[UntoHim]

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.