GotQuestions and Norman Geisler on the Local Church

[DistantStar]

When I started seriously looking up the Local Church, I went to the best website I know of when it comes to general Christian questions, called gotquestions.org. I was particularly interested in this one:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Witness...al-church.html

From them I heard about the Christian Research Institute changing their stance to one in favour of the Local Church. I considered this a very impressive move and as such I've only viewed the Local Church as at best a very controversial - though still non-cultic - denomination.

Yet it seems the moderators of the site have received significant feedback, leading them to revise their first paragraph which now cautions Christians against visiting a Local Church.

As someone who has recently discovered the whole apologetics world, I have tremendous respect for Norman Geisler. Not only for his work, but also for the impact he had on both William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias, both great apologists.

As such I was surprised to see a link on this gotquestions webpage to a refutation written by Norman Geisler in association with Ron Rhodes (whom I don't know).

I just wanted to bring this statement of theirs to the attention of those who have not seen it. It made me reevaluate my opinion of the LC. I'm no longer certain anymore about it being cult or not (whether they are orthodox or not). Not only do the authors question CRI's wisdom, but they go into some discussion on the LC view of the trinity.

This part is particularly enlightening:

To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “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. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee, A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless

[Freedom]

No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless

LC leadership has sought to defend Lee's teachings by claiming that various excerpts of his ministry have either been misunderstood or taken out of context. I used to accept such an explanation as being completely plausible. But part of me was always left wondering. Why, when faced with an 'epidemic' of being misunderstood, wouldn't they revise things that could be taken the wrong way? If something could really be stated more clearly, then there would be no reason not to revise it.

So of course, once you look at the lack of concern about doing anything to solve the stated 'problem', it becomes clear that there's more going on than meets the eye. In particular is the stark realization that they have no interest in revising anything Lee said. In fact, anything Lee taught is fair game to be defended and confirmed. That's all they care about, no matter how absurd it is. They will attempt to defend the indefensible solely because it was something Lee taught. And LC leadership could easily distance themselves from things Lee taught, but to do that would be to admit that Lee was infallible, and that's something they can't do.

[Evangelical]

Lee was emphasizing the co-habitation of God and His people, and in no way was redefining or explaining the Trinity. Lee clearly means one in life and nature, not in person. He did not say the 4th is another person of the Trinity.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee was emphasizing the co-habitation of God and His people, and in no way was redefining or explaining the Trinity. Lee clearly means one in life and nature, not in person. He did not say the 4th is another person of the Trinity.

This avoids the issue at hand. If WL was really just trying to explain a particular concept, there was no need for him to use provocative phrases like four-in-one. Quite to the contrary, he knew very well what he was doing. He liked doing things for shock value, but it seems he and his defenders have been unable to accept the consequences of such reckless talk. Particularly in regards to the more extreme published statements, the LSM has had every opportunity to either not publish or to reword these things. There is simply no reason not to.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This avoids the issue at hand. If WL was really just trying to explain a particular concept, there was no need for him to use provocative phrases like four-in-one. Quite to the contrary, he knew very well what he was doing. He liked doing things for shock value, but it seems he and his defenders have been unable to accept the consequences of such reckless talk. Particularly in regards to the more extreme published statements, the LSM has had every opportunity to either not publish or to reword these things. There is simply no reason not to.

Please tell me exactly what the consequences are? Possibly the consequences you speak of are all imagined.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Please tell me exactly what the consequences are? Possibly the consequences you speak of are all imagined.

The consequences I speak of are the effects of LCM having been called out by numerous Christian apologists. Have you read the unprecedented letter signed by over 70 evangelical scholars asking the LCM to retract certain statements made by Lee? This is not something that can be shrugged off by claiming that they 'misunderstood' Lee or took his statements out of context. The CRI's position regarding this letter represents the viewpoint of a small minority of apologists, even just several individuals.

When you have numerous people claiming that a restaurant has roaches, would you go eat there? The claim need not be substantiated in order to make a decision. That is the situation that the LC is up against unless they want to address Lee's teachings in a forthright manner, including making retractions if necessary.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This avoids the issue at hand. If WL was really just trying to explain a particular concept, there was no need for him to use provocative phrases like four-in-one. Quite to the contrary, he knew very well what he was doing. He liked doing things for shock value, but it seems he and his defenders have been unable to accept the consequences of such reckless talk. Particularly in regards to the more extreme published statements, the LSM has had every opportunity to either not publish or to reword these things. There is simply no reason not to.

Such reckless talk can be more accurately identified as heresy.

Nell

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee was emphasizing the co-habitation of God and His people, and in no way was redefining or explaining the Trinity. Lee clearly means one in life and nature, not in person. He did not say the 4th is another person of the Trinity.

This quote was just interesting.The idea was to draw attention to the whole entire statement. See this in context with the rest of what Geisler said.

[DistantStar]

My idea was to bring attention to the whole statement, not just the paragraph I quoted.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

My idea was to bring attention to the whole statement, not just the paragraph I quoted.

Context is everything and the context is the oneness of the Spirit, not a redefinition of the Trinity. It is just like saying husband and wife are one, does this mean husband and wife are one person? of course not. Also, Jesus prayed for his disciples to be one. This is the kind of oneness Lee is talking about.

This is exactly what the Lord prayed for in John 17:21-22, “That they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.” The oneness of the believers here is “even as” the very oneness of the Godhead – this must be the unity of the Spirit spoken of in Ephesians 4. John 17:22 continues: “And the glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one” (NASV). Our oneness in the body is just the experience in the Spirit of the oneness enjoyed by the Triune God! In this we are four in one. This in no way can be taken to mean that we are a part of the Godhead.


http://www.contendingforthefaith.org...sentation.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee was emphasizing the co-habitation of God and His people, and in no way was redefining or explaining the Trinity. Lee clearly means one in life and nature, not in person. He did not say the 4th is another person of the Trinity.

But there was a time when Lee's strongest promoters said that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity, and that Lee himself was a part of the "flow from the throne." Whether it was "the body" or Lee himself, it is worse than heretical.

All of which you seem to flippantly dismiss ...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All as a result of the 4 in 1 doctrine? That is hard to believe.

I hate to inform you of the bad news, but these kinds of perverted teachings result in idolatry. Have your never read how idolatry has damaged Israel?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But there was a time when Lee's strongest promoters said that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity, and that Lee himself was a part of the "flow from the throne."

And those fire-breathers are now in charge of the programme and the moderate voices were ejected. This seems to indicate that Lee's worst statements, which his defenders say were merely misunderstood or taken out of context, actually formed the core of the message.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But there was a time when Lee's strongest promoters said that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity, and that Lee himself was a part of the "flow from the throne." Whether it was "the body" or Lee himself, it is worse than heretical.

All of which you seem to flippantly dismiss ...

I hate to inform you of the bad news, but these kinds of perverted teachings result in idolatry. Have your never read how idolatry has damaged Israel?

Where is the proof that his promoters said this? It is to be found no where in LSM teachings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where is the proof that his promoters said this? It is to be found no where in LSM teachings.

When, how or what context it was said certainly wouldn't get past the editorial section at LSM. So you would never find it in any LSM published text.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where is the proof that his promoters said this? It is to be found no where in LSM teachings.

Hahahahah!

And everything his promoters have said will be published by LSM?

The source of that saying was a former co-worker Don Rutledge from Dallas.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee was emphasizing the co-habitation of God and His people, and in no way was redefining or explaining the Trinity. Lee clearly means one in life and nature, not in person. He did not say the 4th is another person of the Trinity.

The problem is, in the case of God, what is the difference, really, between his life/nature and his person? Is there a part of his nature which does not contain his person? Is there some unconscious "God stuff" that constitute the essence of his being but which does not include his consciousness?

This is hard to imagine. The Bible does say we partake of the divine nature. But how is that different, really, from partaking of God himself? I don't think there is a difference. It's just another way of looking at the same thing.

So also with "life." Jesus said "I am the life." The "I" is a person, by definition, and the person is the life. So there is no difference between the person and the life. It's just another way of looking at our relationship with him. The person himself is life to us.

So saying you can be one with God in life and nature but not in person contradicts what the Bible teaches. It also simply does not make sense when considering the essence of God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem is, in the case of God, what is the difference, really, between his life/nature and his person? Is there a part of his nature which does not contain his person? Is there some unconscious "God stuff" that constitute the essence of his being but which does not include his consciousness?

This is hard to imagine. The Bible does say we partake of the divine nature. But how is that different, really, from partaking of God himself? I don't think there is a difference. It's just another way of looking at the same thing.

So also with "life." Jesus said "I am the life." The "I" is a person, by definition, and the person is the life. So there is no difference between the person and the life. It's just another way of looking at our relationship with him. The person himself is life to us.

So saying you can be one with God in life and nature but not in person contradicts what the Bible teaches. It also simply does not make sense when considering the essence of God.

God's life and nature might better be described as God's breath. Christ breathed on the disciples and they received the Spirit. Obviously they did not receive Christ's person, as he was standing in front of them.

It's the difference between God is in heaven, God is in you, God is everywhere. We could say that everything in creation is one with God (Acts 17:28). But not with God's person, or life or nature.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

LC leadership has sought to defend Lee's teachings by claiming that various excerpts of his ministry have either been misunderstood or taken out of context. I used to accept such an explanation as being completely plausible. But part of me was always left wondering. Why, when faced with an 'epidemic' of being misunderstood, wouldn't they revise things that could be taken the wrong way? If something could really be stated more clearly, then there would be no reason not to revise it.

So of course, once you look at the lack of concern about doing anything to solve the stated 'problem', it becomes clear that there's more going on than meets the eye. In particular is the stark realization that they have no interest in revising anything Lee said. In fact, anything Lee taught is fair game to be defended and confirmed. That's all they care about, no matter how absurd it is. They will attempt to defend the indefensible solely because it was something Lee taught. And LC leadership could easily distance themselves from things Lee taught, but to do that would be to admit that Lee was infallible, and that's something they can't do.

Great points.

Nigel Tomes did a great case study on two other Christian movements, the Moravians and the Exclusive Brethren, focusing on the teachings of their leaders Zinzendorf and Taylor Sr. He studied how their successors handled their more "extreme" statements, and the long term effect it had on the movements.

Lee's Blendeds obviously followed the bad pattern established by the Taylor exclusives, who have since lost all relevance. This is quite ironic since the Taylor exclusives had excommunicated W. Nee over "misunderstood" teachings.