RJHinds Identifies Witness Lee's "False Teaching"

Quotations 1, 4, and 5

Turning now to Quotations 1, 4, and 5, we can easily see that, in isolation as they are in the open letter, these quotations give the reader the impression that Witness Lee blurred or, worse, annihilated the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity in his teaching. We hope that we have adequately demonstrated above that he did not. But it is also true that Witness Lee did not hesitate to identify the Son with the Father or the Son with the Spirit, because the Bible itself does so in plain language, most notably in the following three verses, which are the objects of Witness Lee’s commentary in Quotations 1, 4, and 5:

For a child is born to us,
A Son is given to us;
And the government
Is upon His shoulder;
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God,
Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace. (Isa. 9:6)

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)

And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Cor. 3:17)

While some theologians overemphasize the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity—sometimes to the point of wrongly separating the persons—and view the biblical identifications of the Son with the Father and with the Spirit as threats to those distinctions, Witness Lee sought to understand why the identifications are made in the Bible in the first place. This approach, we feel, gives proper primacy to the divinely-inspired text and avoids the peril of making something external to the Bible a final arbiter of truth. We must stress the fact that it is the Bible that makes these identifications, and it is in the Bible that the meaning of such identifications must be found. Some theologians deny the identifications of the Son with the Father and with the Spirit in the scriptural passages above, but they do so only by the applications of theological systems of thought that are external to the Bible. Witness Lee strongly disagreed with this approach to understanding these and all portions of Scripture. This does not mean that he had no use for theology as a help to our study of the Word of God, but he certainly disagreed with the notion that an external system of theology should become the yardstick by which the divine truth is measured. Those theologians who deny the identification of the Son with the Father and with the Spirit in the three biblical portions above do so because their theologies require that the Son cannot be called the Father, that the last Adam (Christ) could not have become the life-giving Spirit, and that the Lord Jesus Christ could not be the Spirit, contrary to what the Bible says clearly. Of course, to do so, they must offer alternative interpretations of what these verses mean, and if space permitted, these alternatives could be presented and critiqued here.17 But even without a full evaluation of the alternative interpretations, the basis for all of them is clear: in the theologies that these interpretations represent, the Son cannot, in any way, be identified with the Father and with the Spirit, so the Scriptures that clearly indicate that He is must not mean what they say; these verses must have some other interpretations. Witness Lee was not content with this assumption.

In quotations 1 and 4 Witness Lee is specifically commenting on Isaiah 9:6, although the signers of the open letter do not include anything from the surrounding context of these quotations to indicate that he is relying on the text of the Bible for his statements. In the preceding contexts of both quotations, he quotes Isaiah 9:6, and his point in both contexts is that the Bible says that the Son given to us is to be called not only the Mighty God (which we all should believe) but also the Eternal Father (which the signers hope we will not believe). We add in brackets below portions of the contexts for each quotation that are necessary for understanding Witness Lee’s full intention but were omitted by the signers of the open letter:

continue....

Quotation 1 [in context]
[In Isaiah 9:6 there is a parallel line: that is, “unto us a son is given...and his name shall be called...The everlasting Father.” It is abundantly clear that the Son mentioned here is Christ; yet the Son is called, “The everlasting Father.” This statement cannot be easily comprehended; yet it is written.] The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father. We must realize this fact. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?...In the place where no man can approach Him (1 Tim. 6:16), God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is given, yet His name is called “The everlasting Father.” This very Son who has been given to us is the very Father. (The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ, 4-5)

Quotation 4 [in context]
THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS ALSO THE SPIRIT

[Isaiah 9:6 says, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...and his name shall be called...Mighty God, Everlasting Father.” In this verse, the “Mighty God” matches the “child,” and “Everlasting Father” matches the “son.” Yes, He is a child, yet He is the Mighty God. The child who was born in the manger in Bethlehem was the Mighty God. Since the child and the Mighty God are one, so also the Son and the Everlasting Father are one. The Son is the Eternal Father. It is indeed difficult to fully explain this matter, yet the Scriptures have so said. “Unto us a son is given...and his name shall be called... Everlasting Father.” Does this not plainly say that the Son is the Father? If the Son is not the Father, how could the “son” be called the “Father”? If we acknowledge that the “child” of which this verse speaks is the “Mighty God,” then we must also acknowledge that the “son” of which this verse speaks is also the “Everlasting Father”; otherwise, we are not believing the clearly stated revelation of the Scriptures. But we do deeply believe that according to the words here the Lord Jesus who became the child is the Mighty God;] and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the Eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father. Hallelujah! (Concerning the Triune God—The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, 18-19)

Once the scriptural basis for Witness Lee’s statements above is acknowledged and once we realize that he is accounting for pronouncements that are purely biblical, Quotations 1 and 4 lose some of the dramatic effect that they have due to the signers isolating them. His point is simply this: the Bible says that the Son is to be called the Father; thus, there must be a valid sense in which the Son is, in some way, the Father. And yet, in trying to understand how the Son is the Father, we cannot lose sight of the equally valid truth that the Son is distinct from the Father, as Witness Lee strongly asserts elsewhere. We believe that he is implicitly acknowledging the distinction when he admits that “this statement cannot be easily comprehended; yet it is written”; that “it is indeed difficult to fully explain this matter, yet the Scriptures have so said.” Some may wish to explain the difficulty away by appealing to any number of interpretations that deny the identification of the Son with the Father, but Witness Lee explained the difficulty by appealing to the reality of coinherence, of mutual indwelling, in the Godhead, which the Holy Scriptures firmly support:

Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves. (John 14:8-11)

Witness Lee explains:

We have a word concerning this coinherence in John 14:10a: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?” Here we have the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son. In John 14:11 the Lord goes on to say, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me.” The Lord says that the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. What a mystery this is! Because the Father is in the Son, when the Son speaks, the Father, who abides in the Son, does His work. The Father does His work in the Son’s speaking because they are in one another. (The Conclusion of the New Testament, 239-241)

Some have mistakenly thought that the Son and the Father are separate and that the Son merely represents the Father. But the Lord Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). This is not a matter of representation but a matter of embodiment. The Father is embodied in the Son (Col. 2:9). When we see the Son, we see the Father, because the Son is the embodiment of the Father. The Son as the embodiment of the Father cannot be separated from the Father. He and the Father are one in the way of coinherence. (The Conclusion of the New Testament, 242)

In explaining the hard passages from Scripture that identify the Son with the Father or the Son with the Spirit, Witness Lee appealed to the reality of coinherence as the basis for the oneness in the Godhead, which, he felt, underlies these biblical statements.18 Because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, because the Father and the Son coinhere eternally, at times the Bible says that the Son is identified with the Father, as we see in Isaiah 9:6. The Son, who is certainly distinct from the Father, is to be called the Eternal Father because in Him the Eternal Father dwells and in Him the Eternal Father works. To see the Son is to see the Father. The fact that there is indeed a Son and indeed a Father respects the distinctions between them, but the fact that the Son can be called the Father and is the Father in the sense that He is indwelt by and manifests the Father respects the oneness in the Godhead. We believe that the signers have misaimed their call on us “to disavow and cease to publish” Quotations 1 and 4. What they are actually calling for is a disavowal of and a cessation to herald the declaration of Isaiah the prophet in the inspired Word of God, which we obviously refuse to do.

continue....

In Quotation 5 Witness Lee identifies the Son not only with the Father but also with the Spirit:

Quotation 5
Therefore, it is clear: The Lord Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and He is the very God. He is also the Lord. He is the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Mighty God, and the Lord. (The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God, www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/triune.html)

What the signers of the open letter have not made clear, however, is that in the extensive preceding context of this quotation Witness Lee examines a series of scriptural passages which indeed identify the Lord Jesus, the Son, with the Father and with the Spirit and as the Mighty God and the Lord. The three verses that we presented at the beginning of this section are among those he examines, but he offers even more in this context.19 Again, Witness Lee’s point is that it is the Bible that makes these identifications, and though it is difficult to explain them in view of the distinctions which must be held, we cannot simply ignore them or interpret them away in deference to a latent tritheism. To what we have said above about Isaiah 9:6 (which identifies the Son with the Father and the Mighty God), we should now add that 1 Corinthians 15:45 says that Christ, the last Adam, became a life-giving spirit, and there is but one life-giving Spirit in the Godhead. Further, 2 Corinthians 3:17 says that “the Lord is the Spirit,” and the Lord in the surrounding context of Paul’s letter is Christ. Thus, there is a sense, made valid by Paul himself, in which Christ can be identified with the Spirit. It is quite interesting to note here that the recently published English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible, relying on the most recent evangelical Christian scholarship (which, we assume, the “more than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders” who signed the open letter respect) admits that Paul can be understood as identifying, in some sense, the Son with the Spirit:

Different explanations have been offered for this difficult and compressed statement: Paul may be saying that Christ and the Spirit function together in the Christian's experience—i.e., that the Lord (Christ) comes to us through the ministry of the Spirit (though they are still two distinct persons). (footnote on 2 Cor. 3:17 in ESV Study Bible [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2008])

These evangelical scholars continue their note with another possible interpretation and may indeed favor it, but here they admit first that an interpretation that identifies Christ with the Spirit, insofar as He “comes to us through the ministry of the Spirit (though they are still two distinct persons),” is valid. Certainly this interpretation is not the same as Witness Lee's, but it is this much similar to it: it allows a sense in which Christ is identified with the Spirit. They, like Witness Lee, realize that the Bible here offers “a difficult...statement” and that one way to view the statement is to admit to an identification of the Son with the Spirit on some level. Witness Lee’s way to understand how the Bible can say that Christ became the life-giving Spirit and that He is the Spirit is to rely on the coinherence of the Son and the Spirit, by which they are one. This point, however, is not presented to the readers of the open letter by its signers.

Originally posted by RJHinds

Witness Lee criticizes other Orthodox Christians who believe in the Trinity Doctrine...

But, deep within, some Christians consider the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Gods. Some even clearly state this. Others may not say this in words, but they do hold this concept subconsciously. The teaching of three Gods is called "tritheism" and is a great heresy. Once a brother asked a certain Christian preacher who did not believe that the Son is the Father and that the Lord is the Spirit, "Brother, how many Gods are the Father, Son, and Spirit?" The preacher replied clearly and definitely that there were three Gods. Such a statement is absolutely heretical. (Lesson Book, Level 2: The Triune God—The Triune God and the Person and Work of Christ)

The pure revelation of the Trinity in the Bible is very different from the tritheistic concept of the Trinity held unconsciously by some Christians today. In certain fundamental groups the believers are taught that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are separate and distinct Persons. Actually, this is tritheism, the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Gods. Of course, hardly anyone would teach explicitly that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Gods. However, some believers hold this concept subconsciously and unconsciously. (Life-Study of 2 Corinthians
by Witness Lee)

-Removed-

Do you consider that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three separate persons, or do you understand that They are one God always, certainly distinct from one another but never separate, as the Bible clearly teaches12 and as great teachers of the Christian faith in the early church13 and the Reformation,14 as well as respected theologians in more recent times,15 properly affirm?

Note 13:

Tertullian (2nd c.): “Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other” (Against Praxeas, 9, cited in The Teachings of the Church Fathers [ed. by John R. Willis, S.J. New York: Herder and Herder, 1966], 177); Gregory Nazianzen (4th c.): “The Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons” (The Fifth Theological Oration—On the Holy Spirit, sec. 14, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II [NPNF2] [ed. by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1895], VII:318); Basil of Caesarea (4th c.): “For it is in no wise possible to entertain the idea of severance or division, in such a way as that the Son should be thought of apart from the Father, or the Spirit be disjoined from the Son” (Letters, 38, cited in Willis,185); Ambrose (4th c.): “We hold the distinction, not the confusion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a distinction without separation; a distinction without plurality” (To Gratian, On the Christian Faith, 4:8, cited in Willis, 185); Symbol of the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675): “For this reason we profess and believe that this Trinity is inseparable and distinct [inconfusa]. We say, therefore, of these three persons, as our forefathers defined it, that they should be acknowledged, not separated” (cited in J. Neuner & J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church [5th ed., London: HarperCollins Religious, 1991], 113-114)

Calvin et al. (1559): “The three persons not confused, but distinct, and yet not separate, but of the same essence, equal in eternity and power” (The French Confession of Faith, Art. 6, cited in The Creeds of Christendom [ed. by Philip Schaff; rev. by David S. Schaff. Harper and Row, 1931. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983], 363); Martin Luther (1566): “But let us stick to God’s Word in the Holy Scripture, namely, that Christ is true God with God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is true God, and yet there are not three Gods, nor three substances, as three men, three angels, three sons, three windows, &c. No: God is not separated or divided in such manner in his substance, but there is only and alone one divine essence, and no more” (Table Talk, tr./ed. by William Hazlitt [London: George Bell and Sons, 1875], 75; The Second Helvetic Confession (1566): “Notwithstanding we believe and teach that the same immense, one and indivisible God is in person inseparably and without confusion distinguished as Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (cited in Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century [ed. by Arthur C. Cochrane. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966], 228).

Augustus H. Strong: “The Scripture representations of this intercommunion prevent us from conceiving of the distinctions called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as involving separation between them” (Systematic Theology, [Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1960, c1907], 333); H. R. Mackintosh: “In strictness, then, as was argued previously, we use the word ‘Person’ from simple poverty of language: to indicate our belief, that is, in the reality of Divine distinctions, not to affirm separate conscious beings” (The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913], 524); Louis Berkhof: “Experience teaches that where you have a person, you also have a distinct individual essence. Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized. But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one.” (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1941], 87); Lewis Sperry Chafer: “Language labors under difficulties at this point. The Persons are not separate, but distinct. The Trinity is composed of three united Persons without separate existence—so completely united as to form One God.” (Systematic Theology [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947], 276); Loraine Boettner: “When we say there are three distinct persons in the Godhead we do not mean that each one is as separate from the others as one human being is from every other... The Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be distinguished, but they cannot be separated; for they each possess the same identical numerical substance or essence. They do not merely exist alongside of each other, as did Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, but they permeate and interpenetrate each other, are in and through each other.” (Studies in Theology [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1947], 109). Numerous other sources are available.

Charles Gore: “The persons of the Holy Trinity are not separable individuals. Each involves the others; the coming of each is the coming of the others. Thus the coming of the Spirit must have involved the coming of the Son” (The Incarnation of the Son of God [New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1891], 218; James Denney: “Here [in 2 Corinthians 3:17], so far as the practical experience of Christians goes, no distinction is made between the Spirit of Christ and Christ Himself; Christ dwells in Christians through His Spirit” (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1894], 134); H. B. Swete: “The Spirit in its working was found to be in effect the equivalent of Jesus Christ. Thus St. Paul writes, If any has not Christ’s Spirit, that man is not his (Christ’s); but if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead...but the spirit is life..., where the possession of the Spirit of Christ is clearly regarded as tantamount to an indwelling of Christ Himself” [ellipses and italics in original] (The Holy Spirit in the New Testament [London: Macmillan and Company, 1910], 301); W. H. Griffith Thomas: “It is essential to preserve with care both sides of this truth. Christ and the Spirit are different yet the same, the same yet different” (The Holy Spirit [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1986 (1913)], 144; Loraine Boettner: “When the word ‘Father’ is used in our prayers, as for example in the Lord’s prayer, it does not refer exclusively to the first person of the Trinity, but to the three Persons as one God. The Triune God is our Father” (Studies in Theology [Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947], 107); F. F. Bruce, commenting on “Christ in you, the hope of glory” in Colossians 1:27: “The indwelling Christ and the indwelling Spirit are practically interchangeable thoughts for Paul (cf. Rom. 8:10-11), although elsewhere it is the indwelling Spirit that he presents as the hope or guarantee of coming glory” (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984], 86).

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say what you believe the local churches teach, but I quote what Witness Lee puts in writing.

You say:
[quote]The local churches believe that there is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4b; Isa. 45:5a), who is triune—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt. 28:19), co-existing (Matt. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 13:14) and coinhering (John 14:10-11) in [b]three person ...[text shortened]... as his doctrine of the Triune God, a three-one God, instead of three persons in one God.[/b][/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds

"The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate Persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person."

Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripaetite Man, 1970, p. 48.

Witness Lee teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the same person.

This very Christ is now the Lord in the heavens and at the same time the Spirit within us. “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17). As Lord, He is in the heavens. As the Spirit, He is within us. As the One in the heavens, He is exercising His rulership, headship, and priesthood....Whatever He carries out as Lord, He applies to us as the Spirit. (The Heavenly Ministry of Christ, 69-70)

Some who read this word concerning the Spirit as another Comforter and the Spirit as Christ’s breath may ask, “Don’t you believe that Christ and the Spirit are distinct? Don’t you believe that Christ and the Spirit are two?” Yes, I believe that, as viewed from one aspect, the outward, objective aspect, Christ and the Spirit are two. However, as viewed from another aspect, the inward, subjective aspect, the Spirit, the second Comforter, is the breath of Christ, the first Comforter. Thus, from the perspective of the inward aspect, Christ and the Spirit are one. (The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John, 588)

Originally posted by sonship
It is going to take me some time to get into this Westcott and Hort controversy.

But I have no problem affirming that I would not even have the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses in my house.

But I have had TWO versions of the Bible the Watchtower published prior to this. That is the [b]1901 American Standard.

I suppose they HAD t ...[text shortened]... n the inside as to its distributors, I STILL am fond of that particular accurate English Bible.[/b]

Eternal Father

The title “Eternal Father” refers to the Messianic King’s power and authority to give humans the prospect of eternal life on earth. (John 11:25, 26) The legacy of our first parent, Adam, was death. Jesus, the last Adam, “became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; Romans 5:12, 18) Just as Jesus, the Eternal Father, will live forever, so obedient mankind will enjoy the benefits of his fatherhood eternally.—Romans 6:9.

Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?”

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000030#h=31:0-34:411

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

The title “Eternal Father” refers to the Messianic King’s power and authority to give humans the prospect of eternal life on earth.

VARIOUS TWISTINGS OF ISAIAH 9:6

The first twisting is exemplified by a brother who said, “The Son is called the Father, but He is not the Father.” I said, “Brother, isn’t it ridiculous to say this? Can we say that Mr. Smith is called Mr. Smith, but that he is not really Mr. Smith? Can we say that the Bible is called the Bible, but that it is not the Bible? The same is true with the matter of the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. How can we say that He is called the everlasting Father but is not the everlasting Father? What kind of logic is this?”

A second twisting claims that because, according to the Hebrew, “the everlasting Father” should be rendered “the Father of eternity,” the Son cannot be the Father. I agree that “the Father of eternity” is a better translation than “the everlasting Father.” But who is this Father of eternity? Is He not the Father among the Three of the Godhead? Apart from the Father in the Godhead is there another divine Father who is called “the Father of eternity”? Certainly not! Nevertheless, some twist Isaiah 9:6 to say that the Father of eternity is not the Father in the Godhead. They say that He is another Father, the Father of eternity, which, according to them, means the origin, the source, of the ages. This twisting implies that they believe in two divine Fathers—the Father in the Godhead and the Father of eternity. This is really heretical. According to the Bible, the Father of eternity is the Father in the Godhead. I appeal to you to be honest, fair, and sincere. Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead there is another Father who is the Father of eternity?

A third twisting claims that, according to the Hebrew, the everlasting Father is the Father of creation. To this, I would ask, “Who is this Father of creation?” If they answer that He is Jesus, I would reply, “Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead, Jesus is another Father, the Father of creation?” They would have to admit that they believe this. If they do, then they have two divine Fathers. While they condemn us for being heretical, they themselves are exposed as being heretical.

According to the fourth way of twisting, the “Father” in this verse is the Father of Israel. The ones who twist the verse in this way use Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 as their basis. They say that the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is the Father of Israel. But I would ask, “Who is this Father, the Father of Israel?” Surely, it must be the Father in the Godhead. If anyone says that this Father, the Father of Israel, is not the Father in the Godhead, he implies that there are two divine Fathers. This is certainly heretical.

A fifth twisting is based upon a note in an edition of the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.) This note renders “the Father of the age to come” for “the everlasting Father.” Some say that, based on this, the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is not the Father in the Godhead, but the Father of the coming age. They claim that He is the Father who brings in the new age, just as Edison was the father who brought in the age of electrical science. But the Hebrew word for “everlasting” in this verse means eternity, eternal, everlasting, evermore, perpetually, old, world without end (see Strong’s Concordance). However they twist this verse, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father.”

Originally posted by kevinlee123
I believe this is what he says:

But, deep within, some Christians consider the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Gods. Some even clearly state this. Others may not say this in words, but they do hold this concept subconsciously. The teaching of three Gods is called "tritheism" and is a great heresy. Once a brother asked a certain Christian preac ...[text shortened]... concept subconsciously and unconsciously. (Life-Study of 2 Corinthians
by Witness Lee)

It is clear from what you said in your post here that Witness Lee is criticizing Orthodox Chritian beliefs and tries to characterize them as teaching the heresy of tritheism, but in turn Witness Lee teaches the heresy of modalism.

Modalism is a god of only one person that masquerades as three persons. That is what Witness Lee is saying when he says that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three persons, but one person. Notice too that he does not like to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit, but instead just says the Spirit. Witness Lee tries to defend himself against Modalism by claiming his god is one person that can masquerade as three persons all at the same time.

The God family consists of three distinct persons and I am yet to see anywhere is Witness Lee's writing in which he says that. You may say it and believe it now, but I am referring to what Witness Lee's officially writes.

Originally posted by sonship

The title “Eternal Father” refers to the Messianic King’s power and authority to give humans the prospect of eternal life on earth.

Copied from [b] What a Heresy–2 Divine Fathers, 2 Life-Giving Spirits, & 3 Gods by Witness Lee

http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/heresy.html

VARIOUS TWISTINGS OF IS ...[text shortened]... rdance). However they twist this verse, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father.”

[/b]

I don't often agree with robbie carrobie and the JWs, but it is Witness Lee that has this one wrong. The Son is not the Father. Just by calling the Son by the name of the Father does not make the Son the very same Father as Witness Lee wants to trick us all into believing. Witness Lee is the one doing the twisting of scripture in this case.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

(1 John 5:7 NKJV)

THE ONE HERE OBVIOUSLY MEANS A UNITY OF THE THREE, NOT THE VERY SAME ONE AS WITNESS LEE TEACHES.

Originally posted by RJHinds

I don't often agree with robbie carrobie and the JWs, but it is Witness Lee that has this one wrong. The Son is not the Father. Just by calling the Son by the name of the Father does not make the Son the very same Father as Witness Lee wants to trick us all into believing. Witness Lee is the one doing the twisting of scripture in this case. [/quote ...[text shortened]... RE OBVIOUSLY MEANS A UNITY OF THE THREE, NOT THE VERY SAME ONE AS WITNESS LEE TEACHES.