[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Isn't all this talk about Lee's teachings and dumping them a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? For example, I am no longer involved with the LC but when I read the open letter by over seventy evangelical scholars and ministry leaders to the LSM back in 2007 in which they charged LSM, among many other charges, of holding to a teaching by Witness Lee in which he claimed that the nature of God was such that:

"The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father. We must realize this fact. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?... In the place where no man can approach Him (I Tim. 6:16), God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is given, yet His name is called 'The everlasting Father.' This very Son who has been given to us is the very Father."

I'm sorry, but I just cannot find the problem with this. Evidently, this is an issue with the rest of all Christianity. I, however, just do not see it! And I think I can argue convincingly out of the scriptures in support of this position. Have I been poisoned so much so that I can't even tell that what I consider to be a basic tenet of the faith, as simple kindergarten stuff, is in actuality a fabrication of Witness Lee?

Somebody help?

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with you. To me it also makes sense from the Word.