Author Archive: DCPPress

A Challenge to the Bible Answer Man

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix

December 10

A Review of the Controversy

In the past two months Witness Lee and the local churches have responded at great length to the attacks made upon them over the radio and at Melodyland by the Bible Answer Man. They have further made countercharges concerning the erroneous nature of the Bible Answer Man’s research and his faulty, shallow understanding of various passages of Scripture. The Bible Answer Man publicly continues to attack on issues that have already been refuted as if nothing had been said, while refusing to straightly address any points on which he has been challenged, rather leading people into sidetracked discussions on various irrelevant issues. The result is that it is very hard for the public to remember what the source of the dispute was, what the issues really were, and what has actually been proven. For this reason we present the following synopsis of the dispute that has aroused so much public interest.

The Beginnings

According to the Bible Answer Man, this controversy began as his defense against the attack of the local churches. Let’s look at the facts.

In mid-1975 associates of the Bible Answer Man and Melodyland began to publicly harass Witness Lee and the local churches. With the endorsement of the Bible Answer Man, they printed literature to warn people against the local churches, and spread reports of the church’s so-called heretical teachings that they had constructed from their superficial research. Several seminars were held to disseminate their views, and they even came to the meetings of the churches, distributed their literature, met people, and warned them against being in the local churches. With inquisition-like fervor people were called and warned about the local churches. Others were given late night visits by these crusaders who spent hours to frighten and intimidate people against the churches. The attitude of the associates of the Bible Answer Man was definitely not that of researchers looking for truth, neither was it an attitude of brothers in Christ wishing to discuss doctrinal differences. This kind of public attack was carried on for two years, at least twice finding its way to radio broadcast.

Meanwhile little was done by the local churches beyond patient enduring and prayers for those who persecuted us. With time the attack became worse, and we realized that the more these things were allowed to go on, the bolder and more fallacious the attacks became. In the Bible Answer Man’s own words, our silence was construed as consent. It should be noted that from the beginning there was on the part of our opposers an attitude of pre-determined guilt that precluded any real discussion of facts. Any encounter with them was not on the level of researchers looking for truth, but rather of zealots looking for more stones to throw.

In spite of the repeated attacks against us in Orange County and spreading across the U.S.A., including the issuing of a tract endorsed by the Bible Answer Man, we did nothing until the Bible Answer Man himself scheduled a talk against the local churches in Anaheim. In February, 1977, the local churches made official protest to the Bible Answer Man at Faith Lutheran Church. There, challenged for the first time, the Bible Answer Man apologized to Witness Lee and agreed to suspend the tract that he had endorsed, until further research could be done.

After promising not to circulate one piece of defamatory literature, his staff merely replaced it with another, and the attack continued unabated, including further radio broadcasts specifically to condemn the local churches. Finally the Bible Answer Man himself publicly attacked and condemned Witness Lee and the local churches in a meeting at Melodyland before 4,000 people and has sent the tape of that meeting all over the U.S.A.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Bible Answer Man has the audacity to say that he was merely defending himself and his church against the attacks of the local church. There is no way before man or God that he can prove the truth of that statement. We never had a meeting to publicly criticize him or Melodyland. Let him try to produce one piece of literature or cite one meeting that we had concerning him personally or Melodyland in spite of the numerous attacks made by him and his associates over the last three years. Only when he made a public condemnation of Witness Lee and the local churches at Melodyland did we respond to publish the truth for the sake of the public.

In the local churches we do not hesitate on occasion to point out according to God’s Word the unrighteous, divisive and worldly practices that exist in Christianity today. This is done in principle and the application to specific situations is left up to the conscience of the individual. If the consciences of the Bible Answer Man and Melodyland are now troubled, this is one matter; but they cannot show that we ever attacked or condemned them specifically. Neither can they use this as an excuse to specifically and viciously attack by name other members of the Body of Christ.

Regardless of how he tries to justify himself, the responsibility for the start of this public dispute lies in the specific, purposeful, and prolonged attack of the Bible Answer Man and his associates on Witness Lee and the local churches. The responsibility for any damage done to the Lord’s Body on this account rests squarely on their shoulders.

The Changing Nature of the Dispute

It is not surprising that the public is confused about the nature of the whole dispute. This is due to the way the nature of the controversy has changed in the past few months.

Up until the time the Bible Answer Man was challenged by the local church in February, 1977, he and his associates attacked the local churches as a non-Christian cult. They lumped it together with such ignoble groups as Hare Krishna and Sun Moon’s Unification Church. Thus through guilt-by-association the churches were slandered as being non-Christian. Although at times they admitted that some were really saved, their early thrust was to portray the churches as non-Christian.

Only when the Bible Answer Man is pressed does he change his manner of speaking. On this point the Bible Answer Man has gradually backtracked over the past months. Not wanting to contradict his own research staff, he will not make a definite admission of this change of position, but the fact is there. In the course of the last months’ debate he has moved from the early portrait of us as a non-Christian cult to his present label of “divisive members of the Body of Christ” or “confused Christians.” This move in position is not easy to note because the Bible Answer Man, while affirming we are still Christians and not a cult, uses the term “cultic” and freely uses the ploy of association with non-Christian groups. Thus, while he is forced to speak the truth, he takes every opportunity to malign Witness Lee and the local churches.

So now it is no longer the pursuit of a cult – but a fight against other members of the Body of Christ. The more this fact is made clear to the public, the more ‘the great cult fighter’ and his supporters shrink back in embarrassment at their manifold efforts to beat down, in the name of cultic research, a little group of Christians with whom they do not agree. The self-proclaimed defender of the faith now becomes the divider of the Body of Christ as he publicly fights with other Christians over points not sufficient to put them outside of the faith. Let the Bible Answer Man explain to the public why he has thus used his reputation to slander people he knows are his brothers in Christ.

It seems a man who is reputed to be an expert on comparative religions should have given a more accurate report to the public at the beginning. Didn’t he realize from the beginning the scope of what he was doing – or did he just hope he wouldn’t get caught? The more the facts are aired before the public, the more the real situation becomes clear; this is why the Bible Answer Man has attempted to bring this controversy to a close.

The False Claims

In spite of patient and detailed rebuttal of every major point of the Bible Answer Man’s attack, he continues to make the same charges as if he has not read the rebuttals, or else does not care about them. One thing is certain: he does not care to let the public read the rebuttals for themselves and thus does not tell the public of the detailed responses that have been made to every charge. As comprehensive response has already been made, each false claim will merely be listed here with the literature already written to refute it. This literature is available to anyone from Living Stream Ministry, 1853 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804.

  1. The false claim that we hold a modalistic view of the Trinity.
  2. The false claims concerning the mingling of God with man and man partaking of the divine nature.
  3. The false claim that we believe that the church has become the fourth member of the Godhead.
  4. The false claim that we have altered or added to the text of Scripture in the Recovery Version of different books of the Bible.
  5. The false claim that we believe only those meeting with us are the members of the church.
  6. The false claim that we use our views to cause division in the Body of Christ.
  7. The false claim that we are engaged in “proselytizing” and “sheep-stealing.”
  8. The false claim that pray-reading God’s Word is “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

“A Reply to the Tract Against Witness Lee and the local churches,” by Gene Ford.

“Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible,” by Ron Kangas.

“The Triune God: A Testimony of Our Belief and Experience,” by Ron Kangas.

“The Clear Scriptural Revelation Concerning the Triune God,” by Witness Lee.

“The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible,” by Witness Lee.

“What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-giving Spirits, and Three Gods!” by Witness Lee.

Reprints from The Register: October 8, 15, 22, 29, November 5, December 3, 1977.

Reeducation

There are a few points of attack in which the Bible Answer Man has not neglected the response of the local churches and has had a change of opinion.

In the early weeks following his Melodyland lecture, on his call-in program, the Bible Answer Man adamantly insisted that the Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17, “Now the Lord is that Spirit,” referred to the Father. When pressed by the obvious meaning of the context, he admitted that the Lord there could refer to Jesus Christ. He has yet to see that the obvious way to interpret this verse is with the verses of the same writer in the same book (1 Cor. 3:14-4:5) rather than to interpret by another verse, in another book, by another author (John 4:24).

A further example of the progressive enlightening of the Bible Answer Man is his evolving interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:45. At first he denied that Christ could be the life-giving Spirit in resurrection, thus denying the obvious meaning of the verse. His reason was that Christ in resurrection was a man with flesh and bones, seated at God’s right hand, to which the local churches in word and print have agreed. In the course of further questioning on the meaning of the phrase, “The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving Spirit,” he interpreted it to mean that Christ in incarnation was made a life-giving Spirit. When asked about the apparent problem of Christ being a man in incarnation and at the same time a life-giving Spirit, he failed to see any problem. In other words, while criticizing the churches for saying Christ is the Spirit while He is also a man, he himself said the same thing. He maintains that for him to say Christ is a man at the same time He is a Spirit is proper, but for the local churches to say He is a Spirit at the same time He is a man is not. Temporarily disregarding his dubious interpretation of this verse, he has at least admitted that Christ did become a life-giving Spirit. However he still has a big problem in that he maintains that this Spirit is different from the Holy Spirit. As the Bible Answer Man now has two life-giving Spirits, it seems more education is needed.

Unanswered Questions

Several weeks ago the Bible Answer Man announced that he would take no more calls from people in the local churches. In stopping the questions, the Bible Answer Man begged a truce in the asking of questions which he could not answer. There still remains before the public a great many questions that he has not answered in relation to his attack upon the local churches. Although he claims to be a biblical authority, his manifested inability to prove the scriptural validity and intellectual integrity of his work casts a heavy shadow over all he has said. Among the unanswered questions are:

  1. He made the serious charge that Witness Lee and the local churches changed the text of the Bible. Certainly a man that is a scholar would have thoroughly documented such a charge. However, the Bible Answer Man has never produced one verse as proof of this charge in spite of repeated requests. He sidetracked the discussion for weeks to one footnote which he disagreed with. After it was proven that the reputed scholar J. N. Darby had a nearly identical note, the Bible Answer Man produced another edition of Darby’s translation with essentially the same note, claiming Darby had changed his mind. All this diversion drew the attention away from the fact that he cannot produce one verse to support his allegation.
  2. The Bible Answer Man changed the word “Father” in Isaiah 9:6 to “source.” The same word is used over one thousand times in the Old Testament, every time translated “father.” Why did the Bible Answer Man take the presumptuous step of changing it in this one instance? The plain fact is that he cannot explain it without altering it. He realizes once he admits the word “father,” he cannot escape the inevitable conclusion that Isaiah 9:6 says the Son is the Father.
  3. In a similar way, why has he done his best to change the obvious straightforward meaning of 2 Corinthians 3:17, as previously mentioned in this article? Why does he twist the plain teaching of this passage?
  4. He cannot explain the nature of the union of the believer with the Lord to form “one spirit” in 1 Corinthians 6:17.
  5. He cannot explain how Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:45 as the life-giving Spirit could be different from the Holy Spirit, who also gives life, in 2 Corinthians 3:6.
  6. He cannot affirm Christ Himself living in the believer, but rather says that Christ is represented in the believer by another Person.
  7. He cannot justify the isolation of various quotes of Witness Lee from their context to make them say what was never meant.
  8. He cannot justify his mocking perversion of our Christian practices of pray-reading God’s Word and calling on the name of our dear Lord, making them seem cultic and mindless.

Conclusion

Although the Bible Answer Man would like to put this dispute to rest, he cannot. He has publicly attacked a group of his fellow believers, slandered them, misrepresented them, and in general has deceived the Christian public. The more things are brought into the light, the more this is made clear. Surely he should not now try to cover his wrong; rather he should apologize and repair the damage he has done. This is his responsibility.

A Theologian’s Judgment

In an article in The Register of October 15, 1977, entitled, “A Further Response by Witness Lee and local churches to a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland,” a current biblical theologian, Dr. Hendrikus Berkhof, was quoted. Dr. Berkhof is an esteemed professor at the University of Leyden in Holland, and has recently authored a book entitled The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (John Knox Press), from which he was quoted. On October 15, 1977, upon publication of the quotation, the Bible Answer Man on his radio program called Dr. Berkhof “a Sabellian,” an “heretical theologian,” and labeled his teaching “absolutely heretical.” A letter was then written by one of the members of the churches to Dr. Berkhof in Holland, enclosing a transcript of the Bible Answer Man’s remarks concerning him. The following letter was received from him in response, and we have his kind permission to publish it.

Leyden, November 24, 1977

Dear Mr. Mixon,

I read your letter with great interest. I was fully unaware of my theological role and (good or bad) fame in California!

What I dislike most in Professor Martin’s presentation is the fact that he sticks on labels like ‘Sabellianism’ without explaining them, and accuses a man as heretical without quoting him. On first view, I would have guessed that he is an old-fashioned Catholic, for whom tradition is more decisive than Scripture. At any rate, he makes no attempt to go into the arguments about the explanation of 2 Corinthians 3:17.

What may be true in his indignation is the fact that I am dissatisfied with the traditional presentation of the Trinity. In many so-called orthodox presentations, it is more Tritheism (three Gods) than Trinity (one God). In my last chapter I wrestled to find a better expression, according to the N.T. and the Early Fathers. Whether I succeeded or failed, can never be decided by mere accusations, only by careful arguments. At any rate I am not a Sabellian, because I never believed in three ‘successive’ ‘masks.’ I speak (with Marcellus of Ancyra) of extension, not of succession.

May God bless your further thinking about His mysteries!

Sincerely yours,
H. Berkhof

A Third Party’s Voice

The following letter was sent to Walter Martin by a Christian from Long Beach who is not meeting with the local churches. She sent a copy to us, and we have her permission to publish it.

October 8,1977

To: Mr. Walter Martin

Standing in a fairly unbiased position in the matter concerning the subject of Walter Martin and Melodyland vs. Witness Lee and the local churches, I feel it my responsibility before the Lord and all the brothers and sisters in Christ to speak out.

I personally have quite a few close friends who are dear saints in the Lord and meet with the local churches. I myself do not attend, although I do occasionally dine with them and attend a few meetings with them. I have always had a rich time of fellowship in prayer and in the Word with them. My background is modest in the Christian Theology of today, but I did complete a year of Bible School from a small non-denominational school in New England. I believe this school presented a wide variety of Christian Theology of past and present in an unbiased way. As a result of this education, I feel I can fairly accurately understand biblical principles. I also studied Greek, and I am familiar with the principle of searching the entire Scripture to arrive at an unbiased and true-to-the-original-text opinion on biblical truths.

On October 2, 1977, my husband attended the meeting at Melodyland, as we are both interested in hearing constructive teaching concerning the local churches.

On October 7,1977, I attended the meeting in Anaheim held by Witness Lee and the local churches. In this meeting different brothers from the local churches point by point refuted each accusation that you made against the churches in your meeting of October 2. At this time they also charged you to either prove specifically where they are wrong or apologize for your error.

Being, Mr. Martin, that you have blatantly taken the first step in starting this controversy, in which you have condemned and defamed the word and character of this brother in the Lord, I think it is your responsibility to vindicate your name or else vindicate theirs.

I think that you, Mr. Martin, have a very strong gift of speech, but I do question how much knowledge and documentation you and your Christian Research Institute have against this group. I believe that it is only fair to the Christian public that you back up your accusations with tangible proof, not just fancy speaking.

I have personally read many of the “Recovery” versions of the Bible. Because of my basic background in Christian Theology and the New Testament Greek language, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I am led to believe that this version is a most clear and concise translation of the original Greek text. I do not consider myself to be an expert in this subject. If you can produce strong scriptural proof contrary to my insight, I would honestly take it to the Lord in the Word, with an open spirit.

I pray sincerely that each side would conduct themselves in a manner worthy of Christian love. Although, at this point in time, I do believe that it is your responsibility to the Lord and to the entire Christian public to honestly confront the issues at hand by reaching a mutual agreement with Witness Lee and the local churches, or to stop immediately all the unwarranted attacks which you have conducted recently. Further slandering of this brother and the churches will not only help confuse and confound yourself as well as the Christian public, but will form further schism in the Body of Christ.

Sincerely in our beloved Christ,
Pamela Fuller

Are Soul and Spirit the Same?

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix

December 3

The Bible Answer Man, on his radio program, consistently presents interpretations of the Bible which are inaccurate, confusing, and often downright false. The following article illustrates one of the errors he has presented to his listeners. We in the local churches cannot tolerate such a misrepresentation of the Bible, and we are burdened to present a clear interpretation of the truth to the public.

His broadcast of November 12, 1977, was a prime example of his confusion concerning a major Bible theme. Several questioners called in requesting his help in understanding the difference between the soul and the spirit in the Bible. The help they received was: (1) his opinion that the soul and the spirit in the Bible are interchangeable terms; (2) that “it really doesn’t make much difference”; (3) that the soul equals the spirit and both are the ego; and (4) the two verses, Hebrews 4:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23, both of which are disagreeable to the Bible Answer Man’s point of view, are, with the help of a theologian named Oliver Buswell, twisted around to make them say precisely the opposite of what they do say. Then when one inquirer pled with him on the air to give “just one” example from the Bible which shows that the spirit and the soul are equivalent terms, the Bible Answer Man took five sentences to explain that he didn’t have time to deal with the subject any further, when in less than half a dozen words he could have answered the inquirer’s question (if indeed he knew the answer).

We shall now proceed to answer the questions clearly concerning spirit and soul on which the Bible Answer Man showed himself to be so thoroughly confused.

The Composition of Man

It is clear from the Bible that man is composed of three distinct parts: spirit, soul, and body. It is true that the ordinary concept, even among Christians, is that human beings are composed of two parts—soul and body. According to this concept, the body is the part of man which can be seen, and the soul is the part which is unseen. This is a purely natural concept and is not the revelation of God. While the Bible Answer Man claims that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are interchangeable, the Bible never confuses the two as though they were the same. Not only are these terms different; their very natures are different from each other. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 Paul clearly divides man into three distinct parts. According to the literal Greek the verse reads, “And the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and your whole [being]; the spirit and the soul and the body be kept blameless in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here Paul points out that the whole man is composed of three distinct parts, “the spirit and the soul and the body.” Each part is preceded by the definite article, and each part is also connected by the conjunction and (in Greek, kai). The Bible Answer Man’s contention that the Greek word kai can in this case be translated “even” is fallacious, for this would make all the parts equal to each other. Then the verse would read, “the spirit even the soul even the body.” In that case the spirit would equal the soul, and both would equal the body. I wonder if he would also exchange “even” for “and” in Matthew 28:19, a verse of similar grammatical construction. The verse would then read this way; “Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, even of the Son, even of the Holy Spirit.” The Bible Answer Man’s much heralded expertise in the original languages of the Bible is used not to make the Bible clearer and more easily understood, but rather to cloud and confuse his audience. To make 1 Thessalonians 5:23 say that man does not have three distinct parts is to turn the verse into its opposite meaning.

According to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 a person is wholly sanctified by the spirit and the soul and the body being kept. From this it can be seen that the whole person comprises these three parts.

A Matter of Great Importance

Concerning this matter the Bible Answer Man said, “I think it really doesn’t make much difference.” This reveals his ignorance of the Bible, and reflects the depth of the darkness in his spiritual perception. This indicates that he is not a man who knows the spirit, for he himself believes it makes no difference whether one can distinguish between the spirit and the soul. Concerning the importance of knowing the difference between the spirit and the soul, Watchman Nee has said this:

Is it a matter of any consequence to divide the spirit and soul? It is an issue of supreme importance for it affects tremendously the spiritual life of a believer. How can a believer understand spiritual life if he does not know what is the extent of the realm of the spirit? Without such understanding how can he grow spiritually? To fail to distinguish between spirit and soul is fatal to spiritual maturity. Christians often account what is soulical as spiritual, and thus they remain in a soulish state and seek not what is really spiritual. How can we escape loss if we confuse what God has divided? (The Spiritual Man, vol. 1, p. 22).

Three Classes of People

In 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 and in 3:1, Paul distinguishes between three classes of people. First there is the “natural man” in verse 14. Here the word “natural” in the original Greek is “soulish.” So in verse 14 we have the “soulish man.” In verse 15 we have the “spiritual man,” and in 3:1 we have “fleshy men” or “infants in Christ.” The three verses according to the Greek read this way: “But a soulish man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. But the spiritual man discerns all things…and I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshy men, as to infants in Christ.” Here Paul clearly distinguishes between “the soulish man,” “the spiritual man,” and “fleshy men.” two, verse 14, says clearly that “a soulish man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” How then can the Bible Answer Man say that it doesn’t make much difference? A person who lives in the psychological part of his being (the Greek word psuche [soul] is the origin of the English word psyche) does not accept and does not understand the things of God. The reason is clear: the soul is not the part of man which receives and understands spiritual things. In 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 Paul says, “that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, interpreting (or communicating) spiritual things to spiritual men” (Margin, NASV). It is quite clear from this passage that spiritual things can be communicated only to men who know the spirit, and that those who live in the soul can never accept or understand the things of the spirit. For the Bible Answer Man to say, therefore, that it makes no difference whether we distinguish between the soul and the spirit is spiritual suicide. It means that he himself does not know the difference between these two realms. The fact is that in the realm of the spirit men can receive, communicate, be taught, accept, understand, and discern the things of the Spirit; while in the realm of the soul spiritual things can neither be received nor understood.

There is also a third class of men referred to by Paul in chapter three, verse 1. These are called “fleshy men,” “infants in Christ.” This class of men is regenerated, having the life of God and the Spirit of God. But instead of paying attention to the spirit, they walk according to the flesh. They have the Holy Spirit dwelling in their spirit, yet they do not know the spirit. They neither submit to the Spirit nor are they ruled by the Spirit. Concerning the Bible they may pretend to be very learned, yet in depth of understanding they perceive very little. The Corinthian believers were in this class. Paul calls them “infants in Christ,” yet they considered themselves quite mature in spiritual things. According to chapter eight, verse 1, they were puffed up in knowledge, and in chapter thirteen though they could “speak with the tongues of men and of angels,” had “prophecy,” knew “all mysteries,” and “all knowledge,” had “all faith,” and could “remove mountains,” yet in verse 11 Paul referred to them as “infants” and told them that they should put away “infantile things.” The Corinthian Christians, mighty in gifts, puffed up in knowledge, no doubt glorying in their intellectual attainments and parading their linguistic abilities, Paul nevertheless calls “infants in Christ.” They are an excellent example of Christians who make no distinction between soul and spirit. Thinking they represented the highest in Christian attainment, they in fact could not receive the things of God nor could they understand them. Neither gifts nor knowledge qualified them as spiritual men.

The soul belongs to the realm of the natural man, and the spirit belongs to the realm of the Spirit. Anyone who cannot distinguish the difference between these two categories is in darkness. It means he cannot tell what is of God and what is not of God. He may pose as an expert on the Bible, but in fact he cannot know the Bible because the Bible can be interpreted only by men who know the spirit.

One other verse shows the distinct cleavage between soul and spirit. It is Jude 19. “These are the ones who cause divisions, natural [soulish], not having spirit” (Gk.). Jude was referring to the degraded situation that will exist at the end of this age in Christianity, where there will be pretenders to spiritual things. These men will be the source of divisions, because they are soulish men devoid of spirit. Here again it is clear that the realm of the soul and the realm of the spirit are two entirely different spheres. The realm of the spirit is the realm of God’s activity, and the realm of the soul is the realm of merely human and sometimes even demonic activity. The importance of being able to distinguish between these two realms cannot be overestimated.

The Ego is Not the Spirit

The Bible Answer Man told his radio audience on November 12 that the ego is the spirit. To use his words, “You, the ego, are the soul or the spirit.” This can be easily shown to be fallacious. According to the Greek, Galatians 2:20 reads, “I have been crucified with Christ and I [ego] live no more, but Christ lives in me.” This verse tells us two things: First, that I (ego) have been crucified; and second, that Christ lives in me. Keeping in mind these two facts, let us now read 2 Timothy 4:22, “The Lord Jesus Christ [is] with your spirit.” According to the Bible Answer Man the human ego equals the human spirit. But this does not square with the Bible. For the Bible says that the ego has been crucified, and that Christ lives in me. And the place in which Christ lives in me is my spirit. If my ego equals my spirit, and these have been crucified, how could Christ now be living with my spirit? The fact is, my ego, as the expression of my self, was crucified with Christ, but my spirit was made alive when I was born again (John 3:6). Anyone who cannot distinguish between the ego and the human spirit is surely one who cannot distinguish between the things which differ.

Hebrews 4:12

On the radio program already referred to, the Bible Answer Man was asked if he would “explain Hebrews 4:12, where it says that the soul and spirit are to be divided by the Word of God.” In reply the Bible Answer Man relayed “the explanation given by a very great Greek scholar, Dr. J. Oliver Buswell.” According to Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Hebrews 4:12 reads as follows, “For the Word of God is living and operative and sharper beyond every two-edged sword and passing through as far as division of soul and of spirit, both of joints and of marrow, and [is] able to judge [the] thoughts and intentions of a heart.” The Bible Answer Man gave a rather long and confusing explanation of the use of soul and spirit in this verse, but the conclusion and essence of his explanation was that “the soul and the spirit are two forms of the same thing.” When asked how the two could be divided from each other if they are in fact the same thing, he replied, “You are missing the point.” But he himself never did explain what the point is in the verse which says that the Word of God divides the soul from the spirit. The point is very simple: in man there is the realm of the soul which is natural, and the realm of the spirit which can receive, appropriate, and understand the things of God. These two realms must be clearly divided asunder so that man can know the difference between the realm of the soul and the realm of the spirit. It is the living Word of God penetrating his being which makes such a division and which separates these realms from one another.

Functions of Soul and Spirit

A careful study of the Bible will show that man has a spirit (Job 32:8), that his spirit has a definite function (Rom. 1:9), and that the function of the spirit is different from the function of the soul (Luke 1:46-47). Since all of God’s communications with men occur in the spirit, it is crucial that a believer know his spirit. If he does not know his own spirit, he does not know how to have fellowship with God in the spirit. Not only that, he mistakenly takes the thoughts or emotions of the soul for the activity of the spirit. Confining himself to the realm of the soul, he seldom reaches the realm of the spirit. The Bible clearly shows first that we have a human spirit, second that our human spirit is not synonymous with our soul, and third that it is not the same as the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16).

The Human Spirit

According to the revelation of the Bible and the experience of believers, the human spirit can be said to have three main functions. These three functions are conscience (Rom. 9:1; 8:16), intuition (Mark 2:8), and communion (John 4:24). The conscience is the part of the spirit which distinguishes right from wrong and is not influenced by knowledge stored in the mind; it is rather a spontaneous direct judgment. The intuition is the “knowing” part of the spirit. All true knowledge originates not in the mind, but in the spirit. The revelations of God and the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the believer through his intuition. A believer must, therefore, take care to heed these two aspects of his spirit: the speaking of his conscience and the teaching of his intuition.

Communion is the third function of the spirit, and is related to the worship of God. The soul is not competent to worship God. According to John 4:24, “God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

The Human Soul

Not only does man possess a spirit which enables him to function in the spiritual realm; he also possesses a soul which is the organ of his self-consciousness. The soul is the seat of the human personality. The ingredients which make us human beings belong to the soul. The intellect, thought, ideals, love, emotion, understanding, decision, choice, and other like qualities are all associated with the soul. The three main functions of the soul are the will (Job 7:15), the mind (Lam. 3:20, RSV), and the emotion (2 Sam. 5:8; Deut. 6:5). The will is the instrument for making decisions and choices. The second function of the soul is the mind, the instrument for thinking. It is in this part of the soul that man reasons and has knowledge (Prov. 2:10). The third function of the soul is the emotion. This is the instrument of likes and dislikes. Through the emotions we are able to express love or hatred, joyfulness, anger, sadness, or happiness. A shortage in this area will render us insensitive. By a careful study of the Bible we cannot help but be impressed that these three primary functions of the personality belong to the soul.

Vital to Christian Experience

This matter of distinguishing the spirit from the soul is not just something of academic or doctrinal interests. It is vital to our Christian experience. If we do not know our human spirit, how shall God communicate with us (Job 32:8); how shall we worship Him (John 4:24); how shall we receive revelation from God (Eph. 1:17); and how shall we pray properly (Eph. 6:18, praying…in spirit)? These vital experiences are a matter of knowing our spirit. Even serving the Lord must be done in and with our spirit (Rom. 1:9). Many today are satisfied simply to find an open door to serve the Lord, but Paul was regulated rather by the rest in his spirit (2 Cor. 2:12-13).

If you are a Christian, your spirit has been made alive by the Spirit (John 3:6), and today Jesus Christ is with your spirit (2 Tim. 4:22). There is not one verse in the whole Bible which says that your soul was born again or that Christ today is in your soul. Neither is there a single verse which says that we should worship God with our soul (although many Christians try it). But there is a verse which says that if we are going to worship God, we must worship Him in spirit (John 4:24).

May all who read these words be exercised to discern between their soul and their spirit and to walk before God in spirit.

Misquoting and Misrepresentation

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Testimonies from the Churches

November 5

In the past few weeks the Bible Answer Man has attacked Witness Lee and the local churches and falsely accused them of all kinds of heretical teachings. At the heart of his opposition is a number of quotations and misquotations of Witness Lee that he claims have never been answered. In fact, the items he has attacked have been answered and analyzed in detail in the last month, publicly, in The Register. In responding to these false accusations, many questions have been posed to him in return by people in the local churches, questions which he has been unable to answer except in traditional formulistic teachings that skirt the real questions.

Apparently ignoring everything that has been written, the Bible Answer Man continues to air the same attack week after week. The quotes that he uses are consistently isolated from the context in which they were written and often given meanings never intended by the writer. Since the average listener has no way to check the context, it must be assumed that it is a fair representation of Witness Lee’s point of view. It is often quite the contrary. Whether this comes from poor research or a deliberate effort, only the Bible Answer Man knows.

A prime example of this has occurred repeatedly in the past weeks in the “four in one” quotation from Witness Lee’s The Practical Expression of the Church. Again on Saturday, October 29, 1977, the Bible Answer Man misquoted this passage and gave it a false interpretation to make Witness Lee teach “extreme heresy.” Although he quotes with arrogant confidence on the air, anyone who “does their homework” will find that what was supposedly quoted bears only the faintest similarity to what actually appears on page 43. It is no quote at all of that page – as you can see by comparing the Bible Answer Man’s “quote” with the entire context of page 43.

Bible Answer Man: “Let me give you a quotation here, ‘Today the Lord whom we enjoy is that Spirit and the Spirit is the very Triune God.’ So the Holy Spirit has become God now. Christ has become the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is the Triune God. Again, they are now four in one. Notice that? Four in one, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. Capital “B.” The Body is the church. Can you listen to that?”

Caller: “That seems to be what they are driving at.”

Bible Answer Man: “That is what they are driving at. And that came directly from Witness Lee’s pamphlet, The Practical Expression of the Church in 1970 and it is on page 43. In case there are local church people listening, your leader has contradicted the Scriptures and taught a heresy, a grave heresy. And that heresy is that there are now four, not three, the Father, the Son, the Spirit and the Body. Now that is absolute heresy. The Father becomes the Son, the Son becomes the Spirit, the Spirit becomes the church. Where are we now? This is pure nonsense.”

Not only has he totally misquoted this point, but he puts upon the misquote an interpretation that is an even worse error. To be inaccurate can be attributed to sloppiness. However, when the Bible Answer Man gives the quote a meaning not even suggested by the passage, one needs to stretch the imagination to believe it was a mere error in research. It is upon this kind of “research” that the foundation of his charges of heresy rests.

The two sentences are properly quoted as follows:

The Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is now in the Body. They are now four in one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit and the Body.

Do these sentences mean the church is now in the Godhead? Absolutely not! To determine the meaning of any isolated sentences, you must consider the context in which they appear.

The first hint of the context is the title of the chapter. Chapter Five is entitled, “The Oneness of the Church.” The context of this discussion is not the nature or components of the Godhead, rather the nature of the oneness of the church. What is this oneness? The portion in question is in a section headed, “The Unity of the Spirit.” So one might expect that the oneness of the church is related to the unity of the Spirit. Reading on, we find the third paragraph begins, “The oneness of the church is nothing but the Triune God, the very God in three Persons dispensed into us for the forming of the Body” [Italics supplied for emphasis]. Here you have the triune God in three Persons forming the body. One works on the other – subject and object. Are they four parts of the Godhead? Of course not! They are two distinct things. Immediately following the quote in question, the text says, “How is all of this possible? How can the Triune God be one with the Body? It is only by faith and baptism.” Does it sound like the body is part of the Godhead? Does the Son have to have faith and be baptized to be one with the Father and Spirit? Ridiculous! Obviously, he is speaking of something besides the oneness among the members of the Godhead. The context rules out the Bible Answer Man’s interpretation.

Then, what does it mean? Obviously, the Bible Answer Man doesn’t understand. Once again, his shortage of sight on the subjective side of biblical truth is exposed.

The point of this section is obvious to anyone with experience of the real oneness of the body. The oneness of the church is the unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3). This “unity of the Spirit” is just the experience of the Spirit in the members of the body. When we live in the Spirit, we also know the Father and the Son. The oneness They enjoy is in the Spirit and, when we the members of the body partake of the Spirit, we experience that same oneness. That oneness is the unity of the Spirit. It is experienced by the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the Godhead and it is also experienced by us as members of the Body. So, we are four in one unity. This is exactly what the Lord prayed for in John 17:21-22, “That they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.” The oneness of the believers here is “even as” the very oneness of the Godhead – this must be the unity of the Spirit spoken of in Ephesians 4. John 17:22 continues: “And the glory which Thou hast given Me, I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one” (NASV). Our oneness in the body is just the experience in the Spirit of the oneness enjoyed by the Triune God! In this we are four in one. This in no way can be taken to mean that we are a part of the Godhead. It is a pity that the Bible Answer Man, not understanding this deep and subjective truth, would impose upon it his own interpretation, which is foreign to the context, and misuse it to accuse us of heresy. This is just one example of the irresponsible twisting of the Bible Answer Man.

We feel grateful and thankful to our Father that we could experience such oneness – the very oneness of the Triune God. This oneness is far more than doctrinal agreement or mere organizational unity. This oneness is the sweet, enjoyable result of the experience of the Spirit. How precious is this oneness! With the psalmist (Psa. 133) we praise the Lord for the enjoyment of such oneness!

This is the first of five articles in this series.

Concerning Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Testimonies from the Churches

November 5

The Bible Answer Man continually quotes Witness Lee’s statement that “Judaism is satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless,” and publicly chastises him for making such an apparently bold and condemning statement. However, he neglects to present the context in which this statement was made with the scriptural basis used by Brother Lee for such a remark. Therefore, we take this opportunity to present to the public the basis, both from Scripture and historical facts, to support this statement.

In considering these matters, we must distinguish between people and organizations. Most certainly our Lord loves every human being, yet there are certain things, to which believers are related, which He hates and will judge (Rev. 2:5-6, 14-16, 20-23; 18:4-8). Thus, in condemning according to the Scriptures these religious systems, we do not condemn the believers who are in them. We recognize that there are many true, born-again believers in Catholicism and Protestantism. Their involvement does not in the least diminish the fact of their regeneration. However, it surely is a great hindrance to their progress in the Christian life, and is extremely offensive to the Lord. Thus, He repeatedly calls them to “repent” (Rev. 2:5, 16, 22; 3:3, 19) and to “come out” (Rev. 18:4).

The Case of Judaism

In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 the Lord refers to the “synagogue of Satan” composed of those who “say they are Jews, and are not.” The members of the synagogue were Jews in the flesh, but not in the spirit (Rom. 2:28-29). Merely being the children of Abraham in the flesh does not constitute them as true children of God (Matt. 3:9; Rom. 9:7-8). Therefore the Lord says in Revelation that they “are not” Jews.

In the synagogues they stubbornly kept their old rituals and outward law. By refusing to give up their old religion, which had been replaced by Christ, they became one with Satan in opposing God’s way of life and grace. Under the control of Satan the synagogues persecuted and crucified the Lord Jesus (Matt. 12:9-14; Luke 4:28-29; John 9:22; Acts 2:23; 3:13-15). They also persecuted the Apostles (Acts 6:9; 13:43, 45-46, 50; 14:1-2, 19; 17:1, 5-6, 13) and the churches (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Likewise today the synagogues resist the gospel and teach people to hate the name of Jesus. Because of this opposition the Lord has called them the synagogues of Satan. Therefore, when we say that Judaism is satanic, we are repeating the words of the Lord Himself.

The Case of Catholicism

The book of Revelation also gives a clear picture of Catholicism. In chapter 2 there is the evil woman Jezebel who leads God’s children into idolatry and fornication, and in chapter 17 this woman is the great harlot, the epitome of abomination. Every aspect of this woman corresponds to the situation of Roman Catholicism. Jezebel is in Thyatira, which means sacrifice of perfume or unceasing sacrifice, indicating the unceasing masses. Also, there is the emphasis on works and the teaching of Rome superseding the Bible (2:19-20). The description continues in chapter 17: an unholy association with worldly rulers (v. 2), purple and scarlet clothing (v. 4), outwardly holy (golden) but inwardly abominable (v. 4), guilty of the blood of many true believers (v. 6), and sitting upon the seven mountains upon which the city of Rome is built (v. 9). The identity of Roman Catholicism and the woman in Revelation 17 is the subject of a scholarly work entitled The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. In his words,

There has never been any difficulty in the mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman “sitting on seven mountains” and having on her forehead the name written, “Mystery, Babylon the Great” with the Roman apostacy (pp. 1-2).

In every respect, then, we see how justly Rome bears on its forehead the name, “Mystery, Babylon the Great.”

Catholicism does speak about God, Christ, and the Bible. This is signified by the precious things in Revelation 17:4. However, these materials are a gilding, an outward appearance not representative of the real nature and condition of Catholicism. Her actual condition is blasphemous, unclean, abominable, immoral, and full of demons and evil spirits (17:3-5; 18:2). Two well-known Catholic practices are even called “doctrines of demons,” “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:1, 3). The Lord Himself in speaking of this system calls it demonic. Therefore, our attitude toward it must be based, not on appearance, but on the Lord’s appraisal as revealed in His Word.

History has shown the Roman Catholic Church to be the murderer of untold thousands of genuine believers in Christ. Moreover, she has been the perpetrator of a system, incorporating superstitious and pagan practices, which has kept millions in darkness, ignorance, and poverty for centuries. Worst of all, she has kept her multitudes from salvation which is by faith in Christ alone. Is such a system not properly called demonic?

The Case of Protestantism

To the church in Laodicea the Lord spoke the words, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20). Here is an actual church, yet the Lord is not there; He is on the outside knocking to get in! It is very possible to be a church that has works, that claims to be rich and have need of nothing, yet that is lacking the presence of Christ. This does not mean that all the people are void of Christ; it means that in the church Christ’s presence and authority are missing. In spite of this, many things are still done in His name. You may be truly saved and be in a church that has no reality of Christ’s presence or authority. The church in Laodicea, as Christian teachers acknowledge, is a picture of the church in these last days before the Lord returns.

In thousands of churches week by week people sit and listen to sermons on politics, ethics and social issues, never realizing that they have a need to be saved and nurtured in the Christian life. What is this? This is Christless Protestantism. Many places that name the name of Christ have degenerated into social clubs, or ritualistic performances that merely soothe the consciences of those who visit them once a week. Is Christ there?

Even the more, some who are genuinely the Lord’s children have adopted practices that are very far removed from those of the Lord and the early disciples. In comparing the two, you must conclude either that the Lord has radically changed since then, or else that He is just not in what they are doing. How does the pastor in expensive attire and a big house, asking for money week after week, compare to the Man of Galilee who had but one coat and nowhere to lay His head? Is Christ there? How do the methods and appearances of Hollywood which have flooded Protestantism reflect the simple word and life of Christ and His disciples? Is Christ there? If the living Christ were there, would people come to church to show off their new clothes, listen drowsily for one hour, and hurry out to light up a cigarette, speak to each other of everything but Christ and hurry home in time to watch T.V.? This is what is meant by “Christless Protestantism.”

Reflect upon one of the last things written by A. W. Tozer in his book God Tells the Man Who Cares. The article is titled, “The Waning Authority of Christ in the Churches” (pp. 163-172).

My grief is simply the result of a condition which I believe to be almost universally prevalent among the churches…. Let me state the cause of my burden. It is this: Jesus Christ has today almost no authority at all among the groups that call themselves by His name. …I do mean Protestant churches generally, and I include those that protest the loudest that they are in spiritual descent from our Lord and His apostles, namely, the evangelicals…. Nominally He is head over all, but in every crisis someone else makes the decisions…. The Lordship of Jesus is not quite forgotten among Christians, but it has been relegated to the hymnal where all responsibility toward it may be comfortably discharged in a glow of pleasant religious emotion…. He [Christ] is widely recommended as a kind of spiritual psychiatrist with remarkable powers to straighten people out…. Of course this strange Christ has no relation whatever to the Christ of the New Testament…. The causes back of the decline in our Lord’s authority are many. I name only two. One is the power of custom, precedent and tradition within the older religious groups…. The second cause is the revival of intellectualism among the evangelicals. This, if I sense the situation correctly, is not so much a thirst for learning as a desire for a reputation of being learned. Because of it good men who ought to know better are being put in the position of collaborating with the enemy.

A. W. Tozer concluded his book by saying that only confession and repentance “can remove the curse” which is on the churches today.

Conclusion

We are not against any person or group of persons. On the contrary, we hope all men can experience the salvation and transformation that is in the resurrected Christ. However, we refuse to tolerate systems that frustrate the knowledge of Christ in order to please other men. We must speak the truth. For this reason we have said: “Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless.”

This is the second of five articles in this series.

Should a Believer Remain in Roman Catholicism?

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Testimonies from the Churches

November 5

On October 29, 1977, the Bible Answer Man made several statements concerning Roman Catholicism and the believer’s relationship to it.

One woman, a Roman Catholic, called to question him concerning his attitude toward Roman Catholicism. The following are excerpts from his response:

You’re never going to find anything anti-Catholic in what I write or say. What you’ll find are criticisms of Catholic theology. There’s quite a difference in criticizing you as a person and having a different view with you on theology.

I have a tape on Mary…the mother of Jesus…I have a very high view of the Virgin Mary, very high. I was educated in Catholic schools, graduated from them.

I’m not anti-Catholic. I’m against some areas of Catholic theology and I think that has to be permitted…it’s just a difference of opinion on theology.

Later in the same broadcast, the Bible Answer Man received a call from a woman who asked if, as a born-again Christian, she could remain in the Catholic Church. He responded:

Yes, I believe that you can…. You can function in the Catholic Church by witnessing. But the more you witness and the closer you get to the Scriptures, the more difficult it is going to be for you to function. Eventually you are going to be pushed out…I would stay in there witnessing until they push me out.

On the one hand, the Bible Answer Man said in his broadcast of October 15, that he disagreed with the Catholic Church on such doctrines as the infallibility of the Pope, the celibacy of priests, transubstantiation, and purgatory. Yet on October 29, when responding to a caller who was offended by his remarks two weeks before, he discounted these differences as just a “different view,” a “difference of opinion on theology.” In fact, the Bible Answer Man’s differences of opinion with Roman Catholicism are apparently so insignificant that he encouraged the second caller to continue functioning in the Catholic Church until such functioning was impossible!

More Than Matters of Opinion

Are the differences between Roman Catholicism and the orthodox Christian faith really just matters of opinion?

Donald Grey Barnhouse, that distinguished Biblical scholar and personal teacher of the Bible Answer Man, didn’t think so. In his preface on the jacket of The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop, he said:

…almost all the practices of the Roman cult have been brought over from paganism …the center of the system is revealed to be Satanic [italics supplied].

In his book Cults and Isms, J. Oswald Sanders exposes and refutes many of the modern cults such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science. However the first cult with which he deals is Roman Catholicism. He gave the reason:

We place Roman Catholicism at the head of the list of heresies, since it is the largest and most influential of them all…The Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches…stand for totally, fundamentally, irreconcilably different religions which lead to goals as far separated as hell is from heaven (p. 20).

In his chapter on Roman Catholicism, Sanders goes on to list “seven reasons why no Bible-believing Christian can intelligently be or become a Roman Catholic.”

Among his seven reasons is Roman Catholicism’s “demand of submission to the Pope as an indispensable condition of salvation.” He quotes Pope Boniface VIII:

We declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Sanders continues by quoting Pope Pius IX:

I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ…I am the way, the truth, and the life.

Sanders then points out that “Romanism admits many mediators” between God and man other than the Lord Jesus Christ. He quotes from Liguori’s book, Glories of Mary:

We often obtain more promptly what we ask by calling on the name of Mary, than by invoking that of Jesus.

If my Redeemer rejects me on account of my sins and drives me from His sacred feet, I will cast myself at those of His beloved mother, Mary… until she has obtained my forgiveness.

O immaculate Virgin, prevent thy beloved Son, who is irritated by our sins, from abandoning us to the power of the devil.

He quotes Saint Bonaventure, who said:

Mary so loved the world that she gave her only begotten son.

Are these mere differences of opinion regarding theology? No, these are the most disgraceful and damnable heresies (2 Pet. 2:1)! This is a demonic system of beliefs and practices that keeps men from the salvation that is in Jesus Christ. Yet the Bible Answer Man maintains that Roman Catholicism is not a cult. There are other equally repulsive quotations that could be made, but these suffice to show that Roman Catholicism is not just another branch of the orthodox faith: she is worse than a cult, and all orthodox Christians should consider her such.

The Scriptural Attitude Toward Roman Catholicism

The Bible, unlike the Bible Answer Man, is unconditional regarding the attitude Christians should take toward Roman Catholicism. “Come out of her, my people,” cried the voice from heaven (Rev. 18:4). According to the Bible, Roman Catholicism “has become the habitation of demons, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (Rev. 18:2). What child of God would desire to stay in such a place?

The Bible nowhere commands us to remain in a situation filled with idolatry, paganism, and sin. Lot was a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:8), but he fell into that filthy and immoral city, Sodom. Lot was never commanded to stay and witness to the citizens of Sodom. Rather, the angel said, “Up, get you out of this place” (Gen. 19:14).

As the Apostle said, “What communion hath light with darkness?…Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:14, 17).

Therefore, the Bible is uncompromising: no Christian should remain in Roman Catholicism.

A Personal Testimony

I am not without personal experience in the Catholic Church. I was the oldest of seven children in an Italian Catholic family. For years I went to confession, said the rosary, and prayed for the dead. Then one day, as a teenager, I saw the light from heaven as some friends shared what Jesus Christ had done in their lives: I was born again.

Two years later, I led my younger brother to Christ, and eventually my whole family was saved. At first it was difficult for my parents as they attempted to function within the Catholic charismatic movement. Their Christian experience eventually came to a standstill.

Today, my whole family is out of Roman Catholicism. One by one we all received grace from the Lord to see that what we were taught all our lives was not the truth. Although we are now on opposite coasts, we are one in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Today I am thankful that no Christian teacher told me to remain in Roman Catholicism.

Ecumenism Not the Way

Certainly the Bible Answer Man is familiar with the heresies of Roman Catholicism. Why is it then that he does not take a clear stand on this issue? Perhaps it is because of a desire for an ecumenical kind of oneness.

The minister of truth should not be influenced by those who hear him. Politics belong in the world, not in the Body of Christ. If those who are employed in secular matters should not be menpleasers (Eph. 6:6), how much more those who minister God’s Holy Word? What true prophet of God ever sought praise of men? No, God’s truth must be proclaimed regardless of the consequences. If the Roman Catholic Church is, as she claims, the true Church of God, let us all embrace her; but if she is, as the Bible says, the Mother of Harlots, let us abandon her and not flirt with her.

God hates sin, but loves the sinner. In the same way, we must hate Roman Catholicism, but love the Catholics. Just as it is an act of love to enlighten the sinner of his sin, so is it the greatest act of love to earnestly admonish our brothers and sisters to abandon Roman Catholicism. Indeed, not to do so is to do them the greatest injustice. If we pray for the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, how much more we should pray for the Roman Catholics, that God would “open their eyes, and turn them from darkness to light, and from the authority of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18).

May the Lord give us “the spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2 Tim. 1:7) to pray and to help bring all of our brothers and sisters to a full knowledge of the truth.

This is the third of five articles in this series.

The Truth Concerning the Mingling of God and Man

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Testimonies from the Churches

November 5

Mingle is a scriptural term that describes an inner union between God and man. To know the nature of this union we need to experience the reality of the following verses in the Bible: “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17); “The Lord be with thy spirit” (2 Tim. 4:22); and “He that is joined [Greek: joins himself] unto the Lord is one spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17). The truth concerning the mingling is found in these three verses.

1. The identification of the Lord with the Spirit. The Lord is identified with the Spirit according to 2 Corinthians 3:17. This identification is made by the Apostle Paul in the context of experiencing the Lord within the heart. The heart is to turn to the Lord in verse 16, and then we are to behold the glory of the Lord in verse 18. This turning and beholding issues in our being transformed [Greek: metamorphosis] into the same image of Christ, who is identified as the Lord, the Spirit. The reason for this identification is not theological, but practical. The Lord here is not defined in metaphysical terms, but experienced as a Person. He so mingles Himself in our being while we behold Him that we actually are transformed into His image. This spiritual metamorphism takes place from the Lord, the Spirit.

As the Lord Jesus in His incarnation became flesh (John 1:14) in order to accomplish redemption for man, so now in His resurrection, He became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) in order to penetrate man with His life and mingle Himself as the Spirit with our spirit. In fact, it seems that Paul is totally occupied in his Epistles with being in the experience of the risen Christ as the life-giving Spirit in contrast to reflections on the earthly life of Christ in the flesh. He says: “…even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature…” (2 Cor. 5:16-17). The phrase “in Christ” or “in the Lord” appears 164 times in Paul’s writings. This strongly indicates Paul’s intimate experience of inner union with the Lord. This union is possible because the Lord is the Spirit in Paul’s experience.

David Somerville’s book, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ (pp. 117-118, 121-122), which was the William Cunningham lectureship (1897) of the Free Church College, Edinburgh, also speaks of this truth:

But Paul not only identifies the Spirit of God with that of Christ, he identifies both with the very Person of Christ. “The Lord is the Spirit,” we read; and, again, “we are changed into the same image by the Lord, the Spirit.” The intention of the apostle in this passage is evidently to bring out the fact, that He whom Christians acknowledged to be the Lord was…one who was Spirit, ruling men by a Divine power at the centre of their lives. Being “in Christ” and “being in the Spirit” are the same thing; and in the thought of the apostle, “Christ,” the “Spirit of Christ,” and “the Spirit of God” are practically synonymous. At the Resurrection Christ became a Life-giving Spirit to mankind,…This practical identity of Christ and the Spirit of God is the ground or reason of that union between Christ and His people that is so characteristic a feature of the experience of the Christian life described in the Epistles of Paul, and that sets his thought of Christ in so original a light. Inasmuch as His Spirit is in them, and is the source of their life, and His Person is in a true sense one with the Spirit, He Himself is said to be and to live in them, and they in like manner are said to be and to live in Him. Everyone is aware of the frequency with which the phrase “in Christ” is used by the apostle in reference to the inner life of the believer. It points to a union with Him as Spirit or Pneuma, in virtue of which He is the very principle of their lives, so one with all that is most deeply personal in them that He moulds and determines their activities, and reproduces in them what is most deeply personal to Himself. Quickened at the centre of their being by the very Spirit of God that formed the principle of His Personal life, and having Christ thus dwelling in them, believers are enabled to live His life over again; or, rather, they are the agents by and in whom He lives over again His own life, reincarnating Himself, as it were, ever anew in the flesh of His people.

2. The location of the Lord with our spirit. The truth concerning the mingling is further seen by Paul’s final word in 2 Timothy 4:22: “The Lord be with thy spirit.” This verse specifically locates the Lord who is the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:17 with the spirit of man. The place of Christ’s indwelling in the believer is the human spirit.

The human spirit is mentioned over 75 times in the New Testament, and 46 occurrences are in Paul’s writings. Such phrases as “thy spirit” (2 Tim. 4:22); “his spirit” (2 Cor. 7:13); “my spirit” (1 Cor. 16:18); and “our spirit” (Rom. 8:16), all refer to that part of our being that was born of God when we received Christ (cf. John 1:12-13 and 3:6).

Our spirit is an organ of our being that belongs to us in the same way the various members of our physical body belong to us, such as our eyes, mouth, arms or legs. This is why the Bible uses personal pronouns like “thy,” “his,” and “our,” when speaking of the human spirit. Thus, our spirit is as much a part of our makeup as a human being as our physical parts and psychological parts of conscience, mind, emotion, and will.

The Bible reveals that we even have control over our spirit similar to the control we may exercise over the other parts of our being. First Corinthians 14:32 says: “And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” This indicates that we can take the initiative with the faculty of our spirit to contact the Lord any time and any place. We can activate our experience of the Lord by exercising our spirit to pray, sing, call upon His Name, and speak forth with the Word of God. The literal Greek translation of Ephesians 5:18 through 20 says: “…be filled in spirit; [while] speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, [while] singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; [while] giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is while we speak, sing, and give thanks that our spirit is exercised to contact the Lord and be filled with Him.

It is to our spirit that the Lord comes and locates Himself in us. It is in our spirit that we can locate the Lord to experience Him all day long. Our regenerated human spirit is where Jesus lives in us. Therefore, our spirit is mingled with the Lord, the Spirit. The two spirits are mingled into one. This is the marvelous inner union that exists within every child of God.

3. The mingling with the Lord as one spirit. The truth concerning the mingling is clearly revealed in 1 Corinthians 6:17: “He that is joined [Greek: joins himself] unto the Lord is one spirit.” The joining mentioned in this verse is of such a nature that the two spirits joined together become one spirit. This is the revelation of the mingled spirit. This mingling of the Divine Spirit and the human spirit exists in the realm of experience, that is, the experience of joining ourselves to the Lord.

It is important to see at this point that the faculty of our human spirit that is joined to the Lord has at least four stages. Firstly, it was originally created by God (Gen. 2:7; Prov. 20:27; Zech. 12:1). Secondly, it was deadened by sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1). Thirdly, it was made alive and born again through receiving Christ (John 1:12-13; 3:6). Fourthly, it is mingled with the Lord, the Spirit, in the experience of joining ourselves to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17; Rom. 8:15-16).

In the stage of the mingling of our human spirit with the Lord, the Spirit, it must be understood that the nature of the oneness of the two spirits does not destroy the independent existence of either of them. But, rather, both have their separate existence in themselves. However, in the experience of the mingling of the two spirits there is a mutual interpenetration that the Bible describes as “one spirit.”

An example of this type of mingling is found with the burning bush in Exodus 3:2. The bush that Moses saw was fully penetrated with fire, yet it was not consumed. The bush remained the bush and the fire remained the fire; yet these two entities moved into one another and fully penetrated each other. There was a mingling of the fire with the bush, and the bush with the fire, without destroying the distinction of each. This is the way the mingling of the two spirits must be understood according to 1 Corinthians 6:17. The Lord, the Spirit, can be likened to the fire dwelling in the bush, and our human spirit can be likened to the bush. Both fire and bush remain as two things while they mingle and interpenetrate one another. According to existence they are two, but according to experience they are one. Hallelujah for such an experience! “He that joins himself to the Lord is one spirit.”

Christ today not only is seated at the right hand of God in the heavens (Rom. 8:34), but also is available to have constant contact with as the life-giving Spirit. This means that on the level of experience we should identify the resurrected Christ with the Spirit. The effect this kind of realization has on your Christian life is momentous. It will cause you, like Paul, to live and move and have your being “in Christ.” It will infuse you with fresh faith that Christ Himself is indeed living His very life in and through you. You can locate the Lord in your experience because you know the reality of 2 Timothy 4:22: “The Lord be with thy spirit.” You can also take the initiative to join yourself to the Lord and be mingled with Him as “one spirit.” You will consider yourself as a person mingled with Another Person who not only indwells you, but grows in you, and even makes His home in your heart to the extent that you can be filled with all the fullness of God. This is the truth concerning the mingling.

This is the fourth of five articles in this series.

The Truth Concerning the Experience of Christ

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Testimonies from the Churches

November 5

Writing in the eighteenth century, William Law said, “Yet the church is filled with professing Christians whose faith has never gone beyond a conviction that the words of Scripture are true. They believe in the Christ of the Bible, but do not know Him personally. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is sound doctrine to their minds, but their lives are empty of His manifest power either to overcome the power of sin within, or to convert others to Christ” (The Power of the Spirit, p. 103).

Any honest observer of the Christian scene must admit that Law’s statement is as true today as when he wrote it. In this article we will set forth a major reason for the weak, immature, worldly condition which prevails among today’s Christians. In order to understand the situation and its remedy, we first present a biblical picture of a Christian. Second, we will briefly examine the condition of today’s Christianity. Third, we will state the problem. Fourth, we will offer the biblical answer to the problem.

A Brief Biblical Picture of a Christian

A Christian is one who has been born again of the Spirit of God (John 3:5-6) and has been made a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17). Christ now indwells him (Col. 1:27). He is one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17). The Christ who died for him now becomes in him, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27). God the Father has delivered him from the domain of darkness (Satan’s kingdom) and transferred him into the kingdom of the Son (Col. 1:13). He has been made a member of that spiritual organism, “the church which is his body” (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23). He is called to such utter consecration as to “count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus” his Lord (Phil. 3:8, NASV). He is in the world, but not of it and thereby incurs its hate (John 17:14). All that is in the world, the believer is forbidden to love (1 John 2:15-17). He keeps himself unspotted from the world (James 1:27), does not cling to worldly goods (1 John 3:17), and therefore uses this world, but does not abuse it (1 Cor. 7:31). He is not subject to the spirit of the world (1 Cor. 2:12), the wisdom of the world (3:19), the fashion of this world (7:31), or worldly lusts (Titus 2:12). Rather, provision is made for the believer to escape the corruption that is in the world by partaking of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). He may partake of the divine nature by taking in the milk of the word and growing into salvation (1 Pet. 2:2). Thus he will be transformed by the renewing of his mind (Rom. 12:2) and will be a blameless, innocent, shining anti-testimony to this crooked and perverse generation.

The book of Acts gives us a clear account of the activities of the early Christians. Their whole life was Christ and the church. They continued in the apostles’ training and fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers, house-to-house fellowship, and unceasing gospel preaching (Acts 2:42-47; 4:23-37; 5:42).

The Picture of Christianity Today

Today we view an anemic Christianity divided into multitudinous organizations and married to the world. We look with utter amazement upon a Christianity characterized by forms and ceremonies, ornate buildings, choirs, solos, quartets, rock bands, dramas, fund-raising banquets, and haunted houses to celebrate Halloween. Christians hurry home from the Sunday morning “holy hour” to spend hours before the parlor god, watching the season’s sports craze. It seems never to enter their consciousness that all this has no relevance to the purpose of God for which they were created. They seem unaware that the Lord will one day ask them why they thus spent so many hours of their fleeting life. Because of the way they spend their time and money, indulge in pleasure, and give themselves to cares and worries, it is virtually impossible to distinguish most Christians from rank unbelievers. If not engaged in outright sinful things, they are at least fully consumed with eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage (Matt. 24:38). There is very little maturity and very little separation from the world. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear, even from secular statistics, that of the millions with their names on the rolls of religious organizations, many are not “born again,” and therefore not Christians at all.

The Problem Stated

What has God’s enemy, Satan, done to create the present weak, worldly, immature, divisive situation among Christians today? He has veiled the subjective experience of Christ. The subjective experience of Christ is the direct, personal, conscious, interaction with Christ who indwells the believer. The bulk of Christians have some knowledge of objective truth about God (doctrine), but little or no subjective experience of that truth, or, more specifically, of the God who is the Truth. Whether theologically educated or not, they live in a dream world under the delusion that their knowledge of the Bible is equivalent to knowing God Himself. Some have the doctrine of experiencing the indwelling Christ, but honesty would force the admission that their inner life is virtually void of such experience.

However, when we speak of our direct experience of Christ within, some immediately raise the cry, “We don’t care for experience; we only care for the Word of God…experience is abstract…experience cannot be depended upon…” We reply that we love and honor the Word of God as much as anyone. In the book, The Bible the Living Word of Revelation, John Montgomery says, page 205: “When the objective truths of God’s Word…are brought to bear on human life, they have the power to transform existence totally.” We submit that no one’s existence could be transformed totally but by far-reaching subjective experiences which affect his whole being. Since salvation is in its whole nature the inward birth and life of Christ in the believer, the Christian life must be one full of the subjective experiences of this Christ.

The Biblical Answer to the Problem

The objective knowledge of God is useless and frustrating unless God can be experienced. Our human life is made up of a succession of experiences. To know everything about a piece of apple pie is meaningless to us unless we can eat it. Just so, the revelation of God is meaningless to us unless we can experience Him according to that revelation. What a frustration to know the doctrine, “You must be born again,” yet be void of the experience in our being. What a frustration to know the doctrine, “Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20), yet be unable to have the actual, conscious, day-by-day experience. How useless to have knowledge of the transformation of Romans 12:2, without the actual realization and enjoyment of the renewing of our mind.

Mental assent to doctrine will not produce regeneration. William Law said:

No one can know the truth of salvation by a mere rational consent to that which is historically said of Christ. Only by an inward experience of His cross, death, and resurrection can the saving power of the gospel be known. For the reality of Christ’s redemption is not in fleshly, finite, outward things – much less in verbal descriptions of them – but is a birth, a life, a spiritual operation.

Most so-called churches of today can be joined by mere mental assent to a set of doctrines. It is readily acknowledged that church rolls are filled with the names of unregenerated people. The Christian life must begin with the subjective experience of the new birth. What a glorious experience when the human spirit is born of the Spirit of God (John 3:6).

Knowledge of the letter does not produce a transformed, mature Christian life. The Apostle Paul’s ministry was not of the letter, but of the Spirit. The result was believers who were “a letter of Christ…written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God,…on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:3). The conclusion of this same chapter is that the inner experience of the indwelling Spirit will transform the believer into the image of Christ. In his commentary on Colossians 1:27 Dr. John Eadie reveals glorification by the subjective work of Christ.

The glory of Christians is yet to come, but it is certain…. What is partially and progressively enjoyed in time, is fully and forever possessed in heaven…. the basis of this hope of glory is also the subjective work of Christ – by His Spirit within the saint. Not only has he the title to heaven, but he gets maturity for it.

Yet today we see Christians resting in their doctrinal soundness, but with lives void of the fruit of the spirit, void of the divine image, and thinking that because they know the letter of the Word, they know its truth and power.

God’s goal is to produce the Body, the church today, which transformed and transfigured becomes the New Jerusalem eternally. The Body of Christ can only be produced by a succession of subjective experiences. We must first be regenerated (John 3:6). Following the new birth, we are baptized into the Triune God (Matt. 28:19). We are baptized into one Body (1 Cor. 12:13), and become members of the Body of Christ (vv. 12, 14).

In Ephesians 3:16 through 21 Paul tells us how the believer may be transformed individually and thus the church corporately. It is entirely subjective experience. We quote the following statements from Dr. John Eadie’s commentary on Ephesians, pages 243 through 247:

He bestows according to the riches of His glory – His own infinite fullness…It is by the infusion of power into the man within…. The Spirit of God is the agent in this process of invigoration…He has free access to man’s spirit to move it as He may, and it is His peculiar function in the scheme of mercy to apply to the heart the spiritual blessings provided by Christ….And as the design of a temple is that its god may inhabit it, so Christ dwells in the heart. This inhabitation is not to be explained away as a mere reception of Christian doctrine, nor is it to be regarded as a mystical exaggeration.

This passage shows us that the Spirit infuses all the riches of God’s glory into our inner man. Christ then dwells in our hearts. All our faculties of mind, emotion, and will are filled with Him. Because of Christ’s indwelling we are rooted and grounded in love. Then marvelously, corporately “with all saints” we comprehend the breadth and length and height and depth of that habitation of God into which we are being builded in spirit. Eventually we are filled with all the fullness of God. When the church has been builded by all these subjective experiences of Christ, Paul can triumphantly say, “To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.”

Surely it is clear that from the day the Lord Jesus said, “I will build my church,” He has brought His chosen ones through a continuing subjective experience of Himself until they are transformed individually and corporately. And at His second coming we will experience the transfiguration of our mortal bodies. Then the church transformed and transfigured will be that glorious Bride, that eternal city New Jerusalem, which the Triune God has builded as His eternal dwelling place.

This present subjective experience and enjoyment of our God is only a foretaste of the eternal. For when the goal of God has been consummated in the New Jerusalem, what is there but the river of life and the tree of life for our eternal drinking and feasting! Hallelujah! For eternity we shall feast upon Christ, the Son of God, the redeeming Lamb, as our life supply, and drink the water of the life-giving Spirit.

The last call of the Bible is to a subjective experience -“And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.” We call upon all to drink with us of this water of life which today is a fountain in our innermost being springing up unto eternal life.

This is the fifth of five articles in this series.

Is Christ in the Believer?

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix

October 29

Christ is Not in the Believer—What a False Teaching!

One would expect from a person who calls himself “the Bible Answer Man” real and genuine answers from the Bible. But with the Bible Answer Man there is an irony. Irony, of course, is a condition of affairs under which what takes place is exactly the opposite of what one would expect. The irony of the Bible Answer Man is that under the guise of giving the public answers from the Bible, he is actually giving them distortions of the Bible. Many of his answers are twistings of the Bible, made to match his own preconceived ideas.

Radio Interview

A good example of such twisting took place on a recent broadcast of the Bible Answer Man. In a conversation between an inquirer and the Bible Answer Man, the inquirer raised the question of Christ being in the believer. The conversation went as follows:

Bible Answer Man: “How can Christ be living in you if He’s not the Holy Spirit? Because the Holy Spirit represents the Trinity on earth now since Jesus Christ ascended into heaven. In John 14 He said, ‘I will send you another Comforter. If I don’t go away, He (that’s the Holy Spirit) will not come.’ “

Inquirer: “Are you saying then that Christ is not actually in me?”

Answer Man: “I’m saying…that Christ dwells in you in the person if the Holy Spirit Who represents the Trinity.”

Inquirer: “So you’re saying that Christ is not actually living in me, but just a representative of Christ.”

Answer Man: “Well, let’s get it straight, O.K.? Does Jesus Christ have a body of flesh and bones as tangible as anybody?”

Inquirer: “Yes, He does.”

Answer Man: “Is he inside you?”

Inquirer: “Yes, He is.”

Answer Man: “His body is?”

Inquirer: “Not His flesh and bones.”

Answer Man: “Then He’s not there.”

In the name of the Bible, the Bible Answer Man is telling the Christian public that Christ does not live in the believer. The Bible Answer Man needs to place his preconceived ideas aside and come to the pure Word of God.

Christ—Not Represented But Indwelling

First, notice his twisting of John 14:16-18. These verses read: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans: I am coming to you” (Gk.). The Bible Answer Man uses these verses to say that Jesus went back to heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to represent Him on earth. But what do they actually say?

Coming to the pure Word, we discover these facts:

  1. The Son will ask the Father to send another Comforter to be with the disciples forever.
  2. The Comforter will be Someone Whom they already know, and Who is already with them.
  3. The Comforter will come to be in the disciples.
  4. When the Comforter comes, it is Christ, Himself, Who will come to them. Jesus said, “I will not leave you orphans: I am coming to you” (Gk.). Verse 17 says, “He [the Spirit] shall be in you.” Verse 18 says, “I [Christ] am coming to you.” It is clear from the pure Word that the “He” of verse 17 is the “I” of verse 18.

There is no concept here that the Spirit is sent to represent Christ on earth while Christ Himself goes back to heaven. This is a figment of the Bible Answer Man’s imagination and faulty interpretation. Jesus did not say, “I am going to heaven. From there the Holy Spirit will be sent to represent Me, while I Myself stay in Heaven.” No! He said, “I will send the Spirit, and I am the One Who is coming.” Five verses later (v. 23), speaking of Himself and the Father, the Lord said, “We will come unto him [the believer] and make our abode with him.” Surely, this is a reference to the Triune God abiding in the believer.

We must point out that whenever a person is blind to some aspect of the Word, he will inevitably twist that portion of the Word to make it fit his concept.

The Two Sides of Truth

Everything has two sides. This is true in both the natural and the spiritual realms. Everyone has two ears, two eyes, two hands, etc. Every room has matching walls. The earth is held in orbit by two opposing forces. It is the same in the spiritual realm.

Take, for example, the matter of the resurrected Christ. The Bible Answer Man referred his inquirer to Luke 24:39 to prove that Christ, Himself, does not dwell in the believer. Luke 24:39 says: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Christ was bodily resurrected—this is one side of the truth. But the Bible Answer Man makes it the whole truth. He takes literally Luke 24:39, but falls into the serious heresy of saying that because Christ has flesh and bones He cannot dwell in the believer.

Since he takes Luke 24:39 literally, I would ask why he does not also take literally 2 Corinthians 13:5: “Know ye not that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”; Ephesians 3:17: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith”; Romans 8:10: “Christ [is] in you”; Colossians 1:27: “Christ in you, the hope of glory”; Galatians 2:20: “Christ liveth in me”; and Galatians 4:19: “Christ…formed in you”? There is not the slightest hint in these verses that they are not to be taken literally.

Paul Expressed Both Sides

The trouble with the Bible Answer Man is that he has a huge blind spot concerning one side of the truth. He accepts one part of the Bible while rejecting another part. He no doubt does this because the two sides if this truth regarding the resurrected Christ seem mutually exclusive to the natural mind. Those who try to force the Bible into the mold of their human logic face this problem. This dual aspect of the truth, however, did not seem to bother Paul. In Romans 8 he expresses two sides of what seem to be logically inconsistent truths without offering a single qualifier. In verse 34 he says, “Christ…is…at the right hand of God.” This means that the ascended Christ is seated on the throne in the heavens. Surely all real Christians believe this. But in verse 10 of the same chapter he says, “Christ [is] in you.” Both sides of the truth are also found in Colossians, where Paul says, “Christ in you” in 1:27 and “Christ sitteth on the right hand of God” in 3:1. Logically speaking, if Christ is in the heavens, He cannot be at the same time in the believer. But this is what the Bible says.

Christ Dwells in Us

It is the greatest heresy to deny that Christ dwells in the heart of the believer, since this is the scriptural test of whether or not one is a Christian. Second Corinthians 13:5 says, “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?” (NASV). This verse says nothing about a representative of Christ being in you. It says if Christ, Himself, is not in you, you fail the Christian test. Yet, the Bible Answer Man would tell all the Christians that Christ does not dwell in them. Surely, this is a great deception. He would have us all believe that the only truth regarding the resurrected Christ is that He resurrected with flesh and bones and ascended into the heavens. That is the side recorded by Mark and Luke (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51). Why would he not tell us that the last word in Matthew is, “Lo, I am with you all the days, even to the completion of the age”? And why would he not also tell us that John closes with the Lord being with the disciples, giving no indication that He ever left? Even the four Gospels are evenly balanced in both sides of the truth: Jesus is in the heavens, and He is also with us—even in us.

Christ Speaks in Us

One more point: if Christ were not in us, how could He be said to speak in us? Yet, in 2 Corinthians 13:3 Paul referred clearly to “Christ speaking in me.” If Christ were not in him, how could Christ be speaking in Paul? No doubt the Bible Answer Man would say that Christ was speaking through His representative, the Holy Spirit. But this is not what Paul said. And since he made such a great point in this Epistle that he (Paul) was using “great plainness of speech” (3:12), I believe he said exactly what he meant.

To deny, as the Bible Answer Man does, that Christ dwells in His people and speaks in them is to deprive them of the precious, subjective, intimate fellowship God desires to have with all of His children. It puts the Christian’s relationship with God into the cold, sterile, objective realm of lifeless religion. For this reason, we protest strongly that the false teaching that Christ is not in the believer is a great heresy.

This is the first of two articles in Response to False Teachings

Does the Believer Have the Divine Nature?

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix

October 29

The Believer Does Not Have the Divine Nature—What a False Teaching!

Some Christian teachers are propagating the false teaching that the believer in Christ does not have the divine nature. According to these teachers, it is impossible for God to impart His nature into human beings. If God joined His nature to ours, they claim, we would be destroyed, disintegrating immediately. What blindness! What ignorance of God’s Word!

Two Reasons for This False Teaching

Those who are disseminating this false teaching seem to do so for two main reasons. First, they are grossly ignorant of the subjective truths of the Bible, those revealed truths that relate to our experience of Christ, especially to the experience of Christ as life (Col. 3:4). Emphasizing the objective truths and denying or ignoring the subjective, they teach, for example, that Christ, with a resurrected body of flesh and bones, is seated in heaven at the right hand of God, but they explain away those verses which plainly state that Christ is also in us (2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27). Unable with their limited mentality to reconcile the objective and subjective truths, they stress the former and dilute the latter. They point out the fact that God is glorious, majestic, and dwells in light unapproachable (1 Tim. 6:15-16), but they do not tell the other side—that the glorious, mysterious Triune God is able to come into us and make His abode with us (John 14:23) through the full redemptive work of Christ and its present application to us by the Holy Spirit. They do not guide you into the marvelous experience of 1 John 4:15—the experience of God’s dwelling in us and of our dwelling in Him. Surely it is time that the Christian public knew the whole truth!

Second, those who deny that we, the blood-washed, Spirit-regenerated believers in Christ, have the divine nature do so because they misunderstand what it means to say that a believer partakes of the divine nature. According to them, to say that believers have the divine nature is to say that they are becoming God. When we testify that, through the new birth, we partake of the divine nature, they maliciously accuse us of teaching evolution into God, charging us with teaching that believers are in the process of gradually becoming God Himself. What blasphemy! To have the divine nature is one thing, but to be God Himself is another. My children have my life and nature; however, they are not, nor will ever become, my very person. They have the nature of their father, but they are not the person of their father. Likewise, although we never participate in the Godhead of God, we do have the privilege of participating in His nature. To say that a believer is becoming God Himself is to teach heresy. In like manner, to deny that the believer has the divine nature is also to teach heresy. This latter heresy can be refuted by considering without prejudice the revelation of the pure word of God.

Partakers of the Divine Nature

Second Peter 1:4 reveals that the believers are “partakers of the divine nature.” The Greek word rendered “partakers” means joint participants, sharers of a common portion. It is the portion of all true believers to partake of the divine nature. We all have this in common. As Watchman Nee says, “We who are born of the Spirit are made thereby ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ ” This is possible through dependence upon God and by virtue of our being in Christ. The words “divine nature” mean exactly what they say—the divine nature, that is, the nature of God. It is certainly true to say that believers have the life of God; it is also true to say that they have the nature of God, for the life and the nature are inseparable. There is no need to dilute these words merely to mean certain attributes or virtues that we share with God. Any attributes or virtues that we share with God are the issue of the divine life and nature within us. The qualities mentioned in verses 5 through 7 are the product of the divine nature as well as its expression. Let all true believers abandon their preconceived ideas and allow 2 Peter 1:4 to speak for itself. This verse plainly says that we, the believers in Christ, share the divine nature.

The Divine Nature Received Through Regeneration

Even without such a clear word as 2 Peter 1:4, we can infer that we have the divine nature from the fact that we are the children of God through regeneration. It is a glorious fact that the believer in Christ has been born of God and is a child of God. We are not only the people of God objectively; we are also the children of God subjectively. Through our rebirth, we actually have the life of God and the nature of God. John 1:12 and 13 say, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” We who have received Jesus Christ have been born of God, and we have the right to become the children of God. At this very moment we are the children of God (1 John 3:2). Every child has the life and nature of his father. This is simply a fact of life. Likewise, through regeneration God is our Father, and we are His children with the divine life and the divine nature.

The Divine Nature in the Divine Seed

The divine nature is in the divine seed that entered into us when we were born again. First Peter 1:23 says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God” (Gk.). We have been born again through an incorruptible seed. From the time of our regeneration, God’s seed has been in us. First John 3:9 says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” In this seed is the nature of God, which cannot sin. Sin is contrary to the divine nature. If we abide in the Lord by staying in our spirit where the divine seed is and where the new birth actually takes place (John 3:6), we shall not sin, for we shall be living according to the life and nature of God. In 1 John 3 we see the issue of two contrary natures: sin, the issue of the satanic nature, and righteousness, the issue of the divine nature in the divine seed. All who have been born of God have this wonderful divine seed in them.

Not Ashamed to Call Us Brothers

Hebrews 2:11 says, “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” This verse reveals why the Lord is not ashamed to call us brothers. It is because He and we are all of (Greek ek, “out of”) one, that is, He and we are out of the same source. God’s intention is that Christ have many brothers. God’s eternal purpose is that Christ, His only begotten Son, become the firstborn of many brothers who are conformed to His image (Rom. 8:29). In relation to Christ, we are the many brothers, but in relation to the Father, we are many sons. The many brothers and the firstborn Son are the same in life and nature. If this were not so, how could we be the many brothers of Christ? According to Hebrews 2:11, we are all of one source. “He that sanctifieth” is Christ as the firstborn Son of God, and “they who are sanctified” are the believers of Christ as the many sons of God. Both the firstborn Son and the many sons are born of the same Father God in resurrection (Acts 13:33; 1 Pet. 1:3). Both the firstborn Son and the many sons are the same in divine life and nature. Hence, He is not ashamed to call them brothers. Prior to His resurrection, the most intimate term He used for His disciples was “friends” (John 15:14-15). But after His resurrection, He began to call them “brothers” (John 20:17), for through His resurrection His disciples had been regenerated (1 Pet. 1:3). Therefore, the fact that the Lord is not ashamed to call us brothers indicates that we are one with Him in life and share His divine nature.

It is not a false teaching to say that the believer has the divine nature, but it definitely is a false teaching to deny it. The Bible plainly says that we are partakers of the divine nature. As those born of God, we are the children of God, possessing the life and nature of God. The divine seed is in us, and we are the brothers of Christ, God’s firstborn Son. These truths reveal that we, the believers in Christ the Lord, have the divine nature. We do not share in the Godhead of God, but we do participate in God’s nature. We are not evolving into God, but God’s nature is being wrought into us for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose. How we thank the Lord for these precious subjective truths revealed in His holy Word! May the Lord vindicate His truth and lead His seekers into the experience of partaking of the divine nature.

This is the last of two articles in Response to False Teachings

Our Testimony–A Glorious Enjoyment of Christ

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix

October 29

We have been where most of God’s children are now, but the Lord by His mercy has brought us to another realm where the glorious and superabundant riches of life in Christ are our portion, experience, and enjoyment. We are deeply constrained to share these riches with all our brothers and sisters in Christ, for they are their portion, their birthright, as well as ours. We would also like to bring all men, by living faith in God’s Son, into this marvelous grace in which we stand. It is for this purpose we are publishing these articles every Saturday.

A Long Quest

Not long ago we were in the realm of teachings, doctrines, and sermons, in the Bible schools and seminaries, filling our minds with knowledge, but so empty, dry, and barren within. We were in Christian organizations and ministries of various kinds, laboring to win souls and help others, but weary and undernourished ourselves. We were in the charismatic move, speaking in tongues, prophesying, healing and being healed, yet still unsatisfied, uneasy, unfulfilled. We were at the retreats (or the advances), seeking something more, groping, reaching out, sometimes seemingly brought to a higher plane, but quickly dropped into the valley where we spent most of our Christian lives. Meanwhile, we were subjected to the ceaseless barrage of Christian entertainment—choirs, solos, quartets, bands, dramas, movies—all in the name of Christ. There was a lurking suspicion that it was the old world under another cloak.

We had tried the world; God had spoiled us for that; we could never go back there, back to the ashes, the filth. But where was the abundant life we read about in the Bible, yet never saw? Where was the fullness of joy we sang about, but experienced so little of? And above all, where was the oneness we longed for among God’s children? What we witnessed instead was ambition for position, politics, quarreling, murmuring, self-seeking, and self-glory. We were convinced there must be something more. We couldn’t go back, but how could we go on?

No Key, No Way

We knew that Christ was living in us. The Bible said so. We had been taught it, and we believed it. We had heard messages on the so-called deeper life, the victorious Christian life, and the crucified life, and we had long ago memorized verses like Galatians 2:20 and Philippians 1:21. But this was for the most part mere doctrine to us, far removed from our actual daily experience. It seemed that we had no key to unlock the door, no practical way to get into the experience. We knew the teaching, but how to practice it was a mystery. It was always eluding our grasp. It seemed near at hand, and yet so far away.

Some of us left the denominations and began to meet with smaller, undenominated, more devout groups of Christians, with more Bible study, more fellowship, more participation, more prayer. But still there was a void, a sense that we were not yet home. We prayed, “Lord, if there is anything better, please bring us into it.” We began to realize that if God was not satisfied, we could never be satisfied. It began to dawn upon us: God was not satisfied—that was the problem. Outwardly, there was the confusion, the disorder, the disunity, and we were a part of it. Inwardly, there was the emptiness, the dissatisfaction, the longing, the crying out. Settle down? There was something inside that would not allow us to. Yet it seemed there was no place to go. But there was!

A Wonderful Discovery

The Lord began to show us a certain place inside of us that we had never really seen before. We had known it was there, doctrinally. But now we made a wonderful discovery. Our human spirit! We found it in two places: in the Word of God, and in our innermost being. How did we ever miss it before? The whole Bible began to open up on this matter, and we saw the human spirit from Genesis to Revelation, especially in the New Testament. We began to see how important it was to God, to the accomplishment of His purpose, and to us. These verses deeply impressed and fully enlightened us: John 3:6, “That which is born of Spirit is spirit“; John 4:24, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and reality”; Romans 8:16, “The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God”; 2 Timothy 4:22, “The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit“; and 1 Corinthians 6:17, “He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.“

How unspeakably marvelous! We saw it! It was into our human spirit that the Lord Jesus had come when we were born again. And now in our human spirit we are one with the Lord Jesus. He has taken over our spirit. We found His exact residence within us! He is so near, so available, so subjective to us. He has not only come into us—we knew that—but He has become one with us in our spirit. The Bible said it; we believed it! There was a place for us to go, and we found others who were going there.

It was as if we discovered a new country, a new realm, where everything was different, everything was transcendent, new, living, holy—not far away in heaven, but within our very being. We could go there, any time, wherever we might be, to have the sweetest communion, enjoying His presence to the uttermost. We had had a taste of such experiences before, but they had occurred almost accidentally at times and were at best “hit and miss.” But now we could touch this wonderful Person, our dear indwelling Lord, consistently, continually.

The Way to the Highest Enjoyment

Moreover, we found the most practical way, even the scriptural way, to enjoy this wonderful Person abiding within us. We found the way to be filled with Him, not only in our spirit, but in our whole being. Hallelujah! At this point the Bible really opened up and became a new book to us. We can never praise Him enough. We had found the place to enjoy Him, and now we found the way to enjoy Him and be filled. Just as we are filled physically by eating and drinking, we discovered that we are also filled spiritually by eating and drinking! Eating and drinking! It was really not so new, and yet it was altogether new. We saw that God meant that man should take Him into his being as the real food, the real life-supply, of which our physical eating and drinking is a picture, a figure. We saw that God, in His Son, as the Spirit, had made Himself so available to us; that He had passed through a process that we might receive Him, the very divine Person, into our being; He had even created us specifically for this purpose. But let me give you the Word of God itself to support these astounding statements.

The Lord Jesus Himself, the full embodiment of God, said these words: “I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst. Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me” (John 6:35, 54-57). If the Lord Himself had never said this, such a concept would have been entirely foreign to us, much less could we have uttered it. But this is not our natural concept or teaching. Rather, it is our quotation of the Lord’s own words, and now it has become our experience and daily enjoyment. He said that we could eat Him, and if we would eat Him, we would live by Him. We are doing just that.

We are all very familiar with the matter of physical eating. We know that we live by what we eat, and, as the nutritionists continually remind us, we even become what we eat. The Lord uses this physical phenomenon as a figure of the real eating and living with Himself as the real food. When we eat Him, we spontaneously live by Him, because He is wrought into our very being, just as the physical food becomes a part of us. Our Christian living, then, is not a matter of behavior, but of being. We naturally express in our daily life the glorious Christ we have taken into us.

A New Being

We had heard many times that we should worship God, serve God, obey God, trust God, and honor God, but we had never heard that we could eat God, nor had such a thought ever entered our mind. Even now some of our readers may react with surprise and shock at these words. We fully sympathize, but we implore you not to turn away yet. When Jesus spoke these words, the Jews, the “fundamental,” religious people of that day, reacted with an inner revolting and said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Even many of his disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” Moreover, “from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:52, 60, 66). Such a thought was entirely foreign to their religious understanding, as well as to their natural concept. It is to ours too. If we are not poor in spirit, hungering and seeking for something deeper than mere doctrines, regulations, and rituals, we too will turn away. If so, we may go on with our objective religion, however fundamental and scriptural it may be, but we will not partake of the unspeakably rich enjoyment of feasting on Christ so that He Himself lives in us and becomes our very person.

In the midst of the murmuring, offended disciples, Jesus went on to say, “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63). It is not at all a matter of cannibalism, as some of them imagined. To eat the Lord, we take Him into our being as the life-giving Spirit. Notice, He said firstly that you must eat Me, and then you will live. Then He said that it is the Spirit that gives life. Therefore, the glorious good news is that God, in Christ, as the Spirit, can be eaten, can be drunk, can be assimilated into our being, just as the material food we eat is digested and becomes part of us. As we eat, a metabolic process takes place, and our being is transformed according to what we have eaten. Likewise, when we eat Christ, our being is inwardly transformed according to Christ. This is not only God’s Word; it is our testimony: we are actually experiencing this divine feasting in our daily living, so that we live by another life, we live by Christ.

Words of Life

But how, practically, substantially, can we take God into us? How can we eat and drink Him? Oh, how we praise Him that we have the way! He said in the same passage, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Thus, to eat and to drink Him is to take the words He has spoken into the depths of our being, not merely as doctrine, knowledge, information; rather, as spirit, as life. When we come to His Word, when He speaks His Word to us, we open our spirit, our innermost being, to the Word. It is impossible to eat, physically or spiritually, without opening ourselves. We open to touch the life and to receive the life in the Word, putting aside our religious knowledge, concepts, and traditions. We open ourselves to take in the living God in Christ, as the Spirit, who has made Himself so available to us, with all His riches and fullness, in His Word.

The Word is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16), but it is not primarily doctrine; it is spirit and life. What we all desperately need is not firstly doctrine, but spirit and life. Doctrine will profit us nothing if we are dead. Oh, how much we need to be so living and overflowing with life in Christ. We can be! And we are —by eating and drinking Him as the living Word! Then the life becomes to us the light, the living knowledge, the sound, healthy doctrine. It is not firstly the light and then the life, but the life and then the light.

How to Take the Word

We have found that the best way to take His Word as the Spirit into our being is to pray with it and pray over it. Ephesians 6:17-18 literally translated from the original language says: “And take…the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God, by means of all prayer and petition, praying at every time in spirit…” (See Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament.) When we touch the Word in this way, the words jump off the page and enter into us, penetrating much deeper than our mind. Yet our mind at the same time is renewed and enlightened with the living knowledge of God. We are filled with life and light. How wonderful to pray the Word into us! When the Word gets into us, God gets into us.

There were some disciples in John chapter 6 who were still clinging to Jesus’ words, who did not leave Him. Jesus said to them, “Will you also go away?” Peter, with a flash of revelation, said, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” He was so clear; he had the secret; he had the key: the words of eternal life. Everything depends on what we do with the Lord’s words, on how we receive the Lord’s words. His word to us is the word of grace (Acts 20:32), the word of enjoyment. We receive, eat, and even digest the living God in His Word.

Calling on His Name

But the Lord has not only given us His Word, which is spirit and life to us; He has also given us His Name. We have His Word, and we have His Name. This Name is “given among men” (Acts 4:12). It is unspeakably rich, exalted, and precious to us, for it embodies the very Person of our Lord. Many of us were saved by calling upon His Name (Rom. 10:13). But we have discovered the need, the joy, and the marvelous supply available to us by calling upon Him continually. The Psalmist said, “I will call upon him as long as I live” (Psa. 116:2). How many times in our daily living we call out to Him from our deepest being, many times audibly, many times silently, “O Lord Jesus! O Lord Jesus!” It is like drinking the water of life. How utterly refreshing! How life-giving! How uplifting! How releasing!

How may we drink the Lord, practically? By calling on His dear and wonderful Name. The Bible relates calling on that Name to drinking from a cup. “I will take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord” (Psa. 116:13). We testify that our cup of salvation includes being daily saved from sin, the flesh, our self, the world, and a host of other things, all by calling on His Name. In addition, we are simultaneously supplied with life, joy, peace, wisdom, strength—whatever we need. Have you ever experienced this? The treasures of salvation and grace are at your call.

A hymn writer of old wrote:

Blessed Jesus! Mighty Savior!
In Thy Name is all I need;
Just to breathe the Name of Jesus,
Is to drink of Life indeed.

M. E. Barber

Another said:

O Jesus, Jesus, dearest Lord!
Forgive me if I say,
For very love, Thy sacred Name
A thousand times a day.

F. W. Faber

We have been amazed to see how all the godly ones in Bible times, from Genesis to Revelation, were those who called on the Name of the Lord. David did it continually. The Psalms are full of “O Lord,” and “O God!” The early Christians were famous for calling on His name, for Saul went to Damascus to bind those who called on His name (Acts 9:14). The Lord is truly “rich unto all that call upon him” (Rom. 10:12). Now we are those “that in every place call upon the name of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2). And we are meeting together “with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Tim. 2:22). How we would like to shout from the housetops the marvelous grace, salvation, and enjoyment of calling on His Name.

Our Heart’s Desire

Christ is everything to us, and by eating and drinking Him we are one with God and we have a glorious oneness with one another. How we had we had longed for this! Oh, this is the crowning blessing! We care nothing for religious names, regulations, rituals. We only care that the living Lord Jesus Christ be experienced, enjoyed, and fully expressed in oneness here on earth.

We are longing over all of God’s dear people, praying fervently for them, that they too may feast with us and enjoy here and now what they were made for, what they were saved for—God, in Christ, as the Spirit, filling, flooding, overflowing their whole being, and building them together in glorious oneness with others in Christ. Our heart also fully goes out to all who have not yet received this wonderful Person, that they too may swell the numbers of those who drink the water of life. “Let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).

We have found a treasure. We are overwhelmed with the grace of God. We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. If we were to keep silent when we are feasting in the midst of plenty, while so many are famishing, we would be of all men most heartless.

In the Old Testament there were lepers living in a day of famine who risked their lives in hope of finding food. What these starving men found more than met their own need; they found treasure and rich provision for the whole people. Truly their words are ours, “This day is a day of good news, but we are keeping silent….Now therefore come, let us go and tell the king’s household” (2 Kings 7:9). Come and see! “The Spirit and the Bride say, Come.”

Concerning “Division,” “Proselytizing,” and “Sheep Stealing”

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Witness Lee & the Local Churches Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

October 22

During a two-hour radio program, Saturday, October 15th, the Bible Answer Man accused Witness Lee and the local churches of “dividing the Body of Christ,” “proselytizing among other Christian groups,” and “sheep stealing.”

We believe the Christian public should have an answer to these accusations in a honest and straightforward way. So let us take the three charges mentioned more than a dozen times during the broadcast and examine them one by one.

Concerning “Dividing the Body of Christ”

It is indeed sad to see Christians divided as they are today. But to hear those purported to be the spokesmen and leaders among the many divisions proclaiming, “We are not divided, for we all hold to the basic tenets of the faith…” shows the complete lack of realization of the need of practical oneness.

The Lord Jesus prayed, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21); and further, “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me” (John 17:23).

After nineteen centuries the world is still waiting for a oneness by which it can believe and know that the Father sent the Son. It has been our observation in preaching the gospel that unbelievers frequently raise the question, “Why all these divisions and confusion? Which church should I join?”

It is absolutely impossible for Christians to participate in the oneness for which the Lord prayed as long as we hold on to unscriptural, divisive names which separate us from one another. That is the reason we have chosen to drop all names not given to us by the Word of God and to come together just as the church in the locality in which we live. This was exactly the practice in the New Testament, where every church was known only by the name of the city where it was located. The adopting of any other name, whether it be even that of Paul or Apollos, is to be divisive. The name of the city was consistently used to designate the church throughout the New Testament, from Acts 8:1 “the church which was at Jerusalem,” to Revelation 1:11, where seven churches are identified with the names of seven cities.

Throughout the entire New Testament the scriptural designation given to a church is simply the city in which it is located. For that reason we object to the reference to the local churches as “The Local Churches.” The capital letters identify this designation as a title or denominational name. We strongly reject such a usage. We firmly believe the church in Anaheim includes all true believers in Anaheim. The fact that they do not all choose to meet in the way of practical oneness is the cause of division. Therefore, we firmly declare that we are not dividing the Body of Christ, but are standing for the true and practical unity of the Body, open to all Christians on the basis that they are Christ’s. We practice Paul’s admonition in Romans 14:1-3, “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (N.A.S.V.).

Concerning “Proselytizing”

We firmly believe in allowing every child of God the freedom to be led by the Holy Spirit according to the light he has received. We would not be faithful to the Lord if we did not share the enjoyment we have found in the church life and express our openness to all the Lord’s children. This also is a vital part of the gospel we preach. We make it a practice not to attend the meetings of other groups of Christians with any other intention than to seek genuine Christian fellowship. It is true that a good number of Christians have come out of the divisions and have chosen to meet with us. These do not come as the result of some kind of proselytizing, but their own testimonies evidence that they have been drawn by the life, oneness, and enjoyment of Christ that they experience with us.

Concerning “Sheep Stealing”

We ask simply, “Whose sheep are they?” Are they Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian sheep? Are they sheep of some spiritual leader? No, they are Christ’s sheep. He said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27).

We thankfully say that with us there is no idolatry and no mixture of paganism with the precious things of God. We gladly declare that we have given heed to the words of the Apostle Paul, “…what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God…Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:16-17). Here the Shepherd’s voice is heard by the responding sheep.

The kind of reasoning that accuses us of sheep stealing would also call the “voice from heaven” a sheep stealer for saying, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev. 18:4). We maintain that the sheep belong to the Great Shepherd of the sheep and that they should be allowed to hear His voice and follow Him. They have already been stolen for centuries. We also were “as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop” of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25). The Lord said, “There shall be one flock and one Shepherd” (John 10:16).

This is the fifth of five articles in this Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

Concerning Theological Training

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)
Witness Lee & the Local Churches Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

October 22

In our three-page newspaper ad of October 8th, we included the writings of five seminary graduates, plus one from Melodyland School of Theology who lacks only a thesis, to indicate that we are not at all devoid of men with solid, reputable theological training. The respective seminaries they attended together with dates of graduation and degrees received are indicated. In spite of this, the Bible Answer Man on his October 15th broadcast said that he knows of no one in the local church who has the qualifications of a Greek or Hebrew scholar. All of them studied Greek and Hebrew. Bill Duane has had six years of Greek and three years of Hebrew; Ron Kangas has had five years of Greek. Moreover, the Bible Answer Man either ignorantly or purposely belittles this record by alleging, “They may have had one from Dallas, a drop-out from Fuller, and one man from Princeton.” But, we ask, is this fair and honest? He certainly owes an apology.

There are more among us who are seminary graduates, and we do not despise their capabilities and qualifications; but we have no confidence whatever that their training and theological background alone enables them to interpret the Scriptures. With this we take issue with the Bible Answer Man, who continually refers to his knowledge and training in the biblical languages and theology, and requires others to have the same in order to understand the Scripture.

Those who have been outstanding throughout history in opposing God and His move on the earth have been those who were well-versed in the letters and doctrines of Scripture. The scribes of the Old Testament and the contemporaries of Jesus were the “fundamental” theologians of their day. In Matthew 2 they knew exactly from the Scriptures where Christ should be born, quoting with precision the letter of Scripture in Micah 5:2, but they made no move whatever to go to Bethlehem, as the wise men did, to contact the living Christ themselves (Matt.2:1-8). Despite their knowledge of the Scripture, these early theologians failed to recognize Christ, but rather conspired to kill Him, condemned Him to death, delivered Him to be crucified, and mocked Him while he was on the cross. It was upon the scribes, the theologians, and the Pharisees that Jesus pronounced the terrible woes of Mathew 23, for they “shut up the kingdom of heaven against men,” neither entering in themselves, nor suffering others to enter (v. 13). They, for the most part, have acted in like manner from that day to this.

It was the same scribes who were moved with indignation when they saw the wonderful things that Jesus did and the children crying, Hosanna to the Son of David (Matt. 21:15). Today the Lord’s children are again crying out their praises and calling on His name in the local churches, and the modern scribes are raising their eyebrows, moved with indignation. They need another Bible lesson like Jesus gave those scribes of old. He said, “Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” (Matt. 21:16). They certainly had read those words many times, but they had no up-to-date revelation. Neither do many theologians today. For the Father has “hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes” (Matt. 11:25).

Concerning Jesus, the Jews marveled, saying, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” (John 7:15). He as a man was taught of God, just as His followers may be. The scribes, the theologians, marveled concerning His greatly used disciples, Peter and John, when they “perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men… and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:5, 13). They also were taught deeply of God (take, for example, Peter’s message at Pentecost). Paul, on the other hand, may be considered an eminent theologian, for he sat at the feet of the learned doctor, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). But before he could know the risen Christ and His kingdom, he must be smitten with blindness on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3-8), signifying his state before God, however well-versed in the Scripture. Later, Paul declared “that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, nor was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12). Would that all theologians could be “blinded” and then taught “by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

It is a widely recognized fact that the source of many godless, devilish, modernistic teachings in Christendom is the theological seminaries. They began as fundamental, Bible-based institutions, but drifted by gradual steps into extreme liberalism. Even from the conservative seminaries of today, there are many who could testify that they entered with some amount of living faith and joy in the Lord, but left full of knowledge, dry, and barren. In contrast, we have many saints in the local churches who have affirmed that they have learned more in a few months in the church life than in all their years in Bible school or seminary.

The greatly respected and widely-read Christian teacher, Watchman Nee, who had no theological training, said:

There is a word in the Bible which is beyond Greek or Hebrew. It is the word of God. To know the language is one thing, but to know God’s word is a totally opposite matter. Some can only serve with the doctrines of the Bible. They have no way to minister the Lord Jesus because they live in the realm of the letter. The words of the Lord are spirit; they are therefore beyond the reach of one’s mind or cleverness to understand or to propagate. A man with spirit must learn anew how to listen to the word of God. (The Ministry of God’s Word, pp. 85, 99, 109)

William Law, an outstanding Christian minister of the 18th century, who was a great influence upon Andrew Murray, had much insight and utterance concerning the learning of theology. He has this to say in his book, The Power of the Spirit, published by Christian Literature Crusade:

The Bible teacher and religious leader who gain and hold a church position through intellectual attainments and oratorical skills can be said to differ from lesser men only as the serpent differed from the other beasts of the field – in that it was more subtle (p.41). As soon as any man trusts to intellectual abilities, skill in languages, or human wisdom as the true means of edification and divine knowledge, he gives himself up to certain delusion (p.47). Because natural genius and human wisdom can feed on no other food than the deceptive fruit of that ancient tree of knowledge. What a gross ignorance, both of man’s need and Christ’s salvation, to run to Greek and Hebrew schools to learn how to put off Adam and to put on Christ! Let then the clever architect of words, the opinion-broker, the worshipper of human reason, and every zealous builder of religious systems be told that the thirst and pride of being learnedly wise in the things of God is keeping him grossly ignorant of divine truth (pp. 51-53). In the present church, the tree of life is hissed at as the visionary food of extremists, and.the tree of knowledge, has the eyes and hearts of priests and people, and is thought to do as much good to Christians as it did evil to the first inhabitants of Paradise (p.60)

This is the first of five articles in this Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

Concerning Translation of the Bible

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Witness Lee & the Local Churches Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

October 22

The Bible Answer Man has charged Witness Lee and the local churches with altering and adding to the text of Scripture in our Recovery Version of the Bible. We have asked him to point out one word that has been altered or added, and he attempted a reply when this matter was brought to his attention in his radio broadcast October 15th. However, he skirted a direct reply to the question asked concerning inaccuracies in the text, and launched instead into a criticism of a footnote appended to the text. Thus he has not yet been able to support his charge.

Concerning the footnote, he said that we “changed the meaning of the words and passed it off to the people as being what the text says.” However, we did nothing of the kind. In the first place, a translator has the liberty to add a commentary on the text, just as in many other translations. These do not form part of the text. Secondly, in his criticism of the footnote the Bible Answer Man has totally missed the mark. The lexicons he mentioned rather tend to support the conclusion in our footnote instead of saying the “direct opposite” as he claims. Moreover, the best method to obtain the proper meaning of the scriptural words is to discern their usage in the Scripture itself. The Bible Answer Man objects to our definition in the footnote of the two Greek words translated by the single English word “know.” The Greek words are ginosko, signifying the outward, objective knowledge, and oida, referring to the inward, subjective consciousness. John 8:55 and Hebrews 8:11 are verses which use both Greek words in the same verse. A study of the usage of these words in both verses fully substantiates our definition. We need to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

John Nelson Darby in his New Translation of the Bible gives a revealing and authoritative definition of the two Greek words, ginosko and oida. Darby was one of the original leaders of the so-called Brethren assemblies in the last century and, we may say, their foremost spokesman. He was a giant in the Scriptures and a greatly-used servant of the Lord, having translated the Bible directly from the Greek and Hebrew languages into English, French, and German. In addition, he wrote numerous commentaries, among which his Synopsis of the Bible is a highly honored work. He has this to say in his footnote on 1 Corinthians 8:1:

Two Greek words are used for “to know” in the New Testament—ginosko and oida. The former signifies objective knowledge, what a man has learned or acquired. The English expression “being acquainted with” perhaps conveys the meaning. Oida conveys the thought of what is inward, the inward consciousness in the mind, intuitive knowledge not immediately derived from what is external. The difference between the two words is illustrated in John 8:55, “Ye know (ginosko) him not; but I know (oida) him” … and in Hebrews 8:11, They shall not teach “saying, Know (ginosko) the Lord; because all shall know (oida) Me.”

Darby’s definition of these two words exactly matches and confirms ours.

It is not insignificant that the Bible Answer Man has called into question these particular words, the one referring to outward objective knowledge, and the other to the inward subjective consciousness, for Christianity today is almost totally in the realm of the objective knowledge of Christ in doctrine, knowing practically nothing of the inward knowledge of Christ as life. With the burden that the Lord’s people may be turned from mere outward knowledge to seek the knowledge of Him as life, we are stirred to use the media of the newspaper and any means at our disposal to get the truth out.

We welcome the Bible Answer Man’s comments on our footnotes, but we still challenge him to point out any alteration or addition to the text, or to retract his statement.

This is the second of five articles in this Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

Concerning Biblical Interpretation and Idolatry

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Witness Lee & the Local Churches Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

October 22

According to a recent newspaper article, the “Bible Answer Man” was represented as being “an expert in biblical truth.” However, in his broadcast of October 8,1977, he placed some very dubious, if not downright erroneous, interpretations on at least four passages of Scripture. For this reason the local churches would like to ask him if he really believes what he said.

John 1:1

John 1:1 says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Concerning the last part of the verse, “the Word was God,” he said, “That doesn’t make the Word, the God with whom he was.” Does he believe that? The preposition “with” in the middle of the verse cannot be neglected in identifying the mystery of two. Neither can the verb “was” at the end of the verse be neglected in identifying the unity of One, not merely of substance, but of person.

The Bible Answer Man made the point that because there is no article before “God” (Theos) in the last part of the verse, it would be better translated not “God” but “Deity.” That would make the clause read not “the Word was God,” but rather “the Word was Deity.”

Besides John 1:1, the word “God” (Theos) appears sixteen times in John without the article. In those instances, would he also substitute the word “Deity” for “God”? This would make John 1:6 read, “There was a man sent from Deity, whose name was John.” John 3:2 would read, “Thou art a teacher come from Deity”; 17:3 would read, “That they might know thee, the only true Deity”; and 20:17 would read, “my Deity and your Deity.”

In the local churches we believe that John the Baptist was a man sent from God; that eternal life is to know God (17:3); and that Jesus ascended to God (20:17). Likewise, we believe that the Word in John 1:1 was “God,” the Person, not merely the essence.

The scholars who translated the Amplified Bible render John 1:1 this way:

In the beginning [before all time] was the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God and the Word was God Himself.

In a footnote on “God Himself” they say, “‘God,’ emphatic, so ‘God Himself.'” In the local churches we believe the Word was “God Himself,” not in a Modalistic way, else we would have to avoid the second clause, “was with God”; but in a way of plurality and unity, in mystery. The “Word was with God” and “The Word was God Himself.”

1 Corinthians 15:45

First Corinthians 15:45b says, “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (N.A.S.V.). In interpreting this verse, the Bible Answer Man stated that the context is creation and that the verse must be interpreted in the light of John 1:4, “In him [the Word] was life.”

The context is clearly resurrection. The context can be discovered by studying 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. Verse 42 says, “So also is the resurrection of the dead.” Then in verses 42-44 we find the couplet repeated four times, “It is sown…it is raised.” This is the principle of resurrection. Something is sown in one way, but raised in another way. “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: it is sown in a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (vv. 42-44). Verse 45 is the clincher if the argument regarding resurrection. That’s why it begins, “So also.” “So also it is written, the first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

Concerning the view that 1 Corinthians 15:45b is interpreted by John 1:4—this is surely not proper exegesis. The Word in John 1:1-4 was the pre-existent Logos, while the last Adam was a man. The word “Adam” means man and 1 Corinthians 15:47 refers clearly to “the second man.” No doubt there was life in the pre-existent Word, but that is not the point of 1 Corinthians 15:45b. The point there is that the Word of John 1:1-4, who became a man according to John 1:14, and who passed through 33 years of human living as the last Adam, “became,” through death and resurrection, “a life-giving spirit.”

The Bible Answer Man made quite a point that the “life-giving spirit” in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is not the Holy Spirit. I would like to ask him: besides the Holy Spirit, is there another spirit who gives life? In John 6:63 Jesus says plainly, “It is the Spirit who gives life.” In Romans 8:2 Paul speaks of “The Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” and 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, “The Spirit gives life.” In these three instances the word “Spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit, and in each case it says that the Spirit gives life. Do we have in 1 Corinthians 15:45b another spirit who gives life?

2 Corinthians 3:17

Second Corinthians 3:17a reads, “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (A.S.V.). A questioner asked on the radio program, “Who is the Lord in verse 17?” The reply was, “I believe it’s the Father.” In this same discussion he said, “I think it could be reasonable argued that it is the Father as well as it could be argued that it’s the Son.” He then modified his answer: “I’m not saying that the Father is the Holy Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:17. I’m saying God is the Spirit who is being referred to by Paul, which falls in perfectly with John 4:24.” Finally, he settled on a synthesis of his two previous answers by saying, “Second Corinthians 3:17 can refer to God the Father, and it’s only saying God is that Spirit…You cannot make it say Christ there, absolutely.” First he says that the word “Lord” in 3:17 refers to the Father; secondly, that it does not refer to the Father, but to God; thirdly, that it refers to God the Father; and fourthly that it does not absolutely refer to Christ — which means that it could conceivably refer to Christ. Finally he ends up interpreting 2 Corinthians 3:17 by John 4:24.

Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:12 that he was using “great plainness of speech.” Why then does the Bible Answer Man make this matter so complicated? If I were answering the question, “Who is the Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17?” I would answer in this way. In chapter 3, verse 14, Paul tells us that Christ takes the veil away. He goes on to tell us in verse 16 that if we want the subjective experience of having the veil removed, we must turn to the Lord. Christ takes away the veil in verse 14 and the Lord takes it away in verse 16. Surely, then, the Lord in verse 16 is the Christ in verse 14. In verse 17 Paul tells us who Christ is today—”The Lord is the Spirit.” If the Lord were not the Spirit, how could we turn to Him and contact Him?

Dropping down to verse 18, we have the word “Lord” again. First we must discover who the Lord is in verse 18. Second, we must ask whether the Lord in verse 18 is a different Lord from the Lord in verse 17. By this means we can discover the meaning of 3:17a.

Verse 18 reads:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

In this verse there are the words, “glory,” “Lord,” and “image.” Concerning glory Paul says, “The glory of God [is] in the face of Jesus Christ.” (4:6); concerning image Paul says “Christ…is the image of God.” (4:4); and concerning Lord he says, “We preach Christ Jesus as Lord” (4:5, N.A.S.V.). Hence, the Lord in verse 18 must be Christ.

We have shown that the “Lord” in verse 16 is Christ, for it is Christ who takes the veil away. We have demonstrated that the Lord in verse 18 is also Christ. We emphatically insist therefore, on the basis of inductive logic, that the Lord in verse 17 who “is the Spirit” is also Christ. To say that the Father is the Lord here, or that God is referred to, is foreign to the context. Only a person who is attempting to maintain an absolute (that is, tritheistic) distinction between the members of the Trinity would present such interpretations as he presented. Theology should be derived from the Bible. We should not try to impose our theology upon the Bible.

2 Corinthians 13:5

In 2 Corinthians 13:5 we have the fourth example of how the Bible Answer Man interprets the Bible according to his theology. Second Corinthians 13:5 says:

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? (N.A.S.V.)

According to this verse, one may tell conclusively whether or not he is a Christian. The test is whether or not Christ is in you. If one can answer this question positively, he passes the test of being a Christian. If he cannot, he fails the test.

I would like to ask the same question one of the inquirers asked on the radio: “How can Christ be living in me if He is not the Spirit?” The Bible Answer Man’s answer was “that Christ dwells in you in the person of the Holy Spirit who represents the Trinity.” The trouble here is that he tries to make the Bible fit his nice, neat theological concepts. In his mind Christ is now in heaven and the Holy Spirit is on earth representing Christ. But this is his human thought. Where in the Bible does it say that Christ is represented by the Holy Spirit? In Romans 8:34 Paul says that “Christ…is at the right hand of God.” But in verse 10 of the same chapter he says, “Christ is in you.” In Romans 8:9-10 Paul says, “The Spirit of God dwells in you”; we have the “Spirit of Christ”; and that “Christ is in you.” These are equivalent terms. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ indwells us in a representative way.

In the local churches our testimony and our experience is that Christ is living in us. Our desire is that every true child of God would have such confidence.

Condoning Idolatry

Finally, the Bible Answer Man said correctly that the Scriptures condemn idolatry; yet he condoned its practice in the Roman Catholic Church. His explanation was that the Roman Catholic Church herself condemns “the worship of a statue…as idolatry.” No doubt she does. Surely no so-called Christian church would admit to the practice of idolatry! He takes their word that they do not worship idols. Does he also take their word that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth; that souls go to purgatory; that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into literal body and blood of Christ; that their bishops are the true successors of the apostles; that Mary is a co-redemptrix with Christ; that the rite of water baptism makes one a member of the church; that the Lord’s servants should not marry; ad infinitum, ad nausium?

The fact that the Catholic Church says she does not worship idols means nothing. They say many things no Bible-believing Christian can tolerate. I no more believe that harlot when she says she does not worship statues, than I believe her when she says that Peter was the first Pope.

I am surprised at the Bible Answer Man. Does he also believe in the superstitious practices of fingering a rosary, using holy water, and making the sign of the cross?

The distinguished teacher of the Bible Answer Man was Donald Grey Barnhouse. This is what Dr. Barnhouse had to say regarding the Roman Catholic Church in the jacket of the Book, The Two Babylons:

The pretentions of the Roman Catholic Church are old pretentions, and frequently they are based on old arguments…almost all of the practices of the Roman cult have been brought over from paganism. When we come to see that the worship (or veneration—it is the same thing) of the Virgin Mary is really the worship of Venus, Astarte, and that it comes from Babylon, the center of the system is revealed to be Satanic. Image worship is increasing in Roman Catholic Churches, even in the United States.

According to Revelation 18:23 all nations have been deceived by her “sorceries.” Anyone who takes her word as truth is surely under deception. And those who are passing on her interpretations to the public are assisting her in her devilish scheme to deceive men.

Rather than passing on to others what she says, we in the local churches say with John in Revelation 18:4, “Come out of her, my people, that you may not participate in her sins and that you may not receive of her plagues.”

This is the third of five articles in this Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

Concerning the Scriptural Meaning of the Triune God

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man – Appendix
Witness Lee & the Local Churches Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

October 22

The charges and false accusations made by the Bible Answer Man concerning the belief of the local churches about the Trinity reveal that he is uninformed concerning the meaning behind our usage of Biblical terminology. We prefer to speak with the language of Scripture when speaking of the Trinity. However, due to the history of the development of trinitatrian dogma, other unscriptural terms were introduced in order to define what the Trinity is not and to safeguard against heresy. The heresies of dynamic monarchianism, modalistic monarchianism and tri-theism have caused some theologians to flinch at the usage of any terminology that sounds like these classical trinitarian heresies. The Bible Answer Man falls into this category.

The local churches prefer to speak with Biblical terminology when referring to the Triune God. For example, to say the Son is called the Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6) and the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17) are Biblical quotations. The interpretation put on these quotations makes all the difference in the world. There is a proper and improper use of the Scriptures. However, regardless of their misuse by heretics we have chosen to stay with the language sanctioned by the Holy Spirit to utter the Triune God in our experience, rather than eliminate a part of the Word of God because heresy has put a false connotation upon it.

The Bible Answer Man has falsely charged Witness Lee and the local churches by putting a heretical interpretation on our usage of Biblical quotations. For the benefit of the Bible Answer Man, his associates and Christian public, we now present a positive statement concerning the scriptural meaning of the Triune God.

In the Scriptures, God has revealed Himself as triune. This revelation means that God is both Three and One at the same time. He is the Three-One God. Therefore, all Christians can equally confess that God is simultaneously Three and One.

The Bible doesn’t attempt to analyze how God is Three and One at the same time; indeed, the Scriptures are not even aware of any problem connected with understanding the Trinity. In fact, the New Testament passages that reveal the Triune God are directly related to man’s experience of God, rather than to theological definitions. The following points prayerfully considered will reveal the truth concerning the Trinity.

  1. The scriptural facts. There are at least seven scriptural facts that reveal the Triune God.
    1. God is uniquely one—Isa. 44:6; 1Cor. 8:4,6.
    2. God is triune—Gen. 1:26; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14.
    3. All three are God—1 Pet. 1:2; Heb. 1:8; Acts 5:3-4.
    4. All three are eternal—Isa. 9:6; John 1:1; Heb. 9:14.
    5. All three exist at the same time—Matt.3:16-17.
    6. All three are one—John 10:30; 14:8-11; 2 Cor. 3:17.
    7. All three are in us—Gal. 4:6; Eph. 4:6; Rom. 8:10; John 14:17.
  2. The scriptural terminology. The truth concerning the Trinity should be expressed in the same scriptural terminology that is given to us in the Bible. This principle can be seen by comparing 2 Peter 1:20-21 with 1 Corinthians 2:13: “…no prophesy of scripture is of private interpretation….but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit….which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (ASV). It is better and safer to keep the language selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the various aspects of the Triune God. By using scriptural terminology in speaking of the Trinity, we will preserve both the objective revelation in the Bible and the subjective experience of God.
  3. The scriptural principle. Apparently the Scriptures revealing God being Three and One at the same time are contradictory. Actually this seeming contradiction is a revelation of the scriptural principle of the two aspects or two foldness of divine truth. Robert Govett (A.D. 1813-1901), a fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, a highly esteemed Biblical scholar, deals with all important but much neglected principle in his booklet, The Twofoldness of Divine Truth. Concerning two apparently contradictory aspects of a scriptural truth, Govett says:

    4. But are they not contradictory? That cannot be, for they are both parts of the Word of God, and contradictions cannot both be true. Both, then, are to be received whether we can reconcile them or no. Their claim on our reception is not that we can unite them, but that God has testified both….The same twofoldness of truth appears in the Scripture statements concerning the nature of God. It affirms His unity….But the Scripture as plainly affirms the distinction of persons in the Godhead. “Unity in plurality and plurality in unity” is the assertion here. This master-truth, which takes its rise in the nature of the Godhead, flows out into all His works.

    How could God be Three and One at the same time? Simply because the Word of God distinctly affirms both truth. Both the Three and the One should be equally embraced without question.

  4. The scriptural understanding. Firstly, a scriptural understanding of the Trinity is related to how God revealed Himself and made Himself known on the stage of history. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear from Genesis to Revelation as a threefold unveiling of the one living God to fulfill his purpose with man. This is the economy of God in creation, redemption and sanctification. By this economy in the Scriptures we understand that God is triune.

    5. Secondly, a scriptural understanding of the Trinity is also related to personal experience. Without experience there is no proper understanding of the Triune God. Paul makes this clear by speaking of the Trinity in the context of his actual experience. For example, Galatians 4:6, says, “And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” The Triune God is here revealed within the limits of Paul’s heart. Thus, the Father, Son, and Spirit must be experienced within our hearts in order to scripturally understand that He is triune.

  5. The scriptural relationship. The scriptural revelation of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is found in two types of Scriptures. The first type is the verses that reveal that the Father, Son, and Spirit mutually indwell One another. One example is John 14:9b-10 where Jesus says: “…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works” (ASV). The relationship between the Father and the Son is one of mutual indwelling. That is, each Person interpenetrates and coinheres the Others. This mutual indwelling and interpenetration reveals the distinction within the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also preserves the fact that the Triune God is uniquely One.

    6. The second type of Scripture showing the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is the verses that specifically state that One Person of the Triune God is Another. Examples of this type are found in Isaiah 9:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:17. In one the Son is called the Everlasting Father and in the other the Lord (referring to Christ) is identified with the Spirit, viz., “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” These verses revealing the Persons being each Other must be understood with the verses revealing the Persons mutually indwelling each Other. That is, the understanding behind Isaiah’s utterance “the Son is called…the Everlasting Father” is Jesus’ utterance “…I am in the Father and the Father in me…” Both utterances are God’s Word and must be taken together. One utterance identifies the Persons, the other reveals the mutual indwelling of the Persons. By putting these two types of verses together, the Bible interprets itself.

    From these Scriptures we can see that the oneness within the Godhead is of such a nature that the work of One Person is ascribed to the Other, and all Three function as One with One Name (Matt. 28:19) as One God (1 Cor. 8:4, 6).

    Dr. Augustus Strong in his Systematic Theology, pages 330-334, fully discusses this scriptural relationship between the Persons of the Triune God. Speaking of the three Persons having one essence he says:

    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, with a single limitation, to either of the others, and the manifestation of one to be recognized in the manifestation of another. The limitation is simply this, that although the Son was sent by the Father, and the Spirit by the Father and the Son, it cannot be said vice versa that the Father is sent either by the Son, or by the Spirit. 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 in 1 Corinthians 15:45—”the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit”; 2 Corinthians 3:17—”Now the Lord is the Spirit”; Galatians 4:6—”sent forth the Spirit of his Son”; Philippians 1:19—”supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”

  6. The scriptural meaning. The scriptural meaning of the Trinity is for God to be experienced by man. All the verses related to the revelation of the Trinity are in the context of experience. When the Trinity becomes merely a dogma of theological debate, the scriptural meaning of the Triune God is lost.

    7. God as triune desires that we experience Him by firstly being baptized “…into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19); secondly, that we daily enjoy Him in our experience as Paul declared: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).

This is the fourth of five articles in this Reply to the “Bible Answer Man”

Witness Lee Responds

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

3. A STATEMENT BY WITNESS LEE

It is very sad and shameful that Christian brothers have been continually fighting one against another through the centuries. It is mainly because their understanding of the Bible differs; they have different views and are on different levels. The reasons for this are three.

1. The Bible, being the revelation of God, is extremely profound. On its surface are the plain doctrines, but in its depth are the deep and vital truths. It is easy to know the doctrines of the Bible, but more grace is required to realize the deeper truths revealed in the Bible concerning God’s eternal purpose. For example, John 1:29 tells us that the Lord Jesus died on the cross as the Lamb of God to bear our sins that we may be redeemed. All real Christians know this. But the same Gospel, chapter twelve, verse 24, reveals that the Lord died also as a grain of wheat, falling into the ground to release His life, that He might be multiplied into many grains for the formation of His Body, which is the church. It seems that the speaker at Melodyland has not seen this truth, because he has accused us of being heretical concerning this matter. Actually, it is not that we are heretical, but that he has not seen this deep thing of God (1 Cor. 2:10).

Another example: First Timothy 3:15 says that the church is the house of the living God and the pillar and ground of the truth. But the very next verse, verse 16, reveals that the church is also the mystery of godliness, that is, God was manifest in the flesh. The church is not only the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, but also the manifestation of God in the flesh. The context of this verse confirms this. This is also a deep truth, for which we are condemned by the speaker. Again, it seems that he is short of sight in this matter.

2. The truths in the Bible are often of two aspects, the objective and the subjective. The subjective aspect is mainly for our experience. For example, on one hand Christ today is in the heavens, but on the other hand Christ today is also in us, and His being in us is that we may experience Him as life and the life supply. Since He is the very embodiment of God, and since we have Him within us as our life, we partake of the divine nature of God. This subjective truth was also objected to by the speaker, because he simply did not see it.

Another example: The Holy Trinity not only has the side of three, but also the side of one. On one hand our Triune God is three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but on the other hand He is one, the unique God. This is clearly and fully revealed in the Holy Word. But sorry to say, the speaker, standing unbalanced on the side of three, fights against the side of one. Although he says that God is one, the oneness in his concept is a corporate oneness, not the individual oneness of our unique God, because he does not believe the pure word in Isaiah 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 15:45.

3. The divine revelation was fully completed when the book of Revelation was written to the churches. But not long after that, the church began to lose sight of God’s open revelation and deviate from the central line of His perfect Word. Thus, the Bible became a veiled book until the time of reformation, when Martin Luther was raised up by the Lord to begin the recovery of the lost truths. Luther, by returning to the Bible from the deviated historic church, discovered the truth of justification by faith among the lost truths. However, that was just the beginning of the Lord’s recovery. Thence, through the past five centuries, the Lord has continually carried on His recovery through many different channels. How we thank the Lord for those channels! But there has always been a sad story accompanying each step of the Lord’s recovery. Nearly every time a lost truth was recovered by some new channels, the old channels fought against the newly discovered truth, and even fought against the channels used by the Lord to recover that truth. In principle, it is the same today.

I was born, raised up, and educated in Christianity. From my youth I have been taught with Bible stories and many teachings of the Bible. After I was saved, I sat at the feet of the great Brethren teachers, listening to hundreds of their messages concerning the Bible. Later I was helped by reading the inner-life books, such as the books by Madame Guyon, Andrew Murray, and Mrs. Jessie Penn-Lewis. After that, I was also involved in the Pentecostal movement. Then the Lord showed us from His Word a number of lost truths, such as the multiplication, the enlargement, of the unlimited Christ, the corporate Christ, the church being the manifestation of God in the flesh, the proper unity of the Body of Christ, the practical expression of the church, and other items.

Because these truths are new to some dear Christian brothers, they consider them as heresies, as teachings which are not according to the Bible. Then they fight against these newly recovered truths under the excuse of contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Sometimes these Christian brothers have gone so far that they have even fought their battle by building up false accusations according to their erroneous or inadequate understanding of the Bible. Actually, these newly recovered truths are absolutely scriptural. To see these truths requires that the veil of traditional concepts held by the so-called historic church be taken away, and that the Lord’s people come back to the pure Word of God in His Holy Writings. We, in the Lord’s recovery, following the footsteps of Martin Luther, only care for the pure Word, not for any traditional concept of the historic church. These three reasons are just brief principles.

Lastly, I would like to say a word from my heart. We Christian brothers may hold different opinions concerning certain truths and may argue over them one with another. But let us do it in a spirit and on a level that are worthy of a saint in Christ. The truths of the Bible are holy. We do not believe that any mocking, ridiculing, or despising is the way for a saint to contend for the holy truths of our Holy God. It is a solemn thing to deal with the Word of God. We may edify others; we may also destroy others. We must always remind ourselves that whatever we say and do will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ when He comes back. May the Lord’s grace be with us all!

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Summary Comments from 1977

Posted on by

On October 2, 1977, Walter Martin, “The Bible Answer Man,” criticized Witness Lee and the local churches in a lecture at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California. Because of the public nature of his talk, members of the local churches wrote responses that were published as advertisements in The Santa Ana Register (now The Orange County Register). The current Bible Answer Man and President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Hank Hanegraaff, was not a party to that controversy. After a six-year primary research project under Hanegraaff’s oversight, CRI withdrew its earlier criticisms of Witness Lee and the local churches and recognized them as representing authentic New Testament Christianity (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The articles published in response to Martin’s criticisms are included on this site because they address important points of truth; because some of Martin’s criticisms of the local churches still circulate, particularly on the Internet; and because these responses are part of the local churches’ history of attempts to correct misrepresentations of their beliefs and practices.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

The Introduction and Conclusion below were published in The Orange County Register in 1977 along with the following eighteen articles by members representing the local churches.

1. INTRODUCTION

The teaching and person of Witness Lee and the practice of the local churches were attacked and misrepresented at a meeting held Sunday night, October 2, 1977, at Melodyland, Anaheim, California. We in the local churches feel constrained to respond to the groundless and unwarranted accusations made by the speaker. We have no desire or intention to fight against any person or group. The following articles, written by several brothers representing all the local churches in the U. S. A. and Witness Lee, are presented so that the Christian public may judge for itself what is the truth.

2. CONCLUSION

Through the centuries genuine Christians have held many different views of doctrinal matters, especially concerning the Trinity and the church. Even though we may differ with one another and even debate concerning the truth, we must maintain a proper attitude of love and respect toward one another. To attack other believers or mock those who differ from us in our understanding of Scripture certainly does not represent the spirit of Christian love.

Matthew 7:20 says, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” A tree can surely be known by the fruit it bears. The life and ministry of Witness Lee have resulted in the salvation of thousands personally brought to the Lord by him, and the raising up of over 230 churches established directly by his ministry in the past forty years. In addition, another twenty churches are directly under the nourishment of his ministry. Scores of books on practical Christian living, essential truths of the Scripture, and the truths concerning the church and church practice have been published and are readily available. Also, over 300 Life-study Messages by Witness Lee on the books Genesis, Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation, containing the richest exposition, have been released.

Where today can one find a life and ministry so fruitful as this?

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

God in Trinity

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

4. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE TRINITY

The public statements made at Melodyland on October 2, 1977 regarding what Witness Lee and the local churches believe concerning the Trinity contain at least fifteen errors. Some of these errors are now openly stated and refuted by the local churches:

1. The error of public misrepresentation. The speaker charged that “Witness Lee and the local church are anti the historic view of Trinitarian theology…and have adopted an ancient church heresy known as Monarchianistic Modalism.” This is false and grossly misrepresents our own testimony. We have published several booklets available to the public for almost two years fully exposing and denying as heresy every form of Monarchianistic Modalism. These booklets also contain our belief and experience of the Triune God according to the Bible with positive affirmations concerning the historic statements contained in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed regarding the Trinity. Yet, the speaker refuses to acknowledge our confession and has publicly misrepresented Witness Lee and the local churches.

2. The error with historical data. The speaker presents to the public that there are two types of Modalism or two classic modes of modalistic theology which he says are heretical theology. These two types or two classic modes he identifies as “logical” and “illogical.” The illogical he says “recognize[s] that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other.” This is a false presentation of historical data in order to identify Witness Lee with heresy. The fact is that no form of modalism believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed at the same time; otherwise, they would not have been classified as Monarchianistic Modalism.

3. The error of the wrong interpretation of Witness Lee’s writings. The speaker and his associates claim that it took them hundreds of pages of wading and documentation to come up with the fact that the Holy Spirit is in the process of becoming the church so that the church ends up as God. What was conveyed to the public was that Witness Lee believes in a pantheistic evolution into God. This is a subtle accusation under the guise of having read Witness Lee’s writings. The speaker and his associates have not interpreted Witness Lee in the way these truths were intended. The Christian public has been deceived by the speaker’s false presentation of Witness Lee’s belief in the Triune God and His relationship to the church.

4. The error of changing the Scripture. The speaker advised Witness Lee to take some lessons in Hebrew concerning Isaiah 9:6. The speaker stated that the word for Father means “author, source, and origin” of the everlasting according to the Jews, evading the clear title Father. This is a bold thing for the speaker to do in changing the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 9:6 for “Father.” This same Hebrew word is used over one thousand times in the Old Testament, and every time it is translated “father.” This Father in Isaiah 9:6 can only be the Father in the Godhead or else you hold two Divine Fathers. To have two Divine Fathers is heresy. The speaker should reflect on what is stated in The Pulpit Commentary by Dr. George Rawlinson on Isaiah 9:6:

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? If the term “Father,” applied to our Lord grates our ears, we must remember that the distinctions of Persons in the Godhead has not yet been revealed.

Regardless of how the speaker may interpret “The everlasting Father,” whether as “the Father of eternity,” “the Father of creation,” “the Father of the age to come,” “the Father of Israel,” or the Father of something else, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father” in Isaiah 9:6. There is only one Divine Father in the whole universe. Hence, “the everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6, regardless of how people twist it, must be the unique Divine Father in the Godhead.

5. The error of omission. The speaker did not say anything about 1 Corinthians 15:45b, which says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (ASV) and 2 Corinthians 3:17, which says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” Probably he ignored dealing with this aspect of the truth because he has no way to answer without twisting the Scripture and ending up with two life-giving Spirits. The whole history and weight of exegesis on these two passages indicate (without theological speculation) that Christ is simply the Spirit.

What heresy to have two Divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits! We must tell people of these heresies, and these heresies must be exposed. We are absolutely scriptural, but those who have two Divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits as the result of twisting these verses are heretical. Let us wait and see how they can clear themselves from this charge.

5. A PROTEST CONCERNING HISTORICAL MISREPRESENTATION

On behalf of Witness Lee and all the local churches, we go on record before the Christian public to protest against the meeting held at Melodyland on October 2, 1977. The speaker grossly misrepresented the truths of the gospel that we have experienced and proclaimed. Our speaking and writing are our response to these misrepresentations, lest silence be construed as agreement with the Melodyland meeting. The reason the speaker and his research associates make such false charges and distortions concerning what we believe is obviously ignorance on their part of what we believe and mean. This ignorance has led them into the error of misrepresentation. The areas of ignorance and misrepresentation are as follows:

A. Ignorance concerning Biblical Theology

The speaker and his associates have read into our quotations of 2 Corinthians 3:17a, “Now the Lord is the Spirit,” and 1 Corinthians 15:45b, “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit,” and given them a modalistic meaning that we ourselves do not believe. In March of 1977, we had a personal talk with the speaker’s associates in which we related that our use of the above verses did not mean modalism. They refused to accept our clear testimony on this point.

Then we inquired of them if they were aware of the area in biblical theology called “Pneumatic Christology.” The associates of the speaker were totally ignorant that such an area existed in the study of biblical theology. We challenged them to go outside the local church and study the contemporary theological discussions on this subject.

The emphasis of “Pneumatic Christology” is a fresh attempt to come back to the simple and clear statements of the Bible concerning the action of Christ as the Spirit. An example of other biblical theologians speaking to this issue is Dr. Hendrikus Berkhof of the University of Leyden in Holland in his book, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The following is a sample found on page 21:

The Spirit as the action of the exalted Christ: So far our main interest has been focused on the consequences of Christ’s being the bearer of the Spirit, and as such also the sender. Now we have to shift our attention and to lay full emphasis on that second aspect: Christ the sender of the Spirit, the Spirit sent by Christ. How are Christ and the Spirit related here? This difficult question is of the greatest importance. It has found different answers in the course of church history, and these answers have created different types of Christian life, institutional as well as individual.

Then continuing on pages 24 and 25 he says:

In the field of biblical theology, several studies have been published in the last years which throw a new light on the relation between the Spirit and Christ, primarily in the letters of Paul. From these studies and from an open-minded examination of the New Testament, we must draw the conclusion that we have to think of the Spirit in strictly christocentric terms. This means that we have to start where the first group starts and to say that the Spirit is always and everywhere the Spirit of Jesus Christ. When we go a step beyond the traditional position, it is not to weaken it but to strengthen it. That the Spirit is bound to Christ is far more true than is meant and expressed in classical pneumatology. In John 14:18, Jesus, aiming at the sending of the Spirit, says: “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.” We find a parallel saying in the last words of Matthew: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (28:20). This identification of the Spirit with Christ is found in all the New Testament traditions. We think of 1 John 3:24 which says that we know Christ abides in us “by the Spirit which he has given us.” In the letters to the seven churches, it is the risen Christ who speaks, but who at the same time says: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7, etc.). We think, however, mainly of Paul’s words: “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17a). Some think that we have to reverse subject and predicate, and to translate: “Now the Spirit is Lord,” the Spirit wields lordship; but the word “Lord” in verses 17 and 18 always means Christ. He himself is the Spirit; as the close of verse 18 repeats: “this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” Other features of this conception in Paul are found in 1 Corinthians 6:17: “he who is united to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him,” and in Romans 8:9-11, where the divine principle which dwells in the faithful alternately is called the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and Christ. It is also clear that the Pauline expressions en Christoi and en pneumati are synonymous.

Dr. Berkhof’s book is sold at Melodyland Bookstore. In fact, we would encourage the speaker, his associates, the faculty and students of Melodyland School of Theology, and the Christian public to make an objective and honest study of the history of the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6:17, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Romans 8:9-11, and Acts 16:6-7 from the great expositors of the Bible in the past centuries to see whether on the level of experience others have not said the very things for which we have been charged as heretical.

B. Misrepresentation concerning the History of Modalism

The speaker at Melodyland on October 2, 1977, said:

Witness Lee has perverted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and has adopted an ancient church heresy known as Monarchianistic Modalism. That’s a fifty-cent word, but translated it boils down to this. There are two types of modalism, the logical person who realizes that God cannot be both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time and then they say God was first the Father, became the Son, and then became the Holy Spirit. The illogical ones recognize that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are spoken of at the same time and therefore try to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other. That’s the two classic modes of modalistic theology…

With the above statement the speaker then charged Witness Lee with both of the classic heresies. The first classic mode is surely that type of modalism represented by Sabellius. The second classic mode of modalism which the speaker calls “illogical” is in fact not the second classic mode of modalism. All students of Christian doctrine know that the other classic mode of modalism is called dynamic modalism represented in the unitarian, Paul of Samosata, who denied the preexistence of Christ and reduced the Son and the Spirit to “virtues” or “powers” rather than “Persons” in the Godhead.

The speaker, however, misrepresented a man named Callistus as one who represented one of the classic modes of modalism, and utilized him to charge Witness Lee with a so-called classic heresy.

The section that the speaker twisted for his own use is found in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Volume II, page 579. The following is what was referred to over the radio, October 8, 1977, by the speaker and his associates:

Callistus differed from the ditheistic separation of the Logos from God, but also from the Sabellian confusion of the Father and the Son, and insisted on the mutual indwelling (perichoresis) of the divine Persons; in other words, he sought the way from modalistic unitarianism to the Nicene trinitarianism; but he was not explicit and consistent in his statements. He excommunicated both Sabellius and Hippolytus; the Roman church sided with him, and made his name one of the most prominent among the ancient popes.

Firstly, according to Philip Schaff, Callistus is surely not represented here as one of the “classic modes of modalistic theology,” but on the contrary “sought the way from modalistic unitarianism to the Nicene Trinitarianism.” In fact, J. F. Bethune-Baker’s book The Early History of Christian Doctrine, pages 103-104, indicates that, with Callistus’ statements related to the distinction of the Father and the Son, the essential principle of modalism is lost. Therefore, this is a direct misrepresentation of historical facts in the name of scholarship and research in order to label Witness Lee and the local churches with heresy.

Secondly, the speaker indicated that Callistus represented the illogical ones who recognize that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other. This is an outright falsehood in relation to what Callistus actually believed according to Schaff. Callistus “insisted on the mutual indwelling (perichoresis) of the divine Persons.” The speaker represented Callistus as believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each other, but Callistus actually believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are indwelling each other. The omission of the word “indwelling” by the speaker was a subtle falsehood. To say “are each other” is modalism. To say the divine Persons mutually indwell each other is the proper biblical understanding of the relationship between the Persons in the Godhead.

Therefore, the speaker’s so-called classic mode of illogical modalism is exposed as a fabrication of his own mind and not a fact in the history of doctrine. This is irresponsible misrepresentation in the name of research and scholarship in order to falsely charge Witness Lee and the local churches.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

The Mingling of God and Man

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the “Bible Answer Man” (Vol. 1)

6. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE MINGLING

Since the speaker at Melodyland is confused concerning the proper understanding of the mingling as taught by Witness Lee and the local churches, we take this opportunity to relate the scriptural and historical points concerning mingling.

Mingling Seen in the Type of the Offerings of the Old Testament

Firstly, the truths in the New Testament, being spiritual and abstract, are often pictured by the types in the Old Testament. Concerning the testimony of the Old Testament, the type that portrays Christ mingled in His humanity and divinity is the meal or meat offering in Leviticus 2:1-16. Specifically, the one verse that uniquely brings together the humanity and divinity of Christ is Leviticus 2:4: “And when thou offerest an oblation of a meal-offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil” (ASV). Here two substances, fine flour and oil, which in type depict the humanity and divinity of Christ, are united in the most wondrous relationship. The word selected by the Holy Spirit to denote the mode of that relationship is mingled.

Mingling Communicated Clearly in Verses of the New Testament

Secondly, the testimony of the New Testament concerning the mystery of the mingling of man with God is expressed in 1 Timothy 3:16 which declares that God manifest in the flesh is a great mystery. The New Testament, however, does not attempt to explain how the divinity and humanity of Christ are interrelated. Although no word is supplied in the pages of the New Testament to describe this mysterious inner relationship, the facts of the mystery are clearly presented: Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Person. The Old Testament type of the “fine flour mingled with oil” portrays the facts of the New Testament revelation, and both type and facts must be held as a great mystery.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 6:17 the fact of a believer’s spirit being mingled with the Holy Spirit is clearly stated: “He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” How could man’s spirit be one spirit with the Holy Spirit without being mingled? Let the speaker answer and describe the nature of this oneness of spirit with the Lord.

“Mingled” Being the Proper Term to Describe this Wondrous Mystery

The relationship between the humanity and divinity of Christ is a divine mystery which cannot be fully explained or understood by man. To utter this mystery the Word of God in Leviticus 2:4 uses the term “mingled.” Early in church history this term was used in a proper sense by the church fathers, but in the fifth century it became associated with heresy and its proper meaning was damaged. In the ensuing church councils and creeds, non-scriptural and substitute terms were introduced. Consequently, the scriptural term received a wrong connotation and was lost to the common language of the church.

However, despite the historical and traditional problem concerning the term mingle as it describes the relationship of the humanity and divinity of Christ, the Word of God and the actual testimonies of several of the church fathers, reformers, and evangelical writers confirm the use of the term mingled as the unique scriptural term to convey and utter this mystery.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Concerning the Church

Posted on by

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

7. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE CHURCH

Why do we call ourselves “the church in Anaheim,” “the church in Huntington Beach,” or “the church in Los Angeles”? We have been fully misunderstood concerning this matter and even charged by the speaker at Melodyland with “enormous egotism.” This is mainly due to ignorance concerning God’s revelation of the church.

In the heart of God in eternity past was an “eternal purpose,” and the means by which this purpose would be fulfilled is called “the church” (Eph. 3:10-11). Therefore, this name “the church” came out of the heart of God. Then the Lord Jesus gave this same title to this same marvelous entity when He spoke in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church.” In Revelation 2 and 3, the Holy Spirit is revealed again and again as speaking to “the churches.” Furthermore, throughout the narrative of Acts and the writings of the apostles, the same unique title “the church” or “the churches” is used repeatedly. No definitive adjectives are used before this title, denoting which church. There is only one church, “the church.”

Although this simple title—planned by God, spoken by the Lord, addressed by the Spirit, and referred to by the apostles—has been persistently misused and abused, we still would return to the Bible to call ourselves what the Triune God and the apostles have called us, “the church.” What church? The church. This does not mean that we are the church and others are not the members of the church. Every blood-washed, regenerated child of God is part of it. They were born into it. But many are not meeting as the church, but in a divided and confused situation. To prefix “the church” with adjectives, such as Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc., and to meet as such is to divide the church and separate members one from another. To call it a “fellowship” or a “center” is to miss the mark. God wants His people today to forsake every divisive name and standing and to meet together with other Christians simply as the church in their locality. This is what the Bible shows us.

Let us consider God’s Word. In the beginning of the New Testament, in Matthew, and at the end of the New Testament, in Revelation, the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the church. However, in Matthew it is singular (“my church”), and in Revelation it is plural (“the seven churches”). In Matthew, He is speaking of the one universal church, whereas in Revelation He is speaking of the local churches. The one universal church must have an expression, and it is expressed practically in many localities as the local churches. “Local churches” is not their title, but merely a description of their nature.

Now notice the passage in Revelation 1:11. The Lord said, “What you see write in a book and send it to the seven churches.” Then He immediately proceeded to mention seven cities: “To Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” The Lord, as always, spoke very precisely and meaningfully. He said seven churches, and then mentioned seven cities, indicating that the city is equivalent to the church, or, in other words, the city is the boundary, the jurisdiction, of a local church. Nothing could be more clear.

This principle is repeated by the apostles in many instances in the Epistles and the Acts, and it is never violated. The Scripture says, “The church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), never, “The churches which were at Jerusalem.” It says, “The church that was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), never, “The churches that were at Antioch.” If there was one city, there was only one church. When the Scripture refers to a district, with many cities, it consistently refers to the churches (plural) in that district: e. g. , “the churches in Judea” (Gal. 1:22), the churches of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor. 16:19), and so forth. In one district there may be many churches, but in one city there can only be one church.

The saved ones are the called-out ones, but since they are still living among men, the Lord gathers them in the place where they are living. If you are living in Dallas, you must simply meet together with the other saved ones as the church in Dallas. If you are living in Seattle, you must simply meet with the other Christians as the church in Seattle. How simple and pure this arrangement is! There is no room for human opinion or human choice. The church that is built in Dallas is just the one church; the church that is built in any place is the same church, for the church is one in the whole universe. There is no difference in nature, but only in geography. If all God’s people could see this, there would be no divisions. Only geography is unavoidable. All other distinctions separating Christians are absolutely unnecessary and violate the unity of the church. Herein we find the wisdom of God. In one locality after another, in order to keep the unity of the church, God establishes only one church.

As further proof, consider Acts 14:23: “And having chosen them elders in each church…” Now compare this with Titus 1:5: “And establish elders in each city.” In Acts Paul says “elders in each church,” and in Titus he says “elders in each city.” These verses prove that the elders of a city are the elders of a church. They also prove that the boundary of the church is just the boundary of the city. If the church is smaller than the city or greater than the city, it is not a proper local church as delineated by the Scriptures.

Our standard must be the Word of God. We must be true to the light God has given, or our conscience will give us no rest. The proper standing for all genuine Christians as the one church in each locality is clearly set forth in God’s Word. There is no need to search for it, we only need to return to it. That is what we have done, and we are being condemned for it. But we strongly reject all charges of being divisive. We are simply standing on the ground where all Christians are one. This is not Witness Lee’s church. It does not belong to him, and he has never attempted to take it over. To make this charge manifests an utter ignorance of the facts.

The confusion found in Christianity today is mainly due to this matter. Christians are meeting together, perhaps ignorantly and unconsciously, on the wrong standing, a divisive standing, according to their own taste and choice. The sects and denominations of today could no longer exist if all would come together to express the one church in each city according to the Scriptures. Therefore, anyone who insists on keeping the denominations is divisive. In the light of this truth, the local churches are not dividing the Body of Christ, as we have been charged. The responsibility of division lies upon the denominations, fellowships, centers, and other groups who do not care for the practical unity of the Body in their locality. If a woman is married to Mr. Jones and yet insists on calling herself Mrs. Smith, it proves there is a serious problem. Such a practice would be extremely objectionable and even intolerable to Mr. Jones. The wife, if she would be proper, must return to her standing as Mrs. Jones and commence calling herself Mrs. Jones. The application to today’s situation is clear.

May the Lord lead many more of His children into the practical expression of the unity of His church.

8. THE TRUTH CONCERNING GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH

Ephesians 1:22-23 says that God “gave Him [Christ] to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body. …” Hence, there is a marvelous Person in this universe: Christ is the Head, and the church is the Body. Paul in his Epistles, especially in Ephesians and Colossians, speaks much of this divinely human Person in the figure of a complete man, the Head with the Body. Just as in a normal human being, the body shares the same life and nature with the head; so in the relationship of the church with Christ, the church partakes of the very divine life and nature of Christ. Otherwise, she could not be His Body. Verses such as Ephesians 4:15-16 and Colossians 2:19 further substantiate the fact by showing how all the Body is built up by the life supply flowing from the Head.

To the speaker who has recently said that “we cannot participate in God,” we answer, “In His Godhead, no; but in His life and nature, most assuredly and blessedly.” To the Scripture already presented, we add 2 Peter 1:4, which says in plain words, “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…” What could be more clear?

In addition, the Scriptures tell us more. Christ is not only the Head, but also the Body. Very few Christians have seen this revelation in Scripture. Yet it is not obscure. I need not interpret, but only read 1 Corinthians 12:12, “For as the body is one, and hath many members and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.” Paul is speaking of the body with its many members, and says that although the members are many, they are one body. Then he makes a startling statement: “So also is Christ.” We would have said, “So also is the church.” But the inspired writer said that this one Body with its many members is none other than Christ. To God’s Word we say, “Amen.” But in the figure of our physical body, is it not so? Is my body not me, just as my head is me? When anyone touches my body, he touches me. When anyone hurts my body, he hurts me. The way my body is treated is the way I am treated, for my body is no less me than my head. The head certainly holds a distinct and unique place in the body, yet it is so absolutely identified with the body that the body together with the head bears the same name. So it is with Christ and the church. This is the inspired word in 1 Corinthians 12:12.

Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to assert that Christ is no longer merely the individual Christ, although He holds alone His lofty and distinct position as Head of the Body, but is now the corporate Christ as the Body with all its members. Through His death and resurrection, He gained the church, His Body, as His fullness, His corporate expression. Where the church is practically expressed, there He is in practical, corporate expression. The speaker at Melodyland said, “There is no corporate Christ.” But the author of these words is ignorant of the revelation in Paul’s Epistles.

The Lord’s word in John 12:24 reveals more concerning this matter: “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” The metaphor is clear. A grain of wheat, by being sown into the earth, germinates and rises in resurrection, producing many more grains of identical life and nature. The one grain has been multiplied from one to thousands of grains like itself, both inwardly and outwardly. The speaker said that, “Jesus Christ has not expanded into thousands and thousands of persons at all.” Again, the author of these words does not know the Scriptures, for the Lord Jesus likened Himself to a grain, that through death and resurrection would be multiplied, expanded, many times. Paul in Romans goes on to tell us that we will all “be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). We will be fully like Him; He will have many brothers just like Himself. This is the marvelous grace of God’s salvation.

The obvious conclusion, then, is that since Christ is embodied and expressed in so many members as His Body, and since Christ is God, then the church is none other than God manifest in the flesh. This, the speaker said, is “the last great heresy of Mr. Lee.” But, again, the author of these words is destitute of sight.

Consider 1 Timothy 3:15-16, which speaks in plain words concerning God manifest in the flesh. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Verse 16, we acknowledge, refers to Christ, for He undoubtedly is God manifest in the flesh. Christ also was the One who was justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory. But we say also that this verse refers to the church as well. Allow us to prove it. The context of the whole passage is the church. Verse 15, the preceding verse, is speaking of the house of God, the church. The context of the whole chapter is the qualifications of the overseers and deacons in the church. Then this chapter on the church with its offices is concluded with verse 16: “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.”

Moreover, the order of the items following “God was manifest in the flesh” further substantiates our affirmation. If this verse were speaking only of Christ, the last item, “received up into glory,” should precede “preached unto the Gentiles,” for Christ was received up before He was preached. Since it comes last, it coincides with the history of the church, for the church at the last, just like her Lord at the first, will be received up into glory. Hence, both Christ and the church, or we should say, Christ with the church, is God manifest in the flesh.

The apostle Paul said, “Now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:20-21). Surely this means that God as Christ was manifest in his flesh. It does not mean that Paul became deity, as we have been charged with promulgating concerning ourselves. He did not mean that, and neither do we. When we speak of the church being God manifest in the flesh, we mean, as Paul, that God as Christ is manifested and magnified through us.

Finally, consider the case of the meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25. “But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned,…the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed” (ASV). This is none other than God manifest in the flesh. We often have the experience of this kind of meeting with this kind of issue in the local churches.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.