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.

[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

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

So the consequence is a letter signed by 70 people because they disagree, and the possibility of the LC being seen as a restaurant with roaches. That's it?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So the consequence is a letter signed by 70 people because they disagree, and the possibility of the LC being seen as a restaurant with roaches. That's it?

As I alluded to, the consequence is negative publicity. That doesn't help the LC further its purpose. If they think that have something of benefit to offer others, then they have to give people a good reason to want to see what they have to offer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

As I alluded to, the consequence is negative publicity. That doesn't help the LC further its purpose. If they think that have something of benefit to offer others, then they have to give people a good reason to want to see what they have to offer.

It is good to see your concern for the LC's purpose.

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So the consequence is a letter signed by 70 people because they disagree, and the possibility of the LC being seen as a restaurant with roaches. That's it?

The restaurant attempts to serve nutritious and tasty food, and the consequence is a letter signed by 70 inspectors who disagree, citing ants, roaches, mouse droppings and mold. That's it?

Actually, no. Combine that with the thousands who've left. Many have testified of their experience in the soul-crushing LC environ. Look at the BARM: 40+ pages of testimonies of individuals, the vast majority who never made it to this web site. But the testimonies are there. Young, old, Asian, Caucasian, educated, truck drivers, housewives, college students, businessmen. They came into the LC and didn't get fed or shepherded, but got crushed and cast aside.

Not just by bad theology, but by bad actions. No love, no care. "Get the good building material for the body". . . forget about the widows, orphans, the sick, those who cannot repay you in this age; "Don't waste your time", the FTTA trainers told us. "Get the good building material." The fruit of this bad theology is evident, as should be, if one takes the time to critically inspect the source of the teaching. It is based on human logic, not scripture. And logic is dangerous, because it works just enough to fool you, and draw you in. Then you enter into the house of mirrors. Or, to come back, into the restaurant with the shiny sign outside, and the ants and roaches and mold within.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The restaurant attempts to serve nutritious and tasty food, and the consequence is a letter signed by 70 inspectors who disagree, citing ants, roaches, mouse droppings and mold. That's it?

Actually, no. Combine that with the thousands who've left. Many have testified of their experience in the soul-crushing LC environ. Look at the BARM: 40+ pages of testimonies of individuals, the vast majority who never made it to this web site. But the testimonies are there. Young, old, Asian, Caucasian, educated, truck drivers, housewives, college students, businessmen. They came into the LC and didn't get fed or shepherded, but got crushed and cast aside.

Not just by bad theology, but by bad actions. No love, no care. "Get the good building material for the body". . . forget about the widows, orphans, the sick, those who cannot repay you in this age; "Don't waste your time", the FTTA trainers told us. "Get the good building material." The fruit of this bad theology is evident, as should be, if one takes the time to critically inspect the source of the teaching. It is based on human logic, not scripture. And logic is dangerous, because it works just enough to fool you, and draw you in. Then you enter into the house of mirrors. Or, to come back, into the restaurant with the shiny sign outside, and the ants and roaches and mold within.

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

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by aron

It is based on human logic, not scripture. And logic is dangerous, because it works just enough to fool you, and draw you in

That's the thing. Initially it seems as though they offer everything logically, but when you dig deeper (like Geisler did in this statement), you find them being everything except logical. Believing the trinity to be both three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time is not logical (and both orthodox and heterodox). I'm pretty sure believing this for too long will lead to some cognitive dissonance.

[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

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

I understand. Yet you miss the point. Have you even read Geisler's statement? He was drawing attention to how the LC will be almost blatantly heretical, and then the next moment be orthodox. My example of the trinity being both one person and three persons, in the same sense in the same time, is of relevance here. By doing this we cannot say whether or not the LC is heretical, because the first makes them heterodox, while the latter makes them orthodox.

It's precisely this confusion, and the lack of will on the part of the LC to address it, that is so peculiar if not down right dangerous.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

My example of the trinity being both one person and three persons, in the same sense in the same time, is of relevance here.

I am beginning to wonder if the Eastern disregard for logic had any influence on the LC, seeing how it started in China.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Look at the BARM: 40+ pages of testimonies of . . . .

Unfortunately, it appears that the site is not only not taking new posts, but is no longer available for viewing. Just a message saying that there is a software problem or something like that.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

The "ground of oneness" doctrine led to the "Deputy God" doctrine, which led to doctrines passing strange, as God's so-called oracle was led. The 4 in 1 doctrine was one of many.

“Until there is a local church in your locality, you can never have the proper expression of the Body,” (pg. 32).

“Do not try to be neutral. Do not try to reconciliate the denominations with the local church. You can never reconcile them” (pg. 92).

“We need to have our eyes opened for if we have not seen the local church, we are in darkness, and under a blindfold” (pg. 31).

“If we drop it (the revelation of the local church) we simply have no way to go on as a Christian. The only way to follow the Lord absolutely is to go the way of the local church” (pg. 94).

“Therefore the church must be Christ. When we say that the local church is the house of God, we must realize that this house must be Christ” (pg. 20). “Even the three persons of the Godhead are for the divine purpose of having a church to fulfill God’s eternal plan” (pg. 8); “Everything is for the church and everything is because of the church” (pg. 9); “God, creation, and man are all for the church” (pg. 10).

“This is the oneness of the church. It is nothing but the Triune God realized in the Spirit. Thus, the oneness of the church is the unity of the Spirit. The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is now in the Body. They are now four in one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body” (pg. 43).

From, The Practical Expression of the Church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I understand. Yet you miss the point. Have you even read Geisler's statement? He was drawing attention to how the LC will be almost blatantly heretical, and then the next moment be orthodox. My example of the trinity being both one person and three persons, in the same sense in the same time, is of relevance here. By doing this we cannot say whether or not the LC is heretical, because the first makes them heterodox, while the latter makes them orthodox.

It's precisely this confusion, and the lack of will on the part of the LC to address it, that is so peculiar if not down right dangerous.

Christ is almost blatantly heretical here:

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Lee said that the Father, Son, Spirit and church are one. It is no more heretical than John 10:30.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

“This is the oneness of the church. It is nothing but the Triune God realized in the Spirit. Thus, the oneness of the church is the unity of the Spirit. The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is now in the Body. They are now four in one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body” (pg. 43).

From, The Practical Expression of the Church.

Quoting sentences without considering the whole context does not help. Lee is clearly not redefining the Trinity, he clarifies that in another book.

[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.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ is almost blatantly heretical here:

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Lee said that the Father, Son, Spirit and church are one. It is no more heretical than John 10:30.

What are you trying to prove here? That the Trinity does not exist? Some form of modalism? Even if true, that would be heresy compared to the orthodox view which has been held for centuries. And THAT is what you are not getting. The orthodox view is the view of a trinity: three PERSONS in a single Godhead. Not one person manifesting Himself in three ways.

Don't get me wrong, if the way you view it is true, then it's the way we should all go. Yet if you are stating what I think you're stating, can you really blame us for considering the LC as heretical? If you affirm this, then I can even understand you considering all of us as heretical. Yet if so do not deceive people by claiming that you hold orthodox beliefs as their criteria of orthodoxy then clearly differs from yours. Then do not deceive groups like CRI who defends you because they believe you to hold to orthodox beliefs. Stop with this confusion and make your points clear.

A Christian cult is, as far as I understand it, a group which comes out of Christianity but denies a central doctrine thereof (not to mention often as the result of a single charismatic leader). If you deny God being three Persons within a single Godhead, then you deny a central doctrine.

Besides, are you going to ignore the verses clearly stating Christ's distinctness from the Father? I can name quite a few if you like, in both the New and Old Testaments. Yet it's not my goal to debate whether or not God is a Trinity. The point is that the LC's view of the Trinity is heterodox compared to the established orthodoxy.

I really encourage you to read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity if you have not. One argument for multiple persons which he gives, and I believe remains convincing (and has been adopted by modern apologists), is that of love. Love requires an object. You can't just "love". You have to love something.

Before going on, notice the practical importance of this. All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that 'God is love.' But they seem not to notice that the words 'God is love' have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love.

Two more things. Firstly, I apologise if I misunderstood you, if you really do believe in three Persons. Then all I've just written did not serve any purpose. Secondly, C. S. Lewis was also a fallible man. Yet I find his theology to be much more logical, alive and deep than anything Witness Lee could concoct. But this is just a personal statement which I know you will not agree with.

There is a reason why Lewis's work is continuing to move the Christian world to unity (this book is a defense of all orthodox Christianity) while Lee's are, ironically, continuing to foster division.

Finally, the goal of this thread was to bring people's attention to the whole of Geisler's statement. I'll just put it plainly here. In my first post I inserted it within a word.

http://www.open-letter.org/pdf/Geisl...nse_to_CRI.pdf

Discussions on the Trinity take a great part of this statement, so this is not off topic. It was never my intention for people here to only consider the part I quoted on God being "four-in-one".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

What are you trying to prove here? That the Trinity does not exist? Some form of modalism? Even if true, that would be heresy compared to the orthodox view which has been held for centuries. And THAT is what you are not getting. The orthodox view is the view of a trinity: three PERSONS in a single Godhead. Not one person manifesting Himself in three ways..

Lee believes in a three person God. Read for yourself, second paragraph, here:
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.c...=P94OUXQPUI0FU

The only confusion is with those (Geisler et al) who have not read the whole book and do not understand the spiritual truth Lee is trying to reveal. Lee's writings about being two in one, three in one, or four in one, are to do with the spiritual things, not the nature of the Godhead. In fact when we come to the teaching on the New Jerusalem, and the body, the church, we are talking about many in one. The bible says the body is one with Christ as the Head (1 Cor 12), and this is a many in one thing. This in no way means God is not Triune.

For example the Bible shows two in one here:
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Read that verse in isolation, then one may conclude that God is a two-person God, that God is Father and Son, and the Spirit is just an impersonal power or force. Some in Christianity do believe that, I've known some of them. That is what Geisler et al are doing. They are not considering that Lee's context is not about defining the Godhead and going with that to make outrageous claims that Lee believes in a four-inity.

Lee's version of the Trinity is exactly that, another version. It is distinct from the classical interpretation and also distinct from modalism. I doubt that any creed, Nicene or otherwise expresses the doctrine of the Trinity in such detail that Lee's view can be automatically dismissed as unorthodox. We are talking about grey areas here. It is black and white that God is three persons. To deny that is heretical. What is grey is the exact relationship between those persons and this is what Lee addresses.

There is something we need to understand about the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine is but a model of God, like any other model there may be approximations, details omitted. We invented the Trinity to help us understand God. The Trinity was defined by the early church, many years after Christ. It was enforced, sometimes with violence, after that. Christ never revealed that doctrine to us and it is not clearly revealed in the old testament. For example, it says the 3 persons are equal. But the Bible says something about the Father being greater than Christ, and Christ submitting to the Father. Obviously there are things we cannot know or understand about God. Lee sometimes goes into the detail of the Trinity model, of which some wrongly conclude that Lee is speaking of a different model altogether (modalism, unitarian etc).

It is a fact that the relationship between the 3 persons of the Godhead is not well established. There have been a number of different versions of the Trinity, you can read about it here:
http://reknew.org/2007/12/what-are-t...f-the-trinity/

Please note this paragraph:
To some defenders of the psychological model, the social model borders on tri-theism (the belief in three separate gods). To some defenders of the social model, the psychological model borders on modalism (reducing the three Persons to three modes of one person). Still others argue that since models are only models, not exact replicas of reality, we may affirm both models as valid in capturing distinct perspectives on a God whose full reality defies exhaustive description. - See more at: http://reknew.org/2007/12/what-are-t....06fdTv5H.dpuf

So what we are talking about here is different versions of the Trinity - one which borders on tri-theism, versus one which borders on modalism. Lee obviously believes in one which some may say borders on modalism, just as Lee claims the other version borders on tri-theism. But we cannot say that Lee taught modalism or anything like that, because of his many words which affirm that God is Triune in 3 persons co-existing at the same time.

Most Christians probably are not aware of the different models of the Trinity, for that reason they wrongly conclude that something different is a different heretical model.
I believe with this viewpoint - since models are only models, not exact replicas of reality, we may affirm both models as valid in capturing distinct perspectives on a God whose full reality defies exhaustive description.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Quoting sentences without considering the whole context does not help. Lee is clearly not redefining the Trinity, he clarifies that in another book.

I find this to be rather droll. Lee's hermeneutical oeuvre does nothing but quote the Bible out of the whole context. In fact, that's what he did for a living; that and follow his muse.

"I and the Father are one". So apparently Jesus is the Father. Then, "The church is Christ". So apparently the Church is therefore also the Father..

And so we ended up "masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God", for example, and could care less about Jesus' greatest commandment, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Lee was constantly redefining context, and leading others away from the actual body of text and its clear and simple message, and into the forest of his teachings.

[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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

A Christian cult is, as far as I understand it, a group which comes out of Christianity but denies a central doctrine thereof (not to mention often as the result of a single charismatic leader). If you deny God being three Persons within a single Godhead, then you deny a central doctrine.

One way to really see the starkness of what Lee did, was found examining the message(s) of the native Chinese off-shoots of the LSM. Only the barest tatters of orthodoxy remain there, usually just to get the unsuspecting mark to come in.

Jesus? Sure! The Bible? Yes! Yes!

Then, once they are in, they're informed that the age of the Word is over, and it is now the age of the Spirit. No longer do we need to rely on "dead letters", i.e. the Bible, but we have "living oracles", i.e. the inspiration of the Ascended Master, who is Lee's True Follower and Heir. God made flesh, now dwells among us. Etc.

That there is not just one but easily a half-dozen of these groups, all essentially abandoning any orthodox wrappings and trumpeting the "revelations" of Lee, shows where this group was going. The heretical, cultic off-shoots didn't depart from their source, but rather took it to its next (il)logical step.

[TLFisher]

Something about LSM and Christian Apologetics is they want to limit their discussions to teachings and doctrines while avoiding the matter of practices.

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

So just one individual. That doesn't mean LSM or anyone else believes that. I have come across a wide variety of beliefs in the local churches, some of which are clearly unbiblical. I could point to countless of examples of wrong beliefs in the denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So just one individual. That doesn't mean LSM or anyone else believes that. I have come across a wide variety of beliefs in the local churches, some of which are clearly unbiblical. I could point to countless of examples of wrong beliefs in the denominations.

I constantly shake my head in wonder at how much rotten nonsense in the LC's you are willing to minimize and dismiss, and how little tolerance you have for outsiders.

Just having the right name does everything for you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I constantly shake my head in wonder at how much rotten nonsense in the LC's you are willing to minimize and dismiss, and how little tolerance you have for outsiders.

Just having the right name does everything for you.

I dismiss it because you have no proof, so it is just an unsubstantiated rumor. Probably a case of Chinese telephone.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I find this to be rather droll. Lee's hermeneutical oeuvre does nothing but quote the Bible out of the whole context. In fact, that's what he did for a living; that and follow his muse.

"I and the Father are one". So apparently Jesus is the Father. Then, "The church is Christ". So apparently the Church is therefore also the Father..

And so we ended up "masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God", for example, and could care less about Jesus' greatest commandment, to love our neighbor as ourselves. Lee was constantly redefining context, and leading others away from the actual body of text and its clear and simple message, and into the forest of his teachings.

The church is the body of Christ. So the church is Christ. How can the church be the body of Christ but not be Christ? I am Christ and you are Christ. That is a true and factual statement. We are not just "friends of Christ" - is your body merely your friend?, no, it is you.

[Evangelical]

A real Trinitarian may appear modalist and be falsely accused of such

It may not have occurred to anyone but a proper understanding of the Trinity may appear to be modalist when talking about the oneness of the 3 persons of the Trinity. Many emphasize the three-ness of God, the three distinct persons, but when speaking of the oneness it is very difficult to avoid being labelled a modalist.

What some on here are doing is accusing Lee of being a modalist which is what happened to some early church fathers who were accused of the same, when clearly they were not:

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

Augustine(A.D. 354-430), one of the most important writers on the orthodox view of the Trinity, was accused of being a modalist. His emphasis on the oneness of God laid him open to the charge of modalism. In stressing the unity of operation of the Three, Augustine differed considerably from those Fathers who spoke as if each Person had a distinct role in external activities.46 Adolf Harnack, a renowned authority in the history of dogma, said, “We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a Modalist, and by the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas.”47

To be seen as a modalist is not the fault of Lee or anyone else, it is due to the complexity of the Nicene version of the Trinity which does not logically make sense:

Phillip Carey (Professor of Philosophy at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania) notes,
The doctrine literally does not add up. Nicene doctrine names three distinct individual beings as God and then says they don’t add up to three Gods. Hence Nicene theologians must say God is beyond counting, beyond number – and thus beyond rational understanding. This was, however, a very common thing to say about God in the Platonist philosophical tradition.

DistantStar said "That's the thing. Initially it seems as though they offer everything logically, but when you dig deeper (like Geisler did in this statement), you find them being everything except logical. Believing the trinity to be both three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time is not logical (and both orthodox and heterodox). ".

My response to that is, that it is not supposed to be logical. The Trinity doctrine itself is not logical, and those who claim it is do not understand it. A person who says "God is one and God is also three, I understand it, it makes sense, it is logical" does not know what the word logic means. To believe in the Trinity is to be illogical, thus there is the necessary caveat "it is a mystery".

The ones who say Lee taught modalism follow the same sort of flawed logic that says that Christianity comes from any number of ancient religions that believed in 3 gods. Just because something sounds modalistic does not mean it actually is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am Christ and you are Christ. That is a true and factual statement.

I noticed you didn't say "I am the Father and you are the Father." Why not? According to Witness Lee, Jesus Christ is the Father, right? Or, no?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I noticed you didn't say "I am the Father and you are the Father." Why not? According to Witness Lee, Jesus Christ is the Father, right? Or, no?

We are the children of the Father, so we cannot be the Father, because we are created.

At this point you might say, Christ is the Son of God, so he cannot be the Father. But this view considers only one aspect. It also lowers Christ to the position of a merely created being like us, rather than the eternal one. Christ is different to us, He was not created. To say that Christ is not the Father is to say that Christ is just another of the Father's creation.

Christ must be the Father, because Christ created all things:

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Christ is not created, so it is fine to say Christ is the Father. It is not right to say we are the Father, because that is to say that we are not created.

Now, you could save yourself a lot of brainpower by just accepting that Christ is the Father, trying to understand or reconcile just how Christ can be the creator of all things visible and invisible, and yet not be the Father, might cause your brain to explode. One day you will come to the realization that Christ is the Father's presence with you all along. There is no need for you to say "show me the Father" because you already see Him in Christ. Christ is the Father with us, why? because Christ is not the Father? How silly does that sound.

[aron]

At some point, when talking about God, we end up with conjecture. The scripture only leads us so far. Our experience must go on. If our experience leads us to quarrel with one another over obscure terminologies and our subjectivist/logic trails, what testimony is that to the unbeliever?

Even Jesus, when pressed by His intimates, said, "What is that to you? You follow me." Love one another. Feed my sheep. Live properly.

I really prefer conviviality. So pardon me, if I spoke out of turn here. God is good.

[DistantStar]

I see there is another thread up on Lee's view of the Trinity, so I believe this doesn't have to be discussed here. Yet Geisler's entire statement is what I've wanted to draw attention to. I also thought there would be some discussion on CRI.

Originally Posted by Terry

Something about LSM and Christian Apologetics is they want to limit their discussions to teachings and doctrines while avoiding the matter of practices.

This is just not true. Or at least you misunderstand the relationship between apologetics and apologists. Ravi Zacharias, arguably the most famous apologist, began as and still continues to be a preacher. William Lane Craig also, numerous times, admitted that apologetics is knowledge "about God" and not "knowing Him". He realizes that being a Christian is knowing God, not just knowing about Him.

Having watched numerous videos and debates of these two - and others - I can say with certainty that they know they should put their relationship with God before any intellectual discussion on Him.

Apologetics aims to show the reasonableness of Christianity. Its purpose is to bring those to faith who have an intellectual objection to Christianity. As such it is mostly concerned with the mind and less with practices (though they do overlap - logical/intellectual views on, say, Scripture's inerrancy have practical results).

Basically, apologetics does not aim to give practical lessons, though they do often result in it. Yet unlike the LC, apologists invite discussion and recognize the limits of apologetics.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

DistantStar said "That's the thing. Initially it seems as though they offer everything logically, but when you dig deeper (like Geisler did in this statement), you find them being everything except logical. Believing the trinity to be both three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time is not logical (and both orthodox and heterodox). ".

My response to that is, that it is not supposed to be logical. The Trinity doctrine itself is not logical, and those who claim it is do not understand it. A person who says "God is one and God is also three, I understand it, it makes sense, it is logical" does not know what the word logic means. To believe in the Trinity is to be illogical, thus there is the necessary caveat "it is a mystery".

Is that a logical statement? If you deny logic, then you deny the possibility of knowing truth. To say that it is not supposed to be logical is to say that 2+2 may equal 5. God made the world with reasonableness and He has made himself known to us. That's not to say that we will understand everything. Yet that does not lead to us having to accept logically contradictory statements. How do you know that your logically contradictory views on God is truth? Why not keep to those views on Him which are logical?

How do you KNOW the Trinity is not supposed to be logical? You say the Trinity doctrine itself is not logical. I agree - YOURS is not logical. Ours make sense.

[DistantStar]

Evangelical, earlier you talked about models of God or of the Trinity. I agree with this. We can only have models. Yet why keep to an illogical model? It is unsound to insist that an illogical model is likely the true one.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Is that a logical statement? If you deny logic, then you deny the possibility of knowing truth. To say that it is not supposed to be logical is to say that 2+2 may equal 5. God made the world with reasonableness and He has made himself known to us. That's not to say that we will understand everything. Yet that does not lead to us having to accept logically contradictory statements. How do you know that your logically contradictory views on God is truth? Why not keep to those views on Him which are logical?

How do you KNOW the Trinity is not supposed to be logical? You say the Trinity doctrine itself is not logical. I agree - YOURS is not logical. Ours make sense.

I believe it is more logical to say that if the Father is God and Christ is God then the Father is Christ.

1+1+1 = 1 while 1 does not equal 1 does not equal 1 is not logical. The Trinity is not logical. I think that is one of the reasons why some people reject it in favor of other models, it is hard to comprehend.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Evangelical, earlier you talked about models of God or of the Trinity. I agree with this. We can only have models. Yet why keep to an illogical model? It is unsound to insist that an illogical model is likely the true one.

I don't think any version of the Trinity is a logical model.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe it is more logical to say that if the Father is God and Christ is God then the Father is Christ.

1+1+1 = 1 while 1 does not equal 1 does not equal 1 is not logical. The Trinity is not logical. I think that is one of the reasons why some people reject it in favor of other models, it is hard to comprehend.

I admit I made a big mistake here. I equated logic to mathematics, which is not true. In logic things are not always equal. For instance, to say that if there is rain, that there will be clouds (A -> B), is not to say that if there are clouds, that it will rain (B -> A). That's a logical fallacy.

In the same vein, to say that Jesus is God, is not the same as God is Jesus. "God" is the broader term. It's like saying I am a man, therefore to be a man is to be Me. It does not follow. So be careful about seeing the Persons of the trinity being the same.

I also still do not get you. One moment you deny modalism, the next you criticize the idea of distinct Persons.

I still stand by my point of our model of the Trinity being the logical one. But I admit my appeal to mathematics was out of order. I simply wanted to show the absurdity of preferring a illogical model. I used the idea of mathematics because I was reminded of this quote from 1984:

“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

Does anyone know more about CRI's relationship with the LC? I recall one video where one CRI member (it could have been Hannegraaf) met with LC members.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think any version of the Trinity is a logical model.

I'd like to add that you have to claim to know everything about the Trinity to know that it is not supposed to be logical. As long as you don't have that level of knowledge, surely you should search for the most logical model?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dismiss it because you have no proof, so it is just an unsubstantiated rumor. Probably a case of Chinese telephone.

I may be mistaken, but it was mentioned in John Ingall's Speaking the Truth in Love. The utterance of the 4 in 1 more or less was Paul Hon.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I admit I made a big mistake here. I equated logic to mathematics, which is not true. In logic things are not always equal. For instance, to say that if there is rain, that there will be clouds (A -> B), is not to say that if there are clouds, that it will rain (B -> A). That's a logical fallacy.

In the same vein, to say that Jesus is God, is not the same as God is Jesus. "God" is the broader term. It's like saying I am a man, therefore to be a man is to be Me. It does not follow. So be careful about seeing the Persons of the trinity being the same.

I also still do not get you. One moment you deny modalism, the next you criticize the idea of distinct Persons.

I still stand by my point of our model of the Trinity being the logical one. But I admit my appeal to mathematics was out of order. I simply wanted to show the absurdity of preferring a illogical model. I used the idea of mathematics because I was reminded of this quote from 1984:

Well, mathematics is the language of logic, so if it doesn't add up mathematically then it is simply not logical. Philosophical logic, is not too different in the sense that philosophical logic could never entertain an idea that 1 +1+1 = 1. Philosophy and mathematics go together. So I maintain that the Trinity is not logical, from a mathematical or a philosophical perspective.

As I quoted before, Phillip Carey (Professor of Philosophy at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania) notes,
The doctrine literally does not add up. Nicene doctrine names three distinct individual beings as God and then says they don’t add up to three Gods. Hence Nicene theologians must say God is beyond counting, beyond number – and thus beyond rational understanding. This was, however, a very common thing to say about God in the Platonist philosophical tradition.


You have mentioned causation. You are right, we cannot assume that A causes B means B causes A. The example you gave about rain is an obvious one. With God however it is not so obvious. This is mainly because we cannot fully understand God. We understand rain and clouds and these things, we know which one causes the other. But we cannot say the same of God. The Trinity doctrine does not explain this.

My belief is that there are no causal relationships between the Person's of the Trinity except where it concerns Christ's humanity. What if we said that God is the Father but the Father is not God? Or God is the Spirit but the Spirit is not God? It does not make sense and has negative implications. If we say that Christ is God but God is not Christ, then we are saying that Christ is a "lesser God". The word God must mean, by definition, the uncreated, eternal One.

I fear that many Christians do impose causal relationships between the Person's of the Trinity like this:
Christ is God (but not as much God as the Father), and God (the Father) is not Christ. Some go so far as to say that Christ was just a human example to us and not God at all. This is why we sometimes insert the word "fully" to say that Christ is fully God. if Christ is fully God, then the "fully God" must be Christ. Christ is not even 99.999% God, He is 100% God. Many Christians believe like this:
1 (Father) +0.75 (Son)+0.25 (Spirit) = 1.

They believe the Son and the Spirit is not as much God as God the Father. This is evident in their sermons, prayers, worship, and language, which rarely mention the name of Christ.

If we take this to the extreme, some believe like this
1 (Father) +0 (Son)+1 (Spirit) = 1. Muslims, Jews, and some Christians, believe the Son is not God at all but just a good human example to us.

The Pentecostal movement has recovered the belief that the Spirit is as much God as the Father or Christ. Their emphasis on the Spirit as God is evident in their worship, prayers, speech and sermons. Whereas in many other denominations the Spirit barely rates a mention.

But I don't need to use logic to show that there is no causality in the Trinity. The Trinity doctrine itself and the Bible, rules out causality between the Person's of the Trinity - they are all just as equal, just as eternal and co-existing as each other. There is no hierarchy between them.

There is no causality, unless we are talking about Jesus Christ, then there is some causality. In a previous post, someone asked, if we say that we are Christ, and if we believe that Christ is the Father, why don't we say that we are the Father?

The reason is, because of the causality. We know that we are created, the Father caused us to exist, so there is a causal relationship between God and us, His Creation. For that reason we could never say that "I am the Father". However in relation to Christ's humanity, we can say "I am Christ", because in His humanity, Christ had the same created flesh as ours and we are considered sons of God and brothers of Christ. But at the same time, Christ is different to us - He is not merely created, He is fully God. So we can say that Christ is the Father, and that "we are (the body of) Christ", but we cannot say "we are the Father".

The doctrine of the Trinity does not go into such detail about what the relationship between the 3 looks like. This is why there have been various attempts (including Lee's) to specify what this relationship between the three could be like. Lee's attempt is, admittedly, a simplistic one - consider all of the verses in the Bible that describe the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, and not try to "explain away" the verse which says "Christ became the life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor 15:45) to mean something other than what it says, just because of a doctrine which does not detail it anyway. So unlike staunch traditional Trinitarians, who would go to lengths to explain how and why Christ is not the Spirit, we would simply accept that, and live with the fact that it cannot be explained - just like the concepts of Trinity or God itself cannot easily be explained and understood fully. If a person does not believe that Christ became the life-giving Spirit, then what sort of spirit did Christ become? Are there two life-giving Spirit's in the universe? If we entertain this idea, then by default we are saying there are two Spirit's that give life, and hence two life-giving God's.

As Augustine found (being a staunch defender of the Trinity yet being accused of modalism), I believe a proper explanation of the doctrine is to be in that continual state of balance or unknown between the two extremes of tritheism and modalism. As soon as someone says "God is three persons, only", or "God is one person, only" they fall into the trap of denying the oneness, or denying the three-ness. Like Augustine, Lee believed in a version of the Trinity that tried to maintain that balance, and like Augustine, was falsely accused of being a modalist for doing so.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

I may be mistaken, but it was mentioned in John Ingall's Speaking the Truth in Love. The utterance of the 4 in 1 more or less was Paul Hon.

Thank you for finding something. Let's examine that then (quoted from Ingall's thing found on this site) (bold emphasis mine)

A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:

The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4; and then there are those with Witness Lee. Don Rutledge asked, Paul, who is #5. Paul replied that it is not yet clear who #5 is. Then Paul continued, You brothers don’t have access to Brother Lee; Andrew Yu and I do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and sit down to eat breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants is to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do. Don Rutledge asked, Isn’t this a hierarchy and the exercise of control? Paul replied, No! Then Don asked, How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning. Paul answered, If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.

It would seem from the stated context, and the dialogue following the #4 statement by Hon, that it is about hierarchy and exercise of control. There is nothing there about Lee being the 4th person of the Trinity. I am sure that if that was ever the context (implied or otherwise), Don, or any of the others present would have rebuked it.

So Ohio has lost all credibility on this matter, as evidenced by his failure to produce any evidence of his claim, Ingall's "True Account of Events and Concerns" which provides evidence contrary to the claim. I also note that few are coming to Ohio's defense to back him upon on this issue, which leads me to conclude that this is an unsubstantiated rumor. This does not mean I rule out the possibility - it is possible that individuals believed that about Lee, but I don't think it reflects in any way on the ministry truth.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well, mathematics is the language of logic, so if it doesn't add up mathematically then it is simply not logical. Philosophical logic, is not too different in the sense that philosophical logic could never entertain an idea that 1 +1+1 = 1. Philosophy and mathematics go together. So I maintain that the Trinity is not logical, from a mathematical or a philosophical perspective.

This is just not true. Those two are not the same. If they were, then denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent would not have been logical fallacies.

Besides, you seem to think that to be one and to be three have to be in the same sense. That there cannot be a synthesis between the two. God is one being, with three persons. A Siamese twin is one being, with two persons, two minds. A three headed dog is one dog, with three heads. This idea is completely logical. This is the idea we have: one God, three Persons.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thank you for finding something. Let's examine that then (quoted from Ingall's thing found on this site) (bold emphasis mine)

A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:

It would seem from the stated context, and the dialogue following the #4 statement by Hon, that it is about hierarchy and exercise of control. There is nothing there about Lee being the 4th person of the Trinity. I am sure that if that was ever the context (implied or otherwise), Don, or any of the others present would have rebuked it.

So Ohio has lost all credibility on this matter, as evidenced by his failure to produce any evidence of his claim, Ingall's "True Account of Events and Concerns" which provides evidence contrary to the claim. I also note that few are coming to Ohio's defense to back him upon on this issue, which leads me to conclude that this is an unsubstantiated rumor. This does not mean I rule out the possibility - it is possible that individuals believed that about Lee, but I don't think it reflects in any way on the ministry truth.

That's hysterical. You have just proved my point! You found the quote. You even have the names of 5 trusted witnesses.

And then you tell others that I have "lost all credibility?" Seriously?

And, btw, at that time #5 was the profligate son of WL named Phillip.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's hysterical. You have just proved my point! You found the quote. You even have the names of 5 trusted witnesses.
And then you tell others that I have "lost all credibility?" Seriously?
And, btw, at that time #5 was the profligate son of WL named Phillip.

And then what happened?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

And then what happened?

#5 started hitting on the interns.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

#5 started hitting on the interns.

You are avoiding the rest of the story.

What happened next?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are avoiding the rest of the story.

What happened next?

• Some conscientious brothers tried to bring Philip's molestations to Lee's attention.
  
• Lee delayed, stonewalled and finally accused the conscientious brothers of rebellion.
  
• Fermentation of the Present Rebellion was released, accusing everyone but the janitor of a conspiracy.
  
• The "leading ones" around the Recovery groveled back to Lee and kissed Philip's feet, signing a document pledging absolute allegiance to Lee and denouncing the abuses heaped on poor, sweet, innocent Philip.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

• Some conscientious brothers tried to bring Philip's molestations to Lee's attention.
  
• Lee delayed, stonewalled and finally accused the conscientious brothers of rebellion.
  
• Fermentation of the Present Rebellion was released, accusing everyone but the janitor of a conspiracy.
  
• The "leading ones" around the Recovery groveled back to Lee and kissed Philip's feet, signing a document pledging absolute allegiance to Lee and denouncing the abuses heaped on poor, sweet, innocent Philip.

Wrong. Not even close.

What happened after Paul Hon said that?

What is the rest of the THAT story?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wrong. Not even close.

Well, the points I mentioned did happen after the "that" that you mentioned. So actually I was accurate. Was there some mitigating event in between? What might that have been?

Originally Posted by Drake

What happened after Paul Hon said that? What is the rest of the THAT story?

Who is Paul Hon, what did he say and why is that so important?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wrong. Not even close.

What happened after Paul Hon said that?

What is the rest of the THAT story?

Word games by an LSM wordsmith.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Word games by an LSM wordsmith.

That's what I thought. Apparently Ohio, you don't really know the all details about the incident you gleefully mocked Evangelical about. Just what suits your narrative.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, the points I mentioned did happen after the "that" that you mentioned. So actually I was accurate. Was there some mitigating event in between? What might that have been? Who is Paul Hon, what did he say and why is that so important?

Refer to #54. I would like Ohio to answer that question. It's his argument. Let him stand it up if he can with the rest of the story.

Drake

[UntoHim]

The main theme of this forum is not "The Local Church of Paul Hon", it is "The Local Church of Witness Lee". Dear brother Hon was only spewing forth the heretical nonsense that came from Lee himself:

“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.”

I'm not sure what all this has to do with DistantStar's original post....but...what the hey...if Drake and Evangelical want to delve into all this garbage, and DistantStar doesn't object, let's go for it.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Refer to #54. I would like Ohio to answer that question. It's his argument. Let him stand it up if he can with the rest of the story.

The real question is how you can stand there and defend an heretical statement that "Witness Lee is now #4"?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The real question is how you can sta6nd there and defend an heretical statement that "Witness Lee is now #4"?

The real question Ohio, is how can you sit there pushing a slanderous and false narrative based on half truths? Where is your conscience brother?

What happened next? What's the rest of the story?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's hysterical. You have just proved my point! You found the quote. You even have the names of 5 trusted witnesses.

And then you tell others that I have "lost all credibility?" Seriously?

And, btw, at that time #5 was the profligate son of WL named Phillip.

You have lost credibility because the quote is not about Lee or Phillip being the 4th or 5th (or 6th or 7th) person of the Trinity, but about how to be one with the ministry and hierarchy. Read the context.

Now you have confirmed that this is "the quote" and so there are no others, then we must conclude that your notion that Lee was considered the 4th of the Trinity is just nonsense.

Where is your actual proof that "Lee's strongest promoters said that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity"? You have none because it is a lie.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not sure what all this has to do with DistantStar's original post....but...what the hey...if Drake and Evangelical want to delve into all this garbage, and DistantStar doesn't object, let's go for it.

Sure. I only wanted to draw attention to Geisler's statement and I hope I have.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have lost credibility because the quote is not about Lee or Phillip being the 4th or 5th (or 6th or 7th) person of the Trinity, but about how to be one with the ministry and hierarchy. Read the context.

Now you have confirmed that this is "the quote" and so there are no others, then we must conclude that your notion that Lee was considered the 4th of the Trinity is just nonsense.

Where is your actual proof that "Lee's strongest promoters said that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity"? You have none because it is a lie.

Sorry folks, but there is just no way to spin this, claim it is yanked out of context, or accuse me of treachery.

This was the kind of nonsense that was believed and promoted during the NEW WAY movement of the late 80's:

The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4; and then there are those with Witness Lee.

Why don't you fine folks emerge from your hermetically-sealed, vacuum-packed, and sheltered society and own up to this kind of nonsense? Along with Lee's own degenerate son Philip, who was the 2nd-In-Command "Office" who was running LSM, these are the types of absurdities that prompted numerous men of God to rise up in protest -- True Protestants -- on behalf of God, the truth, and the saints, that is until Pope Lee I and his thugs shut them down, smearing their reputations, and declaring them a part of some fictitious vast global conspiracy.

[Drake]

Ohio)," Why don't you fine folks emerge from your hermetically-sealed, vacuum-packed, and sheltered society and own up to this kind of nonsense? Along with Lee's own degenerate son Philip, who was the 2nd-In-Command "Office" who was running LSM, these are the types of absurdities that prompted numerous men of God to rise up in protest -- True Protestants -- on behalf of God, the truth, and the saints, that is until Pope Lee I and his thugs shut them down, smearing their reputations, and declaring them a part of some fictitious vast global conspiracy."

Ohio,

With all the bluster of a person unable to defend an argument based on lies and half-truths you are now trying to wrap yourself in the flag of a "True Protestant" striving on behalf of God, the truth, and the saints. Please come down from your high crusader horse and for the sake of the truth that you say you dearly desire state for the record what really happened after Paul Hon said that.

I found the crusader imagery entertaining but stop avoiding stating the facts. You have based your argument on this so-called #1-#5 theory so substantiate it with all the facts of the story...... for the truth of course.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio)," Why don't you fine folks emerge from your hermetically-sealed, vacuum-packed, and sheltered society and own up to this kind of nonsense? Along with Lee's own degenerate son Philip, who was the 2nd-In-Command "Office" who was running LSM, these are the types of absurdities that prompted numerous men of God to rise up in protest -- True Protestants -- on behalf of God, the truth, and the saints, that is until Pope Lee I and his thugs shut them down, smearing their reputations, and declaring them a part of some fictitious vast global conspiracy."

Ohio,

With all the bluster of a person unable to defend an argument based on lies and half-truths you are now trying to wrap yourself in the flag of a "True Protestant" striving on behalf of God, the truth, and the saints. Please come down from your high crusader horse and for the sake of the truth that you say you dearly desire state for the record what really happened after Paul Hon said that.

I found the crusader imagery entertaining but stop avoiding stating the facts. You have based your argument on this so-called #1-#5 theory so substantiate it with all the facts of the story...... for the truth of course.

Drake

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You insist on agreeing with Lee's mythological hagiography elaborated in his book Fermentation of the the Present Rebellion. The real "facts of the story" side with John Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love and so many other witnesses like Rutledge, Mallon, etc. some of whose writings have been posted on this forum.

Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You insist on agreeing with Lee's mythological hagiography elaborated in his book Fermentation of the the Present Rebellion. The real "facts of the story" side with John Ingalls' Speaking the Truth in Love and so many other witnesses like Rutledge, Mallon, etc. some of whose writings have been posted on this forum.

Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus.

Ohio,

This is not about agreeing to disagree. I am not trying to persuade you to my point of view. Neither am I asking you to embrace Fermentation and discard John Ingalls account.

I am simply asking you to cite facts..... the chain of events from your available sources as to what happened after Paul Hon said that. Your #1-#5 argument is based on a faulty premise.

Either you don't know and your argument is based on ignorance.

Or you know and your argument is based on deliberate concealment.

Which is it?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Either you don't know and your argument is based on ignorance.

Or you know and your argument is based on deliberate concealment.

Which is it?

Drake

LSM has a history of making arguments based on ignorance and deliberate concealment. Go read a few articles on afaithfulword.com and you will understand.

Why don't you go back to the source of our discussion -- Norman Geisler's quote in post #1, and Evangelical's post:

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

Thank you for finding something. Let's examine that then (quoted from Ingall's thing found on this site) (bold emphasis mine)

A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:

The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4; and then there are those with Witness Lee. Don Rutledge asked, Paul, who is #5. Paul replied that it is not yet clear who #5 is. Then Paul continued, You brothers don’t have access to Brother Lee; Andrew Yu and I do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and sit down to eat breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants is to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do. Don Rutledge asked, Isn’t this a hierarchy and the exercise of control? Paul replied, No! Then Don asked, How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning. Paul answered, If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.

As Norman Geisler, one of your "expert witnesses," has so succinctly said, "No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity." This applies to Paul Hon's statements too.

Let me repeat this statement for our dear brother Drake, who apparently has trouble reading the fine print,

"No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity."

[Drake]

Ohio) "Let me repeat this statement for our dear brother Drake, who apparently has trouble reading the fine print,

"No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity."

Ohio,

Read the BOLD Print: Not trying to untangle anything.

Dispense with the vicious condescension. Just tell the whole the story Ohio if you know it. If you don't know just say you don't.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio)

Not trying to untangle anything.

Dispense with the condescension. Just tell the whole the story Ohio if you know it. If you don't know just say you don't.

Drake

In his posts on this forum, Don Rutledge has mentioned how this conversation in his own home helped him to decide that the nature of the Recovery had drastically changed, and that the time for him to leave was drawing near.

This is already too much information for you, Drake. Why don't you officially disassociate yourself with those who elevate Lee to a demigod.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever heard Witness Lee referred to as the "acting god, the minister of the age, the one unique oracle, a god-man?"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In his posts on this forum, Don Rutledge has mentioned how this conversation in his own home helped him to decide that the nature of the Recovery had drastically changed, and that the time for him to leave was drawing near.

This is already too much information for you, Drake. Why don't you officially disassociate yourself with those who elevate Lee to a demigod.

Let me ask you a question. Have you ever heard Witness Lee referred to as the "acting god, the minister of the age, the one unique oracle, a god-man?"

Ohio,

You always wheel out your basket of favorite soundbites to distract from the topic and to avoid giving accountability for your comments. That is where you always retreat to when pressed.

It's just a diversion.

The request is simple. Tell us the rest of the Paul Hon story. or just say you do not know.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

You always wheel out your basket of favorite soundbites to distract from the topic and to avoid giving accountability for your comments. That is where you always retreat to when pressed.

It's just a diversion.

The request is simple. Tell us the rest of the Paul Hon story. or just say you do not know.

Drake

Tell you the rest of the Paul Hon story? Are you serious? I have no idea if the brother is even alive. I seem to remember there being two "Paul Hon's." Why don't you ask the witnesses who were there?

And when will you answer all my questions about Lee and Sons? You can't go on dismissing them as "soundbites" forever.

Let me ask you another question. Did you help put together that book, A Response to Recent Accusations published in December 1989 in Irving Texas?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Tell you the rest of the Paul Hon story? Are you serious? I have no idea if the brother is even alive. I seem to remember there being two "Paul Hon's." Why don't you ask the witnesses who were there?

No Ohio.

You cited the incident of #1-#5 as the basis for your argument.

I am not asking for a history of brother Paul Hon. I have only asked that you tell us the rest of THAT story related to brother Paul Hon..if you know it, and if you do not just say so.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No Ohio.

You cited the incident of #1-#5 as the basis for your argument.

I am not asking for a history of brother Paul Hon. I have only asked that you tell us the rest of THAT story related to brother Paul Hon..if you know it, and if you do not just say so.

Drake

No what?

Drake, you refuse to answer any of my questions and concerns. I and others invested years and decades of our best years into the Recovery, only to find out a pattern of lies, corruptions, and deceptions. You dodge and weave every chance you get, and then ask me some mysterious questions about Paul Hon, whom I did not know personally. But I did know the others who were present. The credentials of TM and DR are without reproach.

Why don't you quit playing games? Why don't you identify yourself? What do you have to hide? What part did you play in the conversation under discussion at DR's house? What role did you play in the coverup of corruption at LSM during this time period?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry folks, but there is just no way to spin this, claim it is yanked out of context, or accuse me of treachery.

This was the kind of nonsense that was believed and promoted during the NEW WAY movement of the late 80's:

Why don't you fine folks emerge from your hermetically-sealed, vacuum-packed, and sheltered society and own up to this kind of nonsense? Along with Lee's own degenerate son Philip, who was the 2nd-In-Command "Office" who was running LSM, these are the types of absurdities that prompted numerous men of God to rise up in protest -- True Protestants -- on behalf of God, the truth, and the saints, that is until Pope Lee I and his thugs shut them down, smearing their reputations, and declaring them a part of some fictitious vast global conspiracy.

You said ""Lee's strongest promoters said that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity"

As there seems to be no other quotation than the one already provided, I have yet to see you back this statement up with actual proof. Were you one of those in the room when these things were said? Were you actually there? Are you an eyewitness to someone actually saying "I believe Witness Lee is the 4th person in the Trinity"?

[Drake]

Ohio,

when you made this statement...

"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."

..... I really could not understand why a brother like you who has known the Lord and His ways would fabricate such a slanderous lie that touches the very Godhead. You know better. The "4th person in the Trinity" is not even a logical argument. Its not even a numerical argument. To be frank, such a statement is blasphemy. Why you would craft such a twisted and blasphemous statement about the Godhead and then recklessly accuse others of defending it is as pitiful and base as an argument can go. Evangelical rightly pointed out that the real statement made had nothing to do with theology. It was about the carrying out of the training made by a trainer.

I asked you if you knew the whole story. Either you knew and did not want to admit it or you did not know and did not want to admit it. Either way, it does not fit your narrative.

For the record, the trainer, Paul Hon, is a dear brother as UntoHim characterized him. He is a gentle spirit, pleasant, fervent for the Lord, and gifted. Yet, he made a mistake. I remember this incident about 30 years ago being discussed openly then either in a training, a conference, a brother's meeting, or perhaps mentioned by Paul Hon himself. It was clear that brother Paul became over zealous in that statement (#1, #2..etc.). That statement needed no defending because it should never have been said. Not as Ohio falsely claims it being a statement about the Godhead. The fact is, when Brother Lee heard it he addressed it and rebuked him and corrected him. Again, that does not fit Ohio's narrative.

The carrying out of any ministry has order and authority in its execution. However, that statement by the trainer made about the training was wrong and should never have been said even though that is what it was about. That you. Ohio. would take a statement meant one way and twist it (that Lee was the 4th person in the Trinity) to create a blasphemous charge against other brothers of promoting and defending teachings about changing the Godhead, and then refuse to mention that Brother Lee dealt with that situation expeditiously is dishonest and very disturbing.

Finally, you have accused me of defending blasphemous teachings of your own design. You're forgiven.

Drake

[Ohio]

Now that is funny.

You now admit that you knew about the whole story, but it was all a "mistake" -- An "overzealous mistake by a dear, but excited brother." Yet he was one of Lee's most ardent supporters, wasn't he? Yup! Just like I said.

And it all happened as reported, and I commented on it. Twist up the words, excuse your guy, and chastise the reporter. So typical of you LSM wordsmiths.

And now you feign outrage! What a scoundrel. You pull out your famous "but not in the godhead" high peak caveat, and now use it on me. What a joke! Lee is #4 but Hon never meant the godhead, no just the order of fellowship in the training, or some other twisted "spin."

And dear brother Hon repented, how nice, but what about all the others? Do you really expect us to believe Hon made this up in a vacuum? This kind of talk ran rampant during the New Way. Of course, only when the mikes were turned off. Poor brother Hon, he took all the heat. Cleanup on aisle two! Brother Lee escapes responsibility again.

Shame on you Drake. And Evangelical too.

[Evangelical]

This could be cleared up if someone who was actually present or involved could clarify the exact nature and intent of the comments - is it about Lee being part of the Godhead or not?

[Drake]

Ohio) "And it all happened as reported, and I commented on it."

No, not at all, Ohio.. He did not say what you said, he did not mean you said he meant, and it was handled like it should have been which you omitted. You don't have a credible argument on this one.

Its not funny. Its very sad. Sad to see you slip into this dark place and not be able to get back out. You are past reason now. With every discussion you just dig the hole a little deeper. That really concerns me.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This could be cleared up if someone who was actually present or involved could clarify the exact nature and intent of the comments - is it about Lee being part of the Godhead or not?

Perhaps it could be cleared up. Perhaps not.

I was not present where and when the comments were made, However, i was present when it came up in a pubkic setting shortly after. No, it wasn't about the Godhead, there would have been more serious discussions about it. It was about giving direction in the training as evidenced by Brother Pauls comments about having breakfast with Brother Lee and so forth and knowing what Brother Lee was considering. John Ingalls' account on what was said was as I remember it too. That situation was handled properly by Brother Lee. By twisting it to make it seem as if it was a comment about the Godhead is Ohio just making stuff up.

Drake

[Ohio]

K

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio) "And it all happened as reported, and I commented on it."

No, not at all, Ohio.. He did not say what you said, he did not mean you said he meant, and it was handled like it should have been which you omitted. You don't have a credible argument on this one.

Its not funny. Its very sad. Sad to see you slip into this dark place and not be able to get back out. You are past reason now. With every discussion you just dig the hole a little deeper. That really concerns me.

Drake

Funny, Drake, but that's how the witnesses present had interpreted what was said. Once again, Paul Hon, like so many others before him, was made the scapegoat by Witness Lee. He gets shamed in public into a humbling repentance, while Lee and LSM come out smelling like a rose. And you were only present during this well orchestrated "spin" session. It all makes sense, folks.

Same thing happened with all the high-peak god-man talk. Young people shouting in the streets ("shouters" in America, how ironic) "I am a god-man, I am a baby-god." Once again, others get publicly corrected for errant teachings which originated at the top, you know, with the #4, who is "god in life and nature, but not in the god-head."

Seriously, I have seen and heard this pattern for years. Every one around Witness Lee constantly "messing things up" and then taking the fall for him, claiming it was all just a misunderstanding, but never once did Witness Lee himself take ownership for his aberrant teachings and actions.

And now you are "concerned" about me, being in a dark place? Oh, break my heart! So touching! Sounds to me like you are looking for the fire exit behind the stage curtain.

[Drake]

No, Ohio. It wasn't a public shaming. That is a mischaracterization. It was a public discussion and a conversation and there was no taking the fall, etc. It was the right balance of correction and Brother Paul continued to serve according to his gift. We all benefitted.

No need to dramatize.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, Ohio. It wasn't a public shaming. That is a mischaracterization. It was a public discussion and a conversation and there was no taking the fall, etc. It was the right balance of correction and Brother Paul continued to serve according to his gift. We all benefitted.

No need to dramatize.

Drake

Dramatize?

Why was it even public? And why didn't others get corrected with brother Paul? If more brothers at LSM had a backbone, then they would have all come forward to stand with Paul.

Why was he singled out when this kind of nonsensical chatter was commonplace in those days? If it were an isolated rogue comment, then a private discussion would suffice. If this were all just about "fellowship in the training," why would some public "conversation" be needed? Why would brother Lee even waste his time?

You were there, so of course you know what I am saying is true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge in July 1986, in Don’s home in Dallas. (Witnesses present: Bill Lawson, Louis Chen, Tom McNaughton).
The following was spoken by Paul Hon in the context of how to be one with the ministry:

The Father is #1, the Son is #2, the Spirit is #3, and Witness Lee is #4; and then there are those with Witness Lee. Don Rutledge asked, Paul, who is #5. Paul replied that it is not yet clear who #5 is. Then Paul continued, You brothers don’t have access to Brother Lee; Andrew Yu and I do. We can walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and sit down to eat breakfast with him. The way to know what Brother Lee wants is to do is to be in contact with those who have access to him. They will tell you what he wants you to do. Don Rutledge asked, Isn’t this a hierarchy and the exercise of control? Paul replied, No! Then Don asked, How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning. Paul answered, If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.

After Paul Hon's very public "conversation" with Brother Lee, and all the other brothers present, I doubt if he could just "walk into Brother Lee’s apartment any time and sit down to eat breakfast with him" any more.

Talk about pride and arrogance! Just read that comment over again, and imagine you were Don R, Tom Mc, Louis C, or Bill L. Note that all of them at the time were considered "outsiders" to the real power elite running the FTTT. From a distance I saw that arrogance just run rampant with those close to Witness Lee! Especially with Paul Hon the younger. He was a real hot shot in those days, a rising star. There were many brothers in those days who dumped their LC's, abandoned the brothers with them, and jumped onto Lee's unsinkable Titanic, making its maiden flight during the New Way.

And to think that for many years Witness Lee condemned John Ingalls et. al. for "ambition," every time we passed thru another "storm" in the Recovery. In truth, it was Witness Lee and his ardent zealots who were the most guilty of pride and ambition, all the while they condemned everyone else for the same.

[Cal]

I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees. What do Ohio and some others, including me, have on you guys about this? That we were there as eyewitnesses to many of the things that were going on then. We saw the strange happenings and the weird goings on. We are not lying or exaggerating. This stuff actually happened.

Step back and think about it for a moment. What would have to be the general atmosphere of a church or movement where one of the young leaders, even in a moment of over-excitement, could declare anything slightly suggesting that one of the leaders was a fourth of the Trinity? Don't you think things would have to already be out-of-whack for someone to even think that, let alone say it? Other crazy fervent claims were being made about Lee and the movement as well. That was the mood.

The atmosphere in those days was of total reverence and extreme credulity about the gifts and commission of Witness Lee and the movement. Looking back it was crazy. We were mostly young, gullible and overzealous people. We thought history was going to turn on our work. It was exciting and heady and confusing and dangerous all at once. Then things began to turn sour. The high blessing of life waned. Things became more mundane. But the basic attitude of being something extra-special never really matured into humility. There were splits and accusations. Good brothers who didn't line up with Lee were slandered. The true believers closed their ears and minds to anything they didn't want to know. Some young people became like the Hitler-youth, ready to turn in anyone who didn't toe the line. Some of your attitudes are reminiscent of them.

The disease still exists deep in the Recovery like an abscess needing to be lanced. I believe the Lord loves the people there. But I also believe he wants to save you from yourselves and your false beliefs, just like he wants to save the Catholics and everyone else from theirs. He wants to brings us all to unity of the faith, not the unity of the Recovery or the pope.

As long as your movement does not come to grips with your past, as long as you remain in denial, the abscess will remain, and the toxins from it will continue to hurt you, even as you deny their existence on boards like this.

[Drake]

Igzy) "one of the leaders was a fourth of the Trinity"

A complete fabrication. Never said, never suggested.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "one of the leaders was a fourth of the Trinity"

A complete fabrication. Never said, never suggested.

Drake

How would you know? You weren't there. I was. Again, you are blowing smoke to avoid the larger point.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

How would you know? You weren't there. I was. Again, you are blowing smoke to avoid the larger point.

Okay. Produce the evidence. JI's account does not show that so you must be referring to some incident where the claim was made that "Witness Lee is the 4th member of the Trinity".

Let's see it.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. Produce the evidence. JI's account does not show that so you must be referring to some incident where the claim was made that "Witness Lee is the 4th member of the Trinity".

Let's see it.

Drake

Drake, You'll just have to take my word for the fact that during that time all kinds of crazy things were being said. I also heard it claimed that the Church would be become the fourth of the Trinity. I heard it claimed that the LCM would make up the majority of the rapture. I heard it said that Lee's ministry embodied the very ministry of Christ from the throne--that you could take one for the other.

The point is that all kinds of over-the-top and unbalanced things were being thrown around. I may or may not have heard anyone suggest that Lee was the 4th, but it wouldn't have surprised me although I know most of us knew those kinds of statements were nonsense. But the fact that anyone would even think to say them shows how out-of-whack we were.

If you want to just say you don't believe me in order to bury the past then that's on you. But the fact remains that is denial. It's unhealthy and it will not bring the necessary humility for the LCM to advance. And if you going so far as to suggest that if I don't have "proof" thirty years later that settles anything then you are more desperate than I thought.

Ask yourself, what do I have to gain by lying.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Drake, You'll just have to take my word for the fact that during that time all kinds of crazy things were being said. I also heard it claimed that the Church would be become the fourth of the Trinity. I heard it claimed that the LCM would make up the majority of the rapture. I heard it said that Lee's ministry embodied the very ministry of Christ from the throne--that you could take one for the other.

The point is that all kinds of over-the-top and unbalanced things were being thrown around. I may or may not have heard anyone suggest that Lee was the 4th, but it wouldn't have surprised me although I know most of us knew those kinds of statements were nonsense. But the fact that anyone would even think to say them shows how out-of-whack we were.

If you want to just say you don't believe me in order to bury the past then that's on you. But the fact remains that is denial. It's unhealthy and it will not bring the necessary humility for the LCM to advance. And if you going so far as to suggest that if I don't have "proof" thirty years later that settles anything then you are more desperate than I thought.

Ask yourself, what do I have to gain by lying.

Igzy,

I understand what you are saying about the era. If we were face-to-face we could probably share some stories, some sad, and maybe even a few laughs. I am not omnipresent so I cannot say what you heard or not.

All I am saying is that in all my time there, *I* never heard anybody in seriousness and soberness or standing on a chair consumed in blissful zeal say that "Lee is the fourth part of the Trinity!". That would have been blasphemous and heretical and I cannot imagine it occurring anywhere in the Lord's Recovery where anyone would ignore it or not deal with it immediately. More importantly, it is not a teaching in the Lord's Recovery.

You saw it. I never did.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Drake, You'll just have to take my word for the fact that during that time all kinds of crazy things were being said. I also heard it claimed that the Church would be become the fourth of the Trinity. I heard it claimed that the LCM would make up the majority of the rapture. I heard it said that Lee's ministry embodied the very ministry of Christ from the throne--that you could take one for the other.

The point is that all kinds of over-the-top and unbalanced things were being thrown around. I may or may not have heard anyone suggest that Lee was the 4th, but it wouldn't have surprised me although I know most of us knew those kinds of statements were nonsense. But the fact that anyone would even think to say them shows how out-of-whack we were.

If you want to just say you don't believe me in order to bury the past then that's on you. But the fact remains that is denial. It's unhealthy and it will not bring the necessary humility for the LCM to advance. And if you going so far as to suggest that if I don't have "proof" thirty years later that settles anything then you are more desperate than I thought.

Ask yourself, what do I have to gain by lying.

I can understand that people say stupid things and it is possible someone said that Lee was the 4th person of the Trinity - I don't rule that out. I have come across individuals in the Recovery who believe in things that are clearly wrong. I have also come across individuals in denominations who believe in things that are clearly wrong. But this means this issue of Lee being the 4th of the Trinity is a stupid thing said, and nothing more than that. What Drake and I are calling out is the innuendo, suspicion, rumor, baseless claims from people who exaggerate the truth and use it to attack and discredit the ministry unfairly. As if the claims about Daystar et al., Philip Lee etc are not enough already.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What Drake and I are calling out is the innuendo, suspicion, rumor, baseless claims from people who exaggerate the truth and use it to attack and discredit the ministry unfairly.

As if the claims about Daystar et al., Philip Lee etc are not enough already.

Perhaps you missed the irony of these contradictions.

First you call out "the innuendo, suspicion, rumor, baseless claims" of people (apparently on this forum) who "exaggerate the truth and use it to attack and discredit the ministry unfairly."

Then you step back and say "As if the claims about Daystar et al., Philip Lee etc are not enough already."

Now which is it? Are the claims about Daystar et al., Philip Lee etc factual or not? Or, are you also calling them "innuendo, suspicion, rumor, baseless?"

If you admit they are true, then how can you categorically dismiss other claims here? Do you think we are making this stuff up?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps you missed the irony of these contradictions.

First you call out "the innuendo, suspicion, rumor, baseless claims" of people (apparently on this forum) who "exaggerate the truth and use it to attack and discredit the ministry unfairly."

Then you step back and say "As if the claims about Daystar et al., Philip Lee etc are not enough already."

Now which is it? Are the claims about Daystar et al., Philip Lee etc factual or not? Or, are you also calling them "innuendo, suspicion, rumor, baseless?"

If you admit they are true, then how can you categorically dismiss other claims here? Do you think we are making this stuff up?

Until you provide solid evidence to the contrary we must conclude what you said about the Trinity is made up. Maybe's and suspicions are not evidence.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Until you provide solid evidence to the contrary we must conclude what you said about the Trinity is made up. Maybe's and suspicions are not evidence.

You know Evangelical, that was exactly my sentiment when John Ingalls, John So, etc were quarantined. There was no proof. There was no evidence.
Several decades later when Titus Chu among others were quarantined. Once again where's the proof. I had never been to Great Lakes area, but when localities I have met with in California and Washington state quarantine a brother who had never ministered there, it's just politics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Until you provide solid evidence to the contrary we must conclude what you said about the Trinity is made up. Maybe's and suspicions are not evidence.

It's not what I said, it's what Paul Hon and others said, that is concerning.

Once again, you twist things around backwards, and attempt to shoot the messengers, rather than the source of the problems.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's not what I said, it's what Paul Hon and others said, that is concerning.

Once again, you twist things around backwards, and attempt to shoot the messengers, rather than the source of the problems.

It's what you claim PH and others said, which there is no evidence of.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's what you claim PH and others said, which there is no evidence of.

The reader can decide. This forum only seeks to educate those looking for accurate information.

LSM apologetics may never be persuaded. Remember, I was one once too.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The reader can decide. This forum only seeks to educate those looking for accurate information.

LSM apologetics may never be persuaded. Remember, I was one once too.

Then you are doing the forum a disservice by twisting the facts .

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

It is irrelevant what you once were. The claims you made did here in this thread is what detracts from your credibility.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Then you are doing the forum a disservice by twisting the facts .

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

It is irrelevant what you once were. The claims you made did here in this thread is what detracts from your credibility.

OK thanks.

You can have the final word.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's what you claim PH and others said, which there is no evidence of.

Evangelical, is the issue that forum members quoted Paul Hon as saying that Witness Lee is the fourth member of the Trinity, when he only said Witness Lee is "fourth"?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, is the issue that forum members quoted Paul Hon as saying that Witness Lee is the fourth member of the Trinity, when he only said Witness Lee is "fourth"?

Yes. The context of "statement made by Paul Hon to Don Rutledge" is clearly not about the Trinity. Don's immediate response to Paul's statement is also clearly not about the Trinity.

If it were, it would be like this:

Paul Hon- "Lee is the 4th person of the Trinity"
Don - "Isn’t this a hierarchy and the exercise of control?"

This does not make sense. Don's response is not the sort of thing someone would say when someone has just said that a person is the 4th of the Trinity.

Another thing Don said is this:

Don asked, "How then does this differ from what we’ve been condemning"

Were they condemning people saying they were members of the Trinity at that time? No, they were condemning the hierarchy and control.

[least]

“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).
***
"Perfect union: Father Son Spirit Bride" Ron Goetz.

https://biblethumpingliberal.com/201...ht-become-god/

"Gays & Lesbians in Luke" Ron Goetz.

https://biblethumpingliberal.com/gays-lesbians-in-luke/

***

I don't know what to say about the 'same mind' of WL and R Goetz.
Too glad I'm out of the WL Blended 'mind control'.

[least]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OK thanks.

You can have the final word.

Glorious freedom. Wonderful freedom. Jesus is the great emancipator.
Glory Glory Hallelujah. Blessed be His holy name.

Let them that are entangled be entangled still.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

“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).
***
"Perfect union: Father Son Spirit Bride" Ron Goetz.

https://biblethumpingliberal.com/201...ht-become-god/

"Gays & Lesbians in Luke" Ron Goetz.

https://biblethumpingliberal.com/gays-lesbians-in-luke/

***

I don't know what to say about the 'same mind' of WL and R Goetz.
Too glad I'm out of the WL Blended 'mind control'.

How are the quotes by Goetz and homosexuality relevant?

[least]

Sorry Evangelical. I was not connecting anything to Paul H. I don't know that happening, Only read it here.
I was referring to the original post by Distantstar. I quoted from him who started this thread. I was not responding to you and will not respond further.

I was connecting WL and RG 'four in one' same mind.

RG mind also sees gay and lesbian in Luke. I apologise for the second link of RG. It should not appeared together in showing the 'same mind' of WL and RG.
The second link only meant to show about RG, and has no connection to WL.

WL and RG 'same mind' in 'four in one'.
WL and RG 'not same mind' in 'gay and lesbian in Luke'.

Finished.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by least

Sorry Evangelical. I was not connecting anything to Paul H. I don't know that happening, Only read it here.
I was referring to the original post by Distantstar. I quoted from him who started this thread. I was not responding to you and will not respond further.

I was connecting WL and RG 'four in one' same mind.

RG mind also sees gay and lesbian in Luke. I apologise for the second link of RG. It should not appeared together in showing the 'same mind' of WL and RG.
The second link only meant to show about RG, and has no connection to WL.

WL and RG 'same mind' in 'four in one'.
WL and RG 'not same mind' in 'gay and lesbian in Luke'.

Finished.

It might help if you explain who RG is and how they are relevant to the original post.

[least]

Below are what I just found on the Internet.
I read them. Anyone can read them or ignore them.

The link below claimed "Eastern Lightning's ideas that deny the Trinity developed from Witness Lee's teachings concerning the Trinity."

http://www.chinasource.org/resource-...deas-come-from


The link below titled "Where Did Eastern Lightnings Leaders Come From?"

http://www.chinasource.org/resource-...ders-come-from


The link below has a section titled "Bearing false witness against Watchman Nee's writings, altering his writings and creating new writings said to be his that are not."

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lsmlccult.htm

-

[least]

This another one I found on the Internet.
I am reading it, while I have a bit of time to spend on the Internet.

http://www.culthelp.info//index.php?...id=31&Itemid=8
-
http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?o...d=484&Itemid=8
-
http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?o...d=483&Itemid=8
-