Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Then he shouldn't have used the term "four-in-one God." Because everyone agrees that "three-in-one" is talking about the Godhead. That's the point of reference. So it's logical for readers to presume that "four-in-one" is talking about the Godhead as well. The phrase implies adding a Fourth that gains the status of the original Three. Otherwise, why use the phrase in the first place.

Saying later that the Body doesn't become part of the Godhead doesn't fix the problem, because then people become confused as to just what "four-in-one God" means.

It's like if Lee would say because kids eat a lot of candy that candy is now the "fifth food group." The original four food groups (meat, grain, dairy, fruit/veggies) are supposed to be the healthy essential foods. So then people would ask "oh, so you are saying candy is now a healthy, essential food group?" To which you would answer if you responded like you did here "When did Lee say that?"

The point is Lee should have never used the term "four-in-one" God and it certainly shouldn't have been published. Since he did, my case is made. It's a loose, confusing and dangerous speaking. Man becoming God falls into the same category.

Okay Igzy, I understand how the term four-in-one might lead some to believe it is in reference to the Godhead, in isolation. But even the quote you provided in the base note it is clear he did not mean that.

Is your issue that there is no such four-in-one entity? Or is your issue that Witness Lee was careless in his use of term "four-in-one"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Okay Igzy, I understand how the term four-in-one might lead some to believe it is in reference to the Godhead, in isolation. But even the quote you provided in the base note it is clear he did not mean that.

I disagree with your statement that it is "clear" that he did not mean the Body is part of the Godhead? How is it clear? What "base note" are you talking about?

Is your issue that there is no such four-in-one entity? Or is your issue that Witness Lee was careless in his use of term "four-in-one"?

The latter. But that being the case, I have issue with using the phrase "four-in-one" in any sense. There is no "four-in-one" entity in which all aspects are part of the Godhead, therefore using the phrase four-in-one is reckless, because it clearly references three-in-one.

Let's face it. Using the term "four-in-one" was meant to get a response of that in some fashion the Body is elevated to the level of God. I think we need to be very careful when we start swallowing that kind of stuff because the fact is the Bible doesn't not plainly give is authority to do that. Why would the Bible be coy about our "becoming God" if it were indeed true? Why wouldn't it just come out and say it?

Since declaring oneself God is a form of blasphemy, I think I need more that just a indirect possible implication of it before I start announcing it to the world, if it's all the same to you, thank you very much.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I disagree with your statement that it is "clear" that he did not mean the Body is part of the Godhead? How is it clear? What "base note" are you talking about?

I provided the quote from your base note. Here it is again:

"The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."

[Ohio]

Here is WL's quote:

"Ultimately, the church is a group of people who are in union with the Triune God and are mingled with the Triune God. The Triune God and the church are four-in-one. Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."

WL says "the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” WL is saying "the body is God." That is an undeniable conclusion of his statements here. Does this not blow your fuses Cassidy? Did you read that? Then you attempt to derail this thread by nit-picking "just as, even as, like as, etc."

Anyways, if you are enamored by these statements, that is your choice, and the liberty you have. The facts of history tell us that some of these so-called "high peak truths" really were diversionary in nature. They were simply smokescreen to divert the attention of the LC's away from the chaotic events surrounding Anaheim, with the subsequent quarantines.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is WL's quote:


WL says "the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” WL is saying "the body is God." That is an undeniable conclusion of his statements here. Does this not blow your fuses Cassidy? Did you read that? Then you attempt to derail this thread by nit-picking "just as, even as, like as, etc."

Anyways, if you are enamored by these statements, that is your choice, and the liberty you have. The facts of history tell us that some of these so-called "high peak truths" really were diversionary in nature. They were simply smokescreen to divert the attention of the LC's away from the chaotic events surrounding Anaheim, with the subsequent quarantines.

Whether I am enamored with such statements is irrelevant. Whether such statements are valid or true or accurate according to the scriptures is relevant. Orthodox christians believe in the Trinity and use that term to describe God yet that term was not used until AD170. One could argue (and some do) that christians are enamored with the extra-biblical term "Trinity" and ascribe motives for its introduction (and it took hundreds of years to sort it all out by the way). Therefore, it is also irrelevant whether there were ulterior motives in determining whether the term "Trinity" is accurate according to the scripture.

The question is simply, is it or isn't it?

So back to the teaching at hand, you said: " WL is saying "the body is God." That is an undeniable conclusion of his statements here. Does this not blow your fuses Cassidy? Did you read that?"

Yes, I did. It reminded me something similar I read about the Body being Christ:For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, 1Cor 12:12

This verse states plainly that the Christ has a body in the way our body is a part of us and is us.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yes, I did. It reminded me something similar I read about the Body being Christ:For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, 1Cor 12:12

This verse states plainly that the Christ has a body in the way our body is a part of us and is us.

Well, if you want to play that then I can also say my body isn't me, because the Bible plainly says I continue on even after my body decays. When we say our bodies are us we do not mean that it is us in the way our soul/spirit is us. There is a difference.

Sorry, but this verse fails to support the notion of a "four-in-one God." The downside of making such declarations far exceeds their "wow, look what I see that no one else sees" benefits.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Okay Igzy, I understand how the term four-in-one might lead some to believe it is in reference to the Godhead, in isolation. But even the quote you provided in the base note it is clear he did not mean that.

Is your issue that there is no such four-in-one entity? Or is your issue that Witness Lee was careless in his use of term "four-in-one"?

Bilb...I mean Cassidy,

Witness Lee and those who followed him have a history of being loose and careless with terms. Then when called on it, all kind of word dancing has to take place. For people who place so much emphasis on "truth" and accuracy, you guys sure spend a lot of time 'splanin what Witness Lee, or one of his successors reeeealy meant.

What's really offensive about this term is that we know that whenever someone from the Living Stream Church dares to mention the fourth of the "godhead" they are talking exclusively about those who are "built up" under the ministry of Witness Lee. As if the Godhead is bound by whatever a group of pompous delusionals decides. Sort of like the tail wagging the dog, or the Pope telling heaven what it has decided.

P.C.