RJHinds Identifies Witness Lee's "False Teaching"

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
About evolution or the world being billions of years old?

Do you get amnesia like the JWs, too? We were talking about eating popcorn and watching one of Bruce Lee's movies being more enjoyable than reading Witness Lee's books. That is the only thing I have found that you have said that is worth agreeing with you about.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is the only thing I have found that you have said that is worth agreeing with you about.[/b]

Then you haven't been concentrating.

😏

Witness Lee seems to be teaching a form of Modalism.

Example please ? Context surrounding your quote if you can.
Otherwise tell me what message or book you are quoting from.

In the mean time - Copied from "The Conclusion of the New Testament by Witness Lee, Message # 232

C. To Be Recovered:
1. From the Divisive and Apostate Ground with Its Deviation from the Truths concerning:
a. The Person of the Triune God

We need to be recovered from the divisive and apostate ground with its deviation from the truth concerning the person of the Triune God. During the centuries, three main schools of teaching concerning the Trinity have emerged: modalism, tritheism, and the pure revelation according to the Bible. Modalism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not all eternal and do not all exist at the same time, but are merely three temporary manifestations of the one God. Tritheism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three Gods. We should have nothing to do with modalism, for that extreme view of the Trinity is a heresy. It is also a great heresy to teach that there are three Gods.

According to the natural law in God’s creation, there is the law of balance. Nothing can exist without having two sides. The principle is the same with the truths in the Bible: all the truths in the Scriptures have two sides. Therefore, in order to hold a truth properly, we must hold both sides of it.

The pure revelation of the Triune God in the Bible occupies a central position between the extremes of modalism and tritheism. Because the truths in the Scriptures have two sides, there are two aspects to the Trinity: the aspect of the one-in-three and the aspect of the three-in-one. Modalism is an extreme on the side of the three-in-one. There is, of course, ground in the Scriptures for the side of the three-in-one, but modalism, going to an extreme, far beyond the confines of the Bible, neglects and even annuls the side of the one-in-three. Modalism has gone beyond the confines of the Scriptures concerning the aspect of the three. Hence, it is a heresy on the extreme of the one. Tritheism is the opposite extreme. Tritheism stresses the side of the three and neglects the side of the one. It also has scriptural ground because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit certainly are three. But tritheism, like modalism, also goes beyond the confines of the Bible and becomes a heresy. Therefore, both modalism and tritheism, being extremes, are heresies. The following diagrams will help us to visualize this: ...

Originally posted by sonship

Witness Lee seems to be teaching a form of Modalism.

I realize that you are hedging now. From absolutely stating false teachings which you cannot prove you are now making a slippery manuevor to saying something "SOUNDS LIKE" a false teaching.

I see you Hinds. I see your move.

What book specifically on the Trinity by Witness Lee h ...[text shortened]... itness Lee
Available at Amazon

https://books.google.com/books?id=CI8ISa2ZekEC&hl=en

I am sure you must know that I can't think for myself by now, since sonhouse has been constantly repeating that claim.

Modalism is one of their favorite teachings. Oh, they love the doublespeak! Leeists do teach modalism, no matter how much they say they don't believe it. It is in actuality denying the Trinity of God's 3 Persons as distinct in the Triune Godhead. It is a pridefully puffed up teaching to think "God is a threefold Person" and the "Father is the Son" (these are quotes of Witness Lee) to get leeists to think they are onto something brand new to self-exalt themselves with as the most spiritual people that ever lived and mark themselves unique in all of creation even above all of Christendom. But what this teaching actually conveys a heart willing to alter God's Word (Rev. 22.18,19) with eternal consequences.

The Godhead is not a Person. The Godhead does not have folds or modes. The 1st Person is not the 2nd Person. How absurd to say the Godhead is a Person of 3 Persons to confuse the meaning of Persons in the Trinity. Satan is the author of confusion. This is confusing the meaning of what God's 3 Persons are and debasing the Godhead down to man's interpretation narrow-minded thinking. They can't understand how the Father is not the Son and how God's 3 Persons are not a Person. In the Godhead what is the point of saying there are 3 Persons, only then to say the 1st Person is the 2nd Person and mentioning of a 4th Person to these 3 Persons!? Please do not speak of the Father as being the Son. What is the point of saying the Trinity is 3 Persons; then, in doublespeak, saying the Triune God is a Person? The Godhead is not a quaternity of 4 Persons.

Let such pet teachings which are unproven in Scripture simply die on the cross. What they do is disrespectful to God's Word. For leeists also say that they are God, just like that. But a leeist is just a person. Could it be in their confusion, since a leeist is a person and claims the Godhead is a Person, therefore since they believe they are a person of God, they must be God too? These two ideas of modalism and theosis are being used together, yet have long since been considered a heresy to the Church. The rallies around modalism (albeit simultaneously denying it) by leeists have never been able to reasonably and adequately explain the plethora of quotes by Witness Lee and Ron Kangas and others with the same usage and vein by leeists for decades even to this day.

With regard to 2 Cor. 3.17, "Now the Lord is that Spirit," the emphasis here is on the word "Now," for the Lord has risen to the right hand of the Father and has given His Spirit to indwell as the veil is now rent. Never be so overassuming as to think this means the Lord is the Spirit in the sense they derive it, the prime teaching of modalists. Misreading the Scriptures is not a humble position to take at all. Considering all the Scripture that keeps the Son and the Spirit distinct (and we can find no verses making them the same in all regards), there should be no excuse for priding oneself on the special teaching of modalism, all the while saying they are not modalist. This is doubletalk. The infamy of the doubletongue by leeists truly excites the flesh and I am sure they get off on it. As the doubletongue is given energy, sin begets sin, and you will see more doubletalk in future episodes, for it is like a drug and can't be stopped. Rationalization upon rationalization never is a sign of repentance.

In Witness Lee modalism, does it feel like those in the dark are leading gullible souls down a path of destruction? No matter how hard they and Witness Lee try marry Witness Lee to Watchman Nee by altering the latter's writings, creating new writings and by other means, Nee and the little flock had no affiliation with them later on. If Nee was released from prison, his chastisement would be palpable against Witness Lee. For example, Nee said, "Always remember that God has committed Christ, the Holy Spirit, the word, and the light to the church. Today she is able to give light, word, the Holy Spirit, and Christ to men. The one difficulty is our uncleanness, our impurity" (The Ministry of God's Word, p. 243, CFP white covers). Christ and the Holy Spirit are spoken of separately which are also distinct from God the Father in the Godhead. Jesus Christ is the 2nd Person of the Godhead. The 3rd Person is the Holy Spirit which is God's life. The Holy Spirit is the life of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit has eternal life. The life of the Godhead is eternal. The reason men will confuse God's simple explanation of His 3 Persons is because of "uncleanness, our impurity". Recall John 14.16, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." If there is another comforter besides Jesus, then they are not the same, thus Jesus is not the Spirit. Read verse 17-20 to see the different use of words "him" and "I".
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lsmlccult.htm

Here is another reference:
http://localchurch.8m.com/cri-dl-075.html

Originally posted by RJHinds

I am sure you must know that I can't think for myself by now, since sonhouse has been constantly repeating that claim.

But you didn't answer my question did you ?
What booklets or message specifically about the trinity by Witness Lee did you sit down and read?

Now don't start speaking in tongues. Just give me an honest answer.

In the mean time on your last charge of "SOUNDS LIKE" Modalism.

From Christ Revealed in the New Testament by W. Lee

From the second and third centuries on, another group of people rose up to oppose modalism. They strongly asserted that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three different persons, that they are distinct as well as separate yet existing simultaneously at any one time. This kind of teaching resulted in tritheism, and it formed an extreme contrast to modalism. Modalism stood in one extreme, while tritheism stood in another. Both are heresies. Orthodox theology rejects both of these kinds of teachings. In A.D. 325 the Council of Nicaea and its subsequent creed avoided these two kinds of extremes.

I have clearly presented before you the essence of the four Gospels. You can see that we do not believe in modalism or in tritheism but in the revelation of the divine Trinity. In the Old Testament, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit were all there. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God was there. Then verse 2 says that the Spirit of God brooded over the water. The Spirit of God was also there. By chapter eighteen, there were three men who appeared to Abraham. One of them was the Lord Jesus. He appeared as a man, and Abraham washed His feet and served Him a feast. He also ate the feast served. By Exodus chapter three this man was the messenger of Jehovah. This messenger appeared again in Judges and in Zechariah. The Father was in the Old Testament; the Son was there; and the Spirit was also there. This is not like modalism, which says that in the Old Testament there was only the Father; there was no Son and no Spirit. When we come to the Gospels, we have seen that while it was the Son that came, He came with the Father and by the Spirit. The Son said that He was never alone because the Father was with Him and He was in the Father and the Father was in Him.

http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=18F90CCE8ECA

Originally posted by sonship

I am sure you must know that I can't think for myself by now, since sonhouse has been constantly repeating that claim.

But you didn't answer my question did you ?
What booklets or message specifically about the trinity by Witness Lee did you sit down and read?

Now don't start speaking in tongues. Just give me an honest answer.

...[text shortened]... er was in Him. [/quote]

http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=18F90CCE8ECA

I edited my above post and gave you the answer. 😏

Originally posted by sonship

This has nothing to do with Ishmael or Isaac and everything to do with the teachings that you follow. It is also nothing to do with me or my personal testimony as a Christian.

How can you be a "witness" for God if you don't get personal ?
A "witness" has to be somewhat personal about what he has witnessed.
[quote]
You are thrash ...[text shortened]... in various Jehovahs Witnesses publications
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHsCGJtgwDM[/b]

The issue is actually Witness Lee, his allegedly underhand behaviour and his dubious teaching. You keep floundering and thrashing about jaywill like a fish caught in a net. Why not simply make confession? Yes witness Lee is a charlatan and his teachings are extra Biblical?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I edited my above post and gave you the answer. 😏

You STILL did not answer my specific question.
What booklets or book specifically on the Trinity by Lee did you yourself study ?

Apparently, the answer must be that you read none.

Your references are beside the point to the QUESTION and can be dealt with separately .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

The issue is actually Witness Lee, his allegedly underhand behaviour and his dubious teaching. You keep floundering and thrashing about jaywill like a fish caught in a net. Why not simply make confession? Yes witness Lee is a charlatan and his teachings are extra Biblical?

A fish caught in a net. Wow! That sounds really bad.
Wow "thrashing !!"

What do you think I should be confessing ?

Why did you all DELETE Acts 8:37 from your New World Translation ?

Why did your "translators" delete that passage from the Bible?

I am awaiting specific material on the financial charge. But so far I found out that this matter had so little substance to it that it didn't even come up very much at the trial where the workings of the local churches and the publishing firm - Living Stream Ministry were scrutinized.

There wasn't enough substance to even MERIT its examination in a civil court of law. It appears so far to be smoke and mirrors.

But stay tuned. I am expecting some help on that subject.

What did you think about the suspicion of subliminal content of Watchtower publications ?


And what do you say about the charge of subliminal messages and Freemasonary symbols in Watchtower illustrations?

Originally posted by sonship
You STILL did not answer my specific question.
What booklets or book specifically on the Trinity by Lee did you yourself study ?

Apparently, the answer must be that [b]you read none.

Your references are beside the point to the QUESTION and can be dealt with separately .[/b]

Do you believe your attempt to deflect attention away from your false teacher Witness Lee and his false teachings by simply attacking me is going to work?

Originally posted by sonship

The issue is actually Witness Lee, his allegedly underhand behaviour and his dubious teaching. You keep floundering and thrashing about jaywill like a fish caught in a net. Why not simply make confession? Yes witness Lee is a charlatan and his teachings are extra Biblical?

A fish caught in a net. Wow! That sounds really bad.
Wow ...[text shortened]... ay about the charge of subliminal messages and Freemasonary symbols in Watchtower illustrations?

Whether it is bad for you remains to be seen but it sure dont look good. As for Acts 8:37 and other spurious texts that cannot be found in the original manuscripts but were later added by copyists please read the following.

In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision.

Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/how-the-bible-came-to-us/#p1

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you believe your attempt to deflect attention away from your false teacher Witness Lee and his false teachings by simply attacking me is going to work?

He has attempted the same thing with me but its so transparent I doubt anyone is buying it. He should confess that Witness Lee is a charlatan.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He has attempted the same thing with me but its so transparent I doubt anyone is buying it. He should confess that Witness Lee is a charlatan.

Yeah, I saw it in this thread when he made the charge of subliminal messages and Freemasonary symbols in Watchtower illustrations. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the Watchtower.

Let's take your first paragraph.

Modalism is one of their favorite teachings. Oh, they love the doublespeak! Leeists do teach modalism, no matter how much they say they don't believe it. It is in actuality denying the Trinity of God's 3 Persons as distinct in the Triune Godhead. It is a pridefully puffed up teaching to think "God is a threefold Person" and the "Father is the Son" (these are quotes of Witness Lee) to get leeists to think they are onto something brand new to self-exalt themselves with as the most spiritual people that ever lived and mark themselves unique in all of creation even above all of Christendom. But what this teaching actually conveys a heart willing to alter God's Word (Rev. 22.18,19) with eternal consequences.

Do you have then the courage to adopt this as definitely your OWN opinion RJHInds? Are you ready to defend this charge?

Whoever wrote this is NOT HERE to speak for it. YOU ARE.
So shall we now consider this paragraph as definitely YOUR thoughts?

Are YOU - RJHinds going to OWN these ideas as your OWN.
Or do you like a want me to go off and find this fool and debate with whoever this is who wrote this stuff.

A Yes or a No will do.

I have NEVER heard the term Leeist.
I would not and do not refer to myself as a Leeist.
Sure, I have benefitted from the ministry of Witness Lee.

This is the slander of someone wanting to start up a term like "Moonie" or something.

No matter HOW MUCH they deny Modalism they teach it YOU BELIEVE. Yes YOU BELIEVE.

In other words you are going to say "They Lie. And no matter what evidence they present that the local churches that received Witnesss Lee's ministry do not teach Modalism ... WELL you just have to believe on RJHinds's say so, that they do."

A fine kangaroo court you want to set up.
A McCarthy like Inquisition you want to set up?
Guilty anyway, passed proven innocent.
A Witch Trial you want RJHinds.

So let's see:

Taken from The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches

The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).

This means nothing to your Witch Trial does it RJHinds?

CO-EXISTING EQUALLY means nothing to you. Regardless of the co-workers writing that we believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "co-existing equally" from eternity to eternity, you are still going to use brute force accusation and claim we teach Modalism anyway.

How can I be a Modalist if I teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit CO-EXIST equally? The existence of the Son does not mean the non-existence of the Father and the Holy Spirit because they CO-EXIST.

Means nothing to you?

Geisler and Rhodes’ Flawed Reasoning

The error of modalism (and by extension, patripassianism) is that it does not recognize the distinctions among the three of the Divine Trinity. Modalism developed out of a desire to protect the oneness of God, but it erred in making the Father, the Son, and the Spirit temporary manifestations of God in time. Both modalism and patripassianism are heresies that are firmly and unambiguously rejected in the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches.5 Geisler and Rhodes, however, label the local churches as heretical by claiming that espousal of the coinherence of the Divine Trinity and of the involvement of the Father and the Son in one another’s activities necessarily leads to patripassianism. Their logic is flawed in three major respects:

Geisler strongly affirms God’s immutability, but he and Rhodes avoid endorsing coinherence, something that is clearly revealed in the Lord’s own words in the Gospel of John. Geisler and Rhodes seem to make allowance that coinherence is within the realm of orthodoxy. However, if we accept Christ’s own word that He was coinhering with the Father in John 10, 14, and 17, then the Father and the Son must also have been coinhering as Christ was being crucified on the cross or else God’s immutability would be compromised.
By insisting that if the Father was coinhering with the Son on the cross, the Father must have suffered, Geisler and Rhodes contradict Geisler’s own writings on God’s impassibility.
Equating "involvement" with "patripassianism" is an unwarranted conclusion.

Coinherence and God’s Immutability

Coinherence refers to the mutual indwelling of the three of the Divine Trinity. In the Gospel of John the Lord repeatedly told His disciples that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10, 20; 17:21, 23). The coinhering oneness of the Divine Trinity is fundamental to understanding how the Father, the Son, and the Spirit can be one God. The coinherence of the Divine Trinity is beyond illustration, as it has no corollary in the physical universe. Even more, it is beyond the ability of man-made systems of logic to explain. It is the greatest mystery concerning the Triune God and shatters all attempts to neatly explain the Trinity.

From http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Father-Son-coworking.html#ImmutabilityCoinherence

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He has attempted the same thing with me but its so transparent I doubt anyone is buying it. He should confess that Witness Lee is a charlatan.

I doubt that you even understood the unethical and most likely illegal wire tap between a disgruntled Sal Benoit and Witness Lee.

I doubt that you even have enough knowledge about the terms used and procedures to even evaluate that something charlatan like was committed.

You have a purposeful recording to TRAP someone disliked into listening to the other make some statements.