Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church

NeitherFirstnorLast · 12-26-2012, 12:31 PM

Chapter 4 Cont'd: Are His Ways & Thoughts REALLY Higher than ours?

The God-Men, page 86-87

"Witness Lee and his defenders tend to establish a teaching as mysterious & inexplicable, but then proceed to explain it in an unorthodox way. Consider Lee's doctrine of God. All Christians would agree that the Trinity is a great mystery, fully known only to God Himself, yet we have received in the Bible a revelation by which we can understand some truth about God's nature. Witness Lee, dissatisfied with historical trinitarian doctrine, repeatedly states ideas that sound both trinitarian and modalistic....

Some of Lee's teaching seems relatively harmless, if puzzling. For example, in commenting on Exodus 3:6, he says -

"This passage reveals that God as the God of the patriarchs is threefold. With the God of Abraham the emphasis is on the Father; with the God of Isaac the emphasis is on the Son; and with the God of Jacob the emphasis is on the Spirit." (WL, Concerning the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit - pg 11).

The implications of such a parallel are many but obscure, so one may shrug and go on. But what of the modalistic teaching Lee derives from the Gospel of John?

"After death and resurrection He became the Spirit breathed into the disciples (20:22).... The Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life (7:37-39; 4:10, 14)... In the heavens where man cannot see, God is the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit." (Ibid, pages 8-9)

Scripture speaks of an indwelling by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons, yet the Bible verses Lee has cited above do not support his assertions. Jesus remained Himself as He symbolically "breathed the Spirit" on His disciples; He was still there in bodiy form with them. Not did He give His Spirit before His glorification; the whole point of his upper-room discourse was that He would send the Spirit when His work was done. Although He promised to be present through the Spirit's work, Jesus used a third-person pronoun, rather than a first-person pronoun, to refer to the coming Spirit."

********************

This is one short passage on Witness Lee's Doctrine of God, which is actually examined much more thoroughly earlier on in this book. Up to this point, I haven't referenced that material (yet), as it touches on something that we've repeatedly heard from LC Outsiders - that Lee taught modalism. Duddy never goes that far; rather, in a statement much more consistent with our own 'insiders assessment', Duddy states that Lee seemingly taught both a trinitarian and modalistic deity - frequently contradicting himself.... but never unable to supply an answer to any question posed to him, regardless of whether or not either Lee himself or Scripture elsewhere contradicted him.

Now let me distance myself from that particular topic (Lee's unorthodox Doctrine of God) briefly, to touch on something that to my mind comes out of it: and that is Lee's penchant to constantly offer explanations for the unexplainable.

Throughout 'Christianity', that is, the history of the Church Universal, men (and women) have been 'touched by God' and have been used to illuminate for us not only theological truths but also to demonstrate genuine faith and obedience to our Lord. However, many of these men (and women) had differences in interpretations and understandings of exactly what the Scriptures taught (and I say this with the caveat that we must always remember 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity') .

Doesn't Isaiah 55:9 remind us how we ought to approach Scripture? "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

Shouldn't a 'bible teacher' who is honest with himself acknowledge that there are truths contained in the Bible that he can only guess at... and shouldn't he consequently humbly approach Scripture, always seeking and growing in the truth but knowing that "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely." (1st Corinthians 13:12 -NLT)

Is it pride that prevents a man from saying "I think", or "I believe", or "my understanding is", rather than saying he has all the answers? If so, what does God say about the proud? How does He view them, and shouldn't that proud man's teachings be suspected rather than exalted, given his penchant to so boldly declare that he knows (absolutely and without mistake) the mind of God?

12-26-2012, 12:31 PM	#312
NeitherFirstnorLast Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 348	Re: The God-Men: An Inquiry into Witness Lee & the Local Church Chapter 4 Cont'd: Are His Ways & Thoughts REALLY Higher than ours? The God-Men, page 86-87 "Witness Lee and his defenders tend to establish a teaching as mysterious & inexplicable, but then proceed to explain it in an unorthodox way. Consider Lee's doctrine of God. All Christians would agree that the Trinity is a great mystery, fully known only to God Himself, yet we have received in the Bible a revelation by which we can understand some truth about God's nature. Witness Lee, dissatisfied with historical trinitarian doctrine, repeatedly states ideas that sound both trinitarian and modalistic.... Some of Lee's teaching seems relatively harmless, if puzzling. For example, in commenting on Exodus 3:6, he says - "This passage reveals that God as the God of the patriarchs is threefold. With the God of Abraham the emphasis is on the Father; with the God of Isaac the emphasis is on the Son; and with the God of Jacob the emphasis is on the Spirit." (WL, Concerning the Triune God, the Father, the Son and the Spirit - pg 11). The implications of such a parallel are many but obscure, so one may shrug and go on. But what of the modalistic teaching Lee derives from the Gospel of John? "After death and resurrection He became the Spirit breathed into the disciples (20:22).... The Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life (7:37-39; 4:10, 14)... In the heavens where man cannot see, God is the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit." (Ibid, pages 8-9) Scripture speaks of an indwelling by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons, yet the Bible verses Lee has cited above do not support his assertions. Jesus remained Himself as He symbolically "breathed the Spirit" on His disciples; He was still there in bodiy form with them. Not did He give His Spirit before His glorification; the whole point of his upper-room discourse was that He would send the Spirit when His work was done. Although He promised to be present through the Spirit's work, Jesus used a third-person pronoun, rather than a first-person pronoun, to refer to the coming Spirit." ******************** This is one short passage on Witness Lee's Doctrine of God, which is actually examined much more thoroughly earlier on in this book. Up to this point, I haven't referenced that material (yet), as it touches on something that we've repeatedly heard from LC Outsiders - that Lee taught modalism. Duddy never goes that far; rather, in a statement much more consistent with our own 'insiders assessment', Duddy states that Lee seemingly taught both a trinitarian and modalistic deity - frequently contradicting himself.... but never unable to supply an answer to any question posed to him, regardless of whether or not either Lee himself or Scripture elsewhere contradicted him. Now let me distance myself from that particular topic (Lee's unorthodox Doctrine of God) briefly, to touch on something that to my mind comes out of it: and that is Lee's penchant to constantly offer explanations for the unexplainable. Throughout 'Christianity', that is, the history of the Church Universal, men (and women) have been 'touched by God' and have been used to illuminate for us not only theological truths but also to demonstrate genuine faith and obedience to our Lord. However, many of these men (and women) had differences in interpretations and understandings of exactly what the Scriptures taught (and I say this with the caveat that we must always remember 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity') . Doesn't Isaiah 55:9 remind us how we ought to approach Scripture? "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Shouldn't a 'bible teacher' who is honest with himself acknowledge that there are truths contained in the Bible that he can only guess at... and shouldn't he consequently humbly approach Scripture, always seeking and growing in the truth but knowing that "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely." (1st Corinthians 13:12 -NLT) Is it pride that prevents a man from saying "I think", or "I believe", or "my understanding is", rather than saying he has all the answers? If so, what does God say about the proud? How does He view them, and shouldn't that proud man's teachings be suspected rather than exalted, given his penchant to so boldly declare that he knows (absolutely and without mistake) the mind of God?