeting. So when this was not enough for Brother Rolf, we were all devastated, and started soul-searching: Lord, is it I that is the problem?
I still take it as a personal failure of my communication skills that I could not succeed in showing him how illogical the argument was. For example, picture a person coming to you riding on a bicycle. You say:
"Hey, nice bike!"
"No, this is NOT a bike, it is a bar stool with wheels on"
"Aw, c'mon, you can't be serious! This is a common-or-garden bike. Quite a nice one, actually, but a bike all the same."
"No, it most DEFINITELY is NOT a bike! In fact, this is a unique, one-of-a-kind barstool with wheels. It has never been made quite like this before. You won't find any others anywhere in the world."
"Now you are just being silly. I can take you to a shop around the corner and show you twenty like this, some better, some a little cheaper, but all essentially the same"
"No you can't, because they don't exist. This is the only one there is, bla bla bla."
FACT: It IS just a bike!
But if a learned mathematician like Rolf could not see the ridiculousness of his situation, then I am not going to try to get you to see how silly the whole thing is.
If God and the Holy Spirit recognize that little group as the authentic and true representatives of His Body in Pretoria, then I say you can close up the whole shop and go home!
Oh yes, to tie in with what Hakima said, even in their crazy setting i DID get one bit of useful wisdom - The calling on the Name of the Lord. So I took that, and spit out the rest.
PS: I omitted to mention earlier that I actually took the trouble to travel to Stuttgart myself, to talk to the Brothers with whom Rolf first communicated. They are wonderful people, preaching Love, and only from John's letters. The leader told me (humbly yet proudly, if you know what I mean) "We have NO rules and dogmas, only to love one another"
My response was "Well, in that case you DO have at least one rule, and that is to have NO rules!" Do you see how we can get ourselves into logical tangles?
But if it pushes your ego buttons to be so exclusive, by all means go for it! You are not the first, and you most certainly will not be the last.
Edit: one more thing about the Nees. Watchman Nee's books ("Sit, Walk, Stand", "The Spiritual Man", "Normal Christian Life", and others, ) are abiding Christian classics. Nothing much wrong with them. But Witness Lee showed himself to be a false prophet in the divisiveness of his teachings. He is rightly discredited in mainline Christianity.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by CalJust
You sound exactly like my friend Rolf, and it is exactly like talking to a pre-programmed robot! You are in your little box and cannot even see that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Your experience is interesting. But the ad homs I'll ignore.
The FACT of the matter is, that there is no virgin territory anywhere left on earth like Corinth and Ephesus was.
The recovery does not have to have some "virgin territory". You are in danger of insisting that the church does not really exist or will only exist when we all perhaps go to heaven.
"No more virgin territory" could be admitting defeat to the enemy.
Suppose the Jews in Babylon had used this excuse? Then a remnant of them would never have gone back to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. "We might as well remain here in the dispersion in Babylon. There is no more any virgin territory there in what was once the land of Israel."
We don't believe we should admit this kind of defeatist attitude.
Even THOUGH we all agree that there should be only one church in one locality, the simple PRACTICALITY of the situation makes it impossible.
It is happening all over the earth. The way may not be a popular way.
But with fellowship and understanding practicalities can be worked out. IE, the large church in Taipei on the island of Taiwan is arranged into 28 meeting places called "meeting halls".
The practicality of a large city can be handled in fellowship, understanding, love, and a willingness to deny one's self for the enjoyment of seeing Christ's victory.
Twenty Eight meeting halls for one local church:
See the church in Taipei -
http://www.localchurches.org/contact-us/region.htm?1=fareast&2=taiwan_province_of_china
The church in Jerusalem in the book of Acts had 5,000 saved on one occassion and another 4,000 saved. They met from house to house. And the Holy Spirit always has written "the church" in singular at Jerusalem.
So where some men say "Impractical!" men in cooperation with God in the right Spirit can allow practical situations to be handled.
Do no throw up "Impractical" as an excuse. Rather "Despise not the day of small small beginnings." (Zech. 4:10)
So ANYONE now claiming that they represent the Locality, are DE FACTO simply adding another denomination. In this case, the LOCALITY denomination.
Should you extend that to claiming that one is a Christian is also DE FACTO just making another vain proclamation ?
If we follow the Lord to RECEIVE and the Lord told us to RECEIVE one another in the city we have the ground to say we stand for the church in that city.
It may never be a mass movement. It may never be a popular movement.
But we testify that the blessing is upon coming back to the local ground. And we do so for the sake of the whole body of God's people.
Remember that the other Isrealites were angry at Gideon's little army of three hundred in the book of Judges. So some dear brothers express anger that a remnant returning to the proper ground are lifting themselves somehow ABOVE the common Israelites.
Why don't you re-read the story of Gideon's little army, the victory they wrought for the whole of Israel. And read the misunderstanding attitude of the others who for some reason or another were not a part of Gideon's little remnant.
You think something similar could NOT occur in the New Testament age ?
This is still the SAME God.
You see, it is a moot point to try to bring down the saints who have returned to the ground of local oneness. That is because the returning to that ground has ALREADY been a bringing down and humbling experience.
We are brought down, every one of us, by having to accept each other on the local ground.
You may cry "Exclusivism!" But the humbling of being on the ground of oneness is more effective than your criticisms.
But you do have to SEE something by revelation just like we SEE that Christ is the Son of the living God. Once I had my eyes opened to the recovery of the church, I also could not be the same any more.
We do not expect that MANY believers will take this way of one city - one church. Just like only a remnant sought to go back with Zurabbel and Haggai to the good land and Jerusalem.
Even the spiritual giant Daniel had no opportunity to go back to the Good Land. Only a remnant of "nobies" participated in the recovery. It will probably be the same in these last days.
The number of sneering critics saying "This is impractical" will be probably the majority. And the number of Jews who had settled down in the Babylonian Captivity who may have retorted "Impractical" to the ones whose spirits were stirred up to return to Jerusalem were the majority.
Somehow, somehow by God's mercy, He gave me the willingness to come back to the local church life. In terms of the real unity of the Lord's people, I found what I was looking for.
The Lord definitely wants me to stay with the local church life until either I die or I see Jesus returning.
Our Home Church, from which Rolf split away, where actually a Local Church, not representing any denomination (we had a wide spectrum) nor doctrines.
There are four mentions of the church in someones house in the NT.
Not representing a denomination is a step in the right direction.
A further necessary step is to stand as the church.
If your conscience does not allow you to state that, then it is good to go to the Lord and inquire WHY.
But to meet from house to house or from home to home is quite good.
Why not all the home meetings in a city stand together as the church in that city ? The church is Jerusalem was the church in Jerusalem. It was not the "non-denominational church" in Jerusalem. It was simply the church in Jerusalem.
From denominations to non-denominations is a step in the right direction.
But I don't want to remain in what could become a half-way house.
How further the Lord might lead is what I would go to Him about earnestly.
He may be moving ON. He may not be stopping but moving on to be what you really are - the church.
Proclaiming to be the church is simply being what we are.
It is not presumption if you are really receiving the saints.
It is having a clear conscience to boldly admit to what we really are.
You see, it is the difficulties which cause the GROWTH of life in the local church. Having to stay together and remain with the saints is an impetus to cause the divine life to expand and grow. And thus the church is filled with less and less self and more and more Christ.
The local church is the extension of the cross.
And the cross releases us from Adam and transforms us to Christ for the building up of the church.
Only on the local ground have I had the feeling that our feet are on the very neck of the enemy - the Devil.
"Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you." (Rom. 16:20)
You have to have more sympathy for God.
He'll take care of sympathy for you and your problems.
But He needs some to have some sympathy for God.
God needs the local churches.
The local churches meet a real need that God has.
The local churches are establishing a beachhead for Christ to return.
He has to be able to point to some and tell Satan - "You see? You tried to chop My Body up into thousands of pieces and kill the life of the church. But I have in so many cities a small remnant of those who have caught the vision of the proper oneness of the church. And I'll get some overcomers from among them to defeat you."
I definitely consider the local churches something like a Gideon's small army. I do not expect the majority will take this way. Some of us, by God's mercy, have to take this way.
I was Rolf. I told many of my beloved Christian brethren what I saw. Believe me. Many many saints better than I, more deserving than I, could not understand what I was raving about.
I made mistakes too. But I cannot deny what God showed me.
We can return to the oneness and overcome the giants of the land just as Joshua did. These problems will be food for us.
Cont. Latter perhaps.
Just Christians meeting. So when this was not enough for Brother Rolf, we were all devastated, and started soul-searching: Lord, is it I that is the problem?
I feel something of your perplexity. And I allow you the final word here. For no one ever said that it was EASY to come into contact with the Lord's recovery.
It is something like the Matrix guy who could not BELIEVE that he was in a simulation of reality.
No one said it was easy. Maybe I'll encourage all the churches around the globe to pray for you all to be comforted and see something more.
Latter now.
But if a learned mathematician like Rolf could not see the ridiculousness of his situation, then I am not going to try to get you to see how silly the whole thing is.
I am pretty far into this.
I did give the best years of my life to the local church life from the age of about 24. And what I got in return was - the best years of my life.
God wants me to meet with the churches in the recovery of the Lord.
If God and the Holy Spirit recognize that little group as the true representatives of His Body in Pretoria, then I say you can close up the whole shop and go home!
See if you can grasp this.
See if you can comprehend what I am about to write:
There is a DIFFERENCE between saying:
1.) We are the only church.
2.) We are only the church.
There is a difference in those two statements. To say "We are the only church" could be taken as exclusive.
To insist "We are ONLY the church" is to a...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
There is a DIFFERENCE between saying:
1.) We are the only church.
2.) We are only the church.
There is a difference in those two statements. To say "We are the only church" could be taken as exclusive.
To insist "We are ONLY the church" is to admit what we really are. And this is not exclusive if it is accompanied with the proper receiving of all brothers and sisters as also constituents of the church.
Your angle of comprehension is wrong. You are hearing "We are only the church" but are taking it as "We are the ONLY church".
You have to decide if there is a possibility that an assembly of Christians can be abnormal as pertaining to the oneness of the Body of Christ.
You have heard perhaps of a book called "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. The idea is to strip away the extras and come down to the commond denominator - the "mere" and basic matter of the Christian faith.
I think the same is true of churching or being a church. There is a "mere" church life laid out for us in the New Testament. And some of us want to come out of the Matrix like illusion created by a extremely subtle enemy.
Here is the "mere" truth of what God sees as His churches:
"I was in spirit on the Lord's Day and heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches:
To Ephesus
and to Smyrna
and to Pergamos
and to Thytira
and to Sardis
and to Philadelphia
and to Laodicea.
And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me; and when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man ..." (See Rev. 1:10-13a)
Notice the names of those churches are the names of the localities.
This we believe is the normal and prevailing way God has ordained for us the church together.
Some of us have to return to this recovered way.
Must stop writing here.
30 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipNo matter what you call it, or what you wish it was, a bicycle is still only a bicycle, and always will be.
There is a DIFFERENCE between saying:
[b] 1.) We are the only church.
2.) We are only the church.
There is a difference in those two statements. To say "We are the only church" could be taken as exclusive.
To insist "We are ONLY the church" is to admit what we really are. And this is not exclusive if it is accompanied with the pr ...[text shortened]... rch together.
Some of us have to return to this recovered way.
Must stop writing here.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
3 edits
Edit: one more thing about the Nees. Watchman Nee's books ("Sit, Walk, Stand", "The Spiritual Man", "Normal Christian Life", and others, ) are abiding Christian classics. Nothing much wrong with them. But Witness Lee showed himself to be a false prophet in the divisiveness of his teachings. He is rightly discredited in mainline Christianity.
Witness Lee carried on the very same vision that his mentor Watchman Nee started.
From what I have seen the tactic of trying to draw some imaginary wedge between Watchman Nee and Witness Lee is the same ancient error of some critics of God's moving saying
" ... If we had been there in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets." (Matt. 23:30)
When I hear things like "Oh, if only Witness Lee had been like our dear Watchman Nee he would have been Okay with us" I know the same vain imaginations of religionists are working.
It is pure foolish imagination that Witness Lee was not carrying out and carrying on exactly what Watchman Nee carried out in Mainland China.
The truth of the matter is that the Holy Spirit continued through the ministry of Witness Lee what God was doing through the ministry of Watchman Nee.
Your concept that the older brother was OK but this new brother deveated is just your imagination.
But you can identify exactly what was a false prophecy stated by Witness Lee. I expect your next post to specifically detail where the falsehood was in Witness Lee's teaching.
And if you cannot prove that a certain teaching from Witness Lee was a false teaching, then the honest thing to do would be to retract your false accusation.
So, tell us exactly where the falsehood was in what Witness Lee taught us. Please no general tossing dust up into air in a frenzied way with vague grumbling inneundos.
Specifics ?
30 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonshipThe verses Mr. Lee mentioned can be interpreted as Mr. Lee does, however, his is not the orthodox Christian view.
[quote] 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_ ...[text shortened]... edingly faithful to the whole truth of the Scripture to quote to us that the Lord is the Spirit.
I believe statement #4 is the one it all boils down to as the most troubling.
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."
When he states that the Son is the Spirit, he obviously means the Holy Spirit. However, orthodox Christianity does not view it that way because it violates the Christian Trinity Doctrine (See the Shield of the Trinity).
The main achievement of the Shield of the Trinity diagram is to transfer a large part of the essential "mystery" or "paradox" of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity from the realm of complex verbal philosophical abstractions and esoteric theological vocabulary to the realm of simple logic, as presented in the relatively easily graspable form of a concrete and conveniently compact visual diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity
The Shield of the Trinity reveals the following and is in direct conflict with the statement of Mr. Lee:
"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Son"
Mr Lee apparently thinks he can redefine the Trinity on his own. There is no clear word of scripture that says what Mr. Lee said. I will repeat ...
"THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS THE (Holy) SPIRIT"
Although He refers to 2 Corinthians 3:17,
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
the orthodox Christian view is that in context this suggests that the Lord is the spirit of the old testament just as the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
...I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
(Revelation 19:10 KJV)
And where Christ's spirit is recognized as Lord, there is liberty, that is, freedom from the bondage of the letter of the law, because the spirit of the law has been clearly revealed in Christ Jesus.
Paul has been emphasizing that Christ is the key to the old testament, so that Spirit does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but back a few verses here:
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(2 Corinthians 3:6-9 KJV)
Oneness Pentecostal believers deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. They sometimes quote Isaiah 9:6 in their attempt to prove their position.
But it is not saying that Jesus is the Father, the first Person of the Trinity, but that he has the characteristics of God the Father. This is a prophecy concerning the purpose of Jesus. Literally from the Hebrew “the Father of Eternity.” In other words, Jesus has all the attributes of God--including eternality and He becomes the Father of all those born again into eternal life.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
(John 1:12 KJV)
I don't know for sure that Mr. Lee is wrong, but it does go against at least 1600 years of orthodox Christian interpretation of those verses. If the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit, then in my opinion, that is the same as what the oneness pentacostals believe and is not Trinitarianism.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
3 edits
The following link contains an outline of Where you may read specific rebuttals and responses to specific matters on a point by point bases regarding the "Open Letter" from critics of Witness Lee.
Defense and Confirmation Project (Contending for the Faith)
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/siteMap.html
Find a complaint raised by the Open Letter and read a reply from Lee's co-workers on that criticism.
This is for serious researchers.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsBefore I spend more time to respond to further posts from you on this, I want to know if you did listen to these short videos listed:
The verses Mr. Lee mentioned can be interpreted as Mr. Lee does, however, his is not the orthodox Christian view.
I believe statement #4 is the one it all boils down to as the most troubling.
4. Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God, p. 18-19.
[b] "THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS THE SPIRIT ....and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the E ...[text shortened]... my opinion, that is the same as what the oneness pentacostals believe and is not Trinitarianism.
Christian Research Institute - Shortcomings of An Open Letter
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL793DA547CA28A410
Yes, you did listen?
No, you did not listen?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The verses Mr. Lee mentioned can be interpreted as Mr. Lee does, however, his is not the orthodox Christian view.
I believe statement #4 is the one it all boils down to as the most troubling.
4. Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God, p. 18-19.
[b] "THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS THE SPIRIT ....and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the E ...[text shortened]... my opinion, that is the same as what the oneness pentacostals believe and is not Trinitarianism.
Oneness Pentecostal believers deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. They sometimes quote Isaiah 9:6 in their attempt to prove their position.
When someone teaches that when the Father is here, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not and
When the Son is here, the Father and the Holy Spirit is not and
When the Holy Spirit is here, the Son and the Father are not - that is a teaching contrary to the Bible which has been classified as a type of Modalism.
Witness Lee never taught that only One of the Three of the Trinity could be in existence at one time. So he could not be charged with the heresy of Modalism.
And here are the proofs that local churches who received ministry from Witness Lee do not teach Modalism
The Triune God - Traditional Heresies Concerning the Triune God
Against Modalism, Adoptionism, Arianism, and Tritheism
http://www.triunegod.org/heresies/index.html
And here is one of many places where Witness Lee denied Modalism in his messages:
C. All Three Are God
1. The Father Is God
Undoubtedly the Father is God. In various places the New Testament speaks of God the Father. See, for example, 1 Peter 1:2 and Ephesians 1:17.
2. The Son Is God
The Son also is God. Hebrews 1:8 says, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God….” Here the Son is addressed as God. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word certainly is Christ, the Son. Since the Word is God, the Son also is God. Furthermore, Romans 9:5 says, “Christ…who is over all, God blessed for ever.” I like this verse. Christ the Son is not only God; He is God over all.
3. The Spirit Is God
In Acts 5:3-4 we see that the Spirit is God. In verse 3 Peter told Ananias that he had lied to the Holy Spirit, and in the next verse that he had lied to God. These verses equate the Holy Spirit with God.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God. How many Gods do we have? We have one. How can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all be God and yet there be only one God? The only answer we can give is, “I don’t know.”
D. All Three Are Eternal
Some of the rumors and accusations claim that we do not believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. I do not know where the critics and accusers get such a thought. We want to declare to all that, in accordance with the Bible, we believe that the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Spirit also is eternal. We believe this and declare it because the Bible tells us so.
1. The Father Is Eternal
Isaiah 9:6 has the term the “everlasting Father.” The literal translation of the Hebrew phrase here is “Father of eternity” or “eternal Father.” Hence, the Father is eternal.
2. The Son Is Eternal
The Son also is eternal. Hebrews 1:12 says of the Son, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Hebrews 7:3 says that He has no beginning of days nor end of life, meaning that He is eternal. Eternal is that which has no beginning or ending. This is why a circle rather than a straight line is a sign of the eternal God. He has no beginning and no ending.
3. The Spirit Is Eternal
The Spirit also is eternal, for Hebrews 9:14 speaks of “the eternal Spirit.” Therefore, let everyone know that in accordance with the Bible, we declare that all Three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are eternal.
E. All Three Exist at the Same Time
The Father, Son, and Spirit all exist at the same time. Notice John 14:16-17: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth.” In these two verses we have the Son praying to the Father that the Father would send the Spirit. Hence, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all present at the same time.
In Ephesians 3:14-17 Paul says that he will pray the Father to grant us to be strengthened by His Spirit in our inner man that Christ may make His home in our hearts. In this passage we have the Father, the Spirit, and Christ the Son. All exist at the same time. The Bible does not say that the Father existed for a certain period of time and then the Son came; that after a certain period of time the Son no longer existed and was replaced by the Spirit. There is not a verse that says this. The Bible in this passage indicates that the Father listens to the prayer, the Spirit will strengthen the saints, and the Son, Christ, will make His home in their hearts. Here again, it is clear that all Three exist at the same time.
The above is from a book written in 1976 by Witness Lee entitled "The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible".
And here is the entire book online for examination -
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/revelation.html
30 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipI looked at this, and in conclusion #1 He states in his investigation they believe in One God in Three Persons. That appears to be Trinitarian.
RJHinds,
For more on these complaints from other christians see the following:
http://open-letter.org
An objective third party speaks on your "open letter."
Christian Research Institute - [b] Shortcomings of An Open Letter
Spend some time getting the other side of the story.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL793DA547CA28A410 [/b]
So I ask the question: Is he hearing or seeing something different from me? I see the statements of One God that is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit wrapped up in ONE Person, which is Jesus Christ, not ONE God in THREE Persons. As I said before, that is the same belief of the Oneness Pentacostals that deny the Doctrine of the Trinity.
01 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship
Before I spend more time to respond to further posts from you on this, I want to know if you did listen to these short videos listed:
Christian Research Institute -[b] Shortcomings of An Open Letter
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL793DA547CA28A410
Yes, you did listen?
No, you did not listen?[/b]Yes, I did look and listen to these short videos. The videos are very supportive of the teaching of both Nee and Lee. However, I did not see or hear anything addressing the controversal statements. If fact, as I pointed out on my previous post, he believes this group supports the Trinity Doctrine.
01 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipOneness theology is similar to historical Modalism or Sabellianism, although it cannot be exactly characterized as such.Oneness Pentecostal believers deny the Trinity and teach that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all one person. They sometimes quote Isaiah 9:6 in their attempt to prove their position.
When someone teaches that when the Father is here, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not and
When the Son is here, the Father and the Holy Sp ...[text shortened]... e for examination -
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/revelation.html
Oneness theology sees that when the one personal and omnipresent God manifests or reveals himself, it is in a personal way. Oneness theology sees the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one transcendent, personal, omnipresent God manifesting himself in three personal and distinct manifestations or forms to redeem and sanctify sinful and lost humanity, and also that all the fullness of the deity resides fully in the person of Christ. (Col. 2:1-10)
The Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same personal God, according to Oneness theology. They teach that the "Holy Spirit" is a descriptive title for God the Father manifesting himself through his Church and in the world. These two titles (as well as others) do not reflect separate "persons" within the Godhead, but rather two different ways in which the one God reveals himself to his creatures. Thus, the Old Testament speaks of "The Lord God and his Spirit" in Isaiah 48:16, but this does not indicate two "persons" according to Oneness theology. Rather, "The Lord" indicates God in all of his glory and transcendence, while "his Spirit" refers to his own Spirit that moved upon and spoke to the prophet. This does not imply two "persons" any more than the numerous scriptural references to a man and his spirit or soul (such as in Luke 12:19) imply two "persons" existing within one body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism
I believe Mr. Lee's theology in the statements I presented is closest to Oneness Pentecostalism concerning God. I believe those particular statements are not statements of orthodox Trinitarianism. However, I have no problem with the statements you present here.