[ Reader's Feedback ] [ Q & A Page
] [ Q & Q Page ]
[ Back ] [ Next ]
A Letter from Bro. James
On The Local Church
(This letter is unedited)
Let me also remind you that the 1977 situation by
the CRI is not only the case. What can you tell about 1975 and 1976 ??
Did you know what the CRI are doing to the members of the Local
church? What truth are you saying? The truth what CRI had? The CRI's
accusation to the LOcal church is already ANSWERED, EXPOSED, AND
PUBLICLY EMBARASSED. (have you not read the statement in the
introduction in the ANSWER TO THE BIBLE ANSWER MAN or YOU better read
first to see the real situation http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/summary/answers/introduction.html.or
else you are one of them, inspite of this, You refuse to acknowledge
the truth. Have you not read that Dr.Martin apologize to Witness Lee
and met in February 1977 to have an agreement. Unfortunately, because
of the FACT that the CRI cannot accept the truth they broke the
agreement of the latter. The RESEARCH ASSOCIATES of DR. MARTIN in
which HE confess that on the tape recorded (in which you telling me
that is the "truth"), Dr. Martin just RELIED on his YOUTHFUL
ASSISTANTS.. WHO ARE THEY??? ? do you know them?? They are the authors
of the "THE NEW CULTS"(YUNG IPINAGMAMALAKI MO) PROOF? visit
this http://www.answers.org/aia_intro.html. It means that DR. Martin
had no idea re the Local church and that's why for sure he ignored the
witness lee and the local church for the reason he himself did NOT do
the research, he just mainly RELIED in his YOUTHFUL ASSISTANT. Who are
they? i dont want to repeat again, you yourself know. Anyway, YOU SAID
[Everything that Witness Lee and the Local Church presents to support
their ancient heretical doctrines cannot stand the test of truth
because every honest Bible student knows the difference between the
Triune God of the Bible and the heretical modalism of Witness Lee.].
PROOF
it that the teaching of Witness Lee is incorrect or may be you are
just contended in what you see regarding the truth of the TRIUNE GOD.
You better check this www.triunegod.org this links is based on the ministries of Witness Lee and
Watchman Nee. Or you just repeating the same old error of CRI.
Brother, be professional, prove it to us in our face in what you
believe on us. Let's meet. We are christians. Let's meet in Godly way,
not in a way of concealing our identity. You said that you are a
Researher, so prove it. Only two or three of us will meet you (in case
if its ok to you) for a clarification not in a way of debating or
argument. Hope we can settle this matter in the Lord. hope your
respond.
in
Christ,
Bro.
james
note:
Every honest bible students know the Triune God and modalism.
Definitely yes, thats why the Experts speaks concerning the Local
church. http://www.contendingforthefaith.com/summary/experts/intro.html
Can
i ask you something (why did not oppose us ), as what you presume
every honest bible students and bible scholars (emphasis mine) know.
Our Response
Mr.
Witness Lee and the Local Church apologists immediately produced the
booklet Answers
to the Bible Answer Man, Vol. 1, in order to vindicate
themselves against the expose done by Dr. Walter Martin and CRI at
Melodyland on October 2, 1977. This Local Church booklet can be easily
refuted through careful study and research of church history and their
very own publications. For brevity sake, let us focus ourselves on
their doctrine about Jesus
Christ and the Trinity. You may be orthodox in the teaching about salvation,
church, hell, among others but if you are wrong about the real Jesus
of the Bible then that will be a sure ground for your eternal
damnation. Even the Lord Jesus Himself said that a person has to
believe who He claimed He was because if not then he would die in his
sins (cf. John 8:24).
The
booklet Answers
to the Bible Answer Man, Vol. 1, stated, “The
public statements at Melodyland on October 2, 1977 regarding what
Witness Lee and the local churches believe concerning the Trinity
contain at least fifteen errors. Some of these errors are now openly
stated and refuted by the local churches.” (p.8) Then they
proceeded on noting these so-called “errors” in the following
manner (pp.8-9):
-
The
error of public misrepresentation.
-
The
error with historical data.
-
The
error of the wrong interpretation of Witness Lee’s writings.
-
The
error of changing the Scriptures.
-
The
error of omission.
We
will deal with these subjects to dismantle the alleged “Truth
Concerning The Trinity” held by Witness Lee and the Local
Church. On “The error of public misrepresentation” they wrote,
“The speaker charged that ‘Witness Lee and the
local churches are anti the historic view of Trinitarian theology…
and have adopted an ancient heresy known as Monarchianistic Modalism.’
This is false and grossly misrepresents our own testimony. We have
published several booklets available to the public for almost two
years fully exposing and denying as heresy every form of
Monarchianistic Modalism. These booklets also contain our belief and
experience of the Triune God according to the Bible with positive
affirmations concerning the historic statements contained in the
Nicene-Constantinople Creed regarding the Trinity. Yet the speaker
refuses to acknowledge our confession and has publicly misrepresented
Witness Lee and the local churches.”
The
Local Church people did not even bother to mention why Dr. Martin
charged them with holding on to the ancient heresy of Monarchianistic
Modalism. Sometime in early 1990’s a friend of mine gave me a
photocopied booklet that was given to him by a Local Church elder
entitled “The
Beliefs and Practices Of the Local Churches.” This was my
first encounter with the said group. I immediately turned the pages
and under the heading “Our
Belief” (p.3) there it was stated, “We
believe that God is the only one Triune God – the Father, the Son,
and the Spirit – co-existing equally from eternity to eternity.
(Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 3:14-16; Rev. 1:4-5;
Deut. 4:35; Psa. 86:10; 1 Cor. 8:4).” At first glance every
evangelical Christian in the world would immediately embraced Witness
Lee and the Local Churches as members of the Body of Christ because of
this statement. Unfortunately, many Christians do not know this is a
very subtle form of deception to proselyte the gullible people into
their “modern-day” movement. They have not fully defined their
position on the word “Triune God” or “Trinity.” Do they really
believe in the orthodox teaching of the Trinity
as held by the Nicene-Constantinople Creed? One needs to wonder why in
the preface of that same booklet it was stated “We want it to be
known by all that the Christians in the local churches are absolute
for the common faith and are the most
orthodox of Christians.” (p.1) Is there a difference between an
orthodox and “most orthodox”? Did the Jesus and the apostles teach
us to define this so-called difference? Allow me to quote the whole
context from their booklet, Modalism,
Tritheism or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the
Bible under the heading “The Son
Being Called the Father” and judged for your selves whether or
not Witness Lee teaches Modalism,
“The
Bible declares that all Three – the Father, the Son and the Spirit
– are one. According to the pure word of Isaiah 9:6, the Son is the
Father. In this verse we see two lines: that the child is called the
Mighty God, and that the Son is called the Everlasting Father if we
accept the first line, then we must accept the second. All fundamental
Christians accept the first line—that the child is the Mighty
God—but due to their traditional terminology, and understanding, few
accept the second—that the Son is the Everlasting Father. But if we
read this verse in simplicity, without bias or preconceived concepts,
we must confess that it means what it says—that the Son is the
Everlasting Father. However, we should read this verse and testify of
its truth without drawing any warranted conclusions from it (as does
Patripassianism), or without attempting to reconcile if the Word which
clearly indicate the distinction between the Son and the Father. One
aspect of the Triune God is that the Father and the Son are one, yet
are two….” (p.24)
You
will notice that they wrongly exegete Isaiah 9:6 to mean the Son (i.e.
Jesus Christ) as the Father (first Person of the Trinity) rather than
interpreting it according to what the Hebrew word really means (i.e. abiad,
Father of eternity). The Hebrew word abiad
denotes the Son’s nature in terms of perpetuity
or everlasting because He is
deity rather than defining it in a relational term such as Father-Son
relationship. Witness Lee and the Local Churches ignores the fact that
John 5:31-32 proves Jesus Christ is not
the Father because when He said, “There is another (Gk. allos)
who bears witness of Me (v. 32), the term “allos” here means
someone “different {from} the subject who is speaking.” They attempt to refute this kind of
interpretation for Isaiah 9:6 in their booklet, “The Truth Concerning the
Trinity.” But the more they justify their frail reasoning
even more so they wrench the real meaning of that verse. Please read
the following,
“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 the 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! (p. 23)
What
they do not reveal in a straightforward manner in “The
Beliefs and Practices Of the Local Churches” is this, that
the Local Church “Jesus” is not only the Son but also the
“Father” (and the “Holy Spirit”) in the Godhead. Inspite of
their claim of allegedly repudiating every form of “Monarchianistic
Modalism” as stated in “Answers to the Bible Answer
Man, Vol. 1,”
the fact still
crops up when we honestly consider their very own publications. When
Witness Lee and the Local Churches seem to reject the charge of being
Modalist as taught by Sabellius, what they simply mean was “we are
not following Sabellius teaching in the finest intricate points.” If
Sabellius do not believe that there are “Three Persons” in the
Godhead then the Local Churches do so. If Modalists do not believe in
the eternality of the Son then Lee and his members do believed. Where
does the deception lie? One will notice their inclination to Modalism
when reading their literatures they turn out to be “Oneness”
proponents. The founder of the Local Church may state his belief in
the “Three Persons” of the Godhead but his “Three Persons” in
reality are “three different stages or roles” assumed by Jesus
Christ as He took the form of flesh and was resurrected after His
death for three days. He may affirm his belief on the Three Persons
“eternality” and “distinction” but these are just mere “word
play” to modify his teachings and deviate the people from calling
him directly as a “Oneness” or “Modalist” proponent. Inspite
of this obvious proof, Lee continues to fly out of reason and oppose
his critics. This can be read in their literature, “The
Truth Concerning the Trinity,” in reacting against opposers,
“Some of the critics, however, may reply,
‘Don’t you say the Son is the Father and the Christ is the Spirit?
This is exactly what the modalists say.’ To this I would answer that
I do not care for modalism,
but only for the pure word of the Bible.” (p. 21) mine emphasis’
Take
note of Lee’s statement, “I do not care for modalism” which reveals his tendency to
ignore the real implication of the word modalism
just to satisfy his own understanding in falsely interpreting such
passages like Isaiah 9:6; 1 Cor. 15:45b; and 2 Cor. 3:17. Unless
Witness Lee and the Local Churches repent and acknowledge the real
Jesus Christ of the Bible as the second Person of the Trinity, not to
be confused as the “Father” nor the “Holy Spirit,” they will
continue to be groping in the darkness of the ancient heresy of
modalism.
Addendum
Dr.
Walter R. Martin believed that the information given by the Robert and
Gretchen Passantinos, along with Cal Beisner about Witness Lee and the
Local Church are fully reliable. Since he was the General
Editor of the book, “The
New Cults” he sees to it that he has a grasp of the actual
teaching materials of Lee. Therefore, when he had spoken on October
1977 at Melodyland, I personally believed he was speaking with a deep
conviction being convinced of the errors of some of Lee’s beliefs.
Besides this book, there are many others (non-CRI books) that have
been published but because of legal threats manage to retract or edit
them. States Jim Moran,
Over the
years, however, a number of Christian authors, publishers, and
ministries were threatened with litigation by Lee and other Local
Church officials as the direct result of public criticism of the
movement. Major publications targeting the Local Church movement
include The God-Men by Neil
Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, The
Mind Benders by Jack Sparks, and The
New Cults by Walter Martin. The God-Men,
The Mind Benders, Larson's
Book of Cults, The Lure of
the Cults, Satan's Angels
Exposed, and Shepherds and
Sheep, were removed from circulation or edited. (http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~dazuma/lcinfo/lotm/contro.html)
In
answer to one of that expert named Dr. J. Gordon Melton called upon by
the Local Church to testify, I challenged all Local Church elders and
members to read this information taken from the SCP Newsletter, Vol.
11, Number 4, November, 1986:
Dr. J. Gordon
Melton.
Dr. Melton, a United Methodist minister, is the Director of the
Institute for the Study of American Religion and avisiting scholar at
U. C. Santa Barbara. His doctorate was received in 1975, from
Northwestern University, in the History and Literature of Religions.
Dr.
Melton criticized Duddy for relying on information supplied by
ex-members, which he regards as biased and unreliable. According to
Melton, Mr. Duddy completely misunderstood and misrepresented the
history, the beliefs, and the practices of the Local Church.[1] He
also testified that he could only conclude that Duddy knew he was
distorting the truth.
Melton: History -- After a Fashion
Dr.
Melton has genuine expertise and well-deserved prestige in his area of
specialty, the history of religions. His Encyclopedia of American
Religions is a standard reference work that SCP routinely relies on
for certain types of information.
Outside
of his expertise, strictly speaking, Dr. Melton holds theological
opinions on many related subjects, as do all of us who think and write
about such things. Melton himself seems eager to make that
distinction. In his recently published dialogue with Dr. Ronald Enroth,
Melton said:
And
I have, not being a theologian - and I make no claim to be one - a
difficult task in sorting through doctrinal questions to do an
adequate theological analysis of most group's beliefs. I'm a church
historian with most of my theological work in historical theology, not
systematics ... I have a problem as to where to draw the line - what's
heresy and what's evangelically kosher. What is acceptable doctrinal
deviation? Evangelicals have no common line (Enroth & Melton,
1985, p. 4).
After
acknowledging his inexpertise and uncertainty in theology, Melton
further emphasized that his personal leanings influence the
theological judgments that he does make:
I
have trouble drawing the line, and I tend to be inclusivistic rather
than exclusivistic (Enroth & Melton, p. 5).
With
those disclaimers in mind, it is disconcerting to realize that Dr.
Melton was allowed to express his theological opinions as an expert
witness at the default hearing.
Opinions Without Expertise
Melton's
criticism of The God-Men is only marginally related to his genuine
expertise.
Morgan
(Plantiffs' (sic) lawyer): In what way did Duddy misrepresent the
practices?
Melton:
He took sentences from the middle of the paragraph out of context and
made them appear to say things they were not taking about. He
misrepresented their piety, especially calling it an Eastern form of
mantric prayer. He left out their history regarding the Plymouth
Brethren connection.
Judge:
Does it totally misrepresent the Local Church?
Melton: Some statements are accurate. But overall not. For
example, Duddy never brings
up the subject of dispensationalism, which is important to understand
if you're going to understand Witness Lee's theology.
Melton faults SCP for
ignoring the Local Church's historical connections with the Plymouth
Brethren movement and for ignoring the theology of dispensationalism.
These charges are both untrue. The God-Men states the Plymouth
Brethren connection explicitly in both text and footnote. See pp.
23-25 and p. 104 of the book, especially footnote 2 from page 24:
Some
of Lee's later deviations seem to have grown out of a misapplication
of Plymouth Brethren style dispensationalism - e.g., his view of the
Local Church as the new and final dispensation or stage of God's plan
in history (p. 148).
Either
Melton overlooked this mention or he thought it wasn't sufficient by
his standards of professional historiography. Duddy did not claim to
write a historical treatise, and it would not be right to subject him
to judicial punishment for failing to mention a subject prominently
enough to satisfy an expert on a subject different from that of his
book. With respect to the standards he did claim to meet, those of
systematic theology, Duddy, who is a graduate of Westminster
Theological Seminary, actually has more expertise than Dr. Melton.
Melton's
second charge, that Duddy misrepresented Lee's theology, is repeated
and elaborated in Melton's booklet, An Open Letter Concerning the
Local Church, Witness Lee and The God-Men Controversy, published
immediately after the default hearing.
But
Melton has already disclaimed having the expertise that would allow
him to pass such judgments on theological matters with authority. It
is the opinion of SCP, one we base on Melton's own statements, that
Melton was not qualified to give expert theological opinion in this
lawsuit.Melton's third charge is that Duddy "misrepresented their
piety, especially, calling it an Eastern form of mantric prayer."
He also explained to the court why he disagrees with Duddy's
conclusion: first, because Eastern techniques are transmitted from
guru to disciple, and there is no analagous (sic) process in the Local
Church. Second, because "in the Local Church you must stay in a
normal state of consciousness ... It's not like Hinduism where your
consciousness is altered."
Melton's
testimony again raises the question of his theological expertise. He
is again offering expert testimony outside of his field of expertise.
The
God-Men did not say that "pray- reading" and "calling
on the name of the Lord" were "an Eastern form of mantric
prayer." What The God-Men did say is stated on page 137 of the
book 2
The
God-Men's appendix did not touch on the matter of a guru initiating
his disciple as a point of similarity between Local Church practice
and Eastern forms of chanting. The points of resemblance the book was
concerned with were psychological in nature. What was needed was
psychological expertise.
Melton
doesn't have any psychological expertise with which to invalidate The
God-Men's opinion that some of the Local Church's practices bore a
meaningful relationship to Eastern religious techniques. Melton's lack
of theological and psychological expertise coincides with the critical
points of his testimony, and the critical points of the book (The
God-Men) he is condemning. When it comes to the issues that count,
Melton offers discursive opinion, not knowledge or expertise.
We
believe Melton is entitled to his opinions, expertise or not, and he is
entitled to express them. But without expertise his opinions are no
more entitled to judicial weight than those of anyone else. Dr.
Melton's religious opinions belong in print, not in court.
Expertise Without Knowledge
In addition, Melton showed
considerable misunderstanding of SCP's past and purposes as well as
that of the history of the Local Church. We were surprised that the
judge would ask Melton to speculate on the motives of the author, and
even more surprised at his response:
Judge:
Why would Duddy have done this: What would his reason be?
Melton: At
one point the World Christian Liberation Front (sic) and the Local
Church had headquarters across the street from each other. There were
several incidents of personal confrontation where the SCP came off
second best. Everything I have read can be traced to that
confrontation in Berkeley. I just don't know what happened (.3)
We
do not believe there is any truth to this speculation. Of most concern
to SCP in Melton's testimony is what appears to be a misunderstanding
of the Local Church movement. If Melton thinks the Local Church's
controversies can be traced to SCP, he can know nothing of their real
history in Asia, or their early history in this country. Melton
testified that it was his policy to discount and ignore the statements
of ex-members in general, and that he had interviewed no ex-members of
Witness Lee's group. His apparent ignorance of the Local Church's
controversial past is perhaps explicable on that account.
[1]
Notes taken by SCP Staff during the default hearing.
(*)
For a full treatment of what really happened please visit:
http://www.mcs.net/~jimmoran/scp.html
Send
your comments to Justyn
________________________________________________________________
[ Home ] [ Reader's Feedback
] [ Q & A Page ] [ Q &
Q Page ] [ Back ] [ Next ]
|
