Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact that the litigations of the LC drove a major countercult movement called Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) into bankruptcy.

In the wake of this, “a long list of evangelical theologians, apologists, and leaders” sent an “Open Letter” protesting the aberrant teachings of the LC, urging them to recant their unorthodox statements “that appear to contradict or compromise essential doctrines of the Christian faith”.

No apologies have been forthcoming by the LC, nor have they retracted the unorthodox statements. Instead, the Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with their charges against Ankerberg and Harvest House. The LC appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court also failed. This was a great victory for the countercult movement and all who seek to preserve evangelical orthodoxy, as we pointed out in our article titled “The Local Church Movement and the Supreme Court of Texas: A Big Victory for the Countercult Movement”.

There is a big difference between claiming that each member of the Trinity dwells in the others and claiming, as the LC does, that each member is the other.

What is more, the LC affirms that there is only one “Person” in the Trinity, while at the same time claiming there are “three distinct” persons in the Trinity. So, at best, LC has both orthodox and unorthodox statements about the Trinity-which involves a contradiction.

Now, if CRI believes that the LC has made unrecanted statements that are controversial, careless, apparently contradictory, and which are unorthodox expressions as such, then how and why do they claim: “I believe that sufficient evidence has been provided to exonerate the LC from the charges of heresy, aberration, duplicity, and self-contradiction as regards the Trinity”?

The president of CRI, Hank Hanegraaff, argued in his Amicus brief to the High Court that calling the Local Church a cult will bring persecution on it and other Christian groups in religiously intolerant societies. He claimed that the word cult “can have dramatic and dangerous ramifications.

The Court rightly saw no merit in this pragmatic argument and for good reason. While we personally abhor all forms of religious persecution, and are not insensitive to the plight of those who do suffer such persecution, the fact remains that truth and legality are not determined by what its possible social misuse may be.

CRI attempts to exonerate the LC from heresy on the Trinity by invoking the doctrine of coinherence in God. They claim that this means that it is legitimate to speak of one Person of the Trinity as being the other Person because there is an “interpenetration [of] one another”.

However, this, in our view, is a serious misunderstanding of coinherence. That is, each member of the Godhead in some sense indwells the other, without diminishing the full personhood of each. Yes, the three Persons have unity, but they forever remain actually distinct. In this view, to say that the three Persons mutually indwell each other is not the same as saying that the three Persons ARE each other. That is, to say that the Father and the Son mutually indwell each other is not the same as saying that “the Son is the Father.”

Support for the doctrine of coinherence is often sought in John 14:10, where Jesus states: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” Based on this verse, it is argued that because Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus that it is acceptable to say that “the Son is the Father.” If that is true, then when Jesus says in John 14:20, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you,” can I thus say that “I am Jesus Christ” since I am “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” me (compare with John 17:21)? Obviously not.

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.

You can read more at the link below:

http://normangeisler.net/articles/theLocalChurch/2009-ResponseToCRIDefenseLocalChurch.htm

Members of this forum may have noticed that I am fairly tolerant and inclusive of other people's views, interpretations and opinions. This extends also to the Witness Lee movement, or called here the LC movement.

I readily concede that the doctrine of the Trinity is a hugely complex one. There seem to be many contradictory verses in the Bible, (e.g. some where two parties seem to be in conversation, and if so, who is talking to whom?) This being so, it lends itself to differing interpretations.

JWs have decided to go the route of Jehova, the Father being the ONE GOD. Others, like the "Jesus Only" group in Pretoria, also called Members in Christ, have gone the other way, calling Jesus the ONE GOD. Both of these are extreme views that do appear to have scriptural support.

The fact that theologians through the ages have and still do debate the doctrine of the Trinity merely shows that it IS a complicated doctrine. I would suggest that ANY attempt to absolutely define and explain it is doomed to failure.

There is another group in Pretoria that will not recognize any baptism unless it is "In the Name of Jesus", (as in Acts) rather than "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (as in the gospels).

Witness Lee is therefore entirely in his right to tout HIS particular version and interpretation. He can have his place in the sun!

My main gripe with him, however, is how it offends simple logic to claim that they are NOT starting a new denomination, but actually standing on the ground that they are now the ONLY church in a particular locality. Any casual independent observer will immediately see how ridiculous this position is.

If the LC movement were to simply say: Such and such is our doctrinal position, this is our claim-to-fame, and promote that, I for one would have no issue with that. Let them carve out their market niche!

But they have this HUGE blind spot, and arguing with them on THAT issue is like talking to a banana.

That is why I will not discuss this with sonship anymore either.

But after all is said and done, if that is what floats your canoe, row with it!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact tha ...[text shortened]... ow:

http://normangeisler.net/articles/theLocalChurch/2009-ResponseToCRIDefenseLocalChurch.htm

It is over 2 years now that I described Witness Lee's church as a cult. At that time you all were in bed with Jaywill / Sonship and many here condemned me. I guess given enough time everyones eyes will be opened to to kind of doctrine sonship preaches.

Originally posted by Rajk999
It is over 2 years now that I described Witness Lee's church as a cult. At that time you all were in bed with Jaywill / Sonship and many here condemned me. I guess given enough time everyones eyes will be opened to to kind of doctrine sonship preaches.

I don't recall ever defending Witness Lee on this Unholy Trinity interpretation. You must be confusing me with someone else. However, I do agree with Jaywill / sonship on many things that you may have a different opinion. Jaywill never expressed this type of belief in the Trinity that I saw. And as sonship, this is the first time I understood that he was agreeing with this Mr. Lee guy. Maybe it was Mr. Nee that had it right. I really don't follow the teachings of either one, so I can't say.

This is what Witness Lee has said in his own publications about Christians and Christianity:

“We do not care for Christianity, we do not care for Christendom, we do not care for the Roman Catholic Church, and we do not care for all the denominations, because in the Bible it says that the great Babylon is fallen. This is a declaration. Christianity is fallen, Christendom is fallen, Catholicism is fallen, and all the denominations are fallen. Hallelujah!”

To say that Christianity is fallen is seen as accusing the entire body of Christ of being false and fallen. Jehovah's Witnesses also teach something like this.

One of the LSM leaders told CRI, “We are not out to proclaim that the denominations are Babylon.” However, Lee’s own statement, quoted above, that “we do not care for all the denominations, because in the Bible it says that the great Babylon is fallen,” seems a direct contradiction, whether intentional or not.

The Local Church resisted any changes in their terminology and for the most part refused to provide contextual explanations for some of their doctrines, an unfortunate approach that led to even deeper rifts between the two sides.

A ten year member of Lee's Local Church said the following:

"The doctrinal matters are harder to pin on them, because Lee has said just about everything and its opposite. I even remember him bragging in trainings about being able to contradict himself and get away with it. The example I recall is him advocating tritheism in one long message, and in the next, modalism. He said both were biblical. He seemed to revel in the nonsense of it all."

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

CRI apparently chose to believe the controversy was all a misunderstanding due to Lee's Chinese culture and not adequately mastering the English language.

Originally posted by Rajk999
It is over 2 years now that I described Witness Lee's church as a cult. At that time you all were in bed with Jaywill / Sonship and many here condemned me. I guess given enough time everyones eyes will be opened to to kind of doctrine sonship preaches.

Wonder if you would get sued if you called it a sect?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact tha ...[text shortened]... ow:

http://normangeisler.net/articles/theLocalChurch/2009-ResponseToCRIDefenseLocalChurch.htm

People have burned at the stake on account of dogmatic purity on the Trinity. This is as old as the concept, if it can be called a concept, which requires conceivability.

RJHinds has taken time off his study of Moon dust, radiometric dating and sea salt in his attempts to preach the Gospel to play whack a mole by starting a new diatribe "discussion" on Witness Lee when he had one going already over on Romans 9:5.

There is really not much need to run from that thread and start a dedicated one to his several errors.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact tha ...[text shortened]... ow:

http://normangeisler.net/articles/theLocalChurch/2009-ResponseToCRIDefenseLocalChurch.htm

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact that the litigations of the LC drove a major countercult movement called Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) into bankruptcy.

When you go beyond to try to spice up doctrinal disagreements with lies about mismanagement of funds, immorality, and other accusations of conduct which cannot be substantiated that is called "libel".

Anyone who says "We do not agree with your teaching for these reasons ..." is welcomed by the co-workers and LSM to discuss those differences. We welcome that in the local churches.

If you do not have enough confidence in those arguments so that you have to invent immorality charges to inflame passions with lies, the courts of this country can detect that and you can become guilty of slanderous libel.

And that is what happened with a couple of cases of would be cult fighers trying in a sneaky way to put Witness Lee and the local churches out of business.

They got CAUGHT. And then they whined "You're not suppose to sue brothers in Christ."

Interesting. First we were a cult to them and not Christians. Then when they got caught for their lies we graduated to "brothers" who should not take other "brothers" to court.

Very interesting.

Had these brothers simply said "This and that teaching we do not agree are biblical" then there would have been no law suits.

It is cowardly and a shame to pretend to doing doctrinal argument while slandering the morality of behavior in inflamatory and fictitious ways.

Neal Duddy never bothered to show up in court because he probably knew that he was getting caught in libelous slander. So Spiritual Counterfeits Project got a ruling against them. And this NOT for doctrinal disagreements towards Witness Lee but for slander and libel sneakily brought along side in underhanded way shameful for a Christian to practice.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/index.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact tha ...[text shortened]... ow:

http://normangeisler.net/articles/theLocalChurch/2009-ResponseToCRIDefenseLocalChurch.htm

In the wake of this, “a long list of evangelical theologians, apologists, and leaders” sent an “Open Letter” protesting the aberrant teachings of the LC, urging them to recant their unorthodox statements “that appear to contradict or compromise essential doctrines of the Christian faith”.

No apologies have been forthcoming by the LC, nor have they retracted the unorthodox statements. Instead, the Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with their charges against Ankerberg and Harvest House. The LC appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court also failed. This was a great victory for the countercult movement and all who seek to preserve evangelical orthodoxy, as we pointed out in our article titled “The Local Church Movement and the Supreme Court of Texas: A Big Victory for the Countercult Movement”.

Apologize for WHAT ?

Apologize for repeating that "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) and believing it and teaching it ?

You don't apologize to the world for believing that the Word was with God and the Word was God in John 1:1 even though it is HARD to explain that paradox.

Why should the local churches apologize for believing 2 Cor. 3:17 or 1 Cor. 15:45 ?

No apology in the sense of "WE'RE SORRY". Not on your life.

This is the Internet age when diatribes on practically anyone can be handily obtained by a push of the button on a search engine.

How come RJHinds doesn't list the number of experts that call his cherished young earth creationism crack pot science and bad theology as well ?

How come he doesn't as easily link us to a handy website announcing that his views on a 6,000 year old universe are the occasion of suspicion for many people from both science fields and Christian theology as well ?

Caution to readers: whoever writes the LAST post is not necessarily a representative of the TRUTH. It it easy to HECKEL endlessly. If nothing else this Forum has demonstrated that.

You do not have be writing the truth. You only need to wear out the time of others by constant heckling like an incessantly barking doggy.

Originally posted by RJHinds

RJHinds writes:

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.

So let me examine this summary:

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.

The Lord Jesus Himself in His mighty prayer in John 17 spoke of the believers being united with the Triune God in this way.

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us" (John 17:21)

We do not believe that Jesus meant that the church would ever be an object of worship as the Trinity is our object of worship.

But we are justified by Scripture to see that we the believers are to be caught up into a unity with God. And this conceivably could be spoken of as "four-in-one" as long as the proper realization is achieved.

The Father - Son - Holy Spirit are one from eternity to eternity, uncreated God. The saved are brought into unity with the Triune God by way of salvation and not by way of de-facto existence.

Why not speak of this unity as "fou-in-one" on occasion?

Here again Jesus says "I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may believe that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:23)


Notice that this unity is the end product of the process of PERFECTING. " I in them, and You in Me, that they may be PERFECTED into one ..."

The unity that Christ claims between He and His Father He teaches, He petitions, is to be the end of the PERFECTING salvation for the church - "that they may be PERFECTED into one ..."

This is what Witness Lee taught. And it is also what the Apostle Paul taught long before Lee repeated it.

"Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13)

Arriving is also being perfected. So Paul was saying what Jesus was saying. Paul echoes that the church will arrive at the measure of the stature of the Son of God - a corporate full grown man. The oneness of the Son with the Father is being perfected in the body of the saved "until we all arrive at the oneness ..." .

So when God obtains a collective Body of saved humans to arrive at the measure of the stature of the Son of God, in full knowledge of Him, at a full-grown man, we are in a real sense on our way to a "four-in-one" oneness with the Triune God.

So for what need Witness Lee and the local churches apologize?

Maybe RJHinds should insist that Jesus Christ apologize to Christianity for praying to His Father that we may be one even as He and the Father are one.

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:21)

RJHinds, are you going to get a pair of scissors and cut that verse out of your New Testament ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Witness Lee's Local Church Cult

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult,” has been successful in forcing many organizations to retract the word “cult” in reference to them, as even the recent Christian Research Journal (CRI) admits.

It is a fact tha ...[text shortened]... ow:

http://normangeisler.net/articles/theLocalChurch/2009-ResponseToCRIDefenseLocalChurch.htm

However, this, in our view, is a serious misunderstanding of coinherence. That is, each member of the Godhead in some sense indwells the other, without diminishing the full personhood of each. Yes, the three Persons have unity, but they forever remain actually distinct. In this view, to say that the three Persons mutually indwell each other is not the same as saying that the three Persons ARE each other. That is, to say that the Father and the Son mutually indwell each other is not the same as saying that “the Son is the Father.”

To repeat, the statement of the word of God should take precedence over the systematic formulas of theologians. The latter may be helpful. They often are helpful. But they do not transcend the pure utterances of the Bible.

Did Witness Lee invent that the Lord is the Spirit? No.
It was the pure utterances of the Bible -

"Now the Lord is the Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17)

Did Witness Lee insert that passage into the ancient Greek text of the New Testament? No. It is in the Greek New Testament itself.

So why should any Christian have to offer an apology saying "I am sorry everyone, for repeating what Second Corinthians 3:17 said by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - Now the Lord is the Spirit" .

Now let's think about the absurdity of insisting on an apology for repeating the Bible.

We Christians talk about Jesus Christ living in us. We speak this way because the Bible speaks this way -

"Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor. 13:5)

In the same epistle where Paul teaches that the Lord is the Spirit he teaches that the faith consists also of the truth that Jesus Christ is IN the believers.

He has to be the Spirit in order to live in us Christians. So why should we aplogize for saying the Lord is the Spirit and the Lord lives in us? We do not wish to be reprobate. We desire to proclaim what "the faith" claims. Jesus Christ is in us.

So it is quite understandable that the Christ who lives in the Christians is the Spirit = "Now the Lord is the Spirit" .

These things may not be important to one whose greater concern is that everyone believe in a 6,000 year old universe. But it is important to overcoming and victorious Christian living that we affirm in faith that the Lord Jesus Christ lives in us if we are believers in Christ.

You may argue that it is very very important that Christians do not believe in Evolution. But it is even more important that Christians affirm that Jesus Christ is living in them.

That is not a representative. That is Jesus Christ Himself. So no apologies for repeating - "Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) OR that "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

RJHinds while you on a campaign to insist that dinosaurs rode on the ark of Noah, you should give some time to improving the quality of Christians' daily living by helping them, like Witness Lee, to affirm that Christ has become a life giving Spirit.

Originally posted by sonship
RJHinds writes:

[quote] 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 orth ...[text shortened]... RJHinds, are you going to get a pair of scissors and cut that verse out of your New Testament ?

No, I am not going to get scissors to cut out the verses. I am just going to cut out Lee's "unholy" interpretations. Four in One is just another way to deny the Trinity Doctrine. Why can't you see this guy is a false teacher?

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] However, this, in our view, is a serious misunderstanding of coinherence. That is, each member of the Godhead in some sense indwells the other, without diminishing the full personhood of each. Yes, the three Persons have unity, but they forever remain actually distinct. In this view, to say that the three Persons mutually indwell each other is not th ...[text shortened]... living by helping them, like Witness Lee, to affirm that Christ has become a life giving Spirit.

Reference: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17)

There is nothing wrong with that translation, however, I believe that the KJV translation is more helpful because it reminds us to look back to the contest by using the word "that" instead of "the" as follows:

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

I can understand why many would get the impression that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit because someone decided it was to be capitalized. But Mr. Lee takes advantage of this fact by using 2 Corinthians 3:17 out of context.

I already mentioned that the orthodox Christian view is that, in context, this suggests that the Lord is the spirit of the old testament law and prophecy just as the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy mentioned in Revelation 19.

...I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

(Revelation 19:10 KJV)

And where Christ's spirit is recognized as Lord, there is liberty, that is, freedom from the bondage of the letter of the law, because the spirit of the law has been clearly revealed in Christ Jesus. The spirit of the law is not the person of the Holy Spirit.

Paul has been emphasizing that Christ is the key to the old testament, so that Spirit does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but back a few verses here:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

(2 Corinthians 3:6-9 KJV)

Above we see that Paul identifies Moses and the ministers of the old testament letter of the law with the ministration of condemnation or the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, while Jesus and the ministers of the new testament are identified with the ministration of the spirit of the law or the ministration of righteousness.

Let us look at another verse:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

(John 14:5 KJV)

Would anyone but a deceiver, like Mr. Lee, identify the way as a person, or the truth as a person, or the life as a person like Mr. Lee does with "the spirit" by identifying it as the person of the Holy Spirit? Mr. Lee might also say this verse says Jesus is the Father, if he is willing to twist the scripture.

Let me repeat one more thing:

Here is the testimony of person, who listened to Mr. Lee's teachings and realized he was a deceiver by what he said:

"Thanks for your website. I was in the LC from the age of ten to 21, 1975-86, I think....

For me, the main problem with the cult is the way it ruins people. The doctrinal matters are harder to pin on them, because Lee has said just about everything and its opposite. I even remember him bragging in trainings about being able to contradict himself and get away with it. The example I recall is him advocating tritheism in one long message, and in the next, modalism. He said both were biblical. He seemed to revel in the nonsense of it all."

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

It appears to me that Mr. Lee is arrogant and revels in his ability to deceive others.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not going to get scissors to cut out the verses. I am just going to cut out Lee's "unholy" interpretations. Four in One is just another way to deny the Trinity Doctrine. Why can't you see this guy is a false teacher?

No, I am not going to get scissors to cut out the verses. I am just going to cut out Lee's "unholy" interpretations. Four in One is just another way to deny the Trinity Doctrine. Why can't you see this guy is a false teacher?

You have not pointed out any falsehood with John 17 in Christ's mighty prayer for the fulfillment of God's eternal plan.

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us ..." (John 14:21a)

You must never have been taught about that. You got a lot of teaching about other things like dinosaurs on Noah's ark and things about Evolution.

No one ever pointed out to you that Jesus prayed that WE the Christian church, aggregately and corporately would be one even as the Father and the Son are one - that WE would be ONE in the Triune God.

Instead of opposition to this further teaching, you should patiently and prayerfully consider the words of the New Testament in John 17.