Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

ps8602 · 01-14-2009, 02:24 PM

UntoHim

I found this article to be very disturbing. As one who has been around the recovery since the 70's I can testify that there are a number of items that are grossly incorrect, whether this is because of rumours and false stories or made up by the author I have no idea.

One example should be sufficient:

The article states:

"Recently a most shocking new name was invented in Taiwan by those followers. According to them, there in now no longer Three-in-One, but "Four-in-One" -- God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, and the God-man Mr. X are one. What blasphemy! Here we request that whoever invented such diabolical theology should certainly be stopped from disseminating such false teaching."

There is a teaching printed by LSM as follows:

“Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now “the four-in-one God”; these four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body”. (From an the outline of Message 8 used at “The Vision, Experience, and Practice of the All-Inclusive Oneness International Training for Elders and Responsible Ones” - Spring 2008)

The article refers to this teaching and has the reader believe WL taught that ‘there in now no longer Three-in-One, but "Four-in-One."’ He did not say “there is no longer” but rather “we may say that the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God.'”

The article then states the teaching is “God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, and the God-man Mr. X are one.” I have never heard, nor is it even within our imagination to believe that those who follow LSM would even consider that WL is ‘one of the four’ as the article gives this impression.

Brothers, I believe that we should fight for the truth in these days, as much as we did 30 years ago, but we should not be silent when things are misquoted, twisted, and falsified. This article, from 1988, was rejected then because of the false attack, and it should also be rejected today. I would give this article no credence, even if some points were accurate.

If we want to have meaningful dialogue concerning the situation then we should be honest and remove this article.

With thanks

Dennis

01-14-2009, 02:24 PM	#3
ps8602 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 5	Re: Reconsideration of the Vision UntoHim I found this article to be very disturbing. As one who has been around the recovery since the 70's I can testify that there are a number of items that are grossly incorrect, whether this is because of rumours and false stories or made up by the author I have no idea. One example should be sufficient: The article states: "Recently a most shocking new name was invented in Taiwan by those followers. According to them, there in now no longer Three-in-One, but "Four-in-One" -- God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, and the God-man Mr. X are one. What blasphemy! Here we request that whoever invented such diabolical theology should certainly be stopped from disseminating such false teaching." There is a teaching printed by LSM as follows: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now “the four-in-one God”; these four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body”. (From an the outline of Message 8 used at “The Vision, Experience, and Practice of the All-Inclusive Oneness International Training for Elders and Responsible Ones” - Spring 2008) The article refers to this teaching and has the reader believe WL taught that ‘there in now no longer Three-in-One, but "Four-in-One."’ He did not say “there is no longer” but rather “we may say that the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God.'” The article then states the teaching is “God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, and the God-man Mr. X are one.” I have never heard, nor is it even within our imagination to believe that those who follow LSM would even consider that WL is ‘one of the four’ as the article gives this impression. Brothers, I believe that we should fight for the truth in these days, as much as we did 30 years ago, but we should not be silent when things are misquoted, twisted, and falsified. This article, from 1988, was rejected then because of the false attack, and it should also be rejected today. I would give this article no credence, even if some points were accurate. If we want to have meaningful dialogue concerning the situation then we should be honest and remove this article. With thanks Dennis