[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I can understand your point. But what I think you fail to see is that there was 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.

I do not see it as doublespeak. It was something WL believed and he spoke the convictions of those beliefs. He also was a gifted Bible teacher and knew how to construct the teachings from the ground up. A math teacher might reiterate basic math fundamentals before launching into to a higher study of Trig or Calculus. Such a math teacher is not setting up his students to swallow false Calculus rules (as OBW suggests) but rather covering the fundamentals again so there is no misunderstanding about what he is about to say. That is just good teaching methodology.

Now if someone wants to ascribe sinister motives to that approach then they cannot be stopped and attempts to persuade them otherwise are futile and pointless since such a mentality will always reach the same conclusion.

And besides, there is no other way to explain such biblical mysteries if you believe them without sounding a bit double-spoken though it may be perfectly clear to yourself.

For instance, take this similar example: I think we will agree that the Godhead is eternally unchangeable, the same from eternity past to eternity future, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, co-existing in mutuality, etc. etc. Let's call this Assertion/Belief #1.

Now again for example: Does the Godhead now include the resurrected flesh of Jesus since His ascension? How does one explain how the resurrected flesh of Jesus is incorporated into the Godhead without violating Assertion.Belief #1? And if you believe that His resurrected flesh is not part of the Godhead then how does that work exactly with His resurrected body? Since, after all Jesus is God. And if you argue that His flesh was always part of the Godhead from eternity past then there will be some explaining to do about when flesh was created and when the Word became flesh and what is meant by the verses which talk about preparing a body for Him.

I do not mean that this is entirely unknowable in this life, I mean to say that explaining it will make one sound like they are engaging in doublespeak even if they have thought it through. If I were attempting to teach such a profound matter I would reiterate the fundamentals about Christ becoming a man, being born of a virgin, being the seed of the woman, resurrecting with a body, and of course, the unchangeable Godhead before launching into an explanation of the teaching above. A skeptic would claim I am prepping the students to receive something bad by telling them something good and true that they already know. And nothing would be farther from the truth. Rather I would be reaffirming the orthodox understanding of the Godhead, basics about the faith and who Jesus was and is and what happened to Him before attempting to explain the more complex, diffcult, and mysterious subject.

Now some of the students may not hunger or care for higher math and are content with making pottery in home economics and that is fine too. We all need pots. There is no need to convince them either. Pots hold things like flowers. They are pretty to look at and smell nice. Their world view is just as valid though different.

So, it is erroneous and/or presumptuous to think anything other than Witness Lee spoke what he actually believed. And besides, good or bad motives are irrelevant as you point out to OBW as we cannot really know for sure. And the whole argument about "bad fruit" as a gauge of the teachings is also subjective because for all the persons in here who claim "bad fruit" there are tens of thousands out there who will claim "good fruit". So that doesn't work either. And a double-speak sounding teaching proves nothing about the scriptural integrity of a teaching as it could sound like double-speak for any number of good, wholesome, and sound reasons.