Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
That (or otherwise") is the fundamental point of departure Igzy, between your understanding and WL's on this particular topic.
Though I hold a different view from you yet, I am not even trying to change your mind about that either. I would not even object to anyone being disgruntled about the use of the term "four-in-one" because it sounds too much like the Godhead term "three-in-one". A fair critique.
What I did object to is attributing a teaching to Witness Lee that he never held or taught. He has never taught that the Body collectively or any single member individually becomes incorporated into the Godhead and usually added that clarification as he did in the passage you quoted. But those clarifications are often overlooked because people tend to filter through the lens of their own personal beliefs. And in some cases people know WL did not teach a certain thing but for other reasons (that only God knows and will judge) they purposely mis-represent his teachings. For them there will be a greater judgment I believe. I do not think that you are purposely misrepresenting WL though just to be clear.
|
I can understand your point. But what I think you fail to see is that there were some fundamental misconceptions in Lee's view which led to his problems.
The first is that because we partake of God's life and nature that we in some sense become God. This is not really supportable by scripture.
The second is the idea that we can somehow become God but not become the Godhead. God implies the Godhead and there is no God outside the Godhead. Saying we become God but not the Godhead is like saying someone becomes human but doesn't become a person. It's like saying I drank beer but didn't drink alcohol. It's just double-speak.
So when Lee started splitting these hairs he was asking to be misunderstood. You can't blame people for misunderstanding his double-speak.