Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't care whether you believe me or not i have provided the reasoning why its a false teaching and an erroneous translation.
I am no Greek translator.
But years ago I and 12 other students did take Greek tutoring with the Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, Ph.D., Th.D. a professor at that time of Harvard Divinity School and he was an expert in both Hebrew and Greek. He authored the college text book -
"The Language of the New Testament"
He did go through the Jehovah's Witnesses rendering of John 1:1 and while I cannot remember the details, he did make the point that your rendering is highly unlikely. I do recall him saying it was not impossible to derive that construction but gave reasons for it being highly unlikely.
And to say the Logos who became flesh was "a god" would really be against the whole tenor of the Gospel of John. The prologue is confirmed by the following chapters exactly - that Jesus was God become a man.
If you can point out from that reasoning and the actual Greek text why its erroneous then please do so, stating that you don't believe me is not a reason and in fact its rather clear that you are willfully ignorant.
Maybe I will. If so I will probably not do so today.
On the basis therefore of the reasons that I provided Witness Lee is a false teacher and a charlatan.
He was neither.
But as Paul was accused of being "crafty" or a charlatan by some in the church in Corinth, so somebody put up a illegally recorded attempt to trap him to give the impression of financial impropriety.
A court case involving many allegations took place and this particular matter merited so little attention that the connection to financial mismanagement of money handled by the Living Stream Office that I right now can recall was that the professional accountant that handles the books for LSM was deposed. There was nothing there.
Sorry.
Now one of the outside "expert witnesses" who was an expert of the psychological manipulation of cults sent out surveys to collect the impressions of local church participants.
Below is the transcript of part of that deposition:
DR. MALONY: I received an A.B. degree from Birmingham Southern College, Birmingham, Alabama, in 1952; a Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School in 1955; a Master of Arts and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, 1961 and 1964; and I have done further study at the William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychoanalysis, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, and Harvard University.
MR. MORGAN: Now you have mentioned a divinity school?
DR. MALONY: Yes.
MR. MORGAN: Was there some purpose in going to divinity school?
DR. MALONY: Yes. In addition to being a clinical psychologist, I’m an ordained United Methodist minister; I served as parish pastor for over four years full-time, and part-time for eleven years; I was also chaplain during that time. I’m under appointment by my bishop in my present role.
MR. MORGAN: And what is that role?
DR. MALONY: I am Professor and Director of Programs in the integration of psychology and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Graduate School of Psychology.
MR. MORGAN: Can you tell us basically what your field is that you have told us about, this integration of religion and psychology?
DR. MALONY: I should preface what I have to say by saying that Fuller Seminary has three schools: Theology, World Missions, and School of Psychology where we train doctoral- level clinical psychologists who are Christian psychologists and who we hope are able to integrate their psychological knowledge with their theological expertise. Our students receive a masters in theology along the way toward their doctorate. And I direct the program that interfaces the two disciplines.
DR. MALONY: Having been there now sixteen years, I’ve taught across the curriculum. But over the last seven or eight years, this has narrowed down.
I teach the psychology of religion, I teach the integration of psychology and theology. I teach what are called topical integration courses on healing, conversion, behavior change, and conflict management. I teach courses on organizational management and church planning to the theology students every now and then. All sorts of courses. I teach clinical courses in such areas as consulting skills, psychodrama, management of clinical cases, transactional analysis, that sort of thing.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. Great. Now, Doctor, were you requested on my behalf to make certain studies about Witness Lee and the “Local Church” as they relate to some publications by Neil Duddy and SCP?
DR. MALONY: Yes. I assume as a result of a book which I co-authored several years ago, now entitled Christian Conversion, Biblical and Psychological Perspectives and also as a function of a book of readings called Contemporary Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion.
A representative of the “Local Church” approached me about entering in or serving you in that way, and I should say, personally, I had never heard of the “Local Church” before that. I may have heard of the Spiritual Counterfeits Projects. I don’t remember. I knew nothing about the whole issue.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. Would you tell the court what you understood your assignment to be on my behalf?
DR. MALONY: First of all, to read the accusations made against the “Local Church” in, I guess, such books as the one in front of me, The God-Men. Then to undertake any endeavor to ascertain, in my opinion, the extent to which these accusations were well-founded, legitimate, and true.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. Can you tell the court what, in your opinion, is the thrust of Exhibit 1, the manuscript, as it relates to Witness Lee and the “Local Churches”?
DR. MALONY: The thrust was defamatory.
MR. MORGAN: And can you tell us in what respect?
DR. MALONY: It seemed to me to be an attempt to discredit both the contents or teachings of this group and their behavior and social practice.
MR. MORGAN: Now will you tell us what you did to carry out the assignment that we requested of you? What I would like you to do is to go through, just in general terms, the various things you did in order to assist you in formulating certain opinions.
DR. MALONY: First of all, I asked for materials, both this manuscript and other materials, that might help me. And I was provided with depositions that had been taken from, I guess, expert witnesses or other people in this issue. I asked for writings of Witness Lee and for the writings of the church, and I was provided more than a human being could read.
Then I asked for addresses of “Local Churches” in the Los Angeles area where I might attend firsthand. I attended worship or training meetings in Anaheim, Fullerton, Temple City, and El Monte. On three of those occasions, I went unannounced, simply knowing the hours of meeting. On two other occasions, I went because I was invited to the training to hear Witness Lee.
I heard Witness Lee give two training addresses, I attended pray-reading sessions, and I attended Sunday morning meetings of the group. I also viewed videotapes of contemporary meetings within the last year, plus videotapes of meetings that were associated with the accusations against the “Local Church.” I attended two depositions that were taken in this trial of expert witnesses. Then I undertook a survey to better acquaint myself with what was going on.
Stay tuned I have some more on another post.
MR. MORGAN: Based upon your opinion, what did you see as the basic charges that were being made in Exhibit 1, when you read it, as it relates to Witness Lee and the “Local Church”?
DR. MALONY: I saw them to be of two types: beliefs and practices. I saw my charge to be that of functioning as a clinical psychologist, with background in the psychology of religious groups, to evaluate the practices.
MR. MORGAN: All right. Fine. And what did you see were the defamatory charges of the practices in Exhibit 1?
DR. MALONY: I believe they were three basic types: one, having to do with recruitment practices under the general rubric of a “seduction syndrome;” two, having to do with worship practices under the general rubric of brainwashing; and three, having to do with what I will call maintenance practices, how you keep people in the organization, under the rubric of coercion.
MR. MORGAN: Let’s take the first one, the recruitment, the “seduction syndrome.” First, is that an accepted professional term “seduction syndrome”?
DR. MALONY: No, that is a term coined by the author of this book.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. What do you understand the author intends to convey to the reader by the term “seduction syndrome”?
DR. MALONY: That the recruitment practices of the “Local Church” were qualitatively different and bad and evil, qualitatively different from those recruitment practices of other religious groups.
MR. MORGAN: In your opinion, having done all the work you have related, is there any validity in that charge?
DR. MALONY: I do not think there is any validity to that charge.
MR. MORGAN: And based upon your study and investigation, is that totally false?
DR. MALONY: I think it’s invalid. Totally false.
MR. MORGAN: Thank you. Now let’s go to the test that you took. Let me mark this as Exhibit 24.
(Questions and summary of responses in survey by Dr. Malony marked for identification as Exhibit 24.)
Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 24. And first I will ask you if you can identify what that is?
DR. MALONY: Yes. Exhibit 24 is a four-page document; the first page is a list of twenty questions which I used in a survey for five groups, and pages two, three, and four are summary tables of the responses to those questions.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. I’ll offer that into evidence.
JUDGE SEYRANIAN: It may be admitted in evidence.
QUESTIONS USED IN TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
In your experience at the church:
Were you told who to marry?
Were you told where to live?
Did the leaders control your finances?
Did the leaders tell you where to work?
Was the reading of newspapers or looking at TV or listening to the radio discouraged?
Were you told when or where to go to school?
Were you ever counseled by church leaders about your behavior?
Were you pressured to take the advice of church leaders?
Were you ever chastised publicly by church leaders?
Were you ever encouraged to behave unethically by church leaders? to lie? to deceive?
Was the church misrepresented to you? Did you know and understand what you were getting into?
As a result of church worship, did you ever go into a trance? Did you feel spacy? Confused? Out of control? Hypnotized?
As a result of church worship, did you ever feel like you had to obey the leaders without thinking things through on your own?
Do you study the Bible on your own? What Bible helps do you use in your study?
Have you ever felt brainwashed? Coerced?
What role does Witness Lee (John Wesley) play in your faith?
Is the Local Church the only church?
How long have you been (were you) a member of the Local Church?
When and how did you become a Christian?
Who is Jesus Christ?
MR. MORGAN: Now let’s start out this way. First, will you tell the court the rationale behind going forward with this type of an examination?
DR. MALONY: Yes. In my reading of the documents used in the accusations against the “Local Church,” I was impressed with what I felt to be an inadequate and confusing methodology on the part of the social and behavioral scientist used by the accusers. I had some immediate questions, such as: Why did they not interview or talk to present members? Also another question: Why did they not compare their impressions with other Christian groups to see if some of the same predominant practices were going on there? And why did they not interview some other ex-members to see if the reports that they were getting were typical? They seemed to presume some interesting over-generalizations.
From The Experts Speak
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/experts/malony.html
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipSo you cannot tell us anything about what the Bible actually says - and you a recipient of Holy Spirit at one with Jesus as well, how disappointing, thanks, no more questions.
[quote] MR. MORGAN: Based upon your opinion, what did you see as the basic charges that were being made in Exhibit 1, when you read it, as it relates to Witness Lee and the “Local Church”?
DR. MALONY: I saw them to be of two types: beliefs and practices. I saw my charge to be that of functioning as a clinical psychologist, with background in the psycholog ...[text shortened]... peak
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/experts/malony.html[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you cannot tell us anything about what the Bible actually says - and you a recipient of Holy Spirit at one with Jesus as well, how disappointing, thanks, no more questions.
So you cannot tell us anything about what the Bible actually says
I told you many times what the Bible actually says in good English translation. Your "New World Translation" version is based on Westcott and Hort NT manuscript.
Westcott seemed to have a wavering faith to have said:
Dec. 23rd - Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
Was Hort more impressed with Darwin?
1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Did Hort even believe in the Redemption of Christ in writing:
Oct. 15th - Hort: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
Was Hort more impressed with Mary worship?
Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
DId Hort have a problem with the infallibility of God's Word?
1860 May 1st - Hort to Lightfoot: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels." (Life, Vol. I, p.420).
May 4th - Hort to Lightfoot: "I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do." (Life, Vol.I, p.424).
May 5th - Westcott to Hort: "at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming." (Life, Vol.I, p.207).
Were Hort and Wescott hiding something?
1861 Apr. 12th - Hort to Westcott: "Also - but this may be cowardice - I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." (Life, Vol.I, p.445).
Did they have a Unitarian on the team who found it unacceptable to even recite the Nicene Creed?
Aug. ? - Hort to Lightfoot: "It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit." (Life, Vol.II, p.140). (Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee).
It is alledged that Westcott and Hort were interested in the occult.
And - Westcott and Hort were interested in occult phenomena according to their sons who both wrote biographies
of their fathers. Gnosticism was a source for the 19th century English occult movement, which Westcott and Hort took part in. Now we are seeing a revival of gnosticism and gnostic influences in the New Age Occult movement, which has seeped over into the Christian Church.
Someone feels their occult interest influenced their motivations.
The documentation that Westcott and Hort were very interested in the
occult is important
in understanding the motivations of this pair of Englishmen for
wanting to replace the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.
Why were they opposed to the Textus Receptus and the King James?
Why did they select two fourth century Greek texts, the Sinaiticus
Vaticanus, associated with Alexandaria, Egypt rather than some other Greek texts?
I wonder if the baseline text that forms your New World Translation has some connection to the occult, honestly.
Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891) was an important figure in the 19th century occult
movement in England. Several Anglican Spiritualists were part of the
occult revival that included Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott.
Westcott and Hort were active in the British nineteenth century Ghost
Society and in the Society for Psychical Research. They were
interested in paranormal phenomena. These two
Anglican theologians created a Greek text which disagrees in many verse wordings with the Textus Receptus Greek text, used for the King James Version of 1611. Almost all recent New Testament translations are from the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek text - and not from the Textus Receptus.
Alan Gauld in The Founders of Psychical Research, NY😕chocken Books,
1968, p. 66, says "Cambridge professor, Fenton John Antony
Hort, Anglican clergyman, Brooke Foss Westcott . and the future
Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward White Benson, founded the Cambridge
Ghost Society in 1851."
Taken from The Occult Connections of Westcott and Hort
At http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/231500-The-Occult-Connections-of-Westcott-and-Hort
Previous quotes from "Westcott and Hort Exposed"
[b]...FROM THEIR
OWN MOUTHS!
A selection of statements revealing the attitudes of these two
most noted textual critics.
Westcott and Hort
http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/westcott_and_hort_exposed.htm
I do see that the two translators have their defenders as well.
1 edit
It is going to take me some time to get into this Westcott and Hort controversy.
But I have no problem affirming that I would not even have the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses in my house.
But I have had TWO versions of the Bible the Watchtower published prior to this. That is the 1901 American Standard.
I suppose they HAD to stop using this one for a number of reasons not supportive of Watchtower theology inherent in the clear text of the Holy Bible.
But it goes to show even though my one remaining 1901 ASV says "Watchtower" on the inside as to its distributors, I STILL am fond of that particular accurate English Bible.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo he doesn't as the Oneness adheres. Your attack on Witness Lee is that he believes that there is one person with multiple hats. Once again, because I believe what you told Sonship you don't read our defenses, not on this forum but the links we provided. And of course I already read those links you have provided too.
Witness Lee teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the same person. That is the heresy of Modalism.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Context of Witness Lee’s Statement That Geisler and Rhodes Omitted
Witness Lee teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the same person. That is the heresy of Modalism.
Geisler and Rhodes and the other signers of the open letter with them pluck one sentence from the voluminous ministry of Witness Lee as proof that he teaches God is one person in purported contradiction of the "orthodox" teaching of the Trinity. Read in context, this sentence is part of an exposition of Matthew 28:19, which clearly identifies God as triune, a three-one person with one name:
The revelation of the Triune God can be found throughout the New Testament. In Matthew 28:19, the Lord Jesus charged the disciples to baptize the nations "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In this verse, name is singular in number, yet the one name refers to three persons. This shows that there is one name for the Divine Trinity (see notes 5 and 6 on Matthew 28:19 in the Recovery Version). The word person is often used to describe the three of the Divine Trinity, yet we must be careful in using such a term…
The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person. Hence, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are denoted by one name. The name denotes the person, and the person is the reality of the name. The name of the Divine Trinity is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person. God is triune; that is, He is three-one. In some theological writings, the preposition in is added between three and one to make three-in-one. However, it is more accurate to say that God is three-one.
In this passage Witness Lee said both "the one name refers to three persons" (which Geisler and Rhodes do not quote) and "the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons" (which they do quote out of context). Geisler and Rhodes claim that Witness Lee did not identify the sense in which his speaking about God being "one person" differed from the sense of Him being "three persons," which to them is an intolerable contradiction. In fact, Witness Lee did say that "the name of the Divine Trinity"—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—"is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person." Would Geisler and Rhodes claim that "the Father, the Son, and the Spirit" is not "the sum total of the divine Being," that is, His person? Would they claim that the use of "name" in the singular does not indicate that the entire God is a person in the sense "name" is used in the Bible?
An Inconsistent Standard of Truth
Proverbs 20:23 tells us, "Differing weights are an abomination to Jehovah, and false scales are not good." To have an inconsistent standard of appraisal in evaluating the teachings of different persons is to have differing weights. This is precisely what Geisler and Rhodes do when they condemn Witness Lee, but not Cornelius Van Til, the late professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, for saying that God is one person. Van Til said:
Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person…. Over against all other beings, that is, over against created beings, we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective "personality" may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality…27
Geisler and Rhodes write:
To give Van Til the benefit of the doubt, either his insistence on God as a Person should be taken to refer to the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being, or else we must understand that the term "Person" does not mean exactly the same thing when speaking of God as one as it does when speaking of God as three.
Geisler and Rhodes give no "benefit of the doubt" to Witness Lee. Nevertheless, their allowance that Van Til might be speaking of "the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being" is unwarranted as Van Til specifically said he was speaking of "the whole Godhead." The real questions are:
How does Van Til’s mention of "the whole Godhead" differ from Witness Lee’s explicit statement that "the name of the Divine Trinity is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person"?
What is the difference between "the Godhead overall" (which Geisler and Rhodes approve of) and "the sum total of the divine Being"?
How can Geisler and Rhodes justify Van Til on the supposition that he is speaking of "the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being" and condemn Witness Lee who speaks of "the sum total of the divine Being," whom he then explicitly describes as three-one?
Clearly Geisler and Rhodes apply "different weights" in evaluating the statements of Cornelius Van Tell, a well-known Reformed theologian from a respected seminary, than they do in criticizing the similar statement of Witness Lee, whom they seek to portray as unorthodox and outsidet he common faith.
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Persons-as-test-of-orthodoxy.html
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou say what you believe the local churches teach, but I quote what Witness Lee puts in writing.
They must have been misled and given the following as per kevinlee123 above:
[quote]The local churches believe that there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4b; Isa. 45:5a), who is triune—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19), co-existing (Matt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14) and coinhering (John 14:10-11) in [b]three persons, or hypostases, distinct b ...[text shortened]... it as his doctrine of the Triune God, a three-one God, instead of three persons in one God.[/b][/b]
You say:
The local churches believe that there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4b; Isa. 45:5a), who is triune—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19), co-existing (Matt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14) and coinhering (John 14:10-11) in three persons, or hypostases, distinct but never separate, from eternity to eternity;
http://an-open-letter.org
However Witness Lee says something different in his writings as I point out below:.
Witness Lee criticizes other Orthodox 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
Witness Lee teaaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one person, not three persons in one God as in Orthodox Christianity.
"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.
Witness Lee teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the same person.
"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.
I have talked to many Jehovah Witnesses and those that I have talked to also believe the Trinity Doctrine is the same as Witness Lee claims. The difference is that the Jehovah Witnesses rightly reject this false idea, whereas Witness Lee accepts it as his doctrine of the Triune God, a three-one God, instead of three persons in one God.[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou quote:
You say what you believe the local churches teach, but I quote what Witness Lee puts in writing.
You say:
[quote]The local churches believe that there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4b; Isa. 45:5a), who is triune—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19), co-existing (Matt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14) and coinhering (John 14:10-11) in [b]three person ...[text shortened]... as his doctrine of the Triune God, a three-one God, instead of three persons in one God.[/b][/b]
"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...."
I would ask do you defend the notion that when the Son and the Father both sent the Spirit to indwell the believers are left on the throne? Witness Lee was concerned that the three persons are not to be separated.
The truth is that the Son came in the name of the Father (John 5:43a) and with (Gk. para, which means from with) the Father (Jn. 1:1,14; 6:46; 7:29; 16:27; 8:16,29; 14:9-11; 16:32; 6:57; 5:30; 7:18), and the Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son (Jn. 14:26; 15:26) in the Son's name (Jn.14:26; 2 Cor. 3:17) and came with the Father and the Son. This is the Triune God, the three persons — Father, Son and Spirit reaching us as the Spirit.
3 edits
Quotations 3 and 6
In evaluating the first six quotations in the open letter, we must, first of all, understand that in the context of each Witness Lee was trying to override the mistaken concept that the three of the Godhead are separate Gods. In Quotations 3 and 6 this attempt is strongly evident:
Quotation 3
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.... (Life Messages, 164)
Quotation 6
The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person. (The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, 48)
We understand that the signers of the open letter may take offense with Witness Lee’s characterization of “the traditional explanation of the Trinity” as “grossly inadequate” and one that “borders on tritheism” in Quotation 3. But as we have seen, no proper explanation of the Divine Trinity should admit the notion that the three of the Godhead are separate, regardless of tradition or personal sentiment. Thus, when the Spirit comes to indwell the believers, an action that is distinctly the Spirit’s, we must understand that His coming and His indwelling are inseparable from the Father and from the Son because in His eternal being He is inseparable from the Father and the Son yet nevertheless distinct.16 This notion, that the three are distinct yet not separate, is not an easy one to fully grasp, but it is a belief that we must properly hold to. It is indeed the case that much of Christianity today gives the impression that when the Spirit comes, the Father and the Son are apart from Him. We believe that our Christian readers can attest to this impression, and the very fact that the signers find Quotation 3 offensive indicates that they themselves have this impression. What Witness Lee is denouncing is the thought that the Spirit is separated from the Father and the Son and, thus, that there are three separate Gods. In Quotation 3, he forcefully says that “God is not left behind, nor does Christ remain on the throne,” and his point in making this stark statement is that the Father and the Son should not be conceived of as being separated from the Spirit when the Spirit is joined to the believers. This does not destroy the distinctions between the three, but it does annul the concept of three separate persons, three separate Gods, as well it should. Further, the signers of the open letter may wish their readers to understand in this quotation that Witness Lee denies that the Father and the Son are on the throne now that the Spirit is in the believers. He does not. What he is denying is the mistaken notion that splits “the Godhead into these separate Persons,” not that the Father and the Son are on the throne. Elsewhere he makes this clear:
We must also realize that while the Father is with the Son and in the Son, He is also on the throne. The two are distinct, yet not separate. This is a divine mystery which we cannot fathom. On the one hand, the three in the Godhead coexist and on the other hand, they coinhere. They mutually indwell each other and interpenetrate one another...God the Father was within Jesus on the earth and at the same time He was on the throne. We should not be bothered by this...Because He is the eternal God, He is above time and space and not limited by them. (God’s New Testament Economy, 25)
Contrary to physical logic, God the Father was both on the throne in the heavens and with and in the Son on the earth (John 8:29; 10:38; 14:10, 20, 21; 17:23). While they are certainly distinct, they are inseparable. Where the Son is, the Father is there with and in Him. Likewise, as the Spirit dwells in the believers, He dwells inseparably from the Father and the Son, and this is the point that Witness Lee stresses in Quotation 3. The same stress is found in Quotation 6: “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods.” We seriously wonder about the orthodoxy of the signers of the open letter if they take exception to this fundamental matter. Do they wish to defend the notion that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three separate persons or three Gods? We hope not, but we believe that our readers will question, as we do, why the signers find this quotation offensive. We also hope that they do not take exception with Witness Lee’s declaration that “they are one God, one reality.” As we have made clear above, belief in one God is thoroughly Christian, and since God is both one and three, belief in God as one reality is also thoroughly Christian. It is certainly true that God is also three, but that respects only one aspect of the truth concerning the Triune God. If God is also one God, as we adamantly maintain that He is, then He is also one reality. Perhaps, then, it is Witness Lee’s declaration that “they [i.e., the Father, the Son, and the Spirit]...are one person” which bothers the signers of the open letter. This may well be the case since traditional theology has generally expressed the mystery of the Trinity as “one God in three persons.” But against the background of all that we have seen from his other writings above, Witness Lee can hardly be understood to be saying that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not eternally distinct. To try to press Witness Lee into a modalistic point of view simply because he says in Quotation 6 that the three are one person is against the immediate context from which the quotation was excised and against the stronger testimony of his larger ministry. At most, one could argue that Witness Lee does not like the word person as the best term to describe what is distinct in the Godhead, and certainly that argument could be made based on several excerpts from his ministry. Often, in expressing his reluctance to use the word person to describe the three of the Divine Trinity, he incorporated the comments on the use of this word by the theologian Griffith Thomas (one of the co-founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, with which four of the signers, including its current president, are affiliated):
The term three Persons does not exist in the Scriptures, but is added by men in their interpretation. Since they cannot say that the three—the Father, Son, and Spirit—are three Gods, what else can they say? So the designation three Persons is used. Actually, to use the designation three Persons to explain the Father, Son, and Spirit is also not quite satisfactory, because three Persons really means three persons. Therefore, Griffith Thomas (famous for his expositions on the book of Romans), in his book The Principles of Theology, wrote in this wise concerning the trinity of the Godhead: “The term ‘Person’ is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism....While, therefore, we are compelled to use terms like ‘substance’ and ‘Person,’ we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance or personality....The truth and experience of the Trinity is not dependent upon theological terminology.” Therefore, concerning the three Persons we can only say this much. We should not “press too far,” or it will lead to tritheism. (Concerning the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, 10 11, quoting W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles [6th rev. ed. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1978], 31)
The problem with the term three persons is that for many people it really means three persons in the common sense of the term and suggests three separate beings, which would go against the side of the truth concerning the oneness of God. Yet, while Witness Lee did not like to press the term person too far, he did not object to its use for convenience, as this excerpt makes clear:
Many preachers, ministers, pastors, and Bible teachers unconsciously believe in three gods. According to theology, they are taught that God is one, yet they may have difficulty concerning God also being three. He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Some have said that there is one God in three persons. But the term person is not found in the Bible in regard to the Triune God. W. H. Griffith Thomas, one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, said that the term person must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to tritheism. The term person can be borrowed temporarily in order to describe the three of the Godhead. (The Practice of the Church Life according to the God-ordained Way, 73
2 edits
Continue....
In fact, he uses the term three persons frequently in his ministry, especially when he is not stressing the obvious danger of the term. Here is one of the numerous instances of his own use of the term to refer to the three of the Godhead:
In the same principle, while our unique God has three persons—Father, Son, and Spirit—we should never consider Them as three Gods. Although They are three, yet They are one God; although one God, yet there are the three persons—Father, Son, and Spirit. This is the unique God whom we serve and worship! And this also is the only Lord whom we believe and adore! Hallelujah! (Concerning the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, 25-26)
Thus, we have clear examples that Witness Lee, following traditional practice, speaks of God as three persons, and we have the quotation, isolated by the signers of the open letter, in which he speaks of God as one person. Knowing now his proper reluctance for the term person and yet his leniency in its use, our readers should find no fault in Witness Lee for Quotation 6. The signers of the open letter have either failed to recognize Witness Lee’s true position on this issue or, worse, chosen to ignore it.
http://lctestimony.org/Witness-Lee-Quotations.html#quotes3and6
1 edit
Turning the Trinitarian Tables:
What Evangelicals Can Learn from Witness Lee
As we have seen among the quotations supplied in the Open Letter to the LC, Witness Lee has already stated the problem: “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....”
To be sure, Lee should have stated his concern more carefully. There is nothing wrong with believers being taught to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, something Jesus Himself encouraged (John 16:23), and Lee was not opposed to this, for he himself taught it.12 From even the limited material provided in the Open Letter it should be evident, however, that Lee’s real concern was tritheism, which makes it ironic that the Open Letter includes this quotation as evidence of Lee’s unorthodox teaching. Do the drafters and signers of the Open Letter really want to say that when the Spirit comes into believers the Father and Son are left on the throne? Do they really contend that splitting the Godhead into three separate persons is the revelation of the Bible? If so, then conscientious Christians should be concerned about their beliefs on the Trinity.
http://www.equip.org/PDF/EnglishOpt.pdf
2 edits
It is true that the Son is the central figure and subject of the incarnation (John 1:14; Rom. 8:3) and that it was the Son who went to the cross to accomplish redemption (Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:7). It is also true that the Spirit plays the central role in the believers’ indwelling (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16). But that is not the complete revelation of the Bible. Yes, the Father sent the Son, but in what way did He send the Son? He sent the Son through the divine conception by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35), and in the Son’s coming, the Father came with Him and even in Him (John 8:29; 14:10-11; 16:32). When Christ died on the cross, God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19; cf. Rom. 5:10). Furthermore, when the Father sent the Spirit to indwell the believers, this was equivalent to the Son coming to indwell the believers (John 14:16-17, 20; cf. Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27) and the Father and the Son coming to make Their home in them (John 14:23). Not only so, in the Spirit’s coming, we have come to know that the Son is in the Father, that we are in the Son, and that the Son is in us (John 14:20).
The Error of Denying the Involvement of the Father in the Son’s Work
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Father-Son-coworking.html
1 edit
Originally posted by sonship
RJHInds,
Who raised Jesus from the dead ?
Similarly, concerning Christ’s resurrection, the Bible testifies that the entire Triune God was involved. It says:
God (the Father) raised Him from the dead? [b] (Acts 2:24, 32; 10:40; Gal. 1:1);
Or the Lord raised Himself up ? (John 2:19; Acts 10:41; 1 Thes. 4:14);
Or was ...[text shortened]... Son is in the Father, that we are in the Son, and that the Son is in us (John 14:20).15 [/quote][/b]