Repeating False Witness in Accusing the Local Churches of “Litigiousness”

Posted on 01/01/201010/20/2017 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

For years certain circles within the Christian countercult movement have cultivated the perception that the local churches employ litigation and the threat of litigation to silence critics. As supporting evidence, they rely on a list of purported lawsuits and threats of lawsuits published by the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) in 1983 to rally support for defense of their book The God-Men, which was subsequently ruled to be libelous.¹ SCP’s list appears to be based on a list that was produced in a contemporaneous litigation concerning The Mindbenders: A Look at Current Cults (Mindbenders), which was subsequently retracted with an apology from the publisher in an agreement signed by its author, Jack Sparks.²

Neither Sparks nor SCP provided supporting documentation for the charges in their respective lists. Their compilations should have been suspect, given their obvious bias in the matter. Nevertheless, this list has been accepted as fact by the critics of the local churches and has been subsequently revised and republished in various forms by Jim Moran, the Cult Awareness & Information Center, the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, Harvest House Publishers, and Eric Pement. These largely undocumented claims have in themselves sufficed as evidence of the charge of litigiousness among the countercult community. Most recently, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes have endorsed Eric Pement’s version of this list, saying:

The Local Church (LC), known for its litigious activity in threatening to sue (and actually suing) individuals and groups that call them a “cult”…

and:

Noted cult researcher Eric Pement has listed numerous examples of Christian groups that were threatened or sued by the LC, most of which CRI [Christian Research Institute] did not even attempt to refute in its Journal articles.³

Nearly all of the authors and publishers on these lists produced works that simply repeated the accusations made in The God-Men and The Mindbenders without further research. Even John Weldon’s early drafts of what became the chapter on the local churches in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions were derived from these sources and exhibited the exact same distortions of context that characterized the two earlier books.⁴ Both The God-Men and The Mindbenders drew on the same manuscript produced by a young staff member of the pseudo-radical Christian World Liberation Front at the University of California at Berkeley. Thus, what Geisler, Rhodes, Pement, and the others seek to characterize as indiscriminate use of litigation to silence critics was actually an attempt to deal with the propagation of false, libelous accusations concerning unethical behaviors. On April 3, 1984, in a letter to SCP’s leadership, Dr. J. Gordon Melton said that he had, based on his own direct research, concluded that the local churches “have a strong case [against SCP] for libel—including conspiracy and malicious intent.” In that letter Melton also stated that he had discussed these very matters personally with Eric Pement, a fact which Pement neglects to mention.⁵ Geisler and Rhodes’ repetition of the countercult’s mantra of local church litigiousness is simply more of the same—uncritical acceptance and spreading of false reports from biased sources without direct research.

Over time Sparks’ list of supposed “direct or vailed [sic] threats” has been repeated and expanded into a list that is promoted by some in the countercult movement as authoritative evidence of litigiousness by the local churches. These accusations are lacking in factual basis, as the following documented accounts illustrate:

Christian Research Institute, 1977

Pement claims that the local churches threatened a lawsuit against the Christian Research Institute in 1977. Elliot Miller states in his article:

In response to Pement, I know for a fact that he is wrong about the LC threatening legal action against CRI in 1977 (or in any other year for that matter).

Miller’s statement is in accord with the facts and the available documentation. Prior to a conference given by Walter Martin at Faith Lutheran Church in Anaheim early in 1977, some of the Orange County local churches sent letters to CRI, Faith Lutheran Church, and its governing body. There were no threats of litigation in those letters. Transcripts of statements made by both sides during public meetings held on February 8 and 9, 1977, at Faith Lutheran also contain no support for Pement’s claim of legal threats.

Those conversations laid the groundwork for a subsequent meeting between Walter Martin and Witness Lee. The tone of that meeting was amicable and its outcome encouraging. However, that promising beginning failed to bear lasting fruit. On October 2, 1977, Walter Martin criticized Witness Lee and the local churches in a public meeting at Melodyland Christian Center. In response, the churches published a series of articles in The Orange County Register between October 1977 and March 1978. Although this period was a time of confrontation between the churches and CRI, no legal action was threatened or taken by either party.

James Bjornstad and Regal Books, 1979

In 1979, Regal Books (Regal) published Counterfeits at Your Door (Counterfeits) by James Bjornstad. The book claimed that the local churches had a public teaching and a private teaching, that is, that the local churches misled people as to their real beliefs.⁶ Responsible members of local churches wrote a few letters to Bjornstad. Some of the letters did ask the author to retract the book and apologize for his errors. None of the letters contained a threat of legal action. None of the available documentation shows that the publisher or the author ever claimed there was such a written threat.

In 1980 three responsible brothers representing the churches, none of whom were lawyers, visited Bjornstad in the New York law offices of the firm that represented Regal. Regal’s lawyer was present, but the brothers representing the churches came without legal counsel. Because of his involvement with SCP, Bjornstad was later deposed during The God-Men litigation. When questioned about the meeting at the offices of Regal’s legal counsel, Bjornstad admitted that no threats of litigation had been made by any of the brothers.

Salem Kirban, 1980

The first edition of Satan’s Angels Exposed (Angels) by Salem Kirban (1980) contained a section on “The Local Church” that was highly derivative of Jack Sparks’ Mindbenders.⁷ On July 12, 1980, the churches in Texas wrote to Mr. Kirban to protest inclusion of the local churches in Angels and to outline objections to the portrayal of the churches taken from Mindbenders. The letter stated that its signers’ intent was to establish a dialogue with Kirban as brothers in Christ to resolve the issues with Angels. The writers explained that they considered the content of Mindbenders to be false and defamatory concerning the local churches and that, after trying to dialogue with Sparks and others (who flatly refused all such attempts), it had become necessary to enter into litigation against the book’s author and publisher. Since Kirban relied upon Mindbenders as his source concerning the churches, the leading brothers in the churches in Texas considered it their responsibility to inform him of the serious problems involving the book.⁸

In response, Kirban extended an invitation to the brothers to submit more material for his consideration, and he opened the door to dialog via a phone call or other means of communication.⁹ On August 7 four representatives from the local churches traveled to his home. Kirban and his wife graciously received them, and Mrs. Kirban prepared a meal for them. After some fellowship, an agreement was reached that resulted in the chapter on “The Local Church” being omitted from subsequent editions of Angels and in Mindbenders being deleted from its recommended reading list. There was some subsequent friendly correspondence, and upon the resolution of the Mindbenders litigation, the matter was closed. There was never a threat of litigation against Mr. Kirban.

Jerram Barrs and InterVarsity Press, 1983

Jerram Barrs, then a co-director of L’Abri Fellowship in England, wrote Freedom & Discipleship: Your Church and Your Personal Decisions (Freedom), published by InterVarsity Press (IVP) in 1982. The book’s treatment of the local churches relied heavily on The God-men. Most of the quotes from Witness Lee’s writings used in Freedom were the same ones found in The God-Men and were misrepresented in the same manner.

On April 27, 1983, representatives of the church in Blackpool, England, sent a four-page letter to the author and copied the letter to the British publisher. In it they pointed out the errors and misrepresentations in Freedom and protested the false accusations made in it. The letter and the cover letter to IVP were respectful and did not mention legal action. In addition, some letters were written by other individuals to the author and the publisher asking for a retraction.

On April 30, 1983, two other members from Blackpool representing LSM wrote to Barrs in care of IVP in England. This letter stated that if Barrs refused to dialogue with the brothers (which he did), they were prepared to publish a public rebuttal (which they did).

On May 4, 1983, Derek Wood of IVP sent the letter from the church in Blackpool to Neil Duddy, then in Denmark, and asked for his advice in the matter. In his reply of May 16, Duddy recommended that Wood seek legal counsel. This was the first time the matter of litigation or legal representation was brought up in any of the correspondence.

On June 2, Wood responded to Duddy, thanking him specifically for this suggestion. On the same day, Wood wrote a letter to Mr. S. W. Groom, a solicitor (lawyer), asking for a legal opinion about IVP’s options. In it, Wood does not claim that the church in Blackpool, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), or any of the individuals who wrote to complain about Freedom ever mentioned litigation, only that they asked for a retraction. In fact, he characterized the letters sent to IVP and Barrs as “more in sorrow than in anger.” IVP and Barrs decided to remove the references to Witness Lee and the local churches from all subsequent printings of the book. Similar material was unilaterally removed from Barrs’ book Shepherds and Sheep: A Biblical View of Leading and Following, which was also published by IVP. At no time were there any threats of legal action by the church in Blackpool, LSM, or anyone else involved.

Moody Press, 1991

In 1991, Moody Press published A Concise Dictionary of Cults & Religions, by William Watson. In correspondence with the author on June 27, 1991, Dennis Shere, then a vice-president of Moody Press, stated that Moody had unilaterally decided not to include anything concerning the local churches in the book. There was no contact between the local churches and Moody concerning the matter, and no threats of litigation were made.

Our Standard

It is false to claim that the lawsuits filed by the local churches were motivated by efforts to silence critics’ theological disagreements, a fact that Eric Pement should have known from his own experience. When Pement was a leader in Jesus People USA (JPUSA), they published a tract that featured a hideous caricature of a church member. The tract misrepresented and attacked the teachings and persons of Witness Lee and those in the local churches. This prompted a visit to JPUSA in Chicago by two representatives of the local churches, who strongly protested the inaccurate and unfair representation of the local churches in the tract in a meeting in which Pement participated. JPUSA never changed the tract, and no agreement was reached at that meeting concerning the accuracy or appropriateness of the tract. However, JPUSA was never threatened with legal action, and none was taken against them, even though they continued to publish and disseminate the tract. It is indeed strange that Pement, who had first-hand knowledge of this meeting and its outcome, neglected to mention the meeting in his recounting of earlier rumors.

The same standard has been applied to Geisler and Rhodes, who, though vocal in their criticism of the local churches’ theology, have not been sued or threatened with litigation for their grievous misrepresentations of the teachings of the local churches. Rather than passing on unsubstantiated rumors, Geisler and Rhodes should have testified of this fact based on their own experience.

Geisler and Rhodes assert that the churches’ claim of seeking redress through dialog was disproved by John Ankerberg and Harvest House. (Geisler and Rhodes do not tell their readers that it was Harvest House that filed suit first at a time when representatives of LSM and the local churches were seeking to dialogue with them.) In response to CRI’s statement that “the LC always took legal action as a last resort when the parties absolutely refused to meet with them as Christian brothers,” Geisler and Rhodes state:

Despite factual evidence provided by Ankerberg and Harvest House to the contrary (which convinced the High Courts), one is hard-pressed to justify these kinds of lawsuits on biblical grounds.

In fact, Ankerberg and Harvest House provided no such factual evidence. They simply reproduced the same litany of false and unsubstantiated accusations in an affidavit submitted by Mary Cooper, Harvest House’s Vice President of Administration:

Several organizations that research and report on cults, such as Cult Awareness & Information Centre, Apologetics Index, and The Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, have, in the past or presently, publicized and discussed the fact that Living Stream Ministry and/or The Local Church have initiated, at our count, at least 14 legal proceedings, lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits against those who call their teachings into question (Exhibit K).

The list attached to Cooper’s affidavit is yet another example of propagating these same false rumors as though they were fact. The purpose of the exhibit was to “prove” the litigious behavior of the local churches, yet half of the 14 examples listed alleged no legal proceedings or even purported threats of any kind. Cooper also included the five cases discussed in this article. As has been clearly demonstrated, these cases involved no legal actions or threats. The only two cases that proceeded to litigation were The Mindbenders and The God-men. The Mindbenders was retracted with an apology,¹⁰ and The God-Men was judged by a court to be libelous.¹¹

Furthermore, contrary to the claim made by Geisler and Rhodes, Cooper’s affidavit was submitted to the District Court, which rejected the defendants’ motion for summary judgment that the affidavit was supporting, not to the “High Courts.” There is no evidence that the “High Courts” or even the Texas Court of Appeals read it, much less were convinced by it. Thus, Geisler and Rhodes’ attempt to muster support from the “High Courts” to bolster the charge of litigiousness they levy against the local churches is without factual basis.

Conclusion

The five cases examined here demonstrate that the accusation propagated by the countercult movement that the local churches are litigious is not supported by the oft-cited lists of purported threats of litigation first developed by Jack Sparks and SCP. Geisler and Rhodes fault Elliot Miller for not refuting every case in the most recent revision of this list published by Eric Pement, yet they in no way fault Pement for disseminating the list without supplying proof of its charges. Normally the burden of proof rests on the person making an accusation, yet Geisler and Rhodes, among others, have accepted mere unsubstantiated accusations as proof. The cases presented here show the emptiness of Geisler and Rhodes’ criticism.

The charge of litigiousness against the local churches has been accepted as axiomatic among countercultists, that is, something of which there is no need of proof. Examined in light of available facts, the propagation of this falsehood is simply rumor-mongering. It exhibits a mentality that is sadly characteristic of some in the countercult apologetics community, that is, that rumors and accusations weigh more than facts. They excuse those who libel others and savage those who have the audacity to point out their errors. They also refuse to police themselves, and they show a propensity to excuse poor scholarship, deceit, and worse among their own. It is encouraging, however, that some such as CRI, Gretchen Passantino, and Fuller Theological Seminary have a greater care for the truth than is evidenced by the work of some countercult apologists. We hope that other responsible scholars from the apologetics community would similarly seek out the truth through careful primary research and meaningful dialogue.

Notes:

¹See http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/decision/completeText.html.

²See http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/mindbenders/retraction.html. Because of their participation in the development of the book, the settlement agreement was also signed by John Braun, Peter Gillquist, and Richard Ballew, who were co-founders with Sparks and others of the New Covenant Apostolic Order and the Evangelical Orthodox Church.

³This criticism of the CRI article is unfair. The stated goal of Elliot Miller’s article was to address in a balanced fashion the accusations made against the local churches in an open letter published on the Internet by a group of “evangelical scholars and ministry leaders.” His article presented the most broad-based assessment of the teachings of the local churches available to date. To document the falsity of the claims made in Pement’s chart would have skewed the article from its stated goal and would have been overly burdensome to CRI’s readership.

⁴For examples of this, see Dr. J. Gordon Melton’s An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and The God-Men Controversy on this site.

⁵Letter from Dr. J. Gordon Melton to Brooks Alexander and Bill Squires, April 3, 1984.

⁶Even at the time Counterfeits was published, Living Stream Ministry was publishing as much of the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee as possible in audio, video, and print media. Today there are over 700 titles in print in the English language and over 4000 audio and 3000 video tapes (see LSM’s Audio/Video Tape Catalog). In addition, there are over 1700 radio broadcasts available for downloading free of charge from the Internet (see “Life-study of the Bible with Witness Lee Radio Broadcast“). To maintain a private teaching that was different from such an extensive public record would be impossible.

⁷The Mindbenders was subsequently withdrawn by the publisher, and a retraction with an apology was printed in major newspapers across the United States (see the first paragraph of this article).

⁸Although some might characterize this as a veiled threat, that is a purely subjective interpretation that should not be advanced as factual evidence. The goal was to cause the author to reevaluate the credibility of the sources he had relied upon.

⁹Letter from Salem Kirban to the church in Dallas, July 25, 1980.

¹⁰See note 2.

¹¹See note 1.

The Error of Insisting on Three “Persons” as a Litmus Test of Orthodoxy

Posted on 01/01/201007/23/2021 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

The statement of faith in Affirmation & Critique: A Journal of Christian Thought (A&C) states:

Holding the Bible as the complete and only divine revelation, we strongly believe that God is eternally one and also eternally the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the three being distinct but not separate… We confess that the third of the Trinity, the Spirit, is equally God.¹

Norman Geisler, in a letter to Ron Kangas, A&C‘s Editor-in-Chief, called these statements concerning the Trinity unorthodox, stating:

First, if you desired to be considered orthodox in your “Statement of Faith,” then why did you leave out the word “person” of the three members of the Trinity. To be orthodox you should have said “three [persons] being distinct” and “we confess the third [person] of the Trinity.”²

Thus, to Geisler any statement speaking of the three of the Divine Trinity that does not use the word “persons” is unorthodox. Furthermore, Geisler, in an article co-signed by Ron Rhodes, denounce the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches as heresy based on the following statement made by Witness Lee:

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person.³

They present this statement completely apart from its original context as proof positive of heresy and claim that to speak of God as “one person” and as “three persons” is impossibly contradictory:

Once one gives up on the law of non-contradiction, there is no basis for intelligible affirmations or denials, orthodox or unorthodox. It is simply not possible for God to be both only one Person and also three Persons at the same time and in the same sense. But Lee does not distinguish any different sense in which God is both only one Person and three Persons in the ontological Trinity. Nor do LC leaders distinguish any real difference between claiming God is three Persons and yet only one Person in His essential Being⁴.

The criticism of Geisler and Rhodes is faulty on numerous points:

The term person in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not a biblical one, but was invented to try to explain the biblical revelation.
Many theologians recognize the problem of using the word “persons” to speak of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
Part of the problem with the term person is that as it entered into the vernacular, the common understanding of what it means changed.
The modern understanding of “person” tends to lead towards tritheism.
Norman Geisler’s insistence that the one God cannot be spoken of as a person in the singular sense contradicts the biblical record.
In the context that Geisler and Rhodes omitted, Witness Lee did clearly state the “sense” in which he used the term one person.
Geisler and Rhodes apply a different standard of truth to the quote excised from Witness Lee’s ministry than the standard they apply to the statements of Cornelius Van Til.
If Geisler and Rhodes were consistent in their condemnation of using “person” in a singular sense to refer to God, they would also have to condemn many other respected teachers and servants of the Lord who have spoken of God as “a person.”
The criticism by Geisler and Rhodes is inconsistent with Geisler’s own definition of “personhood” and their own references to God as a singular person without any explanation of the “sense” in which they made those references.
Geisler and Rhodes refuse to fairly evaluate all of the evidence available in the published writings of Witness Lee concerning the nature of God.

Person Not a Biblical Term

In spite of the insistence of Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes on the formulation of “one essence, three Persons,” this is not a biblical expression. As Thomas F. Torrance, Professor of Christian Dogmatics at the University of Edinburgh, noted:

However, in the biblical tradition itself, in the Old and New Testaments, there is no explicit concept of ‘person’…⁵

Augustus H. Strong, whom Geisler and Rhodes referred to as “the noted Baptist theologian,” said:

The term ‘person’ only approximately represents the truth. Although this word, more nearly than any other single word, expressed the conception which the Scriptures give us of the relation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is not itself used in this connection in Scriptures, and we employ it in a qualified sense, not in the ordinary sense in which we apply the word ‘person’ to Peter, Paul, and John.⁶

J. Scott Horrell, Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, notes:

If the term nature is difficult when we speak of God, the term person is all the more complex. Theologians such as Tertullian, the Cappadocians, Augustine, and Aquinas differ in their concept of person, even if modern and postmodern conceptions vary considerably more.⁷

According to a recent book by Thomas Weinandy, a Catholic theologian and lecturer in History and Doctrine at the University of Oxford:

A good deal of discussion is taking place among contemporary theologians on the suitability of designating as ‘persons’ the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.⁸

The problem with the term person is not a new one. In a sermon in 1775, John Wesley commented:

I dare not insist upon anyone’s using the word “Trinity” or “Person.” I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better: But if any man has scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? I cannot.⁹

Norman Geisler exercises no such restraint. By contesting the A&C statement of faith because it does not use the word “person,” Geisler applies a non-biblical litmus test as his standard of orthodoxy. To him, no statement concerning the distinctions among the three of the Godhead can be orthodox if it does not explicitly use the term person. Based on Geisler’s standard, the Bible, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Nicene Creed must all be condemned as unorthodox as none of them uses the word “person” to refer to any of the three of the Divine Trinity.

Problems with the Definition of the Term

The problem is that the full theological significance of the term person as it applies to the Trinity is not clearly defined or even definable. As Millard Erickson, Distinguished Professor of Theology at Western Seminary, has noted:

The formula was worked out quite definitely in the fourth century. God is one substance or essence, existing in three persons. The difficulty is that we do not know exactly what these terms mean. We know that the doctrine states that God is three in some respect and one in some other respect, but we do not know precisely what those two different respects are.¹⁰

The Scottish theologian H. R. Mackintosh wrote:

Words in such a realm are more or less arbitrary, and must be taken in a sense appropriate to their objects of denotation; and it is certain that ?p?stas?? in Greek theology, and persona, its Latin equivalent, do not mean now, and never have meant, what we usually intend by Personality.¹¹

In his exposition of “Threeness in Oneness” in his magnum opus Church Dogmatics, the Swiss theologian Karl Barth attempted to avoid the concept of “person”:

In our opening sentence of our section we avoided the concept “Person.” Neither was it on its introduction into ecclesiastical language made sufficiently clear, nor has the subsequent interpretation, imparted to it and enforced as a whole in mediæval and post-Reformation scholasticism, really issued in such a clearing up, nor has the introduction of the modern concept of personality into this debate produced anything else but fresh confusion.¹²

In his Dogmatics in Outline Barth further states:

But when we speak today of person, involuntarily and almost irresistibly the idea arises of something rather like the way in which we men are persons. And actually this idea is as ill-suited as possible to describe what God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is.¹³

Louis Berkhof, the late systematic theologian and President of Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote:

To denote these distinctions in the Godhead, Greek writers generally employed the term hupostasis, while Latin authors used the term persona, and sometimes substantia. Because the former was apt to be misleading and the latter was ambiguous, the Schoolmen coined the word subsistentia. The variety of the terms used points to the fact that their inadequacy was always felt. It is generally admitted that the word ‘person’ is but an imperfect expression of the idea.¹⁴

More recently, the Finnish theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen has written:

Much has been written about this history of the term persona and its application to Trinitarian language. The contours of the term are both obscure and wide. In its original sense it has the meaning of “mask” as worn by an actor in a play, thus denoting something that is not “real” for the human being behind the mask. The other extreme, the modern one, is to regard the persona as not only something “real” about the human being but also highly individualistic… Understandably, neither the etymology of the term nor its highly individualized modern meaning captures the principles of distinction-in-unity meant by those who first applied it to describe the Christian God.¹⁵

Problems with the Common Understanding of “Person”

Although the problem surrounding the term person has existed since its first usage, the difficulties have become more acute in modern times because of the adoption of the term into the vernacular to designate a discrete and separate conscious being.¹⁶ Walter Kasper, a Roman Catholic scholar, has commented:

But if we leave aside the historical arguments (exegetical and those from the history of religions and of dogma) and look at the arguments based directly on the content of the teaching, then one objection stands out as more important than the others: modern subjectivity and the modern concept of person which it has produced. In the modern period, person is no longer understood in ontological terms but is defined as a self-conscious free center of action and as individual personality.¹⁷

Thomas F. Torrance also noted:

It is important to note, however, that once the concept of ‘person’ was launched into the stream of human ideas and became a regular item in the furniture of our everyday thought it inevitably tended to have an independent history of its own and in spite of cultural variations to give rise in people’s minds to a general conception of what person denotes. It would be a serious mistake, however, to interpret what is meant by ‘Person’ in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity by reference to any general, and subsequent, notion of person, and not by reference to its aboriginal theological sense.¹⁸

Concerns That “Persons” Leads to Tritheism

Geisler and Rhodes completely ignore the context of Witness Lee’s teaching. As Elliot Miller noted in his article in the Christian Research Journal, Witness Lee was responding to the concept of “person” that has led Western believers in the direction of tritheism, that is, belief that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not only distinct but also separate, becoming in effect three Gods. This was the reason Witness Lee said, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods.” Witness Lee’s concern has been shared by some very prominent Western theologians. For example, W. H. Griffith Thomas, who was instrumental in the founding of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:

The term “Person” is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism. While we use the term to denote distinctions in the Godhead, we do not imply distinctions which amount to separateness, but distinctions which are associated with essential mutual co-inherence or inclusiveness….

While, therefore, we are compelled to use terms like “substance” and “Person,” we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance or personality. The terms are not explanatory, but only approximately correct, as must necessarily be the case with any attempt to define the Nature of God.¹⁹

In the article by Geisler and Rhodes, part of this passage is quoted without attribution and then criticized by them as though it were Witness Lee’s words:

But Lee elsewhere contradicts this by saying, “Actually, to use the designation ‘three persons’ to explain the Father, Son, and Spirit is also not quite satisfactory because ‘three Persons’ really means three persons…. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism….”

Nowhere do Geisler and Rhodes tell their readers that the last half of this excerpt is actually Witness Lee quoting W. H. Griffith Thomas.

Griffith Thomas’ concern was echoed by Thomas Weinandy:

There is the Trinitarian concern that the term ‘person’, when applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, either is inadequate or, worse still, imparts an erroneous connotation. Without our post-Lockean and post-Kantian milieu, does not three ‘persons’ imply three subjective individual consciousnesses and thus lead to tritheism when applied to God?²⁰

It should be noted that Witness Lee spoke of God in three persons on many occasions, but that he was careful to explain the issues surrounding the term in a balanced way, something that Geisler and Rhodes do not do.²¹

Norman Geisler’s Position Contradicts the Bible

According to Geisler’s published writings, it is improper to speak of God as “one person,” as “a person,” or even as “personal” in any kind of singular sense.²² This position attempts to enforce an external standard of “orthodoxy” on the truth revealed in the Bible. Thus, when Geisler cites the formula “one essence, three Persons” or “one nature, three Persons,” he imposes on those words a narrow and exclusive meaning that attempts to codify the mystery of the nature of the Triune God:

By saying God has one essence and three persons it is meant that he has one “What” and three “Whos.” The three Whos (persons) each share the same What (essence). So God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is different, yet they share a common nature.²³

Geisler’s explanation is itself a contradiction. Immediately after he says God has “one essence and three persons,” he refers to God with the singular personal pronoun “he.”

The problem, as the theologians cited in this article attest, is that Geisler’s definition does not answer the fundamental question of what the oneness among the three Persons is. It is not the expressions “one nature, three Persons” or “one essence, three Persons” that are objectionable; in fact, as noted above, Witness Lee used these terms often. Rather, what is not acceptable is the dogmatic insistence upon these terms as a formula that is adequate to fully express the mystery of the Triune God without any of the qualifiers which theologians throughout the centuries have recognized as necessary because of the limitations of human language. Both essence and nature are commonly understood as something abstract and impersonal, yet that does not describe what our God is. Millard Erickson rightly pointed out the same error that is evident in Geisler’s statement:

God is a unitary being. Sometimes one gets the conception that the nature of God is a bundle of attributes, somewhat loosely tied together. God, however, is not an attribute or a predicate. He is a living person, a subject.²⁴

While Geisler’s distinction between “what” and “who” makes for a tidy formula, it does not match the revelation in the Bible. The Bible repeatedly refers to God as “I,” “Me,” “He,” and “Him.” These are personal pronouns and it would be inappropriate to apply them to some abstract essence or nature or to a “what.” Genesis 1:26-27 says, “And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Here the pronoun referring to God switches from the plural “Us” and “Our” to the singular “He” and “His,” but it is always used in the sense of a person speaking and acting.

In Exodus God referred to Himself as the “I Am”: “And God said to Moses, I am who I am. And He said, Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I am has sent me to you.” In Exodus 20:2-3 Jehovah instructed the children of Israel, “I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the slave house; you shall have no other gods before Me.” Here God refers to Himself with a singular personal pronoun. In fact, as the I am, God is not only a person; He is the Person. The inescapable conclusion is that either the Bible is wrong in referring to God as a person or Geisler is wrong.

Matthew 28:19 is one of the clearest revelations of the Trinity. It says, “Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Here the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have one name. The word for “name” in this verse is the singular form of the same word that is used in Acts 1:15 in the plural form for “persons.”²⁵ According to Matthew 28:19, baptizing people into “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is not merely a formula to be recited at baptisms but an act of immersing those who have believed into and received Christ into the reality of the divine Person of the Triune God. This is why in his footnote on “name” in Matthew 28:19 in the Recovery Version of the New Testament, Witness Lee commented:

There is one name for the Divine Trinity. The name is the sum total of the Divine Being, equivalent to His person. To baptize someone into the name of the Triune God is to immerse him into all that the Triune God is.

The Context of Witness Lee’s Statement That Geisler and Rhodes Omitted

Geisler and Rhodes and the other signers of the open letter with them pluck one sentence from the voluminous ministry of Witness Lee as proof that he teaches God is one person in purported contradiction of the “orthodox” teaching of the Trinity. Read in context, this sentence is part of an exposition of Matthew 28:19, which clearly identifies God as triune, a three-one person with one name:

The revelation of the Triune God can be found throughout the New Testament. In Matthew 28:19, the Lord Jesus charged the disciples to baptize the nations “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In this verse, name is singular in number, yet the one name refers to three persons. This shows that there is one name for the Divine Trinity (see notes 5 and 6 on Matthew 28:19 in the Recovery Version). The word person is often used to describe the three of the Divine Trinity, yet we must be careful in using such a term…

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person. Hence, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are denoted by one name. The name denotes the person, and the person is the reality of the name. The name of the Divine Trinity is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person. God is triune; that is, He is three-one. In some theological writings, the preposition in is added between three and one to make three-in-one. However, it is more accurate to say that God is three-one.²⁶

In this passage Witness Lee said both “the one name refers to three persons” (which Geisler and Rhodes do not quote) and “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons” (which they do quote out of context). Geisler and Rhodes claim that Witness Lee did not identify the sense in which his speaking about God being “one person” differed from the sense of Him being “three persons,” which to them is an intolerable contradiction. In fact, Witness Lee did say that “the name of the Divine Trinity”—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—”is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person.” Would Geisler and Rhodes claim that “the Father, the Son, and the Spirit” is not “the sum total of the divine Being,” that is, His person? Would they claim that the use of “name” in the singular does not indicate that the entire God is a person in the sense “name” is used in the Bible?

An Inconsistent Standard of Truth

Proverbs 20:23 tells us, “Differing weights are an abomination to Jehovah, and false scales are not good.” To have an inconsistent standard of appraisal in evaluating the teachings of different persons is to have differing weights. This is precisely what Geisler and Rhodes do when they condemn Witness Lee, but not Cornelius Van Til, the late professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, for saying that God is one person. Van Til said:

Yet this is not the whole truth of the matter. We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person…. Over against all other beings, that is, over against created beings, we must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective “personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality…²⁷

Geisler and Rhodes write:

To give Van Til the benefit of the doubt, either his insistence on God as a Person should be taken to refer to the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being, or else we must understand that the term “Person” does not mean exactly the same thing when speaking of God as one as it does when speaking of God as three.

Geisler and Rhodes give no “benefit of the doubt” to Witness Lee. Nevertheless, their allowance that Van Til might be speaking of “the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being” is unwarranted as Van Til specifically said he was speaking of “the whole Godhead.” The real questions are:

How does Van Til’s mention of “the whole Godhead” differ from Witness Lee’s explicit statement that “the name of the Divine Trinity is the sum total of the divine Being, equivalent to His person”?
What is the difference between “the Godhead overall” (which Geisler and Rhodes approve of) and “the sum total of the divine Being”?
How can Geisler and Rhodes justify Van Til on the supposition that he is speaking of “the Godhead overall as a tri-personal being” and condemn Witness Lee who speaks of “the sum total of the divine Being,” whom he then explicitly describes as three-one?

Clearly Geisler and Rhodes apply “different weights” in evaluating the statements of Cornelius Van Tell, a well-known Reformed theologian from a respected seminary, than they do in criticizing the similar statement of Witness Lee, whom they seek to portray as unorthodox and outsidet he common faith.

Is God a Person?—What Others Say

If Geisler condemns the teaching that the entire Triune God is a person, he must also condemn many other well-known teachers who have spoken of God as a person in the singular sense:

Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary:

…the Scriptures proceed in the presentation of the nature and character of God. He is a Person with those faculties and constituent elements which belong to personality.²⁸

Karl Barth:

The definition of a person—that is, a knowing, willing, acting I—can have the meaning only of a confession of the person of God declared in His revelation, of the One who loves and who as such (living in His own way) is the person.²⁹

Alvin Plantinga, a respected Protestant philosopher and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame:

If God is a living, conscious being who knows, wills, and acts—if, in a word, God is a person—then God is not a property or state of affairs or set or proposition or any other abstract object.³⁰

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a respected evangelical scholar and minister at Westminster Chapel in London for almost thirty years:

The Bible says that God is a person and this is absolutely vital to any true sense of worship, and to our having a feeling of confidence about ourselves and about the world….

But there is a great deal of direct evidence for saying that God is a person. Have you noticed how the presence of God is always described in a personal way? Take the name of God that we have considered: ‘I am’, that is a personal statement, it is a person who can say, ‘I am,’ and God says that He speaks of Himself in this manner. Every single representative of God has declared that God is a person and not simply an unconscious force.³¹

Billy Graham, in a section entitled “God Is a Person”:

Not only is God a spirit, but He also is a person—that is, He has personality, just as we do. Every trait we attribute to ourselves can be attributed to God. A person feels, thinks, desires, and decides—and so does God. A person enters into relationships—and so does God. A person acts—and so does God. God feels; God thinks; God sympathizes; God forgives; God hopes; God decides; God acts; God judges—all because He is a person. If He weren’t why pray to Him or worship Him? God is not an impersonal force or power; He is a person—the most perfect person imaginable.³²

Geisler and Rhodes Contradict Themselves

The criticism by Geisler and Rhodes is inconsistent with Geisler’s own definition of “personhood.” In his Systematic Theology Geisler says:

Personhood is traditionally understood as one who has intellect, feelings, and will…. Essentially, personhood refers to an “I,” a “who,” or a subject… Personhood itself is its I-ness or who-ness.³³

Based on their own definition, how can Geisler and Rhodes claim that God is not presented as an “I” or a “who” in the Bible?

Furthermore, their criticism is even more incomprehensible when one looks at the following excerpt from Geisler’s own apologetics encyclopedia:

Yahweh, however, only refers to the one true God. No other person or thing was to be worshiped or served (Exod. 20:5), and his name and glory were not to be given to another.³⁴

What does Geisler mean by “no other person or thing”? Is this not an acknowledgement that Jehovah as the one true God is a person? Even more tellingly, Geisler and Rhodes made the following statement in a jointly authored book:

Indeed, there is no other person but God to whom anyone anywhere in the Holy Scriptures ever turned in prayer.³⁵

Furthermore, under the heading “The Only True God Is a Person,” Rhodes wrote:

A person is a conscious being—someone who thinks, feels, and purposes, and carries those purposes into action. A person engages in active relationships with other people. You can talk to a person and get a response. You can share feelings and ideas with him. You can argue with him, love him, and even hate him.

Surely by this definition God must be understood as a person.³⁶

How can Geisler and Rhodes refer to God as a person in a singular sense and then condemn others for doing so? In these cases, they themselves did not differentiate in what sense they spoke of God as one person and in what sense they spoke of Him as three.

Geisler and Rhodes Refuse to Address All the Evidence

The Triune God is a major theme in the ministry of Witness Lee. His writings contain many thorough and balanced expositions on the subjects of God being one yet having the aspect of three, of all Three being eternal and being God, of all Three coexisting and coinhering eternally, and of the errors of both modalism and tritheism.³⁷ Moreover, on many occasions Witness Lee did use the term persons in relation to the three of the Divine Trinity.³⁸ Geisler and Rhodes and those who signed the “Open Letter” with them address none of these.

Furthermore, over thirty years ago, in response to distortions of his teaching by certain members in the Christian countercult community, Witness Lee published three booklets correcting their errors and presenting the scriptural truth concerning the Trinity.³⁹ In one of them Witness Lee provides the following exposition of Matthew 28:19:

The Lord says in Matthew 28:19, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Here the Lord speaks clearly of the three persons—the Father, Son, and Spirit. But when He speaks here of the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the name which is used is in the singular number in the original text. This means that though the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three, yet the name is one. It is really mysterious—one name for three persons. This, of course, is what is meant by the expression three-in-one, or triune.⁴⁰

The critics of Witness Lee and the local churches have never responded to any of the publications in which he speaks of all Three being God, all Three being eternal, Their eternal coexistence, and Their eternal coinherence. Instead, they have merely continued the same pattern of presenting single statements isolated from both their immediate context and the larger context of his extensive ministry on the subject of the Triune God. This pattern is evident both in the drafting of the “Open Letter” and in the article written by Geisler and Rhodes.

It is significant that the critique of Geisler and Rhodes does not even address the main theme of the book from which the quote in question is excised—The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man. The quote that Geisler and Rhodes criticize is in chapter 5 of that book. The first four chapters present an overview of the entire Bible from the perspective of God’s desire to enter into man as life and how He accomplishes that purpose. As Witness Lee shows convincingly, this concept lies at the center of the divine revelation. His goal throughout the book is to lead his audience not only into the objective understanding of this truth, but also into the subjective experience of Christ living in them (Gal. 2:20) and saving them in His life (Rom. 5:10) through the subjective experience of the cross (2 Cor. 4:10-12) and the fellowship of the divine life (1 John 1:2-3; 2 Cor. 13:14). This type of speaking is in the character of the New Testament ministry (2 Cor. 3:6; 4:1), not the vain contentions of words (1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:14) in which Geisler and Rhodes engage.

Conclusion

Geisler and Rhodes’ criticism of Witness Lee’s statement is deeply flawed. They insist on an unbiblical standard as a litmus test of orthodoxy. In doing so, they neglect the concerns of many Christian teachers that the term persons carries connotations that tend to lead to tritheism. Their criticism of referring to God as “one person” is contrary to the Bible and ignores the surrounding context that clearly defined the biblical basis of the expression and its meaning. Their criticism applies an uneven standard of truth and is contradicted by many respected teachers and ministers of the Lord, as well as their own writings. It also ignores the many thorough and balanced expositions concerning the Triune God in Witness Lee’s ministry and ignores the real nature and thrust of that ministry, which is to bring believers into the subjective experience of Christ.

Notes:

¹“A Statement of Faith,” Affirmation & Critique, XIII:1, April 2008, p. 2. The full statement of faith can also be read at http://www.affcrit.com/st_faith.html.

² Norman Geisler, Letter to Ron Kangas, June 1, 2008. Although Geisler claims to have sent such a letter, there is no evidence that Ron Kangas ever received it.

³Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1996), p. 48

⁴Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” December 2009.

⁵Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 155.

⁶Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907), p. 330.

⁷J. Scott Horrell, “The Eternal Son of God in the Social Trinity,” Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, eds. (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007), p. 52.

⁸Thomas Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), p. 111.

⁹John Wesley, “On the Trinity” (1775), Sermon 55, in The Works of John Wesley, vols. 5 and 6, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1872, 2002) pp. 200-201.

¹⁰Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 19.

¹¹H.R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), p. 524.

¹²Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I:1: The Doctrine of the Word of God (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1936), p. 408.

¹³Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), pp. 42-43.

¹⁴Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans (1939, 1941), p. 87.

¹⁵Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, The Trinity: Global Perspectives (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), p. 30.

¹⁶As J. N. D. Kelly pointed out, the actual meaning of the word “Persons” as applied to the Trinity has undergone substantial change since it was introduced by Tertullian in “Against Praxeas” (see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1980), p. 598):

Hence, when he [Tertullian] speaks of the Son as being ‘of one substance’ with the Father, he means that They share the same divine nature or essence, and in fact, since the Godhead is indivisible, are one identical being. On the one hand the terms p??s?p?? and persona were admirably suited to express the otherness, or independent subsistence, of the Three. After originally meaning ‘face’, and so ‘expression’ and the ‘role’, the former came to signify ‘individual’, the stress being usually on the external aspect or objective presentation. The primary sense of persona was ‘mask’, from which the transition was easy to the actor who wore it and the character he played. In legal usage it could stand for the holder of the title to a property, but as employed by Tertullian it connoted the concrete presentation of an individual as such. In neither case, it should be noted, was the idea of self-consciousness nowadays associated with ‘person’ and ‘personal’ at all prominent. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1817), p. 115)

¹⁷Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, translated by Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Crossroad, 1994), p. 285.

¹⁸Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), pp. 159-160.

¹⁹W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (London: Church Book Room Press, 1956), p. 31.

²⁰Thomas Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 111-112.

²¹The following are a few among many examples: The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord’s Recovery, chapters 1-3 of The Revelation and Vision of God, chapter 4 of Elders’ Training, Book 1: The Ministry of the New Testament, and chapter 7 of Young People’s Training. Some shorter examples are given in note 37.

²²Norman Geisler, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 757.

²³Norman Geisler, The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 732.

²⁴Millard J. Erickson, God the Father Almighty (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p. 231.

²⁵Concerning the Greek word (ὀνομάτων) used in Acts 1:15, W. E. Vine writes: “As standing, by metonymy, for persons, Acts 1:15; Rev. 3:4; 11:13 (R.V., ‘persons’)” (Vine’s Exposition Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: Macdonald Publishing, 1985), p. 782).

²⁶Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1996), p. 48. The elided text is the passage from W. H. Griffith Thomas’s book The Principles of Theology, which was previously cited (see note 17).

²⁷Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961), p. 229.

²⁸Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 180.

²⁹Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II:1: The Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), p. 284.

³⁰Alvin Plantinga, The Analytic Theist, James F. Sennett, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 239.

³¹Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), pp. 55-56.

³²Billy Graham, The Journey: How to Live by Faith in an Uncertain World (Nashville, TN: W. Publishing Group, 2006), p. 20.

³³Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), p. 279.

³⁴Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 129. Nearly the exact same statement is made in Norman L. Geisler and A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), p. 250; and Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), p. 280.

³⁵Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), p. 118. The same sentence appears in Norman Geisler and R. E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 1995), p. 351.

³⁶Ron Rhodes, The Heart of Christianity (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), p. 43.

³⁷The following are a few short examples:

God is the Triune God. The one, unique God has the aspect of three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all God and are eternal, coexistent, coinherent, and inseparable. – Witness Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 1, Volume 1 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1985), p. 23

Among the three of the Divine Trinity, there is distinction but no separation. The Father is distinct from the Son, the Son is distinct from the Spirit, and the Spirit is distinct from the Son and the Father. But we cannot say that They are separate, because They coinhere, that is, They live within one another. In Their coexistence the three of the Godhead are distinct, but Their coinherence makes them one. They coexist in Their coinherence, so They are distinct but not separate. – Witness Lee, The Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord’s Recovery (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), pp. 10-11

Modalism stresses the side of God being one to a heretical extreme by denying the coexistence and coinherence of the three of the Godhead. Tritheism, on the other hand, stresses the side of God being three to a heretical extreme by teaching that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three Gods. The Bible is not at either of these extremes; it stands in the center, testifying of the twofoldness of the truth of the Divine Trinity. Regarding the truth of the Triune God, we also should be balanced and avoid the heretical extremes of both modalism and tritheism. – Ibid., p. 14

We need to be very clear concerning the error in modalism. Modalism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not all eternal and do not all exist at the same time. Instead, modalism claims that the revelation of the Son ended with the ascension and that after the ascension the Son ceased to exist. Modalism has gone too far, not believing in the coinherence and coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Unlike the modalists, we believe in the coinherence and coexistence of the three of the Godhead; that is, we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all exist at the same time and under the same conditions. We also believe that all three are eternal. Isaiah 9:6 says that the Father is eternal, Hebrews 1:12 and 7:3 indicate that the Son is eternal, and Hebrews 9:14 speaks of the eternal Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not temporary but eternal. – Witness Lee, The Conclusion of the New Testament, Messages 221-239 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1988), p. 2467

There are many far more extensive expositions on the Divine Trinity, including the first four chapters of Witness Lee’s book The Revelation and Vision of God, in which he surveys the biblical truth; the expressions used in Western, Eastern, and Chinese theology; and the early church creeds.

³⁸The following are two relatively short examples:

The oneness of the church is the unity of the Spirit which is comprised of the Triune God. Here in Ephesians chapter four, the seven one’s are divided into three groups, and every group has one of the three Persons of the Godhead. In the first group, we see the Spirit, in the second the Lord, and in the third God the Father. In group one, there is the Body, the Spirit and the hope. Then with the second group we see the Lord, the faith and the baptism. And the last group contains God the Father. With the Spirit is the Body and the hope. With the Lord is the faith and baptism. Then there is God the Father of all who is above all, through all, and in all. The Godhead in three Persons is our oneness which is realized in the Spirit. – Witness Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church (Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1970), pp. 42-43

In His economy, God is three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The great theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries referred to the Three of the Trinity as three hypostases. The primary sense of the Greek word for hypostasis is something which stands underneath, that is, a support or a foundation. To illustrate, one table has four legs supporting it, and the four legs of the table are its four hypostases. Likewise, there is one God, but He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—are the three divine hypostases. The word hypostasis, which was used in the theological writings that appeared in the Greek language, can also be translated substance. Later, when theology entered into the Latin language, the word persona was used. Then, in the English language, the term became person. Thus, it is said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons. However, we should not understand this to mean that They are three separate persons according to the common understanding of the word person. – Witness Lee, A Brief Presentation of the Lord’s Recovery (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1990), p. 9

³⁹Concerning the Triune God—The Father, the Son, and the Spirit; The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible; and What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods!

⁴⁰Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God—The Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Los Angeles, CA: The Stream, 1973), pp. 6-7.

Repeating False Witness Concerning SCP Bankruptcy

Posted on 01/01/201006/16/2017 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

In an article attacking the Christian Research Institute’s reassessment of the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes make the following statement:

It is a fact that the litigations [sic¹] of the LC drove a major countercult movement called Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) into bankruptcy.²

Although this version of events has been long accepted and promoted by those in the tightly knit circle of the countercult community, the facts do not support this claim. SCP claimed they were unable to proceed to trial because their litigation attorney, Michael J. Woodruff, withdrew on the eve of the trial over unpaid bills, and they could not afford the trial costs. In fact, a review of the available data casts substantial doubt on this claim.

SCP’s general operating budget increased substantially during the litigation, and only a small amount of their income was used to pay legal expenses. This raises questions as to whether some of the money given to support SCP’s legal needs was used to grow SCP’s operating budget. Support for this hypothesis can be found in correspondence between Neil Duddy, author of The God-Men, and SCP. A review of the available evidence, which Geisler and Rhodes have clearly not done, suggests that if SCP and its legal counsel had desired to proceed to trial, there should have been adequate financial resources available to do so.

The Facts Concerning SCP’s Income and Expenses

Throughout the course of the litigation over The God-Men, SCP maintained separate accounts for their “ministry” and their legal costs.³During the litigation, SCP made frequent appeals for funds for its legal defense.⁴ During the period of time in which they repeatedly stated that they were short of funds to defend themselves, their operating budget increased at least fourfold. Consider the following:

In their September-November 1979 Newsletter, which was published prior to the litigation, SCP stated that their average monthly expenditure for the previous year had been slightly more than $11,300.⁵
In their March-April 1984 Newsletter, SCP said that their expenditures from the “ministry” funds for the preceding November and December had averaged over $44,300 per month,⁶ nearly four times SCP’s average monthly expenditures from 1979, just over four years earlier. That would represent a 40% annualized growth rate. This is consistent with other available financial data from SCP.⁷ At the same time SCP claimed its resources were being drained by The God-Men litigation, it had increased its “ministry” expenditures fourfold.
A financial statement for January 1985 showed SCP spent $88,000 for “ministry” expenses.⁸

Financial statements from the same period show that SCP’s legal expenses were consistently small in comparison with their overall budget. For example:

SCP’s legal expenses from March 1, 1984, through the end of 1984 averaged a little over $9,000 per month or approximately 1/5 of their monthly ministry budget.⁹
In January 1985, SCP spent slightly more than $18,200 on legal expenses as compared with $88,000 for “ministry” expenses.¹⁰ Thus, even as the trial date approached, SCP was still spending less than 20% of its budget on legal expenses. As noted previously, SCP’s operating budget for the same month was double what it had been just over one year earlier. This is especially significant as it followed several seemingly desperate appeals for financial support to defray their legal costs and preceded their bankruptcy declaration by just one month.

The substantial increases in SCP’s operating budget and the disparity between that growth and the amounts spent on legal expenses during a time of repeated appeals for donations to their legal defense fund suggest that SCP may have used some of the increased contributions they received as the result of litigation-related appeals to grow their “ministry” and not to defray their legal expenses.¹¹ It appears that unless contributions that were specifically designated for SCP’s legal defense fund, they were put into SCP’s general fund. Such inferences, which SCP’s own financial statements seem to support, are reinforced by contemporaneous correspondence between one of the principals in The God-Men case and SCP.

Neil Duddy’s Accusations of Financial Mismanagement

Neil Duddy, the primary author of The God-Men, charged SCP with redirecting funds specifically given for legal defense. On June 6, 1982, Duddy wrote to an SCP employee who had complained about SCP mismanagement, saying:

SCP directors broke SCP by-laws, mismanaged funds, broke the law by using monies from the local church legal fund (any contributor to that fund could sue and win hands down in the next six years) to cover other expenditures and enriched themselves while ignoring the needs of other staff.¹²

On July 15, 1982, having not received a satisfactory response to concerns he had raised in 1981,¹³ Duddy wrote a 17-page letter to David Brooks, president of SCP’s Board of Trustees, and Michael Woodruff, SCP’s counsel for The God-Men litigation, detailing his complaints. In that letter he said:

There are three grounds of concern that make our relation to the SCP thread thin. First, SCP bylaws have been broken by the SCP directors. Second, biblical ethics have been ignored. Third, business standards as supported by the laws governing the SCP corporation have been broken.¹⁴

Duddy alleged that $6,000 from an early contribution to SCP’s legal defense fund from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State had been used to pay for a remodeling overrun. He also indicated that the practice of redirecting funds designated for legal defense to instead pay for salaries and operating expenses was ongoing:

Second, in violation of the state law and the language of the ad soliciting funds for the Local Church defense, [name deleted] used large amounts of money from that fund to cover operating expenses for the SCP. Even in October, after I had informed [name deleted] that such borrowing was illegal (as had Woodruff), he still approached the bookkeeper for money from that fund to pay operating expenses…¹⁵

In a letter dated February 9, 1983, Duddy wrote that The God-Men was an “exercise in hypocrisy” on the part of SCP based on what he felt was SCP’s own financial mismanagement.¹⁶

On May 31, 1983, a full ten and a half months after Duddy’s letter to him dated July 15, 1982, David Brooks testified that although he had no reason to doubt Duddy’s truthfulness, no one on the Board of Trustees or within SCP had investigated whether Duddy’s charges were true, and the Board of Trustees had taken no action on them.¹⁷ If Duddy’s account is trustworthy, then SCP was not crippled by an inability to pay for its legal defense but had instead misappropriated funds given for that defense.

In a statement dated June 29, 1983, the first day of Duddy’s deposition in The God-Men case, Duddy stated that six other SCP staff members, a majority of SCP’s staff, had supported his concerns about SCP’s financial mismanagement, but that those concerns had been “brushed aside.” He also stated that SCP’s directors had initially adopted his proposal requesting a reconciliation process involving “examining and correcting the direction of SCP leadership.” However, SCP management subsequently cancelled that agreement and “forced the resignation of SCP staff who supported my memo asking for an arbitrated reconciliation and precipitated the resignation of other staff who also supported my perspective.”¹⁸

The Facts Concerning SCP’s Unpaid Legal Defense Bills

SCP told both the media and the bankruptcy court that it was forced into bankruptcy because its lead attorney, Michael Woodruff, withdrew over unpaid legal bills mere days before the trial was scheduled to begin. In addition to the observations already made, this claim is suspect for the following reasons:

SCP’s deficit in its legal defense fund was essentially unchanged for the entire year prior to their bankruptcy declaration. It was over $77,500 on February 29, 1984¹⁹ and $73,000 as of February 12, 1985.²⁰ Thus, SCP’s deficit in its legal defense fund was not increasing.²¹ In a letter dated April 1984, Bill Squires, SCP’s Director of Special Projects (including their legal defense) told supporters that “through your sustained giving, our Legal Fund is surviving financially.”²²
SCP’s operating budget in January 1985 was double the average for March-April 1984,²³ an increase of $44,000. Had these additional funds been applied to pay their legal bills, the outstanding balance would have been reduced by almost 60%. Instead, as the trial date approached, SCP chose to spend these funds on their “ministry” rather than on their legal defense.
Michael Woodruff stated to the bankruptcy court that he would have been willing to proceed if SCP could come up with $50,000 to finance the defense of the case.²⁴ The $44,000 cited above represents almost 90% of that total. Two weeks before the trial date SCP also told supporters that they needed $50,000 to go to trial.²⁵ This was actually less than SCP’s projected cost of $50,000 to $100,000 to implement its proposed bankruptcy reorganization plan²⁶ and was substantially the same as the amount SCP offered for settlement of the case.²⁷
In their March 18, 1985, financial statement filed with the bankruptcy court, SCP indicated that they had already paid their bankruptcy lawyers $15,000, money that also could have gone toward paying down what they owed their litigation counsel had they desired to do so.²⁸
Michael Woodruff had a longstanding relationship with SCP that extended beyond merely providing professional services for hire and was an active participant in the countercult movement.²⁹ It strains credulity to believe that he unilaterally withdrew, leaving SCP high and dry on the eve of the trial that they had recently promised would be a great victory.
Had SCP won the case in court, they could have sought to recover legal expenses, which would have more than compensated Woodruff for staying the course. That SCP understood this fact is evident from a statement by Bill Squires in SCP’s Legal Update dated January 18, 1985:

What will happen if we win? Will SCP get any of this money back from the plaintiffs? Many of you have asked us this question.
The answer is “Yes!”
We believe we are going to win this case. And if we do, the three plaintiffs … will be required by law to repay SCP (at minimum) a substantial portion of our expenses.³⁰

The fact that they ultimately chose not to proceed to trial indicates that Woodruff and SCP knew they were going to lose the case despite their public bravado to the contrary.

It is also significant that the last deposition taken in the course of The God-Men litigation was demanded by SCP and conducted on February 25, 1985, a mere week before the scheduled trial date. On the same day SCP submitted a list of expert witnesses through Michael Woodruff, giving every indication that both SCP and Woodruff intended to proceed to trial. On February 26, a settlement conference failed when SCP made a monetary offer similar to its previous one. SCP later blamed the representatives of the local churches for not being willing to set a dollar figure,³¹ but the sticking point was actually that SCP refused to discuss language concerning retracting accusations of impropriety made in the book. On March 1, SCP’s Board of Trustees voted to declare bankruptcy.³² The bankruptcy papers were filed on March 4, the day the trial court was to convene to schedule the trial. If SCP had desired to continue to pursue their legal defense, they could have sought a delay of the trial date to enable them to raise more funds.

What the Facts Mean

The available evidence does not support the contention that Geisler and Rhodes declare as fact. What can be said is this: During The God-Men litigation, SCP’s defense became a cause célèbre in Christian countercult circles. Their revenues increased substantially over the course of the lawsuit. However, most of the increase in their revenues did not go toward the legal defense; it went to a several-fold increase of their “ministry” budget, which included salaries and operating expenses.

As the trial date approached, SCP was faced with the daunting prospect of a major embarrassment—losing a highly visible libel suit that exposed the recklessness of their publication. Given the evidence from the depositions (including their own) that was used to support the judge’s decision when the libel action was adjudicated, this is clearly the case.³³ SCP had repeatedly appealed to supporters for money to fight the case; losing in court would have irreparably damaged their credibility, which would in turn have undermined their financial viability in the long term. Rather than run that risk, they declared preemptory bankruptcy. This conclusion is in line with the statement of SCP’s bankruptcy attorney Iain Macdonald:

Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Inc. commenced a voluntary chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court located in Oakland, California on March 4, 1985. The case was filed shortly before the matter of Witness Lee et al v. SCP et al was scheduled to do [sic, s/b go] to trial, and was filed for the purpose of preventing the trial from going forward.³⁴ [emphasis added]

The entire tone of the article by Geisler and Rhodes betrays an “us vs. them” mentality rather than a concern for truth. Both men have strong ties to strident countercult ministries, a fact which Geisler and Rhodes do not disclose to their readers,³⁵ and it appears that these ties may have predisposed them to uncritically accept SCP’s version of events. Geisler and Rhodes certainly provided no factual basis from the available financial statements, court documents, or bankruptcy filings for their claim of “fact.”

Furthermore, Geisler and Rhodes completely ignore what led to the litigation—SCP’s reckless and baseless charges of pathological social behaviors and financial malfeasance combined with their intransigence in response to appeals for dialogue. Geisler and Rhodes seem to feel that countercultists should have free license to spread rumors without verifying them as factual and without regard to the impact their words have on people’s lives. We cannot agree.

Notes:

¹There was only one litigation between any of the local churches and SCP, and only one local church was a party to that litigation.

²Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, “A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church’ Movement,” posted with the “Open Letter” at open-letter.org.

³See e.g., SCP Newsletter, vol. 10, no. 2, March-April 1984, p. 4.

⁴For example, SCP Legal Case Update, April 1983; Witness Lee vs. SCP, May 5, 1983; Legal Update, No. 2, June 16, 1983; Legal Update, No. 3, July 31, 1983; SCP Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 5, November-December 1983; Legal Update, No. 5, December 1983; SCP Letter, January 27, 1984; SCP Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 2, March-April 1984; Legal Update, No. 6, March 1984; Legal Update, No. 8, June 1984; Legal Update, No. 9, August 10, 1984; Legal Update, No. 10, September 20, 1984; Legal Update, November 21, 1984; Legal Update, January 18, 1985; SCP Letter, February 20, 1985.

⁵SCP Newsletter, vol. 5, no. 6, September-November 1979, p. 2. SCP’s fiscal year ran from November 1 to October 31.

⁶SCP Newsletter, vol. 10, no. 2, March-April 1984, p. 4.

⁷SCP’s Schedule of Current Income and Expenditures dated March 18, 1985, showed that in the previous six months, SCP had an average monthly income of $48,981.21 and average monthly expenditures of $49,709.10. Of those expenditures only an average of $7,077.28 per month went to legal expenses, less than one-seventh of the total. Thus, during this period SCP’s operating expenditures were equivalent to over $500,000 on an annual basis.

⁸All figures from Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Monthly Operating Report for Period Ending March 31, 1985.

⁹Based on a comparison for SCP Legal Update, March 1984, p. 3 (reporting expenditures as of February 29, 1984), and SCP Legal Update, January 18, 1985, p. 4 (reporting expenditures as of December 31, 1984).

¹⁰All figures from Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Monthly Operating Report for Period Ending March 31, 1985.

¹¹On May 20, 1983, the Executive Director of SCP informed the Board of Trustees that SCP received $21,000 in one week in response to an appeal for legal defense funds. Of that amount 60% was designated to legal defense. While this sampling is too small to draw definitive conclusions, it is in line with the hypothesis that a substantial share of the donations to SCP during the course of the litigation was intended for its legal defense, in particular following their appeals for such funds.

¹²Letter from Neil Duddy to Stanley Dokupil, June 6, 1982. On October 17, 1981, Duddy had written a memo to SCP’s executive committee in which he expressed concerns about SCP’s financial management practices. On the same day, five other SCP employees, including Dokupil, signed a letter to the executive committee which referenced Duddy’s memo and stated similar concerns with leadership and decision-making practices within SCP.

¹³See note 11.

¹⁴Letter from Neil Duddy to David Brooks, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of SCP, and Michael Woodruff, SCP Counsel, July 15, 1982.

¹⁵Ibid.

¹⁶Letter from Neil Duddy to Charles Morgan, February 9, 1983.

¹⁷Deposition of David Brooks, Witness Lee et al v. Neil T. Duddy et al, May 31, 1983, pp. 32, 34.

¹⁸Neil Duddy, Deposition Statement, June 29, 1983, p. 8.

¹⁹SCP Legal Update, March 1984, p. 3.

²⁰SCP News Release, February 12, 1985, p. 2.

²¹This is further attested by a comparison of figures in the SCP Legal Updates of March 1984 (p. 3) and January 19, 1985 (p. 4), which shows that in the last ten months of 1984, SCP received over $95,500 in contributions to its legal defense fund while amassing just over $92,000 in expenses.

²²Bill Squires, Letter addressed to “Dear Friends of SCP,” April 1984.

²³See numbers 2 and 3 in the section entitled “The Facts Concerning SCP’s Income and Expenses.”

²⁴Declaration of Michael J. Woodruff in Support of SCP’s Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stay, April 16, 1985.

²⁵“March 3 Prayer & Fasting,” SCP letter to supporters, February 20, 1985.

²⁶Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Disclosure Statement, April 1, 1985, p. 13.

²⁷Defendant’s Written Offer to Compromise on Pending Action (CCP §998), October 16, 1984, filed by Michael Woodruff.

²⁸Statement of Financial Affairs for Debtor Engaged in Business, March 18, 1985, Attachment 7, p. 2.

²⁹According to a letter to the editor from David Brooks, President of SCP’s Board of Trustees, which was printed on page 21 of the June 14, 1985, issue of Christianity Today, Woodruff had been providing legal services to SCP for more than 10 years. Woodruff was SCP’s attorney in a legal case that gave SCP a national reputation for opposing the teaching of Transcendental Meditation in public schools. (Since SCP built its following by filing a lawsuit, it seems hypocritical for them to have complained so bitterly when they were sued.) According to “Malnak v. Yogi: The New Age and the New Law,” by Sarah Barringer Gordon in Law & Religion, ed. by Leslie C. Griffin (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010), p. 14:

[Brooks] Alexander and his fellow SCP activists promised the Malnaks [the lead plaintiffs in the case] they would come to New Jersey to assist with the brewing conflict there. As the Malnaks put it, “three guys came and lived in our house for months.” In addition to Alexander, they were Michael (Mike) Woodruff and Bill (Billy) Squires.

Woodruff’s name appears, along with nine SCP staff members, on a list of participants in a conference hosted by SCP in Berkeley on November 2-4, 1979, concerning how to effectively oppose cults on college campuses. He was a featured speaker on the subject of cults and the law on this and other occasions (e.g., at the University of Notre Dame in April 1981; to the Christian Legal Society in 1981; at California State University-Fullerton on October 27, 1982; at Trinity Episcopal School for the Ministry on April 14, 1986). He authored articles on the subject of “new religions” (e.g., in International Review of Mission, October 1978; in The Cult Observer on September 1984). He served on the Christian Legal Society Board of Directors. He vetted the pre-publication edition of the second English edition of The God-Men for InterVarsity Press. Perhaps most tellingly, in the conflict between Neil Duddy and SCP, Duddy “asked both Dr. Enroth and Woodruff that Woodruff not be the mediator of reconciliation because there were too many friendships involved” (Letter from Neil Duddy to David Brooks and Michael Woodruff, July 15, 1982). Read in this light, Brooks’ letter to the editor in Christianity Today appears to be an effort to mitigate the blame that had been placed on Woodruff for withdrawing from the case just before the trial was to begin.

³⁰Bill Squires, Spiritual Counterfeits Project Legal Update, January 18, 1985, p. 2. The three plaintiffs in the case were Witness Lee, William Freeman, and the church in Anaheim.

³¹“Declaration of Michael J. Woodruff in Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stay,” April 18, 1985, p. 4: “I question whether the plaintiffs truly exercised good faith efforts to negotiate settlement with SCP because they refused on February 26, 1985 to disclose what amount of money it would take to settle the case since they wanted to be sure they had a retraction statement in a form agreeable to them first.” What Woodruff’s statement actually shows is that the plaintiffs were not interested in a mere financial settlement that allowed SCP to continue to make the same kind of libelous accusations they had in The God-Men. Rather the plaintiffs were seeking a proper admission that the allegations in the book were false.

³²Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Corporate Resolution, March 1, 1985.

³³The complete text of the judge’s decision with links to the supporting documentation cited in that decision is available at http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/god-men/decision/completeText.html.

³⁴Karen Hoyt, “Letter to ‘Friends of SCP,’” April, 10, 1985, p. 3.

³⁵For example, Rhodes was a Contributing Editor to the SCP Journal for approximately two years, and Geisler has contributed over 100 articles to John Ankerberg’s Web site and is on the advisory boards of several countercult organizations, some of which are known for their intemperance.

A False Accusation of Patripassianism Supported by Specious Scholarship

Posted on 01/01/201006/20/2017 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

In their critique of Elliot Miller’s article in the Christian Research Journal, which reassesses the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes proffer three quotes as proof that the local churches teach the heresy of patripassianism.¹

Likewise, the LC’s alleged repudiation of patripassianism (the heresy that the Father suffered on the cross) is unconvincing since they also claim (and CRI apparently supports) the view, based on the doctrine of coinherence, that both the Father and the Son are involved in each other’s activities. They say, “no person of the Trinity goes anywhere or does anything apart from the presence and involvement of the other two persons.” (23, emphasis added). If this were true, then the Father would have been involved in the suffering of Christ on the cross, which even they admit is the heresy of patripassianism. God was certainly present in His omnipresence, but God the Father is not God the Son, and the Father certainly was not involved in the experience of Christ’s suffering on the cross. CRI claims that “what is distinctly the Son’s actions…is likewise the Father’s operation.” They cite with approval the statement that “there is an intercommunion of persons and an immanence of one divine person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed…to either of the other…” (22). But, again, this confuses the different roles and actions of different members of the Godhead. For example, the Father did not die for our sins, nor does the Father eternally proceed from the Father, as the Son does from the Father.

Dealing with the unfounded charge of patripassianism is the subject of a separate article.² This article demonstrates how Geisler and Rhodes’ treatment of the three quotes in the paragraph above constitutes an example of poor and perhaps even dishonest apologetic writing.

Concerning the first quote—”No person of the Trinity goes anywhere or does anything apart from the presence and involvement of the other two persons”:

Geisler and Rhodes present this as a statement made by the local churches. It is not. It is Elliot Miller’s words, although we agree with it.

Geisler and Rhodes purposefully quote only part of a sentence and then attack that isolated fragment as heresy. Furthermore, they do not address the substantive point of Elliot Miller’s argument, which was that by quoting eight words (“…the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh”) out of a 240-word paragraph, the signers of the open letter distorted what Witness Lee said. Miller wrote:

The context of the paragraph is clearly and exclusively the coinherence of the Trinity, and it is in this sense and this sense only that Lee wrote those eight words: because of their unity of being, no person of the Trinity goes anywhere or does anything apart from the presence and involvement of the other two persons. When an author is indicted on the basis of an incomplete sentence it should raise a red flag for any discerning reader; in this case, further research bears out that the author was indeed taken out of context.

It is ironic that in attacking Elliot Miller’s article, Geisler and Rhodes commit the very same error to which Miller was drawing attention. They repeatedly take fragments of statements made in the Christian Research Journal article and twist them to their own ends without respect to the authors’ meaning or the original context.

Coinherence (and the similar term in Greek, perichoresis) refers to the mutual indwelling of the three of the Godhead. In the Gospel of John the Lord repeatedly told His disciples that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him (10:38; 14:10-11, 20; 17:21, 23). In both John 10:37-38 and 14:10, this coinherence is the basis for the Lord saying that He was doing the works of the Father and that the Father was doing His works through His abiding in the Son. This is the basis for and exactly matches Elliot Miller’s statement. Geisler and Rhodes provide no explanation that reconciles the revelation of the Father and the Son’s coinherence found in the Gospel of John with their apparent claim that the three of the Divine Trinity are carrying out completely independent works. Instead, Geisler and Rhodes say only that God was “present in His omnipresence,” which refers to God’s relation to His creation. Coinherence is the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son as these verses in the Gospel of John show. In fact, Geisler and Rhodes do not clearly state whether they accept the mutual indwelling of the three of the Godhead.³

Many respected Bible teachers—including Millard Erickson, Cornelius Van Til, Carl F. H. Henry, Gordon Lewis, Bruce Demarest, William Lane Craig, and Lorraine Boettner—have written statements that are similar to Elliot Miller’s (see “Scholars Who Affirm the Working Together of the Three of the Divine Trinity”). Would Geisler and Rhodes accuse them of teaching patripassianism?

Concerning the second quote—”CRI claims that ‘what is distinctly the Son’s actions … is likewise the Father’s operation.'”:

Geisler and Rhodes attribute this quote to CRI. Their attribution, however, is again incorrect. As Elliot Miller’s article clearly states, the quote is from a paper prepared by representatives of Living Stream Ministry’s editorial section and of the local churches for a faculty panel at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Geisler and Rhodes destroy the meaning of the original statement by excising it from its context and inaccurately quoting only selected words. The original statement reads:

John 14:10 perhaps best captures the fine nuances of the manifest action and inseparable operations that we see in the Trinity: “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.” Because the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son—that is, because the Father and the Son coinhere—what is manifestly and distinctly the Son’s action (“the words that I say to you”) is likewise the Father’s operation (“the Father who abides in Me does His works”).

In context the sentence Geisler and Rhodes criticize is an explanation of John 14:10. Here the Lord Himself clearly associates the matter of His coinherence with the Father (“I am in the Father and the Father is in Me”) with His speaking being the work of the Father who abides in Him. By stripping this quotation of its proper context, Geisler and Rhodes obscure the import of the Lord’s own words from John 14:10. If they believe this exposition of John 14:10 is in error, they should have had the integrity to address the issue squarely instead of miscasting it. Furthermore, to accuse Witness Lee and the local churches of patripassianism based on an exposition of the coinhering of the Father and the Son in John 14:10 is a considerable leap in logic.

Concerning the third quote—”They cite with approval the statement that ‘there is an intercommunion of persons and an immanence of one divine person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed…to either of the other…'”:

Geisler and Rhodes give the impression that the statement cited with CRI’s approval was made by Witness Lee or the local churches. It was not. It was quoted in a paper provided by Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and the local churches to Fuller Theological Seminary, but the original quote is from Augustus H. Strong, a highly respected Baptist theologian. The complete passage from Strong’s Systematic Theology as quoted in the paper and subsequently in Miller’s article reads:

This oneness of essence explains the fact that, while Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as respects their personality, are distinct subsistences, there is an intercommunion of persons and an immanence of one divine person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed … to either of the other, and the manifestation of one to be recognized in the manifestation of the other. The Scripture representations of this intercommunion prevent us from conceiving of the distinctions called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as involving separation between them. This intercommunion also explains the designation of Christ as “the Spirit,” and of the Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ,” as 1 Corinthians 15:45: “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit,” 2 Corinthians 3:17, “Now the Lord is the Spirit….” 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.⁴ [boldface added to indicate the portion quoted in Geisler and Rhodes’ article; the rest was omitted]

Later in their critique, Geisler and Rhodes cite the same Strong quote with approval themselves, saying:

For Strong rightly says that “there is intercommunication of persons and an immanence of one person in another which permits the peculiar work of one to be ascribed…to either of the other….

Their hypocrisy is stunningly overt. They misattribute and then condemn a quote in one part of their critique as proof of patripassianism and condemn CRI for citing it “with approval,” but then commend the exact same quote later in the same paper, this time rightly identifying the author. It seems that it is not the truth that one speaks that matters to them, but who it is doing the speaking. When a quote is attributed to Witness Lee or the local churches, Geisler and Rhodes condemn it; when it is attributed to a respected Baptist theologian, they approve it.

Furthermore their quotation of Strong is not even accurate. Strong says there is “an intercommunion” not “intercommunication,” and Geisler and Rhodes inexplicably leave out the word “divine.” This is a further evidence of their carelessness and cavalier treatment of both the subject matter and the words of others. Moreover, they omitted a substantial portion of Augustus Strong’s words as they appeared in both the Journal and in the response to Fuller which the Journal article quoted. They portion they left out specifically commented on 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 in nearly identical language to that which Geisler and Rhodes condemn as “modalistic-sounding” when used by Witness Lee.

Conclusion

In this brief analysis of three quotations from one paragraph, we have seen that each quote is misattributed and misrepresented. What Elliot Miller said is attributed to the local churches. What LSM and the churches wrote is attributed to CRI. What Augustus Strong said is first misattributed to the churches and attacked and later properly attributed to Strong and defended. The mishandling of these three quotations should cause readers to question whether or not Geisler and Rhodes’ analysis can be accepted as trustworthy and authoritative.

Notes:

¹When Geisler and Rhodes speak of “the LC’s alleged repudiation of patripassianism,” they expose either their own ignorance or a callous disregard of facts. The local churches have never espoused patripassianism, and Living Stream Ministry published a booklet in English exposing its errors as early as 1976 (see Ron Kangas, Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976), pp. 3-4, 23-24).

²See “The Error of Denying the Involvement of the Father in the Son’s Work” on this site.

³This is discussed in greater detail in “The Error of Denying the Involvement of the Father in the Son’s Work” on this site.

⁴Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1960, c1907), pp. 332-333.

Repeating False Witness Concerning Litigation over the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions

Posted on 01/01/201006/16/2017 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

In “A Response to the Christian Research Journal‘s Recent Defense of the ‘Local Church Movement,’”¹Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes make many false and misleading statements regarding the recent litigation over John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR). They misrepresent:

The subject and scope of the litigation,
The content of the book,
The actions taken by courts and what those actions mean, and
An “open letter” signed by both Geisler and Rhodes, which itself misrepresents the teachings of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry.²

Taken together, all these misrepresentations seem to be an attempt by Geisler and Rhodes to mislead their fellow signers of the open letter and, even the more, to deceive the Christian public at large.

An Egregious Misrepresentation of the Subject and Scope of the Litigation

The litigation at issue was over false and defamatory accusations of aberrant behaviors made in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, published by Harvest House Publishers and written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.³ Theological issues were never a part of that litigation. Nevertheless, Geisler and Rhodes wrote:

In truth, the Supreme Court decision was a great victory for all orthodox, conservative, and evangelical Christians. For, as we pointed out in our amicus brief to the court (with which the court agreed), this would be a violation of free speech since it would deny us the freedom to define the limits of our own orthodox beliefs by distinguishing them from unorthodox beliefs. The LC rightly but reluctantly had to acknowledge that “it is nothing more than an expression of religious opinion that the Local Church is a ‘cult’ in a theological sense. It is a type of religious opinion that is undisputedly protected by the Establishment Clause…” (p. 9)[emphasis in original article]

Almost every point of fact in this paragraph is deliberately and craftily distorted.⁴ The most egregious of these distortions is the impression Geisler and Rhodes give through their partial quotation from a motion filed by the local churches with the Texas Supreme Court.⁵ In Geisler and Rhodes’ quotation of the churches’ brief,⁶ the words “it is nothing more than an expression of religious opinion” seems to be the local churches’ assessment of ECNR. That is not true. What the churches’ brief identified as religious opinion was a statement made by Geisler in his amicus brief, which had been submitted at an earlier date to the Texas Supreme Court.

Prior to the quotation excised by Geisler and Rhodes, the churches’ motion filed with the court states:

Given that the Local Church’s lawsuit complains only about allegations of secular cultism, it is curious that Harvest House’s “consulting expert,” Dr. Geisler, made a focal point of his amicus brief to assert that the Local Church is a “cult” in a theological sense.

After citing an excerpt from Geisler’s brief, the churches’ motion says:

This statement by Dr. Geisler in no way suggests that the Local Church is a “cult” in a secular sense. It is nothing more than an expression of religious opinion that the Local Church is a “cult” in a theological sense. It is the type of religious opinion that is undisputedly protected by the Establishment clause, but it is also an opinion that has nothing to do with any issue before the Court in this case. [boldface type added]

From these excerpts, it is evident that Geisler and Rhodes’ misrepresentation is deliberate. They ignored the clear statement that preceded what they quoted from Geisler’s brief and cut off the last half of a sentence that was in complete contradiction to their misrepresentation. Their dishonesty is unconscionable. They knew they were twisting words, yet they did it anyway. If Geisler and Rhodes deliberately dissembled with such facility on this point, what does that suggest concerning the integrity of their other works and the caution readers should exercise in relying on them?

The churches’ motion cited Geisler’s brief to throw light upon the consistent effort by the defendants and their supporters to misconstrue the issues in the case. The case had nothing to do with theological issues,⁷ yet Harvest House and its supporters, including Geisler, sought to convince the courts that the book should be protected as religious speech. That Geisler and Rhodes would selectively quote the Motion and misrepresent its subject only illustrates the extent to which these defenders of ECNR have gone to distort the real issues in the case. If the book’s defenders succeeded in influencing the courts through such attempts at deception, as it appears they may have, they should be ashamed rather than self-aggrandizing as if by such a work of deceit they could be doing the work of the Lord.

Since Geisler and Rhodes were critiquing Elliot Miller’s reassessment of the teaching and practice of the local churches in the Christian Research Journal, they were surely aware of Miller’s statement printed in large type on page 40 of the Journal:

Contrary to what is commonly repeated in the countercult community, the LC’s complaint in this lawsuit was never that they were called a cult on theological grounds.

By choosing to miscast the statement from the Motion for Rehearing and to ignore Miller’s clear statement, Geisler and Rhodes demonstrate a preoccupation with vindicating their countercult friends rather than a care for the truth or for fairness in the treatment of others’ words. This is consistent with the out-of-context quoting practiced in the open letter’s treatment of Witness Lee’s ministry, a practice that has been characteristic of much of the countercult’s treatment of Witness Lee and the local churches generally. Geisler and Rhodes’ article is, in fact, a further demonstration of what Dr. J. Gordon Melton observed twenty-five years ago and both CRI and Fuller Theological Seminary more recently confirmed—that the critics of the local churches wrench statements from their proper context to mislead the uninformed.⁸

Even when addressing details of the ECNR litigation in a rather off-handed way, Geisler and Rhodes err. They stated:

In their Appeal to the Texas Supreme Court to reconsider their case, the LC ironically included an appendix containing Chapter Three from a book by Witness Lee titled, The God-Ordained Way to Practice the New Testament Economy…

This claim is misleading. The third chapter of the book in question was not submitted by the local churches to the Texas Supreme Court in the ECNR litigation. However, it was referenced by an out-of-context quote in an Amicus Brief filed with that Court in support of the authors and publisher of ECNR. Because of this out-of-context quote, the subject chapter, in its entirety, was submitted for reference as an appendix to the local churches’ appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. Geisler and Rhodes’ characterization of this as ironic is, at best, uninformed, if not purposely misleading. What should be considered ironic is that the same, somewhat obscure, portion quoted out of context in the referenced Amicus Brief is also similarly abused by Geisler and Rhodes in “Response.” To add to the irony, the same chapter of the same book, selected out of thousands of chapters and hundreds of books by Witness Lee, was criticized in a strikingly similar manner on the corporate website of Harvest House Publishers. While this could be coincidental, it is suggestive of at least some degree of collusion between Harvest House and its authors, Geisler and Rhodes.

Misrepresenting the Content of ECNR

Geisler and Rhodes’ defense of ECNR also misrepresents the book’s contents. In this they mirror the tactic of Harvest House, Ankerberg, and Weldon, who repeatedly tried to convince the courts that the definition of “cult” used in the book was purely theological. They may have succeeded in convincing the Texas Court of Appeals that this was true, but in fact it is not true. Even the defendants’ own counsel, in a pre-trial conference, had to admit to the court that ECNR was not just about theological teachings but also about the heinous conduct the book attributes to the groups it profiles:

Judge: But the book is a book about teachings and conduct. Correct? [emphasis added]

Shelby Sharpe: Yes, it is.⁹

Elliot Miller’s cogent analysis in the Christian Research Journal documents many flaws in the Appeals Court’s reasoning. Geisler and Rhodes address none of the points Miller raised, but merely proclaim the court’s decision “a great victory for the countercult movement.” This “great victory” is at the expense of the truth. While Miller’s treatment is more thorough, it is worth pointing out some of the key flaws in the Court’s reasoning for those whose interest is truth and not partisanship.

Although the Court ruled that the treatment of “cults” in ECNR was in a theological context, the definition of a cult used in ECNR includes aberrant practices and sub-biblical ethical standards:

For our purposes, and from a Christian perspective, a cult may be briefly defined as “a separate religious group generally claiming compatibility with Christianity but whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity and whose practices and ethical standards violate those of biblical Christianity.” [ECNR, p. XXII]¹⁰ [emphasis added]

According to the Introduction, these practices and ethical standards are aberrant criminal, immoral, and anti-social behaviors. For example, Ankerberg and Weldon portrayed the groups discussed in the book with such broad-brush statements as:

These groups cannot, in all frankness, be seen as something neutral, biblical, divine or benign. Consciously or not, intentional or not, their agenda is often anti-moral, anti-social and anti-Christian, and they pursue their agenda. [ECNR, p. XXI]¹¹

ECNR‘s Introduction speaks of many things that fall outside the bounds of theological considerations. It was the association of the local churches with these things—including fraud, deceptive fundraising and financial management, drug smuggling, murder, refusing blood transfusions and medical access, encouraging prostitution, raping women, molesting children, and beating disciples—that was the subject of the litigation. Some of these things were included in a list of “characteristics of cults,” which sets up an expectation in the book’s readers that the groups identified in the book share such traits. Historically, such reckless and incendiary accusations have caused believers in the local churches to suffer imprisonment and worse at the hands of repressive regimes. Based on ECNR‘s accusations, public officials in one part of communist China threatened persecution against the local churches there.

During the course of the litigation, the book’s two authors—Ankerberg and Weldon—admitted that they had no evidence that the local churches practiced any of these things. The court’s decision that the use of the term “cult” is in itself non-actionable as a “theological” term is incomprehensible given the secular use of the term and the associations given to it by the book’s authors. In fact, the authors stated:

Used properly, the term “cult” also has particular value for secularists who are unconcerned about theological matters yet very concerned about the ethical, psychological and social consequences of cults… [ECNR, p. XXI]¹²

In the same passage they explain that they chose not to use the term “heretical” because it is “irrelevant to many people,” and opted instead for “cult” for its “contemporary force,” [ECNR, p. XXI]¹³ a force which the authors themselves associated with aberrant behaviors. Geisler’s amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court appears to be an effort to confuse the courts as to the nature of the litigation and the content of the book. This being the case, the success of Harvest House, Ankerberg, and Weldon in misleading the courts should be no cause for celebration among Christians of conscience.

Misrepresenting the Actions of the Courts

Geisler and Rhodes’ article also contains misleading statements regarding the actions of the courts, including:¹⁴

In truth, the Supreme Court decision was a great victory for all orthodox, conservative, and evangelical Christians.

…the Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with their charges against Ankerberg and Harvest House.

…in spite of the final decision of the High Court against the LC…

The fact is that there was no Texas or U.S. Supreme Court decision on the case. The U. S. Supreme Court merely chose (as they do with 99% of the cases that are appealed to them) not to review the case. The Texas Supreme Court also declined (as they do with 89% of the cases that are appealed to them¹⁵) to review the case, meaning that they did not review the facts of the case either. Despite the repeated claims by Geisler and Rhodes, no court higher than the Texas First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case. As a U. S. District Court in Wisconsin noted in a separate case, the Texas Court of Appeals decision concerning ECNR and the use of the word “cult” set no precedent to be followed by other jurisdictions.¹⁶

Geisler and Rhodes perpetrate an especially egregious falsehood when they claim:

CRI rejects the Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of calling the LC a cult both in a theological sense and in a social sense.¹⁷

The only true part of this sentence is that after a six year study involving primary research and extensive dialogue, CRI concluded that the local churches are not a cult in either a theological or social sense.¹⁸ Everything else in the sentence is completely false. According to Geisler and Rhodes, the Supreme Court (which never heard the case) decided that without violating the Constitution, the LC could be called a cult in both a theological and a social sense. This is an irresponsible and pernicious twisting of the facts. Harvest House, Ankerberg, and Weldon with Geisler’s collusion convinced the Texas Appeals Court that the book should be immune from litigation because, they said, it did not accuse the local churches of being a cult in a social sense. Furthermore, the defendants admitted under oath that they had no proof of any socially aberrant behaviors. Geisler’s amicus brief never mentions anything about practices; it defends ECNR by claiming it was a purely theological work. For Geisler now to falsely assert that “the Supreme Court’s decision” (there was no such decision) gives countercultists the constitutional right to call the local churches a cult in a social or sociological sense is to be double-tongued (Matt. 5:37; 1 Tim. 3:8).

Misrepresenting the Open Letter

Geisler and Rhodes even distort the contents of the open letter co-signed with them by a number of “evangelical scholars and ministry leaders,” saying:

In addition, they [the open letter signers] requested that the LC desist their litigious activities against evangelical groups that do not believe that their doctrines and practices measure up to the standards of evangelical beliefs and practices.

The clause that Geisler and Rhodes say represents the position of the open letter signers—”evangelical groups that do not believe that their doctrines and practices measure up to the standards of evangelical beliefs and practices”—is virtually the same as the definition of cults from ECNR that the authors and publisher of ECNR along with Geisler sought to mitigate in the courts’ view—”whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity and whose practices and ethical standards violate those of biblical Christianity.” In ECNR these practices are criminal and socially aberrant behaviors, reflecting a lack of ethical standards. In fact, the open letter says nothing about any of the deviant practices or ethical violations that ECNR attributes to cults. By adopting this language, Geisler and Rhodes unilaterally extend the scope of the open letter to embrace the type of false and sensationalistic accusations ECNR makes.

Conclusion

On the one hand, Geisler and Rhodes misrepresent the nature and scope of the litigation over ECNR and the content of the book itself. They claim that the goal of the litigation was to silence theological criticism, but this was not at all the goal. However distorted the book’s presentation of the beliefs of the local churches was, that was not the subject of the litigation. What were at issue were false and libelous accusations of evil behaviors. They also claim that ECNR was immune from charges of libel because it dealt only with theological issues, yet the book’s portrayal of its subject included deviant behaviors by its own definition and attributed many despicable practices as being characteristics of the groups discussed.

On the other hand, Geisler and Rhodes misrepresent the courts’ actions and the scope of what the open letter signers agreed to put their names to. Geisler and Rhodes trumpet the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case (which Geisler and Rhodes misrepresent as a confirmation of the Texas Court of Appeals decision concerning ECNR as a “great victory for all orthodox, conservative, and evangelical Christians.” If Christians knew the facts of the case and the conduct of the defendants in seeking to obscure the issues before the courts, an effort in which Geisler was complicit, they would feel otherwise. As the articles on this web site attest, the local churches have no fear of defending their teachings in the marketplace of ideas. If winning a court case by intentional distortion of the issues and attempts to prejudice the courts is a “great victory” for evangelicalism, then the state of evangelical Christianity as espoused by Geisler and Rhodes is lamentable indeed. It was because of this that Elliot Miller’s Journal article concluded its analysis of the ECNR case as follows:

Members of the countercult community who take comfort in, or feel vindicated by, the Texas Appellate Court’s decision can only rightfully do so if they were equally discomfited, and engaged in commensurate soul searching and examining of their own methods, after the Mind Benders retraction and the God-Men ruling. Two out of three court cases vindicated the LC of the charges against them, and the one that didn’t based its ruling on a dubious interpretation of the law, not on the basis that the allegations made against the LC were actually true. In other words, even in the ECNR case the defendants admitted under oath that they had no basis for associating the LC with any of the contemptible and criminal behaviors they included in their definition of cult. In effect, they simply succeeded at arguing that they should be free to bear false witness (i.e., to break the Ninth Commandment) as long as they do so in the context of defining a group as a cult. In light of Jesus’ mandate that His followers be the light of the world, it is hardly a cause for celebration when they convince a worldly court to hold them to a lower standard than it holds the world.¹⁹

Notes:

¹This article addresses the version of Geisler and Rhodes’ article that was published on Geisler’s own Web site and subsequently on the Web site of Veritas Seminary, which Geisler co-founded and which employs both Geisler and Rhodes. A subsequent version of this article was published on the open letter Web site with some corrections, but as of the date of this article’s posting, the original version, which is still publicly available, remains uncorrected.

²See www.lctestimony.org/OpenLetterDialogue.html. The responses to the open letter that are posted on this site are also available in book form at /ePublications/Open Letter Response (1).pdf.

³Both Geisler and Rhodes have been published by Harvest House Publishers. Rhodes has 38 titles listed under his name on Harvest House’s Web site. In addition, Geisler has approximately 100 articles published on the Web site of John Ankerberg, one of the authors of ECNR. None of these relationships are disclosed to the readers of their article.

⁴The following is an enumeration of some of the distortions in this passage (see also note 1):

Neither the U. S. nor the Texas Supreme Court wrote a decision on the case; they merely chose not to review the case.
There is no evidence that the court agreed with or even read Geisler’s brief. It is never referenced in the Court of Appeals decision.
Geisler and Rhodes imply that the issues in the case involved delineating orthodox and unorthodox beliefs. That is an intentional misrepresentation of the issues in the case, which did not concern any theological issues (see the complaint filed in the litigation).
Geisler and Rhodes’ statement that “the LC rightly but reluctantly had to acknowledge” that religious opinion is constitutionally protected speech is false. The churches’ statement from which they quote was a reiteration of what has always been our standing regarding the proscription on secular courts passing judgment on theological issues.
The statement that Geisler and Rhodes quote from is not on page 9 of the Journal as the reader would expect; that page is a full page picture. Rather it is from page 9 of a Motion for Rehearing before the Texas Supreme Court. The manner in which Geisler and Rhodes cite the Motion makes it extremely difficult for any reader to discover their twisting of it.

⁵This motion was a Motion for Rehearing submitted to the Texas Supreme Court asking them to reconsider reviewing the case.

⁶The brief was actually filed by The Local Church, Living Stream Ministry and a group of over 90 local churches. For simplicity we refer to it as “the churches’ brief.”

⁷See point 3 in note 4.

⁸J. Gordon Melton, An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee and The God-Men Controversy (Santa Barbara, CA: The Institute for the Study of America Religion, 1985), pp. 1-2:

Part of my study of the Local Church involved the reading of most of the published writings of Witness Lee and the lengthy depositions of Neil T. Duddy and Brooks Alexander (of SCP). The experience proved among the more painful of my Christian life. As I began to check the quotes of Witness Lee used in Duddy’s book, I found that The God-Men had consistently taken sentences from Lee’s writings and, by placing them in a foreign context, made them to say just the opposite of what Lee intended. This was done while ignoring the plain teachings and affirmations concerning the great truths of the Christian faith found throughout Lee’s writings.

Elliot Miller, “Part 3: Addressing the Open Letter’s Concerns: On the Nature of Humanity,” Christian Research Journal, 32:6, December 2009, p. 26:

However, countercult research truly becomes “heresy hunting” of the worst kind when the researchers make a practice of digging up seemingly heretical or scandalous statements by a teacher, without concern for context, in order to employ the shock value of such statements to turn the public against the teacher and his group.

“Statement from Fuller Theological Seminary,” printed in The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ,” (Anaheim, CA: DCP Press, 2008), p. 30:

One of the initial tasks facing Fuller was to determine if the portrayal of the ministry typically presented by its critics accurately reflects the teachings of the ministry. On this point we have found a great disparity between the perceptions that have been generated in some circles concerning the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the actual teachings found in their writings. Particularly, the teachings of Witness Lee have been grossly misrepresented and therefore most frequently misunderstood in the general Christian community, especially among those who classify themselves as evangelicals. We consistently discovered that when examined fairly in the light of scripture and church history, the actual teachings in question have significant biblical and historical credence. Therefore, we believe that they deserve the attention and consideration of the entire Body of Christ.

⁹Pretrial Conference, Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al, February 26, 2004.

¹⁰John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999), p. XXII. In their Appellant Brief to the Texas Court of Appeals, the defendants misquoted this definition, giving the court the impression that the book’s definition was purely theological:

The authors explain in the Introduction that the term “cult,” as used in the Encyclopedia, is “used as a religious term,” and they define a cult as “a separate religious group generally claiming compatibility with Christianity but that adheres to select teachings that are theologically incompatible with teachings of the Bible” 3rd Sup. CR 72.

¹¹Ibid., p. XXI.

¹²Ibid.

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴Some of these misstatements have been corrected in the version of the article posted on the “Open Letter” site; however, as of the date of this posting they are still being made in the article on Geisler’s site and on the site of his seminary.

¹⁵“Pay to Play: How Big Money Buys Access to the Texas Supreme Court” is a report published by Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), a watchdog group that documents the correlation between campaign contributions and the conduct of government in the State of Texas. While TPJ may have its own political motivations, their reports appear to be based on factual data. Their “Pay to Play” report states that the Supreme Court justices “were 10 times more likely to accept petitions filed by contributors of more than $250,000 than petitions filed by non-contributors.” According to TPJ’s statistics, Haynes & Boone, the law firm representing Harvest House in the appeals process, has consistently ranked at the top of the list of contributors to Supreme Court justices, including making significant contributions even when the justices had no financed opposition.

¹⁶Dr. R. C. Samanta Roy et al v. Journal Broadcast Group, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case Nos. 05-C-422 and 05-C-423, August 2, 2006.

¹⁷See note 1.

¹⁸See The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ” (Anaheim, CA: DCP Press, 2008), pp. 9-12; Christian Research Journal, 32:6, 2009.

¹⁹Elliot Miller, “Addressing the Open Letter’s Concerns: On Lawsuits with Evangelical Christians,” Ibid., p. 44.

The Error of Denying the Involvement of the Father in the Son’s Work

Posted on 01/01/201007/23/2021 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

In a recent special issue of the Christian Research Journal, veteran apologist Gretchen Passantino, who participated in the earliest criticisms of the local churches published in the United States over thirty years ago, made an impassioned appeal. She asked her fellow apologists and the signers of an open letter criticizing the teachings of Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and the local churches to reconsider their condemnation, saying that her own further research had changed her opinion.¹ Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes rejected her appeal out of hand, saying:

However, it is clear that truth does not always reside with the persons who have read more or studied longer. Rather, it rests with those who can reason best from the evidence.²

Thus, Geisler and Rhodes dismissed the need for further research in spite of the lapse of thirty-five years since the original research was performed in which Gretchen Passantino participated. Instead, Geisler and Rhodes assert their own superior ability to reason apart from further evidence. In fact, their reasoning is flawed in many respects. This article examines one such case in which Geisler and Rhodes’ “reasoning” is woefully deficient. Geisler and Rhodes backhandedly accuse the local churches of espousing the ancient heresy of patripassianism, which states that Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, was simply the Father in another mode of existence, so that it was the Father who suffered on the cross. Geisler and Rhodes say:

Likewise, the LC’s alleged repudiation of patripassianism (the heresy that the Father suffered on the cross-17) is unconvincing since they also claim (and CRI apparently supports) the view, based on the doctrine of coinherence, that both the Father and the Son are involved in each other’s activities.

There are several defects in Geisler and Rhodes’ analysis:

All three quotes they use to support this accusation are misattributed (see “A False Accusation of Patripassianism Based on Specious Scholarship“);
To speak of the local churches’ “alleged repudiation of patripassianism” gives the false impression that the local churches ever held that belief.
Their reasoning that the espousal of coinherence and the co-working of the Father and the Son is equivalent to patripassianism is based on both faulty logic and faulty theology;
Their rejection of the Father’s involvement in the Son’s work betrays a shortage in their apprehension of the biblical record; and
They ignore the many respected Bible teachers and theologians who have made similar statements concerning the biblical record of the involvement of all three of the Godhead in the operation of each One (see “Scholars Who Affirm the Working Together of the Three of the Divine Trinity“).

Geisler and Rhodes’ Dismissal of the Local Churches’ Rejection of Patripassianism

Brushing aside the local churches’ disavowal of patripassianism by calling it “alleged” is in keeping with Geisler and Rhodes’ dismissal of the need for research. In fact, as early as 1976, LSM published Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God according to the Bible,³ which clearly rejected the heresy of modalism upon which patripassianism is based. Furthermore, in a book published in 1985, Witness Lee said:

Also, we cannot say that the Father became flesh and that the Father lived on this earth in the flesh. Furthermore, we cannot say that the Father went to the cross and died for our redemption, and we cannot say the blood shed on the cross is the blood of Jesus the Father. We must say that the blood was shed by Jesus the Son of God (1 John 1:7). We can neither say that the Father died on the cross nor can we say that the Father resurrected from the dead.⁴

In addition, in an article entitled “The Divine Trinity in the Divine Economy” in a 1999 issue of Affirmation & Critique, Kerry Robichaux clearly explained the distinction between patripassianism and the co-working of the Divine Trinity in Christ’s crucifixion. This distinction and Kerry Robichaux’s explanation will be considered in more depth below.

Geisler and Rhodes ignore not only these three clear declarations but also all such repudiations of modalism and patripassianism published by Living Stream Ministry. Thorough research is indispensable to Christian apologists who desire to understand and represent their subjects in a fair and balanced way. Geisler and Rhodes, however, have simply labeled the local churches as heretical, while rejecting all evidence to the contrary.

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.

Perhaps for this reason, it is not a point that Geisler and Rhodes stress. Coinherence is not mentioned in either Geisler’s Systematic Theology, Volume 2: God, Creation or his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, even though both deal extensively with the Trinity. If the Scripture Indexes in these two books are accurate, Geisler himself makes no reference in either book to any of the verses that clearly show the coinherence of the Father and the Son in the Gospel of John. The only reference to any of these verses is a citation to John 14:10 in a quote from John Calvin which strongly confirms the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son:

The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son is in the Father, as the Son himself also declares (John xiv. 10), “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me”; nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence.⁶

Nonetheless, it is not at all clear if Geisler and Rhodes embrace the importance or even the truth of the coinherence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in understanding the Trinity. However, they do appear to make allowance for coinherence within the realm of orthodoxy in their critique of CRI’s reassessment of the local churches. There they say, “Even if one holds to the doctrine of coinherence…” [emphasis added]. In other words, they themselves equivocate. They do not commit themselves to coinherence, but neither do they say it is a false teaching. Such equivocation is inexcusable in a work that claims to defend a truth as crucial as the Trinity against purported error. The problem for Geisler and Rhodes is that if they affirm coinherence, then they must admit that the Father and the Son were coinhering essentially even as Christ was being crucified. To claim otherwise would be to deny God’s immutability. It would be to say that God’s essential being changed at some point either during Christ’s incarnation or His crucifixion.

Immutability refers to the fact that God does not change in His attributes, in His nature, or in His intrinsic being. Since the coinherence of the three of the Divine Trinity is an aspect of God’s intrinsic being, the coinherence of the three of the Divine Trinity is eternal and immutable. Since that coinherence is immutable, then it was unchanged throughout the entire course of Christ’s incarnation, human living, crucifixion, and resurrection. Herein lies the basic issue that Geisler and Rhodes seem unwilling to address. If they endorse coinherence but say that the Father was no longer coinhering with His Son as Christ was being crucified, then they are saying that a basic aspect of God’s being—His coinhering oneness—changed. Geisler and Rhodes say:

God was certainly present in His omnipresence, but God the Father is not God the Son, and the Father certainly was not involved in the experience of Christ’s suffering on the cross.

This statement sidesteps the basic issue—whether the Father was coinhering with the Son during the crucifixion. God’s omnipresence, which we also affirm, refers to His being everywhere simultaneously. However, God’s omnipresence is particularly related to the physical universe, not to the relatedness of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the Godhead. That relationship is one of coinherence. Geisler and Rhodes switch subjects from coinherence to omnipresence. The problem with this argument is that if we accept the Lord’s word in the Gospel of John that He was in the Father and the Father in Him, but then claim the Father was at the crucifixion of Christ in His omnipresence only and was no longer coinhering with the Son, as Geisler and Rhodes seem to imply, then God changed in His essential being. This cannot be.

Impassibility

Impassibility, as it related to the crucifixion of Christ, is a term used by theologians to indicate that God cannot be caused to suffer by His creation.⁷ As Geisler and Rhodes state, the Patripassian heresy taught that God the Father suffered at the cross. This teaching was rightly rejected by the early church as heresy. Based on the assertion of God’s impassibility, the inability to cause God to suffer has come to be applied not just to the Father but to the entire Godhead, including the divine nature in the incarnate Son of God. The 19th century Calvinist theologian Charles Hodge wrote:

He was not a mere man, but God and man in one person. His obedience and sufferings were therefore the obedience and sufferings of a divine person. This does not imply, as the Patripassians in the ancient Church assumed, and as some writers in modern times assume, that the divine nature itself suffered. This idea is repudiated alike by the Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed churches.⁸

Geisler himself wrote:

Patripassianism means literally the “Father suffered.” It arose in the early third century in the form of monarchianism, holding that God the Father suffered on the cross as well as Christ. However, the divine nature possessed by Christ did not suffer or die: God is impassible and, hence, incapable of undergoing suffering.⁹

The incarnate Christ has two natures—the divine nature and the human nature. What Geisler is saying is that Christ’s divine nature was impassible and, as a result, did not suffer on the cross. Yet Geisler maintains that Witness Lee’s teaching that the Father and the Son coinhere means that the Father must have suffered on the cross. However, if, as Geisler claims, the divine nature in Christ is impassible and did not suffer during His crucifixion, then the divine Father who coinheres with the Son likewise could not, by definition, have suffered on the cross. It is significant that Geisler and Rhodes cannot produce a single quote that even intimates that Witness Lee and the local churches teach that the Father suffered on the cross, yet they make such an accusation based on their own presumptive and faulty reasoning.

“Involvement” Is Not “Patripassianism”

Furthermore, the leap Geisler and Rhodes make from “involvement” to “patripassianism” is unwarranted. Hebrews 9:14 states that on the cross Christ offered Himself as the unique sin offering to God through the eternal Spirit. To say, based on this verse, that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all involved in Christ’s accomplishment of an eternal redemption (9:12) is not patripassianism; it is the divine revelation in the Holy Bible. Kerry Robichaux explained:

What shall we say then concerning the death of Christ? Here most believers blanch. Even the most minimally educated in theology understand the error of patripassianism, against which Tertullian took careful aim (Against Praxeas II, XIII, XXIX-XXX). We must be careful to avoid understanding that the Father (or the Spirit) was the subject of the suffering in the death of Christ, but we must be equally careful to avoid understanding that the Son was separate from the Father and the Spirit in the crucifixion. What we must maintain is that in the visible death of Christ the three of the Trinity operated so as to make manifest the distinct activity of the Son on the cross. It was indeed the Son whom we should identify as the subject of the death of the God-man (even though we confess that God Himself does not die!), but we must hold at the same time the realization that the Father and the Spirit were also in operation and that the operation of the three made the distinct action of the Son possible. The Scriptures bear this testimony as well. Paul tells us that in the death of Christ God was:

wiping out the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. Stripping off the rulers and the authorities, He made a display of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Col. 2:14-15)

There was more to the death of Christ than what met the eye. As the God-man hung on the cross dying for all humankind, God operated to forgive the offenses accumulated against us and to triumph over the fallen angelic host that opposed Him through humankind, and this operation issued in our redemption. We understand that redemption is of the Son, but in operation redemption is the activity of the entire Godhead, Father, Son, and Spirit. The writer of Hebrews likewise recognizes the operation of the Trinity in the death of Christ: “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (9:14). To gain a redemption that was eternal in quality and effect (v. 12), the Son offered Himself through the eternal Spirit to the living God.¹⁰

By claiming no need to do further research, Geisler and Rhodes seek to avoid dealing with such a careful and balanced exposition of the truth concerning the Triune God and the crucifixion of Christ. Instead, Geisler and Rhodes make a sweeping and unwarranted generalization that “involvement” necessarily implies “patripassianism.” As Kerry Robichaux’s article makes clear, the presumption by Geisler and Rhodes is wrong. Thomas F. Torrance, an esteemed Scottish reformed theologian, also attested to the involvement of the entire Triune God in the work of redemption when he wrote:

‘God crucified’! That is the startling truth of the Gospel. Of course only if God is a Trinity, does this make sense, for it was not the Father or the Spirit who was crucified but the incarnate Son of God, crucified certainly in his differentiation from the Father and the Spirit, but nevertheless crucified in his unbroken oneness with the Father and the Spirit in being and activity. The whole Trinity is involved in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.¹¹

Geisler and Rhodes’ Deficiency in Apprehending the Revelation in the Bible

If Geisler and Rhodes truly believe that the Father was in no way involved in the Son’s incarnation, human living, crucifixion, and resurrection, they are deplorably deficient in apprehending the revelation in the Bible concerning the Trinity and concerning the Person and work of Christ.

The coinherence of the three of the Divine Trinity is eternal and immutable. It did not cease when the Son of God became a man through incarnation, nor was it limited to the brief time when the Son lived on earth in His humanity. Although it was the Son of God who was the subject of the incarnation and who lived as a man, was crucified, and resurrected, the clear testimony of the Bible is that the entire Triune God was involved with every step of the process that God passed through in Christ. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35); thus, His source was the Holy Spirit, and His element was divine. According to John’s Gospel, the Son was never alone; the Father was always with Him (John 8:16, 29; 16:32). The Bible tells us that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily (Col. 2:9) and that He was God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16) and was God with us (Matt. 1:23). It does not say that the fullness of one-third of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily, nor does it say that one-third of God was manifested in the flesh or that He was one-third of God with us.

As a man, the eternal Son of God, who is the embodiment of the fullness of the Godhead, passed through human living, was crucified, entered into resurrection, and was exalted to be Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). In each of these stages of His existence in humanity, the Son of God was still coinhering with the Father and the Spirit; at no time was He separate from Them. To claim otherwise would be to claim that the essential nature of God changed. That would be a great heresy.

At His baptism the Spirit anointed Christ economically for the carrying out of His ministry (Matt. 3:16; Luke 4:18). This outward anointing does not mean that prior to this time the Spirit was not already coinhering with Him, just as the pouring out of the Spirit economically in Acts 2 to empower the apostles in their gospel service does not negate the fact that they had already received the Spirit essentially in John 20:22. Following Christ’s baptism, He lived, moved, and worked by the Spirit (Luke 4:1). When He cast out demons, He did so by the Spirit (Matt. 12:28). Furthermore, it was as the God-man that He declared that the Father was always with Him (John 8:29; 16:32) and that He and the Father mutually indwelt one another (14:10-11; 17:21). It was on the basis of His coinherence with the Father that He could say that since the disciples had seen Him, they had seen the Father (14:9) and that in His, the Son’s, speaking, the Father who abode in Him did His works (14:10).

In Christ’s crucifixion God forsook Him economically (Matt. 27:45-46), but as the divine only begotten Son of God, He was still coinhering with the Father and the Spirit essentially. In this sense, what happened in the crucifixion of Christ is truly a mystery, the depths of which we cannot fully penetrate; we can only affirm what the Bible affirms. The Bible tells us that at the cross:

God (not one-third of God) was in Christ reconciling us to Himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19);
God purchased the church through His own blood (Acts 20:28); and
Christ offered Himself to God (the Father) as the unique sacrifice for sin through the eternal Spirit, giving His redemption eternal efficacy (Heb. 9:14, 12).

Concerning the Triune God’s operation in accomplishing redemption, Witness Lee said:

An eternal redemption was accomplished by the blood of the Son of God through the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:12, 14; 1 John 1:7). The blood He shed on the cross was not only the blood of Jesus the Man, but also of the Son of God. First John 1:7 tells us that the blood of Jesus the Son of God cleanses us from all sin. The blood of Jesus the Man qualifies His redemption for us as men. He was a genuine man who died for us and shed genuine blood for us. But the efficacy of His redemption has to be secured by His divinity and it has been secured for eternity by Him as the Son of God. Therefore, His redemption is the eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12) because this redemption was accomplished not only by the blood of Jesus the Man but also by the blood of Jesus the Son of God, which the Apostle Paul even called “God’s own blood” (Acts 20:28). This is marvelous!¹²

Similarly, concerning Christ’s resurrection, the Bible testifies that the entire Triune God was involved. It says:

God (the Father) raised Him from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; 10:40; Gal. 1:1);
The Lord raised Himself up (John 2:19; Acts 10:41; 1 Thes. 4:14);
The Spirit also was involved (Rom. 1:4; 1 Pet. 3:18).

If we receive the Bible’s testimony concerning the eternal coinherence of the Divine Trinity,¹³ then we must affirm that even as Christ was passing through death and entered into resurrection, He was never separated from the Father and the Spirit essentially. Of this truth, Thomas F. Torrance wrote:

The Son and the Father were one and not divided, each dwelling in the other, even in that ‘hour and power of darkness’ when Jesus was smitten of God and afflicted and pierced for our transgressions.¹⁴

Geisler’s theology seems to have no room for biblical statements that do not conform to what he presupposes as logical imperatives. However, the coinhering oneness of the Triune God transcends the ability of human logic to systematize. Perhaps it is this dogged reliance on human logic that causes Geisler and Rhodes to equivocate on the coinhering oneness of the Triune God and leads them to espouse a position that is contrary to the biblical record. While they profess to believe in one God, they seem to view the three of the Godhead as operating separately and independently from one another. Thus, in their understanding it was the Son alone, in isolation from the Father and the Spirit, who came into humanity through incarnation and went to the cross to accomplish redemption. Furthermore, according to this view, it is the Spirit alone who indwells the believers.

It is true that the Son is the central figure and subject of the incarnation (John 1:14; Rom. 8:3) and that it was the Son who went to the cross to accomplish redemption (Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:7). It is also true that the Spirit plays the central role in the believers’ indwelling (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16). But that is not the complete revelation of the Bible. Yes, the Father sent the Son, but in what way did He send the Son? He sent the Son through the divine conception by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35), and in the Son’s coming, the Father came with Him and even in Him (John 8:29; 14:10-11; 16:32). When Christ died on the cross, God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19; cf. Rom. 5:10). Furthermore, when the Father sent the Spirit to indwell the believers, this was equivalent to the Son coming to indwell the believers (John 14:16-17, 20; cf. Rom. 8:9-11; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27) and the Father and the Son coming to make Their home in them (John 14:23). Not only so, in the Spirit’s coming, we have come to know that the Son is in the Father, that we are in the Son, and that the Son is in us (John 14:20).¹⁵

Conclusion

Geisler and Rhodes’ rejection of the need for more research to understand the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches is itself disturbing. It is even more so when their “reasoning” is examined. Their logic is flawed and leads them into contradictions involving two basic attributes of God—His immutability and His coinherence—as well as with Geisler’s own writings about God’s impassibility. It also leads them to assert a false dilemma, that is, that one must either embrace patripassianism or reject the testimony of the Scriptures that all three of the Godhead participate in the work peculiarly ascribed to one of Them.

The root of the problem is that Geisler and Rhodes have an insufficient grasp of the divine revelation in the Bible concerning the coinhering and co-working of the three of the Divine Trinity in the incarnation, human living, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. Further, they seek to impose their deficient understanding on others as a litmus test of orthodoxy. The crucial truth of the coinherence of the Divine Trinity is completely missing from their theological writings because it shatters their tidy, yet deficient, model of the Trinity. Their insistence on narrowly applying their own logical standards to the divine revelation in the Bible causes them to stumble on this point to the extent that they seem to lack the mettle to either affirm or deny coinherence. Yet, this vital truth concerning the relationship among the Three in the Godhead was so clearly spoken by the Lord Himself in John 14 and 17. Furthermore, Geisler and Rhodes not only refuse to definitively affirm the clear import of the Lord’s words, but they also seek to prevent the Lord’s people from entering into the precious implications of coinherence for the believers’ experiential apprehension of and oneness with the Divine Trinity (John 14:20; 17:21, 23) by associating coinherence with a charge of heresy (cf. Matt. 23:13).

Many students of the Bible err because they have confidence in their own mental capacities to understand the divine revelation. As Watchman Nee wrote in 1927:

In Philippians 3:3 the apostle mentioned “confidence in the flesh.” “Confidence” in the original text is “belief.” He said that he himself did not “believe in the flesh.” The greatest work of the flesh is self-confidence! Since one thinks he is able, he does not need to trust in the Holy Spirit. Christ crucified is the wisdom of God, but a believer trusts in his own wisdom. He can read the Bible, preach the Bible, hear the Word, and believe in the Word; however, all of these are done through the power of his own mind, and he does not think that he absolutely must ask for the Holy Spirit to teach him. Many people believe they have received all the truth, even though what they have is something which they have received from others and from their own searching and what they have is more of man than of God! Furthermore, they do not have a teachable heart that is willing to wait on God and to let Him reveal His truth in His light.¹⁶

Pride in our education or abilities is a major obstacle to receiving the revelation contained in the Word of God. What is needed is a proper humility, as Witness Lee explains:

Being proud of your education will hinder you from knowing the Scriptures. No matter how educated you are, you must humbly tell the Lord that you are a teachable little child and that in your whole being you are utterly empty. You should be able to say, “Lord, although I have three Ph.D.’s, I know nothing. I am not filled up by my education. I am empty in my spirit, in my mind, and in my whole being.” Many highly educated professional people are filled to the brim. For this reason, even after they are saved, they are unable to receive anything from the Word. Their pride has usurped them.¹⁷

As the Lord’s children we should all learn to look to the Lord for His grace to be preserved in simplicity and purity toward Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) so that we may receive all that He speaks in His holy Word, unfiltered by preconceived theological or philosophical constructs.

Notes:

¹Gretchen Passantino wrote:

My previous research (developed with and shared by Bob [Passantino], Walter [Martin], Elliot [Miller], and Cal [Beisner]) was inadequate to the extent that my conclusion was wrong. My current research (developed with and shared by Hank [Hanegraaff] and Elliot) is far deeper and wider than the previous, and is adequate to the extent that it has overturned my previous conclusion. No matter how many people sign the Open Letter and how many times the same inadequate sources are cited, the conclusion supported in this issue of the Journal prevails in the arena of truth. The local churches believe the essentials of orthodox Christian theology and should be embraced as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than opposed as believers in heresy. I pray other apologists will rescind their condemnation, if not reengage the issue to the same depth we have. We risk either being guilty of accusing a brother or of falsely embracing a heretic. What spiritual right do we have to refuse to revisit this issue? (Gretchen Passantino, Christian Research Journal 32:6, 2006, p. 50)

²The complete paragraph says:

One argument used by CRI is that their conclusions in favor of the LC should be believed because they have done better and more research on the topic (50). First of all, as we all know, more does not necessarily mean better. So, we can concentrate on what really matters. Gretchen Passantino Coburn claims she has done more research on this topic than most others and that she has been doing it for a longer time (50). However, it is clear that truth does not always reside with the persons who have read more or studied longer. Rather, it rests with those who can reason best from the evidence.

³Ron Kangas, Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God according to the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976).

⁴Witness Lee, Elders’ Training, Book 3: The Way to Carry Out the Vision (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1985), pp. 70-71.

⁵E.g., in Witness Lee, The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, n.d.) and Witness Lee, The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976).

⁶Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), p. 305, quoting from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.2, 19. Unlike Geisler, Calvin strongly affirmed the truth of coinherence in his commentary on John 17:3:

[T]hen we perceive that he is wholly in the Father, and that the Father is wholly in him. In short he who separates Christ from the Divinity of the Father, does not yet acknowledge Him who is the only true God, but rather invents for himself a strange god. – John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XVIII: John 12-21; Acts 1-13, William Pringle, trans. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1848, 1981), p. 167

⁷This article does not attempt to evaluate the merits of the doctrine of God’s impassibility. Rather it demonstrates the inconsistency between Geisler’s espousal of the impassibility of the divine nature and his accusation that when the local churches teach that the three of the Godhead participate in one another’s activities they are teaching patripassianism.

⁸Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 483.

⁹Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), p. 296.

¹⁰Kerry S. Robichaux, “The Divine Trinity in the Divine Economy,” Affirmation & Critique IV:2, April 1999, pp. 40-41.

¹¹Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (London: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 247.

¹²Witness Lee, God’s New Testament Economy (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1986), pp. 49-50.

¹³Concerning the basic truths concerning the biblical revelation of the Triune God, see Ed Marks, “A Biblical Overview of the Triune God,” Affirmation & Critique, I:1, January 1996, pp. 23-31.

¹⁴Torrance, The Mediation of Christ (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1992), p. 43.

¹⁵For a discussion of the implications of coinherence for our Christian life, see “The Error of Denying that the ‘Son’ Is the ‘Eternal Father’ in Isaiah 9:6.“

¹⁶Watchman Nee, The Collected Works of Watchman, vol. 12: The Spiritual Man (1) (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1992), p. 108.

¹⁷Witness Lee, Life-study of Genesis (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), p. 1114.

Scholars Who Affirm the Working Together of the Three of the Divine Trinity

Posted on 01/01/201002/10/2017 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

Gregory of Nyssa — But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit.
Gregory of Nyssa, “On Not Three Gods,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 5, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1892, 1979), p. 334

Augustine — [T]he will of the Father and the Son is one, and their working indivisible. In like manner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wrought by one and the same operation of the Father and of the Son indivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, of whom it is expressly said, “She was found with child by the Holy Ghost.”
Augustine, “On the Holy Trinity,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Volume 3, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1887, 1978), p. 41

The Son indeed and not the Father was born of the Virgin Mary; but this very birth of the Son, not of the Father, was the work both of the Father and the Son. The Father indeed suffered not, but the Son, yet the suffering of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son. The Father did not rise again, but the Son, yet the resurrection of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son.
Augustine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Volume 6, “Sermon II: Of the words of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Chap. iii. 13, ‘Then Jesus cometh from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.’ Concerning the Trinity.”, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1887, 1979), p. 261

John Owen — I say not this as though one person succeeded unto another in their operation, or as though where one ceased and gave over a work, the other took it up and carried it on; for every divine work, and every part of every divine work, is the work of God, that is, of the whole Trinity, inseparably and undividedly…
John Owen, Pneumatologia, p. 94, available at www.ccel.org/ccel/ owen/pneum.i.v.iv.html

Millard Erickson — Perichoresis means that not only do the three members of the Trinity interpenetrate one another, but all three are involved in all the works of God. While certain works are primarily or more centrally the doing of one of these rather than the others, all participate to some degree in what is done. Thus, while redemption is obviously the work of the incarnate Son, the Father and the Spirit are also involved.
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 235

Cornelius Van Til — When Scripture ascribes certain works specifically to the Father, others specifically to the Son, and still others specifically to the Holy Spirit, we are compelled to presuppose a genuine distinction within the Godhead back of that ascription. On the other hand, the work ascribed to any of the persons is the work of one absolute person.
Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1961), p. 228

Carl F. H. Henry — When believers complain that they cannot distinguish between the separate activities in their lives of the Father, the Risen Lord, and the Holy Spirit, the matter is sometimes phrased in a way that obscures God’s unity, a fundamental doctrine of both the Old and New Testament. Every action of any of the persons of the Trinity is an action of God, although in many actions the persons of the Godhead may be active in different ways. All authentic spiritual experience is an experience of the one God.
Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, VI:2 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 400

Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis — Yet by virtue of the common essence, what one divine person performs each may be said to perform (the principle of perichoresis). Accordingly, the Son creates (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16) and the Spirit creates (cf. Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6); the Father redeems (2 Cor. 5:18-19; Eph. 2:4-5, 8) and the Spirit redeems (Rom. 8:4; Titus 3:5); and the Father sanctifies (Eph. 1:3-4; 1 Thess. 5:23) and the Son sanctifies (Eph. 4:15-16; 5:25-27).

Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Integrative Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), p. 267

William Lane Craig — The ancient doctrine of perichoresis, championed by the Greek Church Fathers, expresses the timeless interaction of the persons of the Godhead. According to that doctrine, there is a complete interpenetration of the persons of the Trinity, such that each is intimately bound up in the activities of the other. Thus, what the Father wills, the Son and Spirit also will; what the Son loves, the Father and Spirit also love, and so forth.
William Lane Craig, “Divine Timelessness and Personhood,” International Journal for Philosophy and Religion, 43:2, April 1998, p. 122

Loraine Boettner — Since the three Persons of the Trinity possess the same identical, numerical substance and essence, and since the attributes are inherent and inseparable from the substance or essence, it follows that all of the Divine attributes must be possessed alike by each of the three Persons and that the three Persons must be consubstantial, co-equal and co-eternal. Each is truly God, exercising the same power, partaking equally of the Divine glory, and entitled to the same worship. 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.
Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947), p. 107

Bruce Ware — This chapter will argue, in part, that the “success” of the atonement depends on the identity of Christ as the theanthropic person, the One who is both fully God and fully man in the incarnation. But adding to the importance of seeing the atonement as the accomplishment of the God-man is the realization that the atonement’s accomplishment depends just as much on the work of the Father and the Spirit in conjunction with the Son.
Bruce Ware, “Christ’s Atonement: A Work of the Trinity,” Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, eds. (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2007), p. 156

Michael L. Chiavone — All actions carried out through the omnipotence of the divine essence necessarily involve all three divine persons, for each of them fully possesses that divine essence. Thus, any physical action which God undertakes in the material creation should be understood to be the action of all three divine persons.
Michael L. Chiavone, The One God: A Critically Developed Evangelical Doctrine of Trinitarian Unity (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009), p. 214

The Coinherence and Coworking of the Divine Trinity

The coworking of the three of the divine Trinity based on Their coinherence (or mutual indwelling) is a particularly strong emphasis in the teaching of the distinguished Scottish reformed theologian Thomas F. Torrance, from whose books the following selections are excerpted:

Thomas F. Torrance — It was, of course, not the Godhead or the Being of God as such who became incarnate, but the Son of God, not the Father or the Spirit, who came among us, certainly from the Being of the Father and as completely homoousios with him, yet because in him the fullness of the Godhead dwells, the whole undivided Trinity must be recognised as participating in the incarnate Life and Work of Christ.
Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (London: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 108

Since God’s Being and Activity completely interpenetrate each other, we must think of his Being and his Activity not separately but as one Being-in-Activity and one Activity-in-Being. In other words, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit always act together in every divine operation whether in creation or redemption, yet in such a way that the distinctive activities of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are always maintained, in accordance with the propriety and otherness of their Persons as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This may be called the ‘perichoretic coactivity of the Holy Trinity’.

…The primary distinction was made there, of course, for it was the Son or Word of God who became incarnate, was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and rose again from the grave, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, although the whole life and activity of Jesus from his birth to his death and resurrection did not take place apart from the presence and coactivity of the Father and the Spirit.
Ibid., pp. 197-198

…Thus the atonement is to be regarded as the act of God in his being and his being in his act. That is not to say, of course, that it was the Father who was crucified, for it was the Son in his distinction from the Father who died on the cross, but it is to say that the suffering of Christ on the cross was not just human, it was divine as well as human, and in fact is to be regarded as the suffering of God himself, that is, as the being of God in his redeeming act, and the passion of God in his very being as God… While the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another, they are nevertheless of one and the same being with one another in God, and their acts interpenetrate one another in the indivisibility of the one Godhead.
Thomas F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1992), p. 113

It was not of course the Father but the Son who was incarnate and suffered on the cross, but the distinctiveness of the Persons of the Father and of the Son, does not imply any division in the oneness of their being, or in the oneness of their activity, for God’s being and act are inseparable.
Ibid., p. 118

The Error of Denying “the Lord Is the Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:17 Refers to Christ

Posted on 01/01/201007/23/2021 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

2 Corinthians 3:17 – And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

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

Romans 8:9-11 – [9] But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. [10] But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. [11] And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.

Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes condemn Witness Lee’s affirmation of the Apostle Paul’s word in 2 Corinthians 3:17 as heresy. In this verse Paul plainly says, “The Lord is the Spirit.”¹ This word tells us clearly that today Jesus Christ is not only the resurrected and ascended Lord in bodily form seated at the right hand of God in the third heavens (Acts 2:33, 36; 5:31; Heb. 12:2), but He is also the Spirit who can be received by and thereafter indwell the believers (Gal. 3:2; Rom. 8:9-11; cf. 2 Cor. 13:5). Sadly, the insistence by Geisler and Rhodes on an erroneous systematized theological construct has veiled them to the pure revelation contained in the Bible. Thus, in their article criticizing the reassessment of the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches performed by the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Geisler and Rhodes say:

Nor is there any real support for saying the Son (the Second Person of the Trinity) is also the Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity) from 2 Corinthians 3:17 (“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”). Many expositors view this verse as saying that the Holy Spirit is “Lord” not in the sense of being Jesus but in the sense of being Yahweh (the Lord God) (cf. v. 16, which cites Exod. 34:34).

Their analysis is flawed on several points:

It ignores the meaning of “Lord” in the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 3 and 4.
It ignores the identification of the Lord Jesus in the New Testament with Yahweh in the Old Testament, an identification which both Geisler and Rhodes acknowledge.
It completely avoids the plain language of 1 Corinthians 15:45.
It summarily dismisses the many credible expositors who have strongly identified Christ and the Spirit based on these verses.

“Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17 in Context

Every faithful expositor of the Bible knows that words must be interpreted in their proper context. Read in context, it is clear that the “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17 refers to Christ, not just to the Old Testament Yahweh. In 3:3-6 Paul tells the Corinthians that they are a letter of Christ (the Lord) ministered by him with the Spirit of the living God, which Spirit gives life. He then compares the New and Old Testament ministries, showing the superiority of the ministry of the New Testament as a ministry of righteousness and of glory (vv. 7-11). Following this he speaks of the new covenant ministers through whom the gospel of the glory of Christ shines forth (4:4) by their beholding and reflecting the glory of the Lord (3:18).

Verses 14 through 16 make it very clear that the Lord to whom the heart must turn is Christ. In 3:15 Paul says that a veil lies over the heart of the unbelieving Jews. This veil is “done away with in Christ” (v. 14) “whenever their heart turns to the Lord” (v. 16). According to the truth of the gospel, this is not when the Jews turn their heart to the Old Testament Yahweh, but, as verse 14 says, when man turns his heart to the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, “Lord” in verse 16 refers back to “Christ” in verse 14. It is, therefore, contrary to the immediate context to say that “Lord” in verse 17 refers to someone else.²

The ensuing text makes this connection even stronger. Verse 18 says that “we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory.” Chapter 4 continues with these same elements introduced in chapter 3—Christ, the Lord, the image of God, the veil over the hearts of unbelievers, and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ—as follows:

In verse 3 the gospel is veiled to the unbelievers who have been blinded by the god of this age (v. 4a); this veil is a reference back to 3:14-15.
According to 4:4 Christ is the image of God; this refers back to the image into which we are being transformed in 3:18.
The gospel preached by the apostles was “the gospel of the glory of Christ” (4:4); this glory is the glory of the Lord in 3:18, which 4:6 identifies as “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Finally, verse 5 contains the direct statement: “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord” [emphasis added].

Thus, from the immediate context it is abundantly clear that Paul’s use of the word “Lord” in 3:17 (“Now the Lord is the Spirit”) is in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. To say that in 2 Cor. 3:17 “the Holy Spirit is ‘Lord’ not in the sense of being Jesus but in the sense of being Yahweh” is to veil the gospel of Christ. The one to whom the heart must turn is not the Spirit in the sense of being the Old Testament Yahweh, but the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. The insistence of Geisler and Rhodes that these verses cannot be interpreted as referring to Christ is sheer artifice to avoid implications that contradict their overly simplistic formulation of the Divine Trinity.

Geisler and Rhodes: The Lord Jesus is Jehovah

We agree that 2 Corinthians 3 refers back to Exodus 34 where “the Lord” Moses beheld was revealed as “Yahweh.” But claiming that 2 Corinthians 3:17 refers to Yahweh and not the Lord Jesus Christ is still an absurd proposition from another perspective. The New Testament Jesus is the incarnation of the Old Testament Yahweh, as Geisler himself admits in his Systematic Theology. In a section headed “Jesus Claimed to Be Yahweh (Jehovah),” he cites numerous passages that identify Jehovah of the Old Testament with Jesus in the New Testament. In his concluding paragraph he writes:

Perhaps the strongest claim Jesus made to be Jehovah is in John 8:58, where He says, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around Him clearly understood His meaning and picked up stones to kill Him for blaspheming (cf. John 10:31-33). The same claim is also made in Mark 14:62 and John 18:5-6.³

Rhodes also strongly asserts the Jesus is Yahweh. In his book The Complete Book of Bible Answers: Answering the Tough Questions he devotes two pages to answering the question: “What biblical evidences exist to prove that Jesus is Yahweh?”⁴ He includes numerous Scripture citations after which he concludes, “Clearly, then, Jesus is Yahweh.”

We agree with these expositions by Geisler and Rhodes showing that Jesus was Jehovah, and therefore cannot agree that “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17 refers only to the Old Testament Jehovah and not the New Testament Lord Jesus. After all, the entire context of the passage is the superiority of the New Testament ministry of the apostles to the Old Testament ministry of Moses. Why then would Paul talk about turning to the Jehovah of the Old Testament rather than the Lord Jesus of the New Testament?

The Bible says, “The Lord [Christ] is the Spirit.” Geisler and Rhodes start from the presumption that this cannot be, so they endeavor to find an explanation that fits their concept. This is exegetically unsound and elevates their attempts at theological systematization above the authority of the Bible.

Logical Fallacies in Geisler’s Argument

Norman Geisler claims to believe in applying the rigors of formal logic to the study of the Bible.⁵ To that end he wrote a book with Ronald Brooks entitled Come, Let Us Reason. In this book he cites several examples of logical fallacies. Given his obvious familiarity with the principles of logic and rhetoric, it is distressing to see him criticize Witness Lee’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:17 by employing the very logic fallacies he castigates in his book. For example, Geisler and Rhodes say that there is no “real support for saying the Son … is also the Spirit … from 2 Corinthians 3:17” based on what “many expositors” say. This type of argumentation based on what “many say” is identified by Geisler and Brooks as argumentum ad populum, for which they give the following definition:

This is the fallacy of deciding truth by opinion polls. It says, “Accept this because it has popular appeal.” It is the kind of argument that plays to the galleries, not to the facts. It is an attempt to win by fashionable ideas, not by good arguments. These arguments have “snob appeal” because they agree with an elite or select group and demand that everybody jump on the bandwagon. Hey, it worked for Hitler!⁶

The same appeal to what “many expositors” say also smacks of an improper argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), which Geisler describes as follows:

“Accept this because some authority said it.” As we all know, “authorities” can be wrong, and often are. Furthermore, there are conflicting authorities. Which one should I accept? The mere appeal to authority should never be substituted for evidence or a good argument.⁷

It is telling that in their critique of CRI’s article Geisler and Rhodes give very little evidence for their claim that the risen Lord is not the Spirit according to 2 Corinthians 3:17. Rather, they seek to appeal to the implied authority in the expression “many expositors” to excuse themselves from having to provide any evidence of their own.

Finally, the argument of Geisler and Rhodes fits the definition of “special pleading”:

This is yet another way to make certain the opposing view doesn’t get a fair shake. Here only the evidence that supports one view is cited, and the rest is left out. This is the fallacy of saying, “Accept this because this select evidence supports it (even though other evidence is neglected).”⁸

For one thing, the “analysis” put forth by Geisler and Rhodes completely ignores 1 Corinthians 15:45b: “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” The last Adam is universally recognized as a reference to Christ, including by Geisler.⁹ The word translated “became” is the same word in Greek as is used in John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh.” John 1:14 speaks of the incarnation of the Son of God into humanity. First Corinthians 15:45 speaks of the glorification of Christ in resurrection (cf. John 7:39; Luke 24:26). In that resurrection Christ became a life-giving Spirit.¹⁰ Although Elliot Miller included this in his discussion of CRI’s reassessment of the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches, Geisler and Rhodes ignore it entirely. Thus, their review of the available evidence is highly selective, and they construct their argument accordingly.

What Others Say

Geisler and Rhodes say there is not “any real support” for the idea that 2 Corinthians 3:17 refers to Christ and reference “many [unnamed] expositors” who take their view that the Lord refers to Yahweh. These two statements create a false impression that Witness Lee was alone in identifying the Lord as Christ in this verse. While the testimony of Scripture should be sufficient for us to believe that “the Lord is the Spirit” and “the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit,” there are also many significant scholars and Bible teachers who affirm the identification of Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament teaching of the apostles. If such an affirmation is to be condemned as modalistic, then Geisler and Rhodes must similarly condemn:

Athanasius
Marius Victorinus
John Albert Bengel
Charles Hodge
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Joseph Cook
Marvin Vincent
Andrew Murray
Hermann Gunkel
A. B. Simpson
James Denney
Alexander Balmain Bruce
David Somerville
John Peter Lange
Henry Barclay Swete
Adolf Deissmann
W. H. Griffith Thomas
Thomas Rees
Robert C. Moberly
Alan H. McNeile
Terrot R. Glover
R. Birch Hoyle
H. Wheeler Robinson
W. F. Lofthouse
R. H. Strachan

C. H. Dodd
William R. Newell
Lucien Cerfaux
William Barclay
Prosper Grech
Neill Q. Hamilton
Karl Barth
Eduard Schweizer
C. A. A. Scott
S. H. Hooke
Hendrikus Berkhof
David Hill
F. F. Bruce
G. R. Beasley-Murray
James D. G. Dunn
Walter Kasper
G. W. H. Lampe
Walter C. Wright, Jr.
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
Ernst Käsemann
Carl F. H. Henry
Lewis B. Smedes
Bruce Demarest
Gordon Lewis
Mehrdad Fatehi
John S. Feinberg

All of these expositors have identified Christ with the Spirit based on the verses at issue from 1 and/or 2 Corinthians. A sampling of their statements is included in “Scholars and Bible Teachers Who Affirm That the Lord Jesus Christ Is the Spirit.”

Conclusion

The contention put forth by Geisler and Rhodes that there is no real support for Witness Lee’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is itself insupportable. The correct interpretation of Paul’s words cannot be dictated by fiat. Witness Lee’s interpretation is supported by the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 3 and 4, by the identification of the Old Testament Jehovah with the New Testament Lord Jesus, and by the writings of many respected teachers. Geisler and Rhodes dismiss the clear meaning and import of Paul’s words in this verse and ignore 1 Corinthians 15:45 because these verses do not fit neatly into their extra-biblical theological construct. They then employ a variety of logic fallacies to support their position. The Word of God deserves better treatment.

Notes:

¹This article examines one aspect of the truth concerning the Trinity which has been neglected by most theologians and by Christians generally, that is, the identification of Christ with the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:17, 1 Corinthians 15:45, and elsewhere in the New Testament. The reader should not presume that this represents the full teaching of Witness Lee or of the local churches concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the Divine Trinity. While we do affirm the clear word of the Bible concerning the identification of Christ with the Spirit, particularly in relation to the believers’ experience, we also affirm the eternal distinction between Them. As Witness Lee wrote:

Among the three of the Divine Trinity, there is distinction but no separation. The Father is distinct from the Son, the Son is distinct from the Spirit, and the Spirit is distinct from the Son and the Father. The three of the Godhead co-exist in Their coinherence, so They are distinct but not separate. In the Triune God there is no separation, only distinction. The Triune God exists in His coinherence. On the one hand, the three are coinhering; on the other hand, at the same time they are co-existing. Thus, They are one. They are not separate. (The History of God in His Union with Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), p. 17)

The publications of Living Stream Ministry contain many balanced presentations of the truths concerning the Triune God. Of these, the following date from the mid-1970s:

Witness Lee, The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976)
Witness Lee, The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, n.d.)
Ron Kangas, Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God according to the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976)

The inaugural issue of Affirmation & Critique (I:1, January 1996) was devoted to the subject of “Knowing the Triune God.” It contains several excellent articles, including:

Kerry S. Robichaux, “Axioms of the Trinity,” pp. 6-11.
Ron Kangas, “Knowing the Triune God as Revealed in the Word of God,” pp. 12-22.
Ed Marks, “A Biblical Overview of the Triune God,” pp. 23-31.
Kerry S. Robichaux, “The Straight Cut: Some Biblical Trinitarian Conundrums,” pp. 46-49.

²The understanding that “the Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3 refers to Christ is confirmed by the following sources::

William Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord (London: Macmillan, 1890), p. 248:
Apart from the general usage of the Apostle, it will hardly be denied that the whole context and argument of the chapter compel us to understand by the words “the Lord” the Risen Lord. It is “the glory of the Lord” in His heavenly condition that we behold, as Moses beheld the glory of God upon the mount; and, as we behold it, gazing upon it with ever increasing love and fervour, we are enabled to reflect it better, until we are transformed into the same image from glory to glory.

Peter Yoon, Our Triune God (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint, 1996), p. 189:
In context Paul is saying that when people turn to the Lord Jesus, as Moses turned to Yahweh at Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:34), a veil of spiritual blindness is lifted from their eyes.

The sources cited in “Scholars and Bible Teachers Who Affirm That the Lord Jesus Christ Is the Spirit” further affirm the biblical revelation that Jesus Christ the Lord is the Spirit.

³Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 2: God, Creation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), p. 280. Geisler repeats essentially the same exposition in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), pp. 129 and 731; and When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990, 1996), 105-106.

⁴Ron Rhodes, The Complete Books of Bible Answers: Answering the Tough Questions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), pp. 115-117.

⁵Actually, according to Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, this practice is contrary to the orthodox Protestant faith. He wrote:

THE ORTHODOX PROTESTANT FAITH. Certain well-defined articles of faith concerning the Scriptures have been and are held by the orthodox Protestants:

The Bible is the infallible Word of God.

The Bible is the only rule of faith and practice.

Human reason and knowledge should be wholly subject to the Scriptures. [emphasis added]

There is no inner light or added revelation ever given beyond what is contained in the Bible…

No authority relative to the forming of truth has ever been committed to the church or to men beyond that given to the New Testament writers.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume 1: Prolegmena, Bibliology, Theology Proper (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947), p. 15.

The point Chafer makes—that human reason should be subject to the revelation in the Bible and not its master—is true. Human reason is limited and fallible. However, the point made in this article is that Geisler is not even faithful to the principles he himself espouses but instead uses logical fallacies to support his agenda.

⁶Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, Come: Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), p. 97.

⁷Ibid, p. 102.

⁸Ibid, p. 98.

⁹Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 487.

¹⁰Some have tried to say that this Spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but it is important to note that the word “life-giving” has as one of its roots the Greek word zoe, which in the New Testament generally refers to the divine life of God (e.g., Eph. 4:18). It is this life that the Spirit gives (2 Cor. 3:6), and it is this life-giving Spirit that Christ, the last Adam, became. On page 663 of the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Geisler gives a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation of this verse. He says, “Life-giving spirit does not speak of the nature of the resurrection body, but of the divine origin of the resurrection.” We agree that the term life-giving Spirit does not refer to the nature of Christ’s body in resurrection, but Geisler’s interpretation is not faithful to the text of the verse, which does not talk about the origin of the resurrection but about what Christ, as the last Adam, became.

The Error of Denying the “Son” Is the “Eternal Father” in Isaiah 9:6

Posted on 01/01/201007/23/2021 by DCPPress

A Response to Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes’ Defense of the “Open Letter” and Critique of the Christian Research Journal’s Reassessment of the Local Churches

Read this document as a PDF

Isaiah 9:6 – 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.

Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes claim that Witness Lee’s statement that “the Son is the Father” based on Isaiah 9:6 is modalistic. In their critique they attempt to explain how the name “Eternal Father” does not mean what it plainly says. When the same arguments were advanced over thirty years ago, Witness Lee thoroughly dismantled them in the booklet What a Heresy-Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods!² Geisler and Rhodes completely ignore the points made by Witness Lee in that booklet and simply rehash the same accusations. In examining the present critique, it is instructive to compare Witness Lee’s treatment of the words of the Bible with that of Geisler and Rhodes and to see where each approach leads.

Witness Lee starts from the conviction that the Bible means what it says. His hermeneutic is based on God’s eternal purpose and plan, that is, His economy. He saw that in God’s economy the coinherence of the Triune God is a model of the believers’ relationship with God in Christ. Geisler and Rhodes, on the other hand, start from the presumption that the words of the Bible cannot mean what they say. On that basis they:

Errantly insist that the Father in the Godhead is not mentioned in the Old Testament;
Negate the word “Father” in Isaiah 9:6, relying on a rabbinical paraphrase to undergird their preconceptions;
Support their interpretation using a rabbinical paraphrase that changes key passages in Isaiah;
Contradict Geisler’s own statements concerning the identity of Yahweh; and
Subvert the plain meaning of the Bible to promote a doctrine lacking any power to edify its readers.

Norman Geisler is a vocal proponent of the infallibility of the Bible. In their criticism of the Christian Research Institute’s reassessment of the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches, Geisler and Rhodes declare, “Whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms.” They charge Fuller Theological Seminary with “deviation from orthodoxy on the doctrine of Scripture” for retaining a faculty member who did not affirm Paul’s teaching concerning head covering in 1 Corinthians 11. It is ironic, therefore, that when it comes to Isaiah 9:6, a verse that touches the very person of the Triune God, Geisler and Rhodes do not affirm what the Bible affirms, but employ the trappings of scholarship to subvert the clear meaning of the words in order to preserve their predetermined theological model.

Witness Lee’s Affirmation of Isaiah 9:6

Witness Lee, on the other hand, affirms what the Bible affirms. Concerning Isaiah 9:6 he wrote:

As for me, I would stand with what the Bible says, not with any twistings. Those who twist this verse do not believe the Bible according to the clear word. Instead, they believe the Bible in their twisting way. Whatever fits their understanding they take, but whatever does not fit their understanding they twist. If you twist the words of the Bible, you will suffer a loss, for you are changing the holy Word. You are either taking something away from the Word or adding something to it. This is very serious. Whether or not I understand what the Bible says, I believe whatever it says. When the Bible says that the Son is called the everlasting Father, I say, “Amen, the Son is the Father.” I do not care how men interpret this verse; I only care for what the Bible says.³

The first principle Witness Lee applied in reading the Bible was to receive the Word of God in simplicity as the complete divine revelation. Whatever the Bible says, he believed and taught. Second, he took care of the immediate context. The context of Isaiah 9:6 is one of the clearest prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the incarnation of Christ. Third, he examined the context of the book in which the passage is found. In the case of Isaiah 9:6 he realized that the concept of “Father” was further developed in Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8:

Furthermore, Isaiah 63:16 says, “Thou, O Lord, art our Father; our Redeemer from eternity is thy name” (Heb.). And Isaiah 64:8 says, “O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we are the work of thy hand.” The prophet Isaiah used these two verses as a further development of what he prophesied concerning Christ as the Father of eternity in Isaiah 9:6. In 64:8 Isaiah tells us that the Father of eternity in 9:6 is our Creator, and in 63:16 he tells us that the Father of eternity is our Redeemer. In the whole Bible, Christ is revealed as our Creator and especially as our Redeemer (John 1:3; Heb. 1:10; Rom. 3:24; Titus 2:14). The Father of eternity being both our Creator and our Redeemer not only confirms but also strengthens the understanding that the Redeemer, Christ, is the Father of eternity, the holy Father in the Godhead. Hence, to say that the everlasting Father, or the Father of eternity, in Isaiah 9:6 is some kind of Father, other than the Father in the Godhead, is not according to the context of the whole book of Isaiah.⁴

The Coinherence of the Father and the Son

Witness Lee further considered the truth concerning the incarnation of Christ that is spoken of in Isaiah 9:6 in the context of the entire divine revelation. In particular, the Gospel of John shows us a unique revelation concerning the relationship between the Son and the Father. For example, in John 1:14—”the only Begotten from the Father”—the Greek word for “from” is παρὰ (para). As Witness Lee explained in his footnote on this word, para:

…means by the side of, implying with; hence, it is, literally, from with. The Son not only is from God but also is with God. On the one hand, He is from God, and on the other hand, He is still with God (8:16b, 29; 16:32b).

In John 10:30 the Lord said, “I and the Father are one.” In John 14:9 He said, “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” These verses themselves must be understood in the light of the relationship shown in the Gospel of John between the Father and the Son. Witness Lee is not alone in making this association as the following examples demonstrate:

Clement of Alexandria:

Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end.” O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son.⁵

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown:

The everlasting Father. This marks Him as “Wonderful,” that He is “a child,” yet the “everlasting Father” (John x. 30; xiv. 9).⁶

B. B. Warfield:

Here [in John’s writings] He not only with great directness declares that He and the Father are one (x. 30; cf. xvii. 11, 21, 22, 25) with a unity of interpenetration (“The Father is in me, and I in the Father,” x. 38; cf. xvi. 10, 11), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (xiv. 9; cf. xv. 21); but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity (“Before Abraham was born, I am,” Jn. Viii. 58), His co-eternity with God (“had with thee before the world was,” xvii. 5; cf. xvii. 18; vi. 62), His eternal participation in the Divine glory itself (“the glory which I had with thee,” in fellowship, community with Thee “before the world was,” xvii.5).⁷

The oneness the Three in the Godhead share is not just a common purpose nor is it merely a shared nature. It is a oneness of mutual indwelling. The Lord’s word in John 10:38—’the Father is in Me and I am in the Father”—is an explanation of verse 30—”I and the Father are one.” Similarly, his words to His disciples in John 14:10—”Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?”—explain why it is that to see the Son is to see the Father in verse 9. Thus, the oneness spoken of in the Gospel of John is a oneness of coinherence.

The Coinherence of the Believers with the Triune God

This revelation of the mutual coinhering of the Son and the Father is not in the Bible for mere theological speculation about the ontology of the Trinity. It is a matter of great significance for our Christian life and living. Christ’s human living on the earth is the model of the Christian life (1 Peter 2:21). Of course, this does not mean that we can participate in His redemptive work. What it does mean is that our Christian life is not merely an attempt to live a moral life in outward imitation of Christ’s human living, but our Christian life is that He lives in us and we live in Him. In John 17:21-23 the Lord Himself prayed:

[21] 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. [22] And the glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; [23] I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me.

Concerning the Lord’s prayer in John 17, Witness Lee commented:

In John 15 the fact of our being in Christ and Christ being in us is clearly revealed (vv. 4-5). But in John 17 the Lord prayed for our realization of this fact (vv. 20-21). He prayed so that we would realize that we are in Him just as He is in the Father, and He is in us just as the Father is in Him. With the Divine Trinity there is such a wonderful coinhering oneness. This coinhering oneness has been duplicated by Christ with His believers. Today Christ is in His believers, causing His believers to be in Him. This is like the Father being in the Son, causing the Son to be in the Father. The prayer of Christ in John 17 is a revelation of such a coinhering oneness.⁸

Understanding Isaiah 9:6 in this light opens up our realization and appreciation of God’s purpose. This purpose is the producing of the Body of Christ as the enlargement of the coinhering oneness of the Triune God. It was for this that God was incarnated in Christ. It was for this that Christ went to the cross and died to accomplish an eternal redemption. It was for this that He was resurrected from the dead so that He, with the Father and the Spirit could dwell in His believers (Eph. 4:6; Gal. 2:20; John 14:17) and they could dwell in Them (John 17:21; 1 John 4:13; 1 Cor. 12:13) for the enlargement and expression of the mutual coinherence of the divine Trinity.

A Critique of Geisler and Rhodes’ Interpretation of Isaiah 9:6

The statements in the critique by Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes of Witness Lee’s affirmation of the words of the prophecy of Christ’s incarnation in Isaiah 9:6 lead in an entirely different direction.

A Wrong Assertion That “Father” Is a “Distinctly New Testament Term”

Geisler and Rhodes say, “First, when used of the First Person of the Trinity, the term ‘Father’ is a distinctly New Testament term.” They are wrong. In 2 Samuel 7:12-14a, the prophet Nathan related to David the following word from Jehovah: “When your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, which will come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. It is he who will build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he will be My son.” This prophecy is repeated in 1 Chronicles 17:11-14; 22:10; and 28:6-7. It is what is known as a double prophecy. In type, this prophecy referred to Solomon, but the New Testament opens with the declaration that Jesus Christ is the son of David (Matt. 1:1), and it is Christ who is the real fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the seed of David (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9; 22:42, 45; Luke 1:32; Rom. 1:3; Rev. 22:16).

In a book he co-authored, Geisler states that “I will be his Father” in 2 Samuel 7:14 refers to “God as Father of David’s line.”⁹ Elsewhere, however, he acknowledges that this verse is a prophecy of Christ as the Son of David, as does Rhodes.¹⁰ Since Christ is the Son, then “his Father” in reference to God must mean the Father in the Godhead. Thus, Geisler and Rhodes’ statement that “Father” is not used in the Old Testament to refer to the first Person of the Trinity is indefensible.

Further, Hebrews 1:5b quotes 2 Samuel 7:14 and applies this prophetic word to Christ directly—”I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to Me.” The book of Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ to all of the types in the Old Testament and as the fulfillment of those types. Verses 4 through 14 of chapter 1 show the superiority of Christ as the Son of God to the angels. Thus, Hebrews 1:6 continues by saying, “And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says, ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’” Christ as the Firstborn Son of God in resurrection became the Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rom. 8:29; Rev. 1:5). This was clearly prophesied in Psalm 89:26-27, which says, “He will call upon Me, saying, You are My Father / My God and the rock of My salvation. / I will also make Him the Firstborn, / The highest of the kings of the earth.” Here again is a case of a prophetic utterance in the Old Testament speaking of the Father in His relationship to the Son in the Godhead.

Geisler and Rhodes also neglect the nature of the book of Isaiah. Isaiah is particularly rich in its prophetic utterance of New Testament themes, so much so that it has been referred to as “the fifth gospel.”¹¹ The book of Isaiah contains more prophecies concerning the Person and work of Christ that are quoted in the New Testament than any of the other books of prophecy. In the gospels the expression “that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled” appears repeatedly (Matt. 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; cf., 1:22; 3:3; 13:14; 15:7). When the Lord stood up in the synagogue to proclaim the New Testament jubilee of grace, he read from Isaiah (Luke 4:17). Philip expounded the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch from the chapter in Isaiah that the latter was reading (Acts 8:27-35).

Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ are particularly significant. Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and will bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.” When the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, he quoted this verse: “Now all this has happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel’ (which is translated, God with us).” Isaiah 9:6 is also a prophecy of the incarnation: “For a child is born to us, a son is given to us.” This matches the language of John 3:16a: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.” Isaiah 53, which foretells the sufferings of Christ, is a clear prophecy of His rejection by men and His crucifixion. Isaiah’s prophecy even extends to the new heaven and new earth (Isa. 65:17). None of these was fulfilled in the Old Testament, but they are surely spoken of in a New Testament sense.

The pivotal event that is the dividing line between the Old and New Testaments is the incarnation of Christ. Isaiah 9:6 is one of the clearest prophecies concerning the incarnation in the Old Testament. Geisler agrees, saying, “Indeed, there is no clearer messianic passage on the deity of Christ than Isaiah 9:6.”¹² This verse tells us that the human child born among men shall be called the mighty God. His being called the mighty God surely indicates that He is the mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 also tells us that the son given to us shall be called the eternal Father. To say, because of adherence to an extrabiblical standard of truth and logic, that this cannot mean that the Son is the Father in some sense is to reject the testimony of Scripture. It is, in fact, to set aside the Word of God for the tradition of men (Mark 7:6-9). Whether or not we understand in what sense the Son is called the Father is secondary; God’s first requirement is that we receive His revelation of Himself, that is, that we affirm what God affirms. Geisler and Rhodes rightly object when the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the mighty God in Isaiah 9:6 is different than the almighty God,¹³ yet they do the same thing in principle when they claim that the eternal Father in the very same verse is someone other than the one God and Father (Eph. 4:6).

Does “Father of Eternity” Simply Mean “Jesus Is Eternal”?

Geisler and Rhodes say, “Based on the original Hebrew, the phrase ‘eternal Father’ is better rendered into English, ‘Father of eternity.’” The structure of the Hebrew names for “Father” used in many verses in Isaiah takes the form of a compound title consisting of “Father” and a qualifier. For example, the literal translation of “Father” in Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 (אָבִינוּ) is “Father of us,” but it is universally translated as “our Father.” In the same way, the literal “Father of eternity” in Isaiah 9:6 (אֲבִיעַד) is generally understood to be a divine title, either as “everlasting Father” or “eternal Father.” Thus, it is translated as either “eternal Father” or “everlasting Father” in the King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, and English Standard Version to name five respected and commonly used English language translations.

Based on translating Isaiah 9:6 as “Father of eternity,” Geisler and Rhodes begin to speculate on what this name might mean. They first posit that it may simply mean that “Jesus is eternal” and claim that “a strong case can therefore be made that the term simply indicates the eternality of the divine Messiah.”¹⁴ In support of their conjecture, they cite “the ancient Targums-simplified paraphrases of the Old Testament.” There are several problems with their argument.

First, this interpretation is unfaithful to the language of the Hebrew Old Testament as it completely eliminates the word “Father” from the text. As previously mentioned, the title “Father” in Isaiah 9:6 is a compound word. The root word for “Father” in its compound form is אֲבִי, while the word for “eternal Father” is אֲבִיעַד. Nevertheless, Geisler and Rhodes claim that “Father” is not essential to the understanding of the text, even though it is the root of the name in the Hebrew Scripture. This is to be unfaithful to the text.

Targums

Second, the “Targums-simplified paraphrases of the Old Testament” should not be relied upon as an authoritative source, particularly in a case such as this one, where the meaning of the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament is clearly altered. The Targums are rabbinical paraphrases of portions of the Old Testament into Aramaic. According to Bruce Metzger, one of the leading authorities on the textual bases of the Old Testament and ancillary ancient manuscripts:

All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to some extent, but the Targums differ in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase.¹⁵

Ernst Würthwein, another noted Old Testament textual scholar, comments:

…in no other versions of the Bible is the interpretive element as pronounced as in the Targums. They paraphrase, they add explanatory phrases, they reinterpret the text (sometimes quite boldly) according to the theological temper of their time, they relate the text to contemporary life and political circumstances, and so on.¹⁶

In his footnote at the end of the paragraph in which the above passage appears, Würthwein states:

A particularly bold reinterpretation was necessitated in Isa. 52:12-53:12 under the influence of anti-Christian polemics.¹⁷

It is very significant that the passage Würthwein cites as “a particularly bold reinterpretation” that discounts a critical aspect of the incarnate Redeemer is in a Targum of the same book, Isaiah, as the one Geisler and Rhodes cite as support for their interpretation. Würthwein’s concern that an anti-Christian polemic informed the Targum Jonathan’s paraphrase of Isaiah is echoed by many reputable scholars.¹⁸ Even those who do not subscribe to this opinion recognize that the targumic rendition of Isaiah 52:12-53:12 is not faithful to the original Hebrew.¹⁹

A translation of the Targum of Isaiah 9:6 reads as follows:

The prophet said to the house of David “For a boy has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and he has taken the Torah upon himself to observe it. And his name has been called from before the One who gives wonderful counsel, the mighty God, everlasting: ‘the Messiah in whose days the peace will increase upon us’.”²⁰

Roger Syrén, Docent of the Old Testament with Jewish Studies at Åbo Akademi in Finland and a member of the Steering Committee of the International Organization for Targum Study since 1995, commented that in the Targumist’s paraphrase of this verse, the expression “his name has been called from before” stands alone, that is, it is not a continuation of the description of the promised Messiah, as it is in the Hebrew text. Syrén concluded:

Thus, it seems that the Targumist has manipulated the context here, in 9,5, in order to avoid ascribing the appellation “God” to Messiah.²¹

Also of note is the misplaced emphasis on the Torah and the complete omission of the divine title of “Father” which is part of the Hebrew word in Isaiah 9:6. It is this omission that Geisler and Rhodes are willing to embrace rather than confess what the Bible confesses and then justify based on a paraphrase that seeks to circumvent the deity of Christ.

In removing “Father” from Isaiah 9:6, Geisler and Rhodes are practicing textual criticism based on a preconceived theological position. This is an unsound practice. Removing “Father” to accommodate their concept of the Trinity contravenes one of the main principles of textual criticism, lectio difficilior lectio potior (“the more difficult reading is the more probable reading”), which means that where there are differences in the text, it is more likely that the more difficult reading was replaced with the simpler and less controversial one as the text was copied.²² Geisler himself acknowledges this principle of textual criticism.²³ This principle is generally applied to differences in the manuscripts in the original languages (Greek and Hebrew), but the principle also has applicability here. A “simplified paraphrase” simply should not be substituted for the Hebrew text, even if the meaning of the original text challenges one’s theological preconceptions. It should also be noted that some English language translations by Jewish scholars follow the Masoretic text and retain “Father” as a divine title in their translations of Isaiah 9:6.²⁴

The dependence for support on a rabbinical paraphrase is even more striking considering the fact that the Jews misunderstood the prophecies concerning the Lord’s first coming and did not recognize in Him the fulfillment of those prophecies in the Old Testament. Whether or not we accept that the paraphrases in the Targum of Isaiah were influenced by an “anti-Christian polemic,” it is clear that the Targumists did not understand the Old Testament prophecies and are therefore not reliable interpreters of them. It is ironic indeed that in the same article Geisler and Rhodes both champion Biblical inerrancy and yet appeal to a rabbinical paraphrase to support their attempt to explain away the clear statement of inerrant Scripture.

Geisler’s Contradictory Statements

Third, the denial by Geisler and Rhodes that Isaiah refers to the Father in the Godhead also contradicts Geisler’s published writings concerning the divine name of Yahweh (Jehovah). Speaking of the Old Testament he says:

The Bible’s descriptions of Yahweh as Father and Jesus as Son says something of how the Son relates to the Father.²⁵

Elsewhere Geisler states:

Marcion, a second-century heretic, represented the most dangerous movement associated with Gnosticism. According to him, the Father of Jesus is not the same as Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. If this is true, Christianity is severed from its historic roots.²⁶

We agree with this analysis. We also agree with Geisler when he says:

Jesus claimed to be Yahweh God. YHWH; translated in some versions Jehovah, was the special name of God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, “I am who I am.” In John 8:58, Jesus declares: “Before Abraham was, I am.” This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the “I am” of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around him clearly understood his meaning and picked up stones to kill him for blaspheming (see Mark 14:62; John 8:58; 10:31, 33; 18:5-6). Jesus also said, “I am the first and the last (Rev. 2:8).²⁷

What is incomprehensible is how Geisler can identify Yahweh with the Father in the Old Testament and Jesus with Yahweh in the New Testament yet claim no identification between Jesus and the Father. If the Old Testament Yahweh is the Father and the New Testament Yahweh is Jesus, how is it heresy to affirm the testimony of Isaiah 9:6 that because Jesus is called the Father He must in some sense be the Father?

Geisler and Rhodes Subvert the Clear Meaning of the Words

Fourth, Geisler and Rhodes’ interpretation violates one of the chief principles of Biblical interpretation dating from the time of the Reformation. This principle, called sensus literalis, which Luther describes as follows:

Neither a conclusion nor a figure of speech should be admitted in any place of Scripture unless evident contextual circumstances or the absurdity of anything obviously mitigating against an article of faith require it. On the contrary, we must everywhere adhere to the simple, pure, and natural meaning of the words. This accords with the rules of grammar and the usage of speech (usus loquendi) which God has given to men.²⁸

Luther says further:

The Holy Spirit is the plainest Writer and Speaker in heaven and on earth. Therefore His words can have no more than one, and that the most obvious, sense. This we call the literal or nature sense.²⁹

By saying that Isaiah 9:6 does not mean what it clearly says, Geisler and Rhodes make the inspired words of the Bible subservient to their man-made theology.

Conclusion

By their dependence on non-biblical sources to inform their interpretation, Geisler and Rhodes have diluted the force of the clear words of Isaiah 9:6, in effect denying what it says concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son in the incarnation. It is worthwhile to consider where their considerable expenditure of effort leads. In terms of understanding the divine Trinity, it leads to the untenable state of having two divine Fathers—the eternal Father in the Godhead and Jesus as the Father of eternity. This is precisely the error Witness Lee pointed out over thirty years ago in What a Heresy-Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods! As far as entering into the depths of the divine revelation, Geisler and Rhodes’ explanation of Isaiah 9:6 leads precisely nowhere. It makes the relationship among the three of the Godhead a matter of objective speculation rather than a model for the believers’ oneness. This is not according to the basic nature of the Bible, which is the revelation of God in His move to carry out His purpose among men. The way taken by Geisler and Rhodes ultimately leads in a different direction. The result may be a self-satisfied sense of having maintained one’s intellectual model of the Trinity intact, notwithstanding its inconsistency with the totality of the divine revelation in the Bible.

On the other hand, Witness Lee’s consideration of the pure word in the Bible regarding the Trinity led him to realize that God’s heart’s desire is to have a group of people conformed to Christ, God’s firstborn Son, and living in the mutual indwelling of God and man for the building up of the Body of Christ. His teaching similarly seeks to bring believers to such a realization of God’s purpose so that they can participate in God’s move to carry out His divine economy. The issue of Witness Lee’s teaching is to produce in God’s people a spiritual hunger to experience and participate in the mutual indwelling of God and man for the corporate expression of God in man according to God’s eternal purpose and heart’s desire.

Notes:

¹This article examines one aspect of the truth concerning the Trinity which has been neglected by most theologians and by Christians generally, that is, the identification of Christ with the Father in Isaiah 9:6. The reader should not presume that this represents the full teaching of Witness Lee or of the local churches concerning the relationship between the Son and the Father in the divine Trinity. While we do affirm the clear word of the Bible concerning the identification of Christ with the Father, we also affirm the eternal distinction between Them. As Witness Lee wrote:

Among the three of the Divine Trinity, there is distinction but no separation. The Father is distinct from the Son, the Son is distinct from the Spirit, and the Spirit is distinct from the Son and the Father. The three of the Godhead co-exist in Their coinherence, so They are distinct but not separate. In the Triune God there is no separation, only distinction. The Triune God exists in His coinherence. On the one hand, the three are coinhering; on the other hand, at the same time they are co-existing. Thus, They are one. They are not separate. (The History of God in His Union with Man (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1993), p. 17)

The publications of Living Stream Ministry contain many balanced presentations of the truths concerning the Triune God. Of these, the following date from the mid-1970s and have been available on this site for many years:

Witness Lee, The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976)
Witness Lee, The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, n.d.)
Ron Kangas, Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God according to the Bible (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1976)

The inaugural issue of Affirmation & Critique (I:1, January 1996) was devoted to the subject of “Knowing the Triune God.” It contains several excellent articles, including:

Kerry S. Robichaux, “Axioms of the Trinity,” pp. 6-11.
Ron Kangas, “Knowing the Triune God as Revealed in the Word of God,” pp. 12-22.
Ed Marks, “A Biblical Overview of the Triune God,” pp. 23-31.
Kerry S. Robichaux, “The Straight Cut: Some Biblical Trinitarian Conundrums,” pp. 46-49.

²Witness Lee, What a Heresy-Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods! (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1977).

³Ibid., p. 17.

⁴Ibid., p. 13. George Rawlinson, The Pulpit Commentary: Isaiah, Vol. I (London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1910), p. 167, comments:

The Everlasting Father; rather, Everlasting or Eternal Father. But here again, there is a singularity in the idea, which makes the omission of the article unimportant; for how could there be more than one Everlasting Father, one Creator, Preserver, Protector of mankind who was absolutely eternal?

In one of the homilies that follows Rawlinson’s exposition, Rev. R. Tuck says:

He is the Son, and yet it can be said of him that he is the “Everlasting Father.” This last assertion seems to be the most astonishing of them all. “The Son is the Father.” Christ sustained this view: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Every man’s work is to find the Father in Christ. No man has truly seen Christ who has not found in him the Father, and learned from him the fatherhood of God.” (p. 181)

⁵Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor [Pædagogus],” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 215.

⁶Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 594, emphasis in original.

⁷Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968), p. 38.

⁸Witness Lee, The Conclusion of the New Testament, Messages 276-294 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 2004), p. 2957.

⁹Norman Geisler and R. E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 39

¹⁰Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1977, 2003), p. 24. Ron Rhodes, Christ before the Manger: The Life and Times of the Preincarnate Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 235.

¹¹See John F. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

¹²Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 336.

¹³As, for example in Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), pp. 78-79.

¹⁴Geisler and Rhodes actually posit two “viable view[s]” of the meaning of eternal Father. One is that Jesus is eternal and the other is that Jesus is the giver of eternal life. However, Rhodes elsewhere has stated that there is only one possible interpretation: “Clearly, the ancient Jews considered the phrase ‘Father of eternity’ a reference to the eternality of the Messiah. There can be no doubt that this is the meaning Isaiah intended to communicate to his readers” (Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers 1993), p. 166). Apparently, there is doubt as even Geisler and Rhodes could not agree on the correct interpretation.

¹⁵Bruce Metzger, “Important Early Translations of the Bible,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150:597 (January-March 1993), p. 42.

¹⁶Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to Biblica Hebraica, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979) p. 76. Pierre Grelot, Les Poèmes du Serviteur (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1981), p. 222, states:

Thus, one is no longer confronted with a problem of translation, even somewhat broadly: more even than the Septuagint, the Targum is a recomposition of the text which has its own coherence.

¹⁷Würthwein, op. cit., p. 76. Harald Risenfeld, Jésus Transfiguré (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1947), pp. 85-86, says:

It is evident that there we have in essence an intentional and systematic transposition. One cannot avoid supposing that this transformation was made during the targumic translation or later with the aim of replacing, with a polemic intention, a different Messianic concept which one disapproved of, namely that of a suffering Messiah.

¹⁸E.g., J. Jeremias, “παῖς θεοῦ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. V, Gerhard Friedrich, ed., translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 695:

Though we have already noted an earlier tendency of the LXX to attenuate the passion texts of Is. 53 [1965], there is only one possible explanation for this violent wresting of the chapter in the Tg. [Targum], with its consistent reversal of the meaning, namely, that we have here an instance of anti-Christian polemic.

Roger Syrén, “Targum Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Christian Interpretation,” Journal of Jewish Studies, 40:2, (Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, Autumn 1989), pp. 205-206:

If we drew an axis with two extremes, ‘translation’ and ‘recomposition’ along which to place Tg Is. 53, the opinion of a majority of scholars would certainly tip the balance in favour of the second extreme. ‘Recomposition’ is precisely the word used by Grelot in his characterization of the chapter, and he also classifies this text (and parts of the other ‘Servant Songs’ in the Tg as an Aramaic Midrash for which the text is just a pretext for expressing a certain theological stance. Others have characterized the passage as “une transposition intentionnelle et systématique’ (H. Riesenfeld), or, with a well-found simile, “not a translation, or even a paraphrase, but a rewriting which preserved nothing of the idea and architecture of the original edifice; instead, it used only the building stones to erect something completely new’ (H. S. Nyberg).

¹⁹E.g., Jostein Ådna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13—53:12 in the Targum of Isaiah with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah,” The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 190:

Even a superficial reading of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in the Hebrew Bible and the Targum of Isaiah (a part of the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets) reveals considerable differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic versions.

²⁰Roger Syrén, “The Isaiah-Targum and Christian Interpretation,” Scandanavian Journal of the Old Testament: 3:1, (Aarhus University Press, 1989), p. 57. Note: The numbering of verses varies among versions. The version cited here identifies this verse as Isaiah 9:5, which matches , for example, the Jewish TANAKH.

²¹Ibid., p. 60. See note 19.

²²Concerning lectio difficilior see: Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. xxvi-xxvii; Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 209; Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 116; Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), pp. 293, 386; D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 30.

²³Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), p. 552, quoting Ernst Würthwein. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), pp. 80-81.

²⁴For example, the JPS TANAKH (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985) says, “Eternal Father.” The rendering of Isaiah 9:6 in The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Jewish Publication Society, 1917) uses a transliteration of the Hebrew which combines all of the descriptive titles (“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”) into one compound name—”Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.” Of note here is that “Abi” which is “Father” is capitalized, indicating that the translators recognized it as a divine title. A Messianic Jewish translation, the Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David H. Stern (Nashville, TN: Jewish New Testament Publications) also capitalizes “Father” as a divine title in this verse.

²⁵Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, op. cit., p. 732.

²⁶Norman L. Geisler and R. E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, op. cit., p. 82.

²⁷Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia, op. cit., p. 731.

²⁸Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, Vol. 1, Ewald M. Plass, ed. (St. Louis, MO, Concordia, 1959), p. 93.

²⁹Ibid., pp. 91-92.

Research Conclusions

Posted on 11/30/200908/02/2017 by DCPPress

Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches

The following excerpts from the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast hosted by Hank Hanegraaff speak to the scope of the team’s research and the basic conclusions they reached:

The dialogue between the local churches and CRI began in 2003 when Hank Hanegraaff, Gretchen Passantino, and Elliot Miller sat down with representatives of Living Stream Ministry (LSM), which publishes the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and of the local churches. The meeting began with the representatives of LSM and the local churches presenting what they preach and teach as the common faith. On his January 5, 2010, broadcast, Hank Hanegraaff testified of the “stirring affirmations” of orthodox Christian teaching that they heard in this first meeting. He also described the extent of CRI’s research leading to their reassessment and publication of the “We Were Wrong” issue of the Christian Research Journal.

In the same broadcast Hank Hanegraaff testified that in his visits to local churches in various parts of the world, he saw “authentic New Testament Christianity in action.”

Beginning in the early 1970s Gretchen Passantino was one of the early critics of the local churches and of Witness Lee. On the June 12, 2007, Bible Answer Man broadcast, Gretchen spoke about the CRI research team’s reassessment of the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches, concluding that it is “well within Christian orthodoxy” and that the members of the churches are “our brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcast Excerpts

Posted on 11/30/200901/21/2022 by DCPPress

In December 2009, the Christian Research Institute (CRI) published an issue of the Christian Research Journal (now available in a special edition in several languages from CRI’s website) in which it reported some of the findings of a six-year primary research project concerning the teaching and practice of Witness Lee and the local churches. Hank Hanegraaff, President of CRI, participated in the research directly. He was aided by Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, and Gretchen Passantino, co-founder and Director of Answers in Action (AIA) and co-author of some of the earliest printed material critical of Witness Lee and the local churches. Both before and after the special issue of the Journal was published, Hank Hanegraaff, Gretchen Passantino, and Elliot Miller discussed their research on the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. In some of the broadcasts, Hanegraaff was joined by Andrew Yu and Chris Wilde, representatives of Living Stream Ministry, publisher of the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Video excerpts of those broadcasts are available on the following pages:

A Brief Affirmation of Living Stream Ministry
A Brief Affirmation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee
The Normal Christian Life

The Importance of Proper Research and Apologetics Methods

Posted on 11/30/200904/27/2018 by DCPPress

Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches

In these excerpts from broadcasts of the Bible Answer Man radio program, Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute, and Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal, discuss the need of apologetics ministries to apply proper research and apologetic methods, including evaluating others’ statements in context, engaging in dialogue to gain proper understanding of others’ teachings, and avoiding presumptive use of loaded language such as the term cult in describing others:

Critics of the local churches have not engaged in dialogue with representatives of the churches nor have they fairly represented the corpus of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee’s ministry. Such dialogue and fairness should be the hallmarks of apologetics work but often are not. On January 5, 2010, Hank Hanegraaff and Elliot Miller discussed the importance of doing discernment ministry properly and the consequences of statements made in error.

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, criticisms of the teachings of Witness Lee and the local churches have typically relied upon short quotations divorced from their original context. On June 6, 2010, Hank Hanegraaff spoke about the importance of context in understanding others’ teachings.

In 1985, after extensive research into criticisms of the ministry of Witness Lee, Dr. J. Gordon Melton wrote an open letter in which he clearly demonstrated that The God-Men, an early book critical of the local churches, took statements from Witness Lee’s teaching out of context and made them say the opposite of his intent. Although Dr. Melton is generally considered to be an eminent authority on contemporary American religious movements, his open letter was largely ignored. On January 6, 2010, Elliot Miller spoke about Dr. Melton’s findings and the countercult community’s response.

In the same broadcast Elliot Miller remarked on the importance of dialogue in understanding others’ teachings and how dialogue with representatives of the local churches led the Christian Research Institute to reassess its earlier criticisms.

On the next day’s broadcast, speaking in the context of the history between CRI and the local churches, Elliot Miller described the barriers to dialogue created by calling a group a cult and commented on the initial reticence that he and Gretchen Passantino felt concerning the value of dialogue with the local churches. This was due to a long history of past conflicts between the churches and CRI. Elliot also discusses the change in their view that resulted after engaging in such dialogue.

Local Church Practices

Posted on 11/30/200903/16/2018 by DCPPress

Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches

During their reassessment of the teaching and practice of Witness Lee and the local churches, Hank Hanegraaff, the President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast, and Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal, realized that certain scriptural practices they had observed in the local churches are potentially of great benefit to the entire Body of Christ. In particular, they were struck by the practices of pray-reading, in which the Bible is used as the content of prayer (Eph. 6:18), and prophesying, in which all of the members of the church practice speaking for and speaking forth Christ from God’s Word (1 Cor. 14:1, 3-5, 26). They speak of their impressions in the following excerpts from the Bible Answer Man radio broadcasts:

On September 8, 2008, Hank Hanegraaff commented on his realization that the local churches have “something to offer Western Christianity.”

On September 3, 2010, Hank spoke about the practice of prophesying, in which every believer has the opportunity to speak for Christ. He described this practice as “not prophesying in the sense of foretelling the future but in the 1 Corinthians 14 sense of edification and strengthening other believers.”

On January 6, 2010, Hank and Elliot Miller discussed the relationship between pray-reading as a means of equipping the believers and the practice of prophesying according to 1 Corinthians 14 as a means of mutual edification. Elliot described pray-reading as “immersing yourself in the Word of God in a way I’ve never seen people do before” and as a kind of meditation “which means to chew on the cud” [Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6]. It means to really turn something over and go at it from every direction and get every little bit of nutrition out of that piece of food.”

Criticism of the Open Letter

Posted on 11/30/200903/09/2018 by DCPPress

Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches

In early 2007, a group of scholars and ministry leaders published “An Open Letter to the Leadership of Living Stream Ministry and the ‘Local Churches'” on the Internet. In it they included a series of short, out-of-context excerpts from the ministry of Witness Lee. Their presentation was a gross misrepresentation of Witness Lee’s teachings. The open letter addressed four issues—the Trinity, deification, the standing of the local church, and litigation. Representatives of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches have since produced three responses to the “Open Letter.” ¹. To date, none of the signers of the “Open Letter” have made any substantive answer to these responses.

On January 5, Hank Hanegraaff and Elliot Miller discussed the open letter and how seventy Christian scholars and ministry leaders could be wrong. Elliot described the early research done by CRI and commented, “That they [the open letter signers] would be wrong only follows since they’re building their conclusions on our original work, and we were wrong.”

In the same broadcast, Elliot Miller spoke about the local churches’ teaching on the Trinity. He said that Western Christianity tends to oversimplify the Trinity while the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches “actually are bringing a correction to a problem within Western evangelicalism.”

On the same program, Elliot commented on the local churches’ teaching on deification. He said, “Witness Lee says, on the one hand, the New Testament reveals that the Godhead is unique and that only God alone who has the Godhead should be worshipped. On the other hand, the New Testament reveals that we believers in Christ have God’s life and nature, that we are becoming God in life and nature but will never have His Godhead.” Elliot then discusses some of the implications of this statement and concludes, “They’re talking about things that we ourselves believe in.”

On June 10, 2010, Hank spoke about the local churches’ affirmation of a famous axiom of Athanasius, an early church father sometimes called “the father of orthodoxy,” that “God became man to make man God,” saying that it is a double standard to accuse Witness Lee of heresy when Athanasius affirms the same thing. Furthermore, Hank says, “The Apostle Peter would be suspect for stating that we are partakers of the divine nature.”

On January 6, 2010, Elliot Miller explained the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee concerning the proper standing of a local church.

In the same broadcast, Elliot and Hank discussed the litigation over the book The God-Men produced by Neil Duddy and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP) and the actual damages caused by being falsely accused of being a cult.

Notes:

¹
The three responses are:

Persecution in China

Posted on 11/30/200908/02/2017 by DCPPress

Excerpts from Bible Answer Man Radio Broadcasts Concerning the Teaching and Practice of Witness Lee and the Local Churches

As part of their research concerning the teachings and practice of Witness Lee and the local churches, Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast; Gretchen Passantino, co-founder and Director of Answers in Action (AIA); and Elliot Miller, Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal, all traveled to China to observe the local churches there. They met with believers from the local churches, some of whom had suffered persecution as a result of statements made in the U.S. by Christian countercult ministries. In the following excerpts from various Bible Answer Man broadcasts, they discuss their experiences:

On January 5, 2010, Elliot Miller described his experience of meeting with Christians in the local churches in China. There he saw a revival that was not just emotional but was grounded in orthodox theology, and he recalled the strong moving of the Spirit of God in the gospel that was evident in China. He said, “What I saw was a much more faithful expression of Christianity, and I began to see that this could be the best hope for the church in the future. As the lights are going out in the West, they are starting to brighten up in the East and you have some very dedicated disciples of Christ.”

Motion for Rehearing

Posted on 02/28/200906/20/2017 by DCPPress

This document is the official Motion for Rehearing submitted to the Texas Supreme Court on part of the plaintiffs in Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al after the Texas Court of Appeals ruled to overturn earlier District Court rulings and grant summary judgment in favor of Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon. The motion explains the importance of the case in both jurisprudential and practical terms and also contests the reasons given by Harvest House against review. Furthermore, it reiterates that the plaintiffs’ action is based upon the false categorization of the local churches as a cult in the secular, not religious, sense of the term.

Motion for Rehearing

Download PDF

Amicus Brief from Cult Experts (U.S. Supreme Court)

Posted on 02/28/200906/15/2017 by DCPPress

Three organizations and four individuals filed this amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of the appeal of The Local Church, Living Stream Ministry, et al for relief from defamation in the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, published by Harvest House Publishing. The brief argued that:

The court of appeals’ decision that the term cult is not capable of defamatory meaning, even when criminal and abhorrent conduct is ascribed to those labeled with that term, allows religion to be used as a cloak for defamation;
The Supreme Court should clarify that falsely labeling a group a “cult” in a theological sense should not be actionable, but falsely labeling a group a “cult” in a secular
sense should be; and
The Establishment Clause did not apply in the case because those labeled “cults” in ECNR were so labeled not merely in a theological sense but also in the secular
sense of the term, and the plaintiffs’ claims were based on the secular usage.

The signers of the amicus were recognized experts in the field of countercult apologetics:

Christian Research Institute (CRI) and its president, Hank Hanegraaff
Answers in Action (AIA) and its director, Gretchen Passantino
Neighboring Faiths Project and its co-director John Morehead
Ruth A. Tucker

PDF of Amicus Brief from Cult Experts (U.S. Supreme Court)

Local Church et al v. Harvest House et al—Texas Supreme Court Decision

Posted on 02/28/200906/20/2017 by DCPPress

December 12, 2006

On August 2, 2006, Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and 93 local churches petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals concerning the libel case brought by these churches and LSM against Harvest House Publishers and authors John Ankerberg and John Weldon regarding the book Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR). On December 1, 2006 the Court declined to consider that request.

The plaintiff churches and LSM felt constrained to petition the Texas Supreme Court because the decision of the Texas Appeals Court was seriously flawed and did not take into consideration the evidence or facts of the case. The ruling of the Appeals Court was based on faulty technical, legal grounds, and not on the facts of the case, which we continue to believe would be very compelling if ever presented to a jury. Furthermore, that ruling also raised issues that could have far-reaching implications for all manner of Christian and other religious groups in the future by creating a vehicle whereby libel and defamation can be protected under the guise of “religious speech.” This potential still exists, and it may in fact be strengthened by the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court. Therefore, we plan to ask the Texas Supreme Court to reconsider their decision within the next few days. Beyond that, we are still prayerfully considering whether or not to appeal this case to the next level.

We believe that from the beginning we have followed the Lord’s leading and regard all that has happened as being under His sovereign hand. Throughout this process, He has led us to gratifying fraternity and fellowship with many other followers of Christ who have patiently and earnestly looked into both the complex legal aspects of this case and the teachings and practices of the local churches.

Several of these are well-respected Christian leaders, and a number have been severely criticized—both publicly and privately—for taking a principled and courageous stand with us for the truth. We have been encouraged by and are grateful for their steadfast support in this effort—even at great personal cost. To all our friends and supporters who have stood with us both publicly and behind the scenes, we offer our deepest gratitude.

While we are disappointed by the Texas Supreme Court’s unwillingness to consider this case further, neither that decision nor the previous ruling of the Texas Court of Appeals vindicate or validate the things written in ECNR. The Supreme Court has chosen simply not to consider the matter. As for the Appeals Court, their primary conclusion was that the complained of language in the book could not be construed as applying to the local churches or Living Stream Ministry. Harvest House has also publicly stated that they never intended for the abhorrent conduct detailed in the introduction to apply to Living Stream Ministry or the local churches.

Yet, the fact remains that many people have attributed, and will continue to attribute, the egregious accusations made in the book’s introduction to Living Stream Ministry and the local churches. As a result, many believers, especially in countries that do not enjoy the same degree of religious freedom that we do in America, are suffering for their faith.

Therefore, we respectfully call upon Harvest House to align their actions with their public statements and do the right thing. If they sincerely believe, as they have repeatedly proclaimed, that the things written in ECNR were not intended to apply to Living Stream Ministry and the local churches, they should remove any mention of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches from ECNR and any future publications that make similar allegations. We hope that they would take this action for the sake of the unity of Body of Christ and for the welfare of innocent believers everywhere who have suffered as an unintended result of that book. We also hope our brothers and sisters throughout the Christian community will join us in this plea.

Background on this case, including copies of official court documents

The entire statement is available in Adobe format here.

A Confirmation of the Gospel: Concerning the Teaching of the Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry

Posted on 02/28/200903/24/2022 by DCPPress

This book contains material related to the extended dialogue that representatives of Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and the local churches held with a panel of Fuller Theological Seminary faculty members. This material includes:

A statement prepared by the LSM editorial section addressing key issues that were points of emphasis in that dialogue. These points include an affirmation of the common faith and explanations of the teachings of LSM and the local churches concerning, among other things:
- the Trinity,
- the identification of Christ with the life-giving Spirit,
- the two natures of Christ,
- God’s full salvation, and
- the genuine ground of oneness.
There is also a section describing the way the local churches meet together and seek to serve the Lord;
A statement issued by Fuller Theological Seminary explaining their key findings as a result of their study.

Read this publication

Read online:
PDF
Web ePub

Download:
PDF en
PDF zh
PDF ko

Dialogues with Apologetics Ministries and Theologians

Posted on 11/30/200808/02/2017 by DCPPress

From the Preface to The Local Churches: “Genuine Believers and Fellow Members of the Body of Christ” (read excerpts of the statements by Hank Hanegraaff, Gretchen Passantino, and Fuller Theological Seminary):

Over the years the local churches have welcomed dialogue with scholars who were willing to conduct honest and thorough research in order to understand our beliefs and practices. We have been privileged over the past five years to have engaged in dialogue and Christian fellowship with a number of such researchers and scholars. The content of this book reflects some of the progress that has been made both in dispelling misconceptions concerning the teachings and practices of the local churches and Living Stream Ministry (LSM) and in raising an awareness of the riches of the ministry we have inherited. LSM publishes the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee (see www.lsm.org and www.ministrybooks.org)

In 2003 Hank Hanegraaff, the President of CRI; Elliot Miller, the editor-in-chief of CRI’s flagship publication Christian Research Journal; Bob and Gretchen Passantino, the founders and Directors of Answers in Action (AIA); and representatives of the local churches and LSM desired to meet together. In the first meeting representatives of the local churches and LSM testified of their belief in the essentials of the Christian faith concerning the Bible, the Triune God, the person and work of Christ, salvation, and the church. As a result of that meeting, CRI and AIA launched a re-evaluation of the teachings and practices of the local churches.^[1] Now that the local churches have been in the United States for many years, there are many resources regarding our teachings and practices that were not as available in the years when the initial evaluation was made. Although others continue to rely on old criticisms, CRI and AIA have made use of that complete information. Their evaluation has been far more extensive than the initial review decades before, and this new study has arrived at far different conclusions.

In late 2004 a separate dialogue was initiated between Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, and representatives of the local churches and LSM. A group of three distinguished members of the Seminary—President Richard Mouw, Dean of Theology Howard Loewen, and Professor of Systematic Theology Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen—performed an extensive and careful review and evaluation of our teachings and practices. Of their meetings with the representatives of the local churches and LSM they said, “Our times together were characterized by sincere, open, transparent, and unrestricted dialog.” As a result of their review, they issued a statement (also reproduced in this book) in which they concluded “that the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect.” They also reported finding “a great disparity between the perceptions that have been generated in some circles concerning the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and the actual teachings found in their writings.”

We are grateful for the dialogue we have had with members of CRI, AIA, and Fuller Theological Seminary, dialogue which has been both frank and full of sweet Christian fellowship. We are deeply moved by the faithfulness of our brothers and our sister in Christ in adhering to the essentials of the Christian faith and receiving all those who hold “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) without regard to personal consequences…

Benson Phillips Andrew Yu Chris Wilde

November 2008

Since the publication of their initial statements in this book, the Christian Research Institute (CRI) has gone further to dedicate an entire issue of the Christian Research Journal (available in several languages in a special edition entitled “We Were Wrong” from the CRI website) to present the results of their detailed research into the teachings of Living Stream Ministry and the local churches. The cover of this issue of the Journal declares, “We Were Wrong,” and the main article, written by Elliot Miller, rebuts an open letter that was published on the Internet by a group of evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders. That open letter consisted almost entirely of out-of-context quotes from the ministry of Witness Lee. In his article Elliot Miller shows how the teachings of Witness Lee are well within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy on subjects such as the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and the practical outworking of the Body of Christ in local churches.

Hank Hanegraaff, CRI’s President, has dedicated several broadcasts of his Bible Answer Man radio program to discussions of CRI’s research and findings in their reassessment of the teachings and practices of Witness Lee and the local churches. Two complete broadcasts are available on a CD for purchase from CRI’s website. Excerpts from those broadcasts are available on YouTube. In these excerpts Hank Hanegraaff, Elliot Miller, and Gretchen Passantino discuss the research that led to their reassessment of the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches and resulted in the publication of the “We Were Wrong” issue of the Journal.

In recent years more and more Christians have confirmed that the local churches are sound in their stand for the essentials of the common faith. Voices of Confirmation Concerning Watchman Nee, Witness Lee & the Local Churches is a brochure containing statements from leaders in the fields of Christian apologetics, theology, and evangelical journalism affirming that the local churches raised up through the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee are orthodox in their belief and practice.

Notes:

¹ Although Robert Passantino agreed with his wife Gretchen that such a study was merited, he went to the Lord on November 17, 2003, before the desired follow-up meetings began.

DCP Press book files

The DCP Press book files on this Web site are laid out in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) with a page size of 5.5″ x 8.5″. These PDF files can be taken to a digital or offset printer as is to print and bind in booklet form. To request access to the book covers for printing, please contact us:

If you print this file using default settings, it will print centered on the page with wide margins. To print this file two to a page (but not in bookfold format), select “Multiple pages per sheet” on the pulldown menu for “Page scaling” on the Print dialog box. This should change “Pages per sheet” to 2.

For more information concerning these dialogues and their outcomes, please refer to: