Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can They Be Separated?

UntoHim · 12-02-2011, 08:54 AM

The first part of the statement falls within the orthodox understanding of the trinity, the second part does not. This reflects what we already know about Witness Lee - He may have been a good accountant, but he was a lousy theologian.

Soon I think we may see the ole "two sides to the divine truth" argument, or maybe the ole "economic versus essential" argument. These are (and have been for centuries) arguments used by false teachers and heretics. The Mormons teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Fine. Very biblical. AND? What ELSE do they teach about Jesus Christ? (see Internet for details) The Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Fine. Very biblical. AND? What ELSE do they teach about Jesus Christ. They teach that Jesus Christ IS the Father and the Jesus Christ IS the Holy Spirit. Almost all deviations from orthodox Christianity teach sound, orthodox, biblical things along with the false and heretical ones.

We can repeat and consider all the sound, orthodox, biblical things that Witness Lee taught. Fine. But if that's all he taught we would not be here today on this forum. The Local Church would not be considered as a Christian cult by many apologists, theologians and scholars.

The bottom line is that presenting the sound, orthodox, biblical teachings of Witness Lee as a defense against the questionable, unorthodox, unbiblical teachings is a non sequitur. Let's deal with the questionable, unorthodox, unbiblical teachings as they are stated. If somebody, in one breath, taught that Jesus was God, then in the next breath taught that Jesus was not God, would you accept them as orthodox and biblical? Of course not. Now I realize that what we are dealing with in Witness Lee's teachings are not that blatant, and there are some nuances to be dealt with to be sure, but orthodox teachings do not offset unorthodox teachings.

Cal · 12-02-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The bottom line is that presenting the sound, orthodox, biblical teachings of Witness Lee as a defense against the questionable, unorthodox, unbiblical teachings is a non sequitur.

>> Amen <<

Cal · 12-02-2011, 09:17 AM

My body is "me" in a sense, but not all senses, and certainly not in the most important senses. My body is not my person, it is not my essence. I can lose parts of my body and not lose who I am essentially. I can exist apart from my body. I will get a new spiritual body.

So while it is not necessarily incorrect to say the Body of Christ is "Christ" in a sense similar to the way our bodies are us, that does not dovetail into the notion that the Father, Son, Spirit and Body are now on some kind of equal footing that declaring them the "four-in-one God" or even "four-in-one" would imply.

Saying "four" when three of the four are the Father, Son and Spirit makes all of the four peers in some sense. My body is not my peer. Neither is Christ's Body Christ's peer.

You wouldn't call Christ and his Body the "two-in-one Christ," so why would you call the Trinity plus the Body the "four-in-one God?"

12-02-2011, 08:54 AM	#1
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,826	Re: Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can they be separated? The first part of the statement falls within the orthodox understanding of the trinity, the second part does not. This reflects what we already know about Witness Lee - He may have been a good accountant, but he was a lousy theologian. Soon I think we may see the ole "two sides to the divine truth" argument, or maybe the ole "economic versus essential" argument. These are (and have been for centuries) arguments used by false teachers and heretics. The Mormons teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Fine. Very biblical. AND? What ELSE do they teach about Jesus Christ? (see Internet for details) The Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Fine. Very biblical. AND? What ELSE do they teach about Jesus Christ. They teach that Jesus Christ IS the Father and the Jesus Christ IS the Holy Spirit. Almost all deviations from orthodox Christianity teach sound, orthodox, biblical things along with the false and heretical ones. We can repeat and consider all the sound, orthodox, biblical things that Witness Lee taught. Fine. But if that's all he taught we would not be here today on this forum. The Local Church would not be considered as a Christian cult by many apologists, theologians and scholars. The bottom line is that presenting the sound, orthodox, biblical teachings of Witness Lee as a defense against the questionable, unorthodox, unbiblical teachings is a non sequitur. Let's deal with the questionable, unorthodox, unbiblical teachings as they are stated. If somebody, in one breath, taught that Jesus was God, then in the next breath taught that Jesus was not God, would you accept them as orthodox and biblical? Of course not. Now I realize that what we are dealing with in Witness Lee's teachings are not that blatant, and there are some nuances to be dealt with to be sure, but orthodox teachings do not offset unorthodox teachings. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

12-02-2011, 09:17 AM	#3
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Good Lee/Bad Lee: Can they be separated? My body is "me" in a sense, but not all senses, and certainly not in the most important senses. My body is not my person, it is not my essence. I can lose parts of my body and not lose who I am essentially. I can exist apart from my body. I will get a new spiritual body. So while it is not necessarily incorrect to say the Body of Christ is "Christ" in a sense similar to the way our bodies are us, that does not dovetail into the notion that the Father, Son, Spirit and Body are now on some kind of equal footing that declaring them the "four-in-one God" or even "four-in-one" would imply. Saying "four" when three of the four are the Father, Son and Spirit makes all of the four peers in some sense. My body is not my peer. Neither is Christ's Body Christ's peer. You wouldn't call Christ and his Body the "two-in-one Christ," so why would you call the Trinity plus the Body the "four-in-one God?"