Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi unreg..

Interestingly the Recovery version is one of the most literal bible versions around. Also many doctrines of Lee are from a strict literal interpretation. For example that the Lord Jesus is the Spirit is one such doctrine. That is word for word what the verse says. But many Christians interpret that verse according to a view of the Trinity and say Jesus cannot be the Spirit even though the verse literally says that.

I noticed that you are mixing W. Lee’s “interpretation” with the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. I don’t have complaints against the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. My complaint is against many of the “outlines” and “footnotes” being wrong because they go along with W. Lee’s major errors in his teaching. Also, I don’t have a problem with W. Lee’s teaching of Soteriology or Salvation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I noticed that you are mixing W. Lee’s “interpretation” with the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. I don’t have complaints against the Biblical Text of the Recovery Version. My complaint is against many of the “outlines” and “footnotes” being wrong because they go along with W. Lee’s major errors in his teaching. Also, I don’t have a problem with W. Lee’s teaching of Soteriology or Salvation.

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

Heresy!!!!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

Lee's ministry is in maroon:

In 2 Corinthians 3:17 Paul abruptly says that “the Lord is the Spirit.” Today our critics are most afraid of three Scripture verses: 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:17, and Isaiah 9:6. First Corinthians 15:45 says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” Some say that the Spirit in this verse is not the Holy Spirit; instead, they say that this verse speaks of Christ becoming a Spirit. However, the Spirit here is modified by life-giving, indicating that this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, because in the universe there is no other Spirit who gives life besides the Holy Spirit.

First of all it bothers me that Lee says his critics are "afraid" of three verses. No one is afraid of them.

I have read other threads that discuss 1 Cor. 15:45, showing the parallel in the preceding and succeeding verses between a physical body and then our spiritual bodies, and thus "became a life-giving Spirit" is talking about the kind of spiritual body the Lord had. As in, Spirit here is referring not to the third of the Godhead, but to the Lord's substance....i.e. God is Spirit.

Given the context, that makes more sense to me than "the life-giving Spirit is the Holy Spirit". If the LGS is referring to the Holy Spirit, then what we have is a verse saying that the last Adam, Jesus, became the Holy Spirit. The Son became the Spirit. Modalism. Sorry, nope.

Some say that the Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a general title of God and that it does not denote the Lord Jesus. However, according to the context, the Lord here should refer to Christ the Lord. Verses 14 and 16 of chapter 3 say, “The veil is being done away with in Christ...But whenever their heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” Verse 17 continues to say, “And the Lord is the Spirit.” Then in 4:5 Paul says, “We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord.” Obviously, Lord here refers to Christ the Lord. Paul says that this Lord is the Spirit.

I can't say anything here. I've read various explanations and commentaries on this verse, and I haven't come to a conclusion yet.

Furthermore, Isaiah 9:6 says, “A Son is given to us;... / And His name will be called... / Eternal Father.” Some say that the Father here does not refer to the heavenly Father but to a Father of eternity. They say that eternal (an adjective) should be properly rendered “eternity” (a noun), just like saying that George Washington is the father of America and Thomas Edison is the father of electricity. However, the writer wrote this verse in the form of a couplet with child and Mighty God as a pair and with Son and Eternal Father as another pair. The child is the Son, and God is the Father. Since there is only one God, there is surely also only one Father. No one can twist this word and say that the Father here does not refer to the Father in the Godhead but to another Father. Furthermore, we must interpret any verse of the Bible according to the particular book in which the verse is found. In the entire book of Isaiah, Jehovah is referred to twice as our Father (63:16; 64:8), indicating that Eternal Father refers to God, who is our Father. Therefore, we cannot say that He is the eternal Father and not our Father.

The couplet argument is interesting just because I'd never heard it before, but I have to be honest that I don't see the couplet as an obvious parallel. Child and mighty God don't necessary go together, and then where is the couplet pairing for Wonderful Counselor and Prince of Peace? Am I missing the couplet thing? I think it's grasping at straws to draw that parallel (a hallmark of Lee's work I am coming to realize).

There are other verses in the Old Testament, one from Isaiah, that use the word "father" in the sense of "protector":

Isaiah 22:21 - And I will clothe him with your tunic, And I will strengthen him with your girding sash, And I will put your dominion into his hand; And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem And to the house of Judah.

Job 29:16 - I was a father to the needy, And the cause of him whom I did not know I investigated.

Isaiah 63:16, which Lee mentions, is speaking of a father to a whole people, which strikes me as similar to Washington being the father of America. I also don't read Isaiah 64:8 to refer to the father of the Godhead.

I just can't get on board with the Son is the Father.

The Son as the Spirit is the embodiment of the Triune God. After completing all the processes, such as incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and glorification, He became “the Spirit” (John 7:39; Rom. 8:26-27; Gal. 3:2, 14) as the ultimate manifestation of the Triune God.

Since John 7:39 is listed here as a verse reference, I'll mention that I was going to bring in John 7:39 in trying to talk about 2 Cor. 3:17 in the portion above that I didn't comment on, because in John 7:39 I can see that "the Spirit" was not yet meaning the Lord was not yet spirit in substance, otherwise you have to read it as the Holy Spirit was not yet, which is patently false. To say the Lord "became the Spirit" as the ultimate manifestation of the Triune God and call it the Holy Spirit is again, to me, to say that God exists in modes.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Isaiah 63:16, which Lee mentions, is speaking of a father to a whole people, which strikes me as similar to Washington being the father of America. I also don't read Isaiah 64:8 to refer to the father of the Godhead.

I just can't get on board with the Son is the Father.

One thing that helped me was a commentary which showed that people gave their children names with "God" in them. That does not, of course, mean that the child is God, or has the attributes of the name in full, but that the child rather points to some aspect of the Source of all good.

A lot of names had "el" in them, meaning "God". But that person ( or angel - "Gabri-el" or "Micha-el" - was not God.) So if you had a name like "the Father is eternal" it didn't mean that you yourself were the eternal Father. One might meet someone on the street who introduced themselves as "the father who is of light" or "Who is like God" and that didn't mean they themselves were the Father, or God.

A larger point worth making, which came to mind in the "Body Christ" or "Corporate Christ" thread, is that every time Christ became something or other in the hands of the ministry of Lee, he became arguably less like the actual Jesus of the gospels. In theological suppositions, Jesus became more and more abstract, as the posited Pneumatic Christ, the Intensified Christ, the Body Christ and so forth.

Yet the actual Jesus "who went around doing good", as his close associate Peter told those in Cornelius' house... well we had little use for "dead works" in the LC. The Jesus who taught to "give to those who have no means to repay you in this age" - we had other teachings in the LC. Don't waste your time, we were told in the FTTA, rather go after "good building material." The Jesus who was no respecter of persons (also echoed in James' writings, later) was superseded by a system, a Corporate Christ, built on nothing but respecting men (not women - their time was in the 1920s and 30s). "Can we honour our brother too much" asked one leader (who was ejected years later for not showing sufficient honour to the replacement Top Dog in Anaheim).

It became a farcical system holding to abstract ideals and teachings but bearing little resemblance in any actuality to the person whose life, teachings, journey, behaviours, death, and resurrection started it all. The system behind the abstractions became little different from the worst of the "Christanity" it so loudly and constantly despised. That was the real process, the real becoming.

[Cal]

Lee never made it very clear why it was so important to think that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit.

I believe that at some level that must be true--because all three are God and there is only one God. But why did Lee have to beat everyone over the head with it?

I've given my opinion on the matter. I think the Trinity is the result of the inner life of a self-conscious, all-knowing Person. He knows himself completely. This produces a perfect image in his own mind of himself, which is ever before him and is so complete it is also a "person"--the Son. The Father and the Son have a relationship, that is the Spirit. Each are completely the one God, yet each are distinct. So in a sense, each are the others. Yet, they are still distinct. Mysterious. Yet if you look at your relationship with yourself, you can see a faint shadow of it.

But Lee never explained why it was better to see them as one. I personally felt his view was helpful, because it was easier to experience God if you weren't always trying to divide him up in your mind, and just let it flow. But to Lee it seemed to be a point where he got to be argumentative about something and show how he was smarter than everyone else. That's where I think he went wrong. And he went wrong that way a lot.

But in general, complete orthodoxy or agreement on the Trinity is unnecessary; and, since it is such a mystery, impossible anyway, because who is to say what is perfectly orthodox? So those who say don't over-analyze the Trinity, just enjoy it, have a strong point.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...those who say don't over-analyze the Trinity, just enjoy it, have a strong point.

I write a lot, but also agree with the "don't overthink it" school. I write because I enjoy writing, not because I alone have the truth and I'm endeavouring to bludgeon a recalcitrant world into submission.

For some reason I've come to tremendously appreciate the simplicity and power of Peter's gospel. "This Jesus God has raised up, and made both Lord and Christ". The Jesus who in Lee's hands became the sevenfold intensified pneumatic processed Father Christ doesn't impress me as much as "this Jesus" that Peter speaks of in Acts 2. We can either say that possibly Peter didn't get all those Local Church extras, or maybe Peter got everything.

The Jesus that Peter saw every day, to me beats the "Christ who became" this and that via Lee's mental machinations. But that's just my subjective enjoyment. Lee had his, I have mine.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

I write a lot, but also agree with the "don't overthink it" school. I write because I enjoy writing, not because I alone have the truth and I'm endeavouring to bludgeon a recalcitrant world into submission.

Me, too. I think and write because I enjoy the experience, not because I think I'm an authority. Anyone has the right to disagree with me. I've found if I feel desperate to defend what I believe then I probably don't believe it as strongly as I think.

Originally Posted by aron

The Jesus that Peter saw every day, to me beats the "Christ who became" this and that via Lee's mental machinations. But that's just my subjective enjoyment. Lee had his, I have mine.

Regarding Peter and Lee. I was just reading something on the rise of the papacy. In a section entitled, "The Plenitude of Papal Power" (plenitude means fullness) it reads:

Apologists for the papacy supported its claims by an appeal to the idea of the plenitude of papal power. ... It was argued that in granting Peter the keys of heaven and hell, Christ gave Peter and his successors full jurisdiction over both church and state. Thus it was not possible in this life "to appeal from the pope to God or man." Proponents of this theory went so far as to assert that although the pope might be mistaken, "his error creates right." 1

Sounds eerily like the LC claim about Lee: "Even when he's wrong, he's right."

(No indictment of Peter, nor of your reasonable preference for him over Lee, intended.)

1 A Short History of Christian Thought, Linwood Urban, 1995