The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church

李常受和地方召會的教導

Revised Edition 2 0 0 3

2003年修訂版 E . Calvin Beisner, PhD .

E·加爾文·貝斯那博士

(說明：本文初步翻譯和初步文字校訂完成。但是有很多的神學術語和對引述的翻譯等方面還需要很多的校訂。請各位持續幫忙校訂。其實可以參考一下駱頌恩的那篇文章中的有些引述的說法)

引言

地方召會(Local Church)是由分佈在美國的各大城市裏和東方的一部分一些人群組成，他們是李常受(Witness LEE）教導的跟隨者。李常受是一位東方人，他曾經是倪柝聲(Watchman NEE)發起的運動的領導人之一。這個群體的名稱來自於「地方主義（地方化）」的教導，這個詞在這個形式上表示一地一教會，任何一個地方都有一個真正的基督身體的代表。

我們愛這個運動的成員；正因為來自這個內心的愛，所以當他們教導聖經出現嚴重錯誤的時候，我們必須要真誠的為了那從前一次交付給聖徒的真道竭力爭辯（猶大書3章）。我們並不是要攻擊地方召會的具體個人，但是我們必須要指出、並且糾正他們所接受的異端教訓。

我們渴望教會的合一，但是合一從來不是以神的道的基要真理為代價的！保羅寫到：「在你們中間不免有分門結黨的事，好叫那些有經驗的人顯明出來。」(哥林多前書 11:19)。我們必須要跟隨曾說過「我就是道路、真理、生命」（約翰福音 14:6）的那位。基於此，我們不能夠犧牲他的道的真理。在後面就可以看到正是因為地方召會的錯誤而將基督的身體分開。他錯誤的教導給基督的身體帶來了挑戰，而我們則必須要基於聖經回應挑戰（猶大書 3章，彼得後書 3：15，以賽亞書 8：20）。

地方召會的教導以及經文的對照

地方召會（譯註：中文稱為地方召會）有着獨特的教導，以至於將它自己和基督的身體有差別，而我們的目的就是要調查並將這些教導與聖經相比較。非常重要的一點是，首先要理解地方召會對於其他基督教派別的態度，不論是對於天主教還是對於新教，這樣我們就能夠看出這些教訓是多麼的重要。李常受寫道「不要保持中立。不要嘗試跟他們調和。……。你們知道宗派是錯誤的，然而你們卻仍要保持，因為你們怕別人談論」.1<ref>Witness Lee. The Practical Expression of the Church (Anaheim: Stream, 1974), 92, 111.</ref>因為李常受和地方召會認為所有的宗派都是錯誤的。（我們稍後會回到這個話題）。是什麼把地方召會和其他宗派區分開來的呢？關鍵點就是教導和實踐。因為地方召會的實踐來自於其教導，為了方便我們這兩方面一併處理。

我們將要討論地方召會的教訓的五個主要方面，並且跟神的道做比較：（1）神的本性(Nature)，尤其是三位一體的教義；（2）救贖的方式；（3）教會，集中在「本地化」和教會跟神之間的關係；（4）聖經的實質（Nature）和使用；（5）罪和撒旦的實質（Nature)。

神的本質(Nature)

三位一體的教義通常從從實質上是這樣陳述的：「這一位真神的本質(nature）中，有三個永恆的不同的位格(person），父，子和聖靈。這三位是同一個神，全部完全的神，然而父既不是子也不是靈，子既不是父也不是靈，而靈既不是父也不是子」<ref>For more detailed statement and scriptural proof, see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Grand R apids: Eerdmans, 1 973), 1:442 ff.</ref>。然而地方召會的教導卻與此相悖。

順序形態論（Successive Modalism)

地方召會教導父，子和聖靈都是同一個位格，同時是同一位神，而且在神向人的啟示中，每一位都採用有次序的步驟和階段。李常受寫道：

所以，三位一體的這個三個位格開始在神的經綸(God's economy）中變成三個有順序的步驟的過程。3<ref>Witness Lee, The Economy of God (Los Angeles: Stream, 1968), 10.</ref>。

類似的，父，子和靈不是三位神，而是神為我們所擁有和享受的三個階段4 <ref>Witness Lee, "Concerning the Triune God" (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 3 1.</ref>。

在諸天之上，那裏人眼不能見，神是那父；當他在人們中間顯現他自己的時候，他就是那子；而當他進入人的時候，他就是那靈。父以子的形式顯現在人們中間。那父在子中，而子成為那靈——這三位就是一位唯一的神。5<ref> Ibid., 8-9</ref>

在以前，人們要接觸父那是不可能的。他獨是神，而他的本質(nature）是分別的神性(exclusively divine）。在父中沒有任何東西可以成為溝通神和人之間的橋樑。……但是現在他已經……道成肉身進入了人的本質（nature）。父很願意將它自己的神性和子的人性相聯合（combine）6<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 11.</ref>。

在受死和升天以後他（子）成為了那靈被門徒呼吸進去。7<ref>Lee, "Concerning the Triune God," 8; brackets added.</ref>

……子成為那靈像生命之水那樣被我們喝下去。8<ref>Ibid., 8.</ref>

父，作為萬物無盡的源頭體現(embody)在子中。9<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 11.</ref>

在人不能靠近他的地方（提前 6：16），神是父。當他來到，並顯明出來，他就是子。……我們知道主是子而且他也被稱為父。……現在我們讀到他是那靈，所以我們必須要很清楚主基督也是那靈。……作為源頭，神是父。作為表現，他是子。作為傳遞（transmission），他是那靈，交通（communion)。這就是三一神（triune God）。10<ref>Witness Lee, The All-inclusive Spirit of Christ (LosAngeles: Stream, 1969), 4, 6,8.</ref>

我們從這些段落中可以看出，關於父，子和聖靈的非常清楚的被教導成是神向人類啟示的三位相繼的階段。因此子不是真正的與父不同的位格(person)，而是父「來到並顯明(manifest)他自己」。聖靈也不是一個與父和子所不同的位格，而是「傳遞（transmission）」，是「相交（communion）」；他實際上是父和子在不同階段對人類的顯現。正如地方召會前成員比爾·弗里曼（Bill Freeman）寫到「李常受和地方召會對於『聖經回答人』的回覆」中的：

父和子之間的關係是一種相互的內在（indwell）。也就是說，每個位格都與其他位格互相滲透（interpenetrate）並包含（coinhere）。這種相互的內在和互相滲透揭示了在父，子和聖靈的神性(Godhead)中的區別，並且還保持了三一神（Triune God）是獨一神的事實。顯示了三位一體的兩個位格和之間的關係的第二類經文正式那些特別指出三一神中的一個位格就是另外一位的章節。11<ref>Santa Ana Register, Saturday, October 22, 1 977, D.</ref>

系統神學家兼交易歷史學家路易斯·伯克富(Louis Berkhof)是這樣描述撒伯流主義形態論(Sabellianistic modalism)的：

……撒伯流(Sabellius)……將神性的實質（essence）的聯合(unity）和他的眾多的顯現（manifestation）區分開來，這就提出了如下的另一位類似一個戲劇里的多個角色(part)。撒伯流有時候的確談論到三個神性的位格，但是馬上的就用使用位格(person)這個詞的原意，從中它強調一個演戲的角色(a role of acting)或者一個顯現的模式(a mode of manifestation)。根據他（的意思），父，子和聖靈的名字只是三個不同階段(phase)簡單的稱謂，以此那一個神性的實質(essence)彰顯(manifest)它自己。神在創造中將他自己啟示為父，並頒佈律法，在道成肉身中啟示為子，而在重生（regeneration)和成聖（sanctification）中啟示為聖靈。12<ref>Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975), 79: cf. 78-79.</ref>

系統神學家亞伯拉罕·凱波爾(Abraham Kuyper)這樣描述撒伯流主義(Sabellianism)：

撒伯流(Sabellius)……得到的結論是父，子和聖靈最終只是一個位格（Person）；他首先作為父行創造之工，然後借着救贖之工變成子，而現在作為聖靈使我們的成聖可以完全。13<ref>Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 45.</ref>

神學歷史學家威廉·凱利（William Kelly）寫到：

名字取自第三世紀的撒伯流，這個……將父，子聖靈的三個位格壓縮成神格(Godhead）成為(assume)的三個角色（character），形態(mode)或者的聯繫(relation)，這個是為了處理神性和人的目的。所以神是永恆的並且實質性(essentially)的那一位（的存在），但是從結構上(economically)，例如，為了特定的目標，他取了(take)父子和聖靈的形式(form)……14<ref>William Kelly, "Sabellianism," in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, edited by Everett F. Harrison (GrandRapids: Baker, 1975),465.</ref>

系統神學家奧古斯都·斯特朗（Augustus Strong）寫到：

撒伯流和施萊爾馬赫（Schleiermacher）認為在啟示的過程中那一變成了三，而那三僅僅是其實的媒介（media）或者形態（mode）。父，子和靈只是應用到這些神性行為的的名字而已，在神性本質(divine nature）中並沒有內部的區分。這就是形態論(modalism），或者說是形態三位一體論（modal Trinity）。15<ref>Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1976), 327.</ref>

教會歷史學家菲利普·薛夫(Philip Schaff)寫到：

雖然其他的神格一體論(Monarchian)將他們的探究限定在對於父和子的關係上，而撒伯流卻將聖靈也加入思索(speculation)，從而得出了三位一體(trinity)，並不是實質(essence)的同時的三位一體，而只是啟示的有次序的三位一體。他從區分在神性(divine nature)中的單一位（monad）和三元組(triad)開始。他的基本的想法是，神的單一個體(unity)，並不在他自己的裏面相區分，在世界發展的過程中展現(unfold）或者將它自己擴展(extend)成三個不同的形式和啟示階段，而且，在完成救贖之後，又回歸為一(unity)。父在頒佈律法或者舊約實體（Old Testament economy）中啟示他自己，子是在道成肉身中，聖靈是在啟示（inspiration）中。16<ref>Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 volumes (USA: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.), 2:262.</ref>

請記住李常受是這樣教導的：」所以，那三位一體中的三個位格成為了神的經綸(economy)的過程中的三個有次序的步驟(step)。「 17<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 1 0.</ref>

毫無疑問，李教導的這方面是撒伯流層面的形態論：就是，父，子，和聖靈是三個順序的(successive)形態(mode)（這就是」形態論「(變形說，modalism）名字的由來），或者說是神向人顯示的階段(stage)，而不是三個內在的實質性的有區別的位格。

這個教義在第三世紀的時候被宣佈為異端（公元263年，羅馬的達奧米爾斯主教Bishop Dionysius),自從這個教導在教會中時不時的蠢蠢欲動，它總是被聖經教導的本質的(essential)三位一體論所拒絕。聖經宣稱父，子和聖靈並不是三個有次序的步驟(successive step)，因為他們是永恆(eternal)且是同時的(simultaneous）。希伯來書 9：14說到，基督借着「永遠的靈(eternal Spirit)」將他自己獻上。他們是同時存在的，且基督不是那靈。然而李常受寫到，「那子為我們成為那靈就好象生命的水而供我們吃喝……」 18<ref>Lee, 「Concerning the Triune God」 8</ref>.約翰福音17：5顯示，「在未有世界以先」，父和子是同時存在的。可是李常受卻寫到，「可是現在[父]已經……變成了人性(human nature)中的化身(incarnate）。父很樂意將他自己的神性和子的人性相聯合(combine)」19<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 11</ref>

父變成子和子變成靈的概念跟聖經中其他方面的說法也矛盾。瑪拉基書 3：6告訴我們，神是不改變的；然而形態論(modalism）卻在神中蘊含了改變。在以賽亞書 44：6中，我們知道父（耶和華，以色列的王）和子（他的救贖者，萬軍之耶和華）同時說話，立刻確認了他們是同一位神，卻清楚又直接的指出位格的不同。在路加福音 22：42中基督向父禱告，「不要成就我的意思，只要成就你的意思」。從中很清楚的看到父和子的區分，然而他們卻同時存在。他們有獨立的（雖然從來不矛盾）意志(will)，因此必須是獨立的位格，然而卻是同一位神。

在約翰福音14：26中我們發現父要差遣聖靈；在15：26我們發現基督要差遣聖靈（Jesus will send the Spirit）（另見 16：7）；而在17：8和20：21中我們發現父已經差遣了耶穌。我們看見了三位一體中各個位格之間的一個完全的區分。他們中間沒有一個變成另一個，也沒有一個是另一個。全部都是永恆且區別的，不是神向人啟示他自己的有次序的階段。一個位格到另一個位格，每個位格都與其他的相關聯。

靜態形態論（Static Modalism）

地方召會同時還教導對於三位一體的另外一個看法，也屬於形態論範疇。為了這個小冊子方便，我們將稱之為「靜態形態論」，因為在這個形式中，不再有一個變成另外一個的有次序的變化了。父，子和聖靈是分別被呈現但是卻是同時的形態（simultaneous mode)或者方面(aspect)，來啟示那相同的一位給人。李常受寫到：

儘管他是一神，然後事實上確有三個層面（three-foldness），也就是說，三層的(threefold)位格——父，子和聖靈。20<ref>Lee, 「Concerning the Triune God」 11</ref>

他[父]是那一位隱藏在裏面的，而子是那一位彰顯(manifest)在外面的；而那一位彰顯在外面的就是那一位隱藏在裏面的——這二者就是一。21<ref>Ibid.,8</ref>

感謝主，他還有兩個頭(end)：一頭在天上他是父，而另外一頭在地上他就是子；在天上的那一頭的他是那位聽禱告的，而在地上這頭的他是那位進行祈禱的。他既是那一位在地上禱告的也是那一位在天上聽禱告的。22<ref>Ibid.,28</ref>

禱告的子就是聽禱告的父23<ref>Ibid.,25</ref>

因此聖經清楚的啟示給我們子就是父，而子也是那靈。否則這三位怎麼能成為一位神？24<ref>Ibid.,2</ref>

子就是父，子就是那靈25<ref>Ibid.,17</ref>

主耶穌就是聖靈26<ref>Ibid.,20</ref>

非常明顯，李常受還教導父，子和聖靈同時彼此都是另外一位。在一個和相同的時間，子是父而且是聖靈。這個關於父和子他們「二就是一」的陳述實際上是非常晦澀：我們不得不問，「一什麼？」李的回答是他們是相同的位格（Person），因為他告訴我們在神裏面的三層性（threefoldness)就是「三層的位格」。27<ref>Lee, "Concerning the Triune God," 11.</ref>這也暗示了聖靈也是在這一個位格裏面。事實上這個教導同時的非順序的形態論也是被拒絕的，儘管事實上它其實是間接的跟剛剛談到的李的發展的形態論（developmental modalism）教導相矛盾。

在基督教教義史上通常使用聖父受苦說（Patripassianism）這個詞來表示這個教導（詞的構成是patr表示聖父，patior表示受苦），因為他邏輯上暗示了聖父作為基督在十字架上受苦。Shaff寫到了這類思想：

第二類的神格唯一論（Monarchians），被特土良（Tertullian）稱作聖父受苦論（Patripassians）……連同他們對獨一位神論(unitarian)的熱情，感覺到更深的基督徒的必須要緊抓着基督的神性的動力；但是他們卻犧牲了他的獨立的位格，他們將這位格合併到父的實質（essence）中去了。他們教導說那一位至高無上的神借他自己的自由意志，使用自我限制的方法而變成人，所以子只是父披戴了肉身（flesh)的面紗。他們知道沒有其他的神，只有那在基督中彰顯(manifest）的一位，並且用善惡二神論者（ditheism）指控與他們觀點不同的人。28<ref>Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:260.</ref>

威廉·納吉爾克爾（William Nigel Kerr）寫到：

聖父受苦論者（Patripassianist）……帶着形態論者（modalist）混淆三位一體的位格，拒絕基督兩個本性（nature)在一個位格中的聯合（union)。為抗辯一神論（monotheism）觀點他們認為既然神是一個本質（essence)，就不可能有三個位格，而是三個形態（mode)的彰顯（manifestation）。因此子就是父以人形的顯現。Noetus教導說，基督就是父因此父就被生出，且受苦並死在十字架上，這就是聖父受苦論名字的由來。29<ref>William Nigel Kerr, "Patripassianism," inBaker's Dictionary of Theology, 396-7.</ref>

早期比較著名的教導這個教義的一個人是普拉克希亞（Praxeas），關於他沙夫（Schaff）是這樣寫的：

普拉克希亞（Praxeas），藉助以賽亞書 45：5，約翰福音10：30，……，好像整本聖經只有這三段構成的，他教導說到父自己變成人，飢餓，乾渴，受苦，並且死在基督里。30<ref>Shaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:260.</ref>

另外兩個早期教導這個教訓的思想家，羅馬主教哲斐理諾（Zephyrinus）和卡利斯圖斯（Callistus）,後者的觀點進行了一定更改：「這腓力諾（Zephyrinus） (201-219)和卡利斯圖斯（Callistus）(219-223)堅持並教導聖父受苦論異端（根據殉道者聖徒希伯里推思（Hippolytus）的「Philosophumena」），父神變成肉身並且跟子一起受苦」。31<ref>Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 volumes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 197 7), 2:1 77.</ref>路易斯·伯克富（Louis Berkhof）寫到Praxeas和Noetus，兩位教導這個教義的著名的人士：

普拉克希亞（Praxeas）……看起來已經避免了父受苦斷言，但是奴愛達（Noetus）在這點上卻毫不猶豫。借用希伯里推思（Hippolytus）的話：「他說耶穌他自己就是父，而父他自己被生並且受苦並且死了。」根據這同一位教父，他甚至做了一個大膽的假定即父借着改變他的文字上的存在的形態（mode）而變成了他自己的子（Son）。而引用奴愛達（Noetus）的陳述則如下：「當父還沒有被生的時候，他可以被正確的稱呼為父；但是當他樂意將他自己交付(submit)而出生，並且已經被生，他就變成了子，他自己的他而不是另外一個的他」。32<ref>Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 79.</ref>

我們能看到在奴愛達（Noetus）教義中的順序主義（successionism)，其中的主要的教導和其他的引用都是關於同一個作為父和子的位格的同時存在的標識(identity)，這個也正是李常受所傳播的。

跟撒伯流主義的(或者順序的successionalistic）的形態論(modalism）類似，靜態形態論也無法與聖經一致。聖經中在父，子和靈之間的區別的表述不可弄錯：父和子有分離的但不衝突的意志（路加福音 22:42）；父差遣耶穌（約翰福音 17：8， 20：21）；耶穌和父差遣靈（約翰福音15：26，16：7，14：26）。即便是希伯來詞語在告訴我們神是一（申命記 6：4；echod）時也在其中隱含複數名詞的概念。33<ref>William Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans, and ed. S. P. Tregelles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 974), 28-29.</ref>在路加福音 3:22中，父介紹子，說到「你是我的愛子」；如果父和子是同一個位格，這個就沒有意義了。約翰福音 1：1那裏寫到「太初有道，道與神同在，道就是神，」給了一個關於父和子作為同一位神（第三個從句）的完美的闡述，而且也做出了他們的位格的區分，因為道是「與神同在」（第二個從句；希臘文pros，這裏翻譯成「與」，在像這樣的上下文中是通常需要堅持的，是prosÇpon pros prosÇpon的縮寫，是希臘文的短語面對面的意思）。甚至約翰福音10：30，在那裏耶穌說到，「我與父同為一，」也內含了他們的位格的區分，因為動詞是複數形式的所以可以翻譯成「我們是」。

使用這些聖經證據反對次序的和靜態的形態論，就很容易理解神學家W.H. Griffith Thomas關於形態論的一般評論：

撒伯流主義不論是古代還是現代都被證明無法長久。即便是沒有連續性(Successionalism）的形態論也完全與聖經的見證不一致。教會歷史中很少能夠有任何事比對於撒伯流主義的不斷的循環出現並被拒絕更重要了，因為它很明顯的簡單，且很快就可以看到認為父，子和聖靈僅僅是一位神的不同方面(aspect)或者彰顯(manifestation)是絕對不可能的。34<ref>W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of Cod (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 129.</ref>

李常受的兩個形態論的教義毫無意外的也是這個結果。他們與經文的見證不符。他們是兩個古代異端的重現。他們不僅與聖經矛盾而且彼此矛盾。所以他們必須要被所有的基督徒所拒絕，因為瑪拉基書 3：6宣告了神的不變性。

道成肉身的延伸：教會作為神在肉身的顯現（The Extension of the Incarnation: The Church as God Manifest in the Flesh）

作為這些異端的一個結果，我們可以預見更多的錯誤，而我們發現在李常受的教導中發現其中主要的一個就是：神變成了教會，或者反過來。對於大多數的基督徒來講，這個教訓是如此的令人難以置信，所以我們不願意相信竟然有人會認真教導它。然而實際上在整個教會歷史中它卻一次又一次地被教導了，被拒絕了。它有時候被稱作「道成肉身的延伸（extension of the incarnation）」教義。

從很多李常受的文字中可以明顯的看到他在講授這個教義：

教會——神在肉身的顯現……這教會是神在肉身顯現的延續和倍增……我們於是就是神在肉身的顯現的增長和擴大。神又一次在肉身中顯現他自己，卻是使用一個更寬廣的方式……換句話說，神和人混合（mingle）了，不是在向外的方式（outward way)內而是在向內(inward way)的方式內。這教會是神的彰顯而不是教義或者恩賜(gift)的彰顯。35<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 199.</ref>

這位基督已經從一個位格(Person)擴展到成千上萬的位格們(persons)。他曾是一個個體的(individual)基督，但是在使徒行傳中他成為了一個團體的(corporate)的基督。36<ref>Wintnes Lee, "Life-Study in Matthew, Message One" (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 3.</ref>

[談到教會和基督：]在數量上我們是不同的，但是在本質上我們是完全相同的。37<ref>Witness Lee, The All-inclusive Christ (Los Angeles: Stream, 1969), 103.</ref>

父在子裏面，子在靈裏面，而靈現在在身體（Body）裏面。他們現在四合一了：父，子，靈和身體(Body)。38<ref>Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church, 43.</ref>

隨着道成肉身，分配（dispensation ）開始了，在其中神和人，人和神開始混合（blend）成一個。39<ref>Witness Lee, The God of Resurrection (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 4.</ref>

第一個創造（The first creation)，儘管是被神他自己帶進來的，是被神他自己受苦並且穿過死亡，這樣從復活中出現，作為一個有雙本性(nature)的被造物，也就是說，將神和人的本性（nature)聯合起來了。40<ref>Lee, The God of Resurrection, 12.</ref>

在十字架被釘死之後緊跟着復活。復活回復並且提升了被神早的人性的標準，並且將人性帶給神。借着道成肉身神性帶入人；借着復活人性帶入神。現在人就有可能有多於一個的被造的人性……神被人調和（mingle)而人被神調和……神在他的三個位格中他自己跟我們調和了。41<ref> Lee, The Economy of God, 206-7. 請注意在這裏李常受談到了三個位格在一個神中，這個不能成為對他形態論的指責的藉口。這裏只是要明確他必須要重新定義位格這個詞這樣才能夠有該詞的真正意思有點像。伯克富（基督教義史，70）寫到「撒伯流的確有時候會提到三個神的位格，然後卻使用這個詞的原始的時態，以此來強調一個行動的角色或者一個顯現的形態。」很明顯，李常受也在做同樣的事情</ref>

然後那天就會到來，那時候這位三一神和復活的人就會成為一個表達（expression）……42<ref>Ibid., 113.</ref>

最後神會變成我們43<ref>Life-Study in Genesis, Message 10, 121-2.</ref>

基督會通過我們增長因為他在我們中被複製44<ref>"Christ as Life (2 3) Christ's Increase-His Bride," excerpt of Life Study in John (Stream, 1977),on John3:29-30.</ref>

正如地方召會成員Ron Kangas寫到，「那很多的弟兄和這位首生的子在生命(life)和本性(nature)上是一樣的」，而且「首生的子和很多其他的兒子都是在神性的生命(life)和本性(nature)中一樣的」45<ref>"A Response to False Teachings," Santa Ana Register, date unknown.</ref>

我們已經沒有辦法不懷疑地方召會教導的教會成為神和反過來的說法。這點不僅僅是李常受提到，也被地方召會的一位護教人員Bill Freeman提到，他寫到「基督的隱秘和教會是一個實體(entity）」46<ref>Bill Freeman, The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Mingling of God with Man (Anaheim: Stream, 1 977), 5.</ref>另外一個地方召會護教人員 John C. Ingalls寫到「基督不僅僅是頭（Head），也是身體[即教會]」47<ref>John C Ingalls, "The Truth Concerning God manifest in the Flesh," in "The Response of Witness Lee and Local Church To a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland」 Santa Ana Register, October 8, 1977.</ref>

這樣的思想必然伴隨着那位神的本性的變化。神必須要變成教會，而每當有人加入教會，神就必須增長一次。事實上，當李常受寫到教會作為「神在肉體中的顯現的增長，擴大」的時候，在如上引用的其他作品的上下文中，他清楚的暗示了神他自己的增長。可是這樣的教導在瑪拉基書3：6的光照下是不可能的，那裏神宣稱，「因我耶和華是不改變的……」。

保羅在談論那些對神和其創造的認識糊塗的人時說：「羅 1:20 自從造天地以來，　神的永能和神性是明明可知的，雖是眼不能見，但借着所造之物，就可以曉得，叫人無可推諉。羅 1:21 因為他們雖然知道　神，卻不當作　神榮耀他，也不感謝他。他們的思念變為虛妄，無知的心就昏暗了。羅 1:22 自稱為聰明，反成了愚拙；羅 1:23 將不能朽壞之　神的榮耀變為偶像，仿佛必朽壞的人和飛禽、走獸、昆蟲的樣式。……」[羅馬書 1：20-23]

歌羅西書 1：18宣稱基督是「身體即教會的頭，」在這裏頭這個詞是kephale，用比喻的方式意味着那一位是超越教會，且但是不是教會的一部分。48<ref>J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Wheaton: Evangel, 1974), 345.</ref>所以他不是身體，而是（「掌管」）身體的頭。

地方召會關於神的教導，因而是跟神的道矛盾的。他教導說神是變化的，首先，從父到子到靈，然後到教會自己。他拒絕那位真實的父子靈之間的有區別的位格，相反地卻說這些不同是作為神向人彰顯的不同階段。這樣做，他就真正的拒絕了父，子和聖靈。他必須要被基督徒所拒絕。

救贖的道路（The Way of Salvation）

地方召會在救恩方面的信仰是非常複雜甚至出現矛盾。李常受首先教導救恩是簡單的只是一個求告（譯註：地方召會用」呼求「這個詞）主名的事情。但是在其他的文字中李常受有強烈的暗示除非參加地方召會是不可能得救的。來看看他是如何陳述兩個立場的，這能夠幫助了解：

我們已經看見，要接觸信徒，講道不是必不可少的。如果我們幫助他們說「哦，主」三遍，他們就會得救。如果他們打開窗戶，空氣就會進來。所有的人必須要做的就是張開他們的罪說，「哦，主，哦，主」。即便他們還沒有想相信，他們仍然會被抓到。不管他們是不是有這個意向，只要他們打開窗戶，空氣就會進來。那不是教導的問題，那是一個摸着神的七靈的問題。49<ref>Witness Lee, Stream Magazine 8:1 (February 1,1970), 6.</ref>

這個暗示非常清楚。所有的得到救贖的必要條件就是一個人說「哦主，哦主，哦主」。其他的都不是必須的。真的不需要相信或者接近(eve)想要相信？救贖真的跟個人的信仰無關係，而只跟他嘴上說的話相關麼？

另一方面，在李常受和地方召會的著作中，很清楚的指出他們相信一個人如果他不是在地方召會中是不能得救的。《在活星中尋找基督(Finding Christ by the Living Star)》說到三種星的事：「活星(Living Star)」，就是基督他自己；那些「活星們(living stars)」就是地方召會的成員；而「流浪的星們（wandering stars)」就是所有那些在地方召會之外的人。李常受寫到：

如果我們跟隨那些流浪的星們，最後我們的地位（position)就會跟他們的相同——永遠的黑暗。

……如果有人就近你卻沒有一個確定的立場和特定的路線（course），遠離他。恰當的立場是地方召會，正確的路線是進到在地方召會的中的靈中去。50<ref>請注意李常受從來不用地方召會這個詞的常用形式來只某一個地方的基督徒的聚會；相反地，它總是特質那些跟從他的教導的那些地方的信徒</ref>永遠不要做一個流浪的星，也永遠不要跟隨一個流浪的星。

……今天對於你我和任何要尋找基督的人的唯一的道路就是看那個活星。哈利路亞！今天那星離我們不遠……他就在各個地方召會中……今天那活星和活星們在地方召會裏。讓我們跟隨他們並且讓我們成為他們中的一員。51<ref>Witness Lee, Finding Christ By the Living Star (Los Angeles: Stream, 1970), 27-28.</ref>

李常受和地方召會中的人認為所有在地方召會之外的人都是「流浪的星」。而這些「流浪的星」的命運是「永遠的黑和暗」。很明顯，只有在地方召會中，人才能得救。這個和他教導說一個人只要說「哦主，哦主，哦主」就會得救相矛盾。那麼，那個是對的呢？

根據聖經，哪個都不對。那些相信只要說「哦主，哦主，哦主」的，不管他是不是相信的都會得救，這個說法不是真的。基督說到「凡稱呼我主啊，主啊的人，不能都進天國；惟獨遵行我天父旨意的人，才能進去。當那日必有許多人對我說：『主啊，主啊，我們不是奉你的名傳道，奉你的名趕鬼，奉你的名行許多異能嗎？』我就明明地告訴他們說：『我從來不認識你們，你們這些作惡的人，離開我去吧！』」（馬太福音 7：21-23）。這個陳述的上下文顯示了不是簡單的做好行為或者求告主名，就能得救。相信(belief)或者信仰(faith)是必不可少的。（約翰福音 6：29；約翰福音你 8：24；使徒行傳 16：31）。人非有信，就不能得　神的喜悅（希伯來書 11：6）。

因為地方召會關於神的有錯誤教義，只有在地方召會中的人才能得救的說法就它不能是正確的。我們看到李常受關於救恩的兩方面的教導都與神的道矛盾。然而，即便地方召會的確有對神正確的信仰，而不是它目前擁有的錯誤的信仰，和一個正確的關於教會的信仰，而不是它的錯誤的信仰，它也不能是唯一的一個團體而人只有在這個團體中才能得救，因為聖經反對這樣的排外主義（exclusivism）（哥林多前書 1：12-13）。地方召會的排外主義將基督的身體分開，是不符合聖經的。

教會：地方化信仰（The Church: The Belief in Localism）

跟一個人只有必須在地方召會中才能得救的講道相對應，李常受教導「地方話(localism)」的教義，也就是說，任何一個城市裏只能有一個基督身體的真代表。而這個自然而然的就是指地方召會了。地方召會自顧自的宣稱他們是基督的身體的真的代表，而其他的教會都是假的：

如果你進入一個城市裏除了地方召會以外的任何地方，你就進入了分裂(division)；如果你進入那個城市的教會，你就進入了聯合(unity)。52<ref>Witness Lee, The Vision of the Church (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 9.</ref>

[撒旦]在採取另外一個步驟，建立所有的派別，教派並分裂基督的身體……這些天神在運動以便恢復。他的恢復的方式是什麼？……恢復到一個恰當的聯合中。只有等到我們中間這三件事都恢復了，我們才能夠有一個恰當合適的教會生活。53<ref>Witness Lee, Satan's

Strategy Against the Church (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 6, 8.</ref>

從那時候起的每一個世紀虔誠的人都跟隨他們的步驟，在靈（spirit）和生命（life）中迫害那些主真正的尋求者和跟隨者，卻以為他們自己是在保護神的利益。羅馬天主教(Roman Catholicism)和基督教新教(Protestantism)，以及猶太教（Judaism)，全都落入此類，變成了撒旦的組織成為了他破壞神的經綸(economy)的工具。54<ref>Witness Lee, The Recovery Version of Revelation (Anaheim: Stream, 1976), 17.</ref>

教會生活必須今天就實行，除了地方召會之外沒有其他的方式。55<ref>Witness Lee, The Churches (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 12.</ref>

猶太教是屬於撒旦的，天主教是屬於魔鬼的，基督教新教是不信奉基督的（Christless）56<ref>Stream, vol. 4, no. 4.</ref>

地方化

這個教導有兩個方面。首先，李常受講了一個地方化（localism）教義。而這個卻被神的道所反駁，保羅在羅馬書16：3-5a寫到：「問百基拉和亞居拉安。他們在基督耶穌里與我同工，也為我的命將自己的頸項置之度外。不但我感謝他們，就是外邦的眾教會也感謝他們。又問在他們家中的教會安。」。保羅寫給一個羅馬的教會，然而他讓那個教會的聖徒向在百基拉和亞居拉家裏的教會問安。因此即便還是在那麼早期的時候，在羅馬至少就有兩所教會。教會歷史也顯示一個城市裏有多間教會是非常正常的，甚至在使徒時代也是。關於早期教會沙夫（Schaff）寫到：

對於特殊家庭敬拜的最初的追溯工作在特土良（Tertullian）（的著作中），他談到去教會；和在他同時代的亞歷山大的革利免（Clement of Alexandria），他提到了ekklesia這個詞的雙重的意義。在大約230年的時候亞歷山大塞維魯（Alexander Severus）給予了基督徒在羅馬一個地方來反對客棧管理人(travern-keeper)，因為不管什麼形式的敬拜上帝總比做客棧管理(travernkeeping)要好。根據優西比烏（Eusebius），第三世紀中葉之後，建立教堂就開始越發重要，當時基督徒有超過40年（260-303）的休息期可以享受，並且人數發展非常快，更加寬敞的靈修場所在各處都變得必不可少。……羅馬被認為是在40年代早期開始的時候，就有多餘40處教堂。57<ref>Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:93.</ref>

非常清楚一個社區的教堂的數量的多少，是簡單的增量正比於該社區中的基督徒人數的，要看他們的需要。如果早在公元300年的就有40間教堂，在在短短的使徒時代和稍後的時候，那是有不止是一部分教堂的。

如上引用的其教導的第二個層面，是對於地方召會之外所有的宗派的定罪。58<ref>有意思的是地方召會中的人竟然認為其不是一個宗派。一個宗派只是一個帶有名字的一個簡單的（主要是宗教的）群體。這個描述同樣適用於地方召會。</ref>新教和天主教都被稱作撒旦的組織。這裏只能看到對基督身體的極端的分裂。這個教導跟基督的禱告相反，那個禱告是為基督的身體即教會做的，說「使他們都合而為一；正如你父在我裏面，我在你裏面，使他們也在我們裏面，叫世人可以信你差了我來。」（約翰福音 17：21）。地方召會的分裂主義是反基督的，並且基於此世人就更難看到基督真的是被父差遣的。

地方召會聲稱它也只有它自己才是任何社區中真正的教會；所有其他的都是撒旦的組織；在地方召會之外沒有可能會有正確的觀點或者站在正確的立場。因為這個原因勢必的基督的身體必須要強烈並且迅速的反應並且指出地方召會的錯誤，警告其他人要反對它，並且幫助那些在地方召會中的人認識到李常受的錯誤並返回到聖經真理。我們一定不能以個人定罪的形式來回應他們的定罪。我們必須要指出該團體教導的異端，熱心的根據神的道糾正他們，幫助地方召會的成員理解聖經上正確的教導這樣他們才不會再被錯誤的教訓所攪擾。

地方召會的聖經和推理（The Bible and Reason in the Local Church）

雖然地方召會的教導承認聖經是啟示的並且是無誤的神的道，但是聖經看起來並沒有成為指導(govern)多數地方召會成員的的信仰。他們的信仰很明顯是被他的的經歷所主導，而不是因為聖經的學習。記住這點，我們就可以更容易的理解地方召會的內部的矛盾了。地方召會的人被告知不要去研究、理解、或者學習道。這個在意識和思想中的拒絕解釋了地方召會的教訓混淆的本質。

地方召會不鼓勵獲得教導的主題或者教義。李常受寫到，「教義在神的孩子們之間帶來分歧(division)」。59<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 23</ref>（不過李常受正如他自己常做的，會跟他自己矛盾，「……我們當然可以從教義得到幫助……」60<ref> Ibid., 24 </ref>）這個態度使得地方召會成員很難認真考慮他們每個人自己信仰的重要性並且謹慎的跟聖經對照。這是一個跟神的道相悖的教導，經上說，「務要傳道；無論得時不得時，總要專心，並用百般的忍耐，各樣的教訓，責備人、警戒人、勸勉人。因為時候要到，人必厭煩純正的道理，耳朵發癢，就隨從自己的情慾，增添好些師傅，並且掩耳不聽真道，偏向荒渺的言語。」（提摩太後書 4：2-4）。

這是一個地方召會常常強調的，用來反對教導、對聖經或者神的知識，和研讀神的道：

只要[耶穌]與我們同在，我們就不需要校正(regulation)，禮儀(ritual)，教義（doctrine）或者形態(form)……你來聚會是來教導的還是來學習的？我們來聚會必須是要為了宴席(feasting）。61<ref>Witness L ee, Christ vs. Religion (Los Angeles: Stream, 1971), 14-15.</ref>

假設地方召會的聚會除了說「哦主，阿們，哈利路亞！哦主，阿們，哈利路亞！」之外我們什麼都不做。如果主要帶領我們花兩個小時來做這件事情，我相信我們都會被放到火上(set on fire)。每個人都會被燒。這是一個比任何其他的流行的信息好的多得多的信息。為什麼是這樣？這是因為當我們說這四個詞的時候我們就在摸那在寶座前面的神的七靈。去試試看看是否那七靈不會燒你？62<ref>Stream Magazine 8:1 (February 1, 1970), 5.</ref>

李常受對於研經的態度非常重要，因為這就解釋了為什麼在地方召會成員中對聖經的混淆和誤解是如此之普遍。與之相聯繫的是一個叫做「禱讀」道的教義，李常受是這麼解釋的：

……我們沒有閉上眼睛禱告的必要。更重要的是要閉上心禱告！……不要僅僅嘗試學習聖經。我們必須要認識到這是一本關於生命的書，不是一個關於知識的書。這本書是活靈的神性的體現（divine embodiment)，而他就是生命。63<ref>Witness Lee, A Time with the Lord (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 10, 11.</ref>

在早上或者傍晚的時候簡單拿起那道並進行禱讀幾節經文。沒有必要訓練你的大腦以便能擠出一些話語，也不需要仔細思考你讀的是什麼……我們最好關上我們的心！例如，禱讀加拉太書2：20簡單的看看打印好的頁面，上面寫着，「我與基督同釘十字架」。然後眼睛看着道開始從內心深處禱告，說「讚美主，『我已經與基督同釘十字架！』哈利路亞！『同釘十字架』阿們『我』哦，主，『我被釘十架』讚美主！『與基督同釘十字架』阿們！『我與基督同釘十字架』哈利路亞！阿們！『儘管如此』阿們。『儘管如此』阿們！『我活着。』哦，主，『我活着！』哈利路亞！阿們！『然而不再是我而是基督，』等等」……並不需要完整的形成幾個句子或者建立一個禱告。只要禱讀那道。禱告我們正好讀到的聖經上的文字。最後，你將會看到整本聖經都是一本禱告書！你可以打開聖經的任何頁面就開始禱告經文的任何部分……沒有必要解釋或者詳細說明道的意思，只要用道來禱告。要忘記對道的閱讀、研究、理解和學習。你必須禱讀那道。64<ref>Witness Lee, Pray-Reading the Word (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 8-10</ref>

這樣的教導自然就不鼓勵地方召會成員認真的研讀神的道，因此也就鼓勵他們沒有分辨的接受他們群體的教導。這個暗示本身就跟帖撒羅尼迦前書 5:21矛盾：「但要凡事察驗，善美的要持守」。但是還有更深入的困難。

對知識的反感跟保羅的禱告也矛盾，禱告說：「因此，我們自從聽見的日子，也就為你們不住地禱告祈求，願你們在一切屬靈的智慧悟性上，滿心知道　神的旨意，好叫你們行事為人對得起主，凡事蒙他喜悅，在一切善事上結果子，漸漸地多知道　神，」（歌羅西書 1：9-10）。讓我們「忘記閱讀、研究、理解和學習道」的建議跟提摩太後書2：15相悖，那裏說到「你當竭力在　神面前得蒙喜悅，作無愧的工人，按着正意分解真理的道。」

在讀聖經和禱告的時候關上心的觀點也與神的道違背，保羅寫到，「這卻怎麼樣呢？我要用靈禱告，也要用悟性禱告；我要用靈歌唱，也要用悟性歌唱。」.他也完全與詩篇的作者的靈相反，那裏寫到「你的法度奇妙，所以我一心謹守。你的言語一解開，就發出亮光，使愚人通達。我張口而氣喘，因我切慕你的命令。……求你用你的話，使我腳步穩當，不許什麼罪孽轄制我。……求你用臉光照僕人，又將你的律例教訓我。你的法度永遠是公義的，求你賜我悟性，我就活了。」[詩篇 119：129-131，133，135，144]這與那些說「忘掉對於道的閱讀、研究、理解和學習」明顯相對。

進而，那持續重複且強調的標記了對道的「禱讀」實踐，通過跟聖經中教導的對比，可以發現跟保羅寫的相反，「但要遠避世俗的虛談，因為這等人必進到更不敬虔的地步。他們的話如同毒瘡，越爛越大，……」（提摩太後書 2：16-17）。也被耶穌的關於禱告的陳述所反駁「你們禱告，不可象外邦人，用許多重複話，他們以為話多了必蒙垂聽。你們不可效法他們，因為你們沒有祈求以先，你們所需用的，你們的父早已知道了。」（馬太福音 6：7-8）

很清楚地方召會使用聖經和禱告的方法都跟聖經相悖。他可能會導致對於神的道本身、對於道講什麼、對於神自己和對個人跟神的關係等等都有一個常見的混亂。可是更進一步的，他還會導致對於地方召會的教導的毫無疑問的接受程度超過其他的教導包括那些聖經中的教導。這個和李氏關於他自己的教導的聲稱相耦合：

這些話不僅僅是教導而是有力的見證，見證了我超過35年的實踐和經歷。我被這個異象抓住。靠着主的恩典我從來沒有改變我的方式和腔調。而且我已經真實的看見在很多城市中地方召會被抬舉，他們就是無可爭議的見證，這就是主的道路。65<ref>Lee, The Vision of the Church, 10-11.</ref>

不要以為這是我的教導；這是主的啟示。主要恢復它，而且現在他正在這麼做。我們必須要改變。悔改！改變你的觀念！埋葬你自己！享受作為新郎的耶穌！66<ref>Lee, Christ vs. Religion, 13.</ref>

這些關於李氏教導的高舉，加上不鼓勵認真研究思想聖經，導致了對地方召會的堅定不移的忠誠。這些聲明是極難同其他人員交通的源頭，然而他們確實完全不符合聖經的。這些教導不僅在關於神、救恩、和教會方面錯誤，而且還跟聖經上關於禱告和研讀神的話語矛盾，而且鼓勵對於信仰毫不懷疑的就接受的實踐，跟帖撒羅尼迦前書5：21矛盾。在關於任何宗教信仰方面沒有一個不需要試驗的事情。我們鼓勵地方召會成員們能夠像賢於帖撒羅尼迦的庇哩亞人（Bereans）那樣「甘心領受這道，天天考查聖經，要曉得這道是與不是」（使徒行傳 17:11)。路加在這裏告訴我們庇哩亞人「賢」是因為他們甚至對於保羅傳的福音也要試驗，地方召會的成員和對其感興趣的人們也應該試驗李常受的教導。

地方召會關於罪和撒但的信仰(Local Church Belief About Sin and Satan)

當我們要談論地方召會關於罪和撒但的教導的時候，我們就打擊到了李氏教義的根了，而且有可能找到從其自然流出的所有的他的教義的主幹。李氏從保羅對「肉體」作為有罪的人的本性的引用開始，並且拘泥於字句解釋這樣罪自然而然的就是人的肉體。我們在「上帝的經綸（Economy of God)」中看到李氏思想從這點開始的脈絡：

人的身體(body)最開始時被神造的且甚好，但是他現在變成了肉體(flesh)。身體是純正的，因為他被造是好的，但是身體被撒但給腐敗了，它就變成了肉體。67<ref>Lee, The Economy of God, 108.</ref>

神自己願意被中性的、無辜的人將神接收到他自己裏面進去(take God into himself)，這樣神和人，人和神，就混和(mingle)成一體……當然，另外一種可能性是人被誘導去吃第二顆樹，那死亡的源頭。因此，人就接着跟第二顆樹混和了（mingle)。哦，讓我們的眼睛打開能看見整個宇宙中重要的，不是倫理或者行善而是是否接受神做為生命還是接受撒但作為死亡。68<ref>Ibid 106-7</ref>

亞當吃了知識樹果子的重要性在於他把撒但接收到他自己裏面……。撒但在亞當中成長就變成了他的一部分。69<ref>Ibid 109.</ref>

身體(body)簡單的變成了罪(Sin，大寫）的居所，罪又是撒但的體現(embodiment)……。這墮落的(corrupted)、變質的(transmuted)身體被稱作「罪的身體」，和「死亡的身體」，因為身體變成了撒但的特別居所。70<ref>Ibid 109.</ref>

[人墮落之後]撒但很喜樂，鼓吹他已經勝利的奪取了人。但是神，還在人之外，看起來要說：「我也要成為肉身。如果撒但將他自己變成了人，那麼讓我也進入人並且把人放到我自己上面（put man upon Myself）」71<ref>Ibid, 109.</ref>

身體是屬於撒但和魔鬼的，因為撒但就住在這身體裏。所有的引誘都在這個腐敗的身體裏，被稱為肉體……。撒但，從人類墮落開始，就住在人裏面。這個事情當人去吃第二顆樹的時候就發生了……既然撒但和人借着第二顆樹成為了一體，撒但就不再在人外面，而在人裏面了。72<ref>Ibid, 109.</ref>

基督是神的體現（embodiment)，但是罪是撒但的體現……罪可以成為勝過我們的主；因此，罪必須是那惡的一位，撒但。借着墮落，撒但作為罪進入人裏面，來掌管、破壞、腐敗、和征服他。在哪部分？撒但是在人的身體的一個成員裏面。73<ref>Ibid, 108.</ref>

對人來講，問題就是罪。罪，根據李氏，是撒但。撒但已經進入了人的肉體中並且掌管他。這樣，撒但就取得了對人的完全控制權，這個控制只能夠被像撒但進入人一樣方式的神進入人才能解除。我們看李氏後面的教導：

當主耶穌將他自己在肉體中道成肉身時，他就成了「在罪的肉身的樣式中。」……當基督在十字架上的時候他是在毒蛇(serpent)「樣式中」的人。這毒蛇就是撒但，那魔鬼，神的敵人，但在是基督已經肉身成人時，他已經有了有罪的肉體的樣式，這就是撒但的樣式……當神變成人並且把那個連同他裏面的撒但的那個人放到他自己之上（ put that man with Satan within him upon Himself）之後，他將那個人帶到了十字架前。撒但以為他成功了，可是他只是給了主一個把他置於死地的簡單方法。……借着成為人他[撒但]被抓住並且被局限在人中。接下來，主來了並且把人放在他自己上面(put man upon Himself)並把他帶到十字架前……同時，墮落的人裏面的撒但也被置於死地……基督將人連同撒但都帶入死和墳墓中然後將人不帶撒但帶出死亡和墳墓。他將撒但埋葬在墳墓中。現在這位復活的人跟基督是同一位……通過這個復活人和神成為了一體。通過道成肉身神進入人，而通過復活人和神成為一體。現在神就是人裏面的靈。74<ref>Ibid, 109-112.</ref>

神和撒但平行的成了肉身(Parallel Incarnations of God and Satan)

神和撒但並行的成了肉身。

這行的想法很清楚：神首先想要創造人是為了顯明（manifest)他自己的目的；撒但引誘人，於是人吃了分別善惡樹；這樣做，人就將撒但接收到他自己裏面，而且只要撒但還在那，人就不能顯明（manifest）神；神因而有目的的將他自己放到人裏面，他首先通過基督的道成肉身完成這事（然後將這個道成肉身推廣到所有的信徒）；他然後將基督帶到十字架上，這樣人和撒但就死了；最後他使人和基督（他自己）從死中復活，這樣人能最終完全的表達(express)神。讓我們來看看這些觀點根據聖經是否能站住腳。

李氏教導的主幹源於他對罪和撒但的標識。很難看出來李氏是想要借着使罪成為撒但而將罪人格化，還是要通過將撒但變成罪而使撒但去人格化。不論哪種情況，這兩種觀點都是不符合聖經的。聖經清楚的明示了罪和撒但的區別。罪顯示為違反且不忠於神和他的道的態度或者行為（羅馬書 3：20；4：15；7：7-25，特別是15-16）。雖然有時候聖經中罪被擬人化，好像它有它自己的意志(will)，但是這個可以很容易地看出是比喻性的語言（figurative language)。撒但，相反地，被展現出來的是一個特定的位格（personal)的存在(being)，墮落的天使（哥林多後書 11：14-15；哥林多前書 5：5；雅各書 4：7；彼得前書 5：8）。因此把罪稱作撒但是不正確的。

然而這個錯誤導致了一個更加嚴重的錯誤。因為人是在他吃禁果的時候成為罪人的，李氏暗示他因此就把撒但接收到他自己裏面；他的文字意義上的肉體(flesh)變成了撒但的化身（embodiment)的居所。人於是變成了撒但的顯現(manifestation)。但是這個又一次與聖經矛盾。他錯誤的解釋了保羅的對肉體作為有罪的人的本性的比喻說法，使得「肉體（flesh）」它自己實際上成為那邪惡者（actually evil)。但是保羅這樣說不是指我們的字面意義上的肉體：相反地他把它看成是道德上的中性（morally neutral)且，因為他是神的一個創造物，一般來講是好的。他簡單的把肉體看成是在罪的捆綁之下（羅馬書7：17，18，24）且因而順服在墮落之下（羅馬書 8：18-23）。這就是他稱為「自然的身體（natural body）」（哥林多前書 15：44）。但是當被從死人中復活並且帶上永恆性之後，肉體它本身將變成「屬靈的身體（spiritual body）」（路加福音 24：39；約翰福音 2：19-21；哥林多前書 15：44-54；羅馬書 8：11）。肉體並不邪惡，也不是罪的顯現(manifestation）。

相信肉體是邪惡的的這個錯誤引入了另外一個錯誤，後者更加嚴重。李氏相信撒但借着變成他們中的一個而使所有的人都墮落了；這就是他寫到：「神……看起來要說：『我也要道成肉身。如果撒但使得他自己變成人，那麼讓我也進入人並且把人放到我自己上面』」 75<ref>Ibid., 109.</ref>。按照李氏信仰的邏輯就是，撒但進入到在所有人中成了肉身，必然神將要在進入所有的那些變成基督徒的的人中道成肉身，然後接着的就是李氏要教導的教會本身就是神在肉體中的彰顯，這點我們前面談過了。

運行在李氏關於神、人、救恩、教會、罪和撒但的教導中有兩根平行線：

首先，罪和撒但成為一體且相同，人墮落的時候撒但在人體中成了肉身，所有人的肉體因此都是撒但成了肉身，這個只能意味着要救贖人，對於神來講只能是進入他們成為肉身而取代撒但，神首先在基督中成為肉身，然後通過聖靈他又在教會，基督的身體，裏面成了肉身。

第二，神為了彰顯他自己的目的而創造了人，人墮落，父變成了子成為了神道成肉身的第一個人，他死了，把撒但留在墳墓里，然後復活了，變成了聖靈，聖靈進入到信徒中，使得他們持續的道成肉身這樣教會就是神在肉體中的彰顯。

所有的這些都和神的道相悖，因為它需要神在變化，與神的本性(nature）矛盾。它將基督的獨一性奪去，與約翰福音3：16相矛盾。他混淆了罪和撒旦之間的關係，並且採用了不符合聖經的稱之為邪惡的物質身體的觀點。他使用神將得救的人和神混淆，與以賽亞書43：10，瑪拉基書3：6，民數記23：19矛盾，並且接受了創世記3：5中撒旦對夏娃的錯誤的引誘。

結論

我們的結論只能是李常受和地方召會的教導是異端。我們敦促所有的其他的基督徒為那些還在地方召會中的人禱告，幫助他們認清李常受的錯誤並且歸回到真正的福音，真正的耶穌，真正的聖靈和那純正的神的道中來，那道是我們腳前的燈。地方召會的教導是錯誤的，那些錯誤的教訓來自撒旦（約翰福音 8:44）。這樣的教訓是黑暗（以弗所書 6：12），而基督徒卻不能行在黑暗中（約翰一書1：5-7）。讓我們行在光中，就像他行在光中一樣（約翰一書 1：7）。

關於作者

E·加爾文·貝斯那(E., Calvin Beisner) 是諾克斯(Knox）神學院的講授歷史神學和社會倫理學的副教授。他在20世紀70年代和80年代早期在基督教研究所（Christian Research Institute)花了七年的時間研究和寫作，主題是關於教義和針對邪教的護教學，他後期在Walter Martin博士的指導下，並且在CARIS(基督徒護教學：研究和信息服務中心，之前和現在的以行動的回答）與邪教護教學者Bob和Gretchen Passantino合作。他參與編寫了Martin的《新興的邪教（The New Cults)》，並且寫了研究報告並且在CRI發表。在他諾克斯的教學工作中，有一門課程是關於邪教的神學。在他的十一本書中，他的《三個位格中的神（God in Three Persons》（丁道爾出版社，1984），是研究三位一體早期教義歷史的；而《「只見耶穌」的教會（"Jesus Only" Churches）》（Zondervan, 1998），是一本批駁獨一神格靈恩派（Oneness Pentecostalism）的形態論(modalist)神學的書，這個派別在某些方面和李常受和其地方召會教導類似。他在1978年從南加州大學以優異的成績（magna cum laude）獲得了宗教學和哲學跨專業的學士學位，他的論文是關於三位一體的早期教義歷史的，並且獲得了最高榮譽。1983年他從國際學院以優異成績獲得了經濟倫理方向的社會學碩士學位；而2003年在蘇格蘭的聖安德魯大學獲得了歷史專業的哲學博士學位。

參考

本文地址： http://godwithus.cn/wiki/The_Teachings_of_Witness_Lee_and_the_Local_Church

原文地址： http://ecalvinbeisner.com/freearticles/TeachingsofWitnessLee&LocalChurch.pdf

文字版原文： http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=397

副本： http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_622134fd01013e1z.html

The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church 英文全文

The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church

Revised Edition2003

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

Introduction

The Local Church is composed of groups of people in cities around the United States and parts of the Orient who follow the teachings of Witness Lee. Lee is an Oriental who once was among the leaders of the movement begun by Watchman Nee. The name of the group is derived from the teaching of "localism," which in this form says that there is only one true church, one true representative of the Body of Christ, in any locality.

We love the people in this movement. It is because of this deep love that when serious errors are presented to them as the teachings of Scripture, we must respond by earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). We do not attack the persons in the Local Church, but we must identify and correct the heretical teachings they have received.

We desire the unity of the Church, but unity is never to be taken at the expense of the essential truths of the Word of God. Paul wrote, "No doubt there have to be difference among you to show which of you have God's approval" (1 Corinthians 11:19). We must be followers of the One who said, "I am the way. the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), and to do so, we must not sacrifice the truth of His Word, it will be seen below that it is the Local Church that is dividing the Body of Christ by its errors. Its false teachings challenge the Body of Christ, and we must answer that challenge with Scripture (Jude 3: 1 Peter 3:15; Isaiah 8:20).

The Teachings of the Local Church Compared with Scripture

The Local Church has distinctive teachings that set it at variance to the Body of Christ, and it is our purpose to survey and compare these teachings with the Bible. It is important to understand first the attitude of the Local Church toward all the denominations, both Catholic and Protestant, so that we will see just how important these teachings are. Witness Lee writes, "Do not try to be neutral. Do not try to reconcile them. . . . You know the denominations are wrong, yet you still remain because you are afraid of what others will say."' For Lee and the Local Church, then, all denominations are wrong. (We shall return to this subject later.) What sets the Local Church apart from the denominations? The primary points are teaching and practice. Since the practices of the Local Church stem from its teachings, the two can, for practical purposes, be treated together.

We shall discuss five primary areas of teaching in the Local Church and compare them with the teaching of the Word of God: (1) the nature of God, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity; (2) the way of salvation; (3) the Church, focusing on "localism" and the relation of the Church to God; (4) the nature and use of the Bible; (5) the nature of sin and Satan.

The Nature of God

The doctrine of the Trinity is usually stated essentially thus: "In the nature of the one true God, there are three eternally distinct Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are the same God, all fully God, yet the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit, and the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son."2 The Local Church, however, teaches contrary to this.

Successive Modalism. The Local Church teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person as well as the same God, and that each is a successive step or stage in the revelation of God to man. Witness Lee writes:

Thus, the three Persons of the Trinity become the three successive steps in the process of God's economy.3

Likewise, the Father. Son. and Spirit are not three Gods, but three stages of one God for us to possess and enjoy.4

In the heavens, where man cannot see, God is the Father; when He is expressed among men, He is the Son; and when He comes into men, He is the Spirit. The Father was expressed among men in the Son, and the Son became the Spirit to come into men. The Father is in the Son, and the Son became the Spirit—the three are just one God.5

Formerly it was impossible for man to contact the Father, he was exclusively God and His nature was exclusively divine. There was nothing in the Father to bridge the gap between God and man. . . . But now He has . . . become incarnate in human nature. The Father was pleased to combine His own divinity with humanity in the Son.6 After death and resurrection He [the Son] became the Spirit breathed into the disciples.7

... the Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life.8 The Father, as the inexhaustible source of everything, is embodied in the Son.9

In the place where no man can approach Him (I Tim. 6:16), God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. . . . We know the Lord is the Son and that He is also called the Father. . . . Now we read that He is the Spirit. So we must be clear that Christ the Lord is the Spirit, too. ... As the source, God is the Father. As the expression, He is the Son. As the transmission, He is the Spirit. The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the transmission, the communion. This is the triune God.10

We can see in these passages the clear teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three successive stages in the revelation of God to mankind. Thus the Son is not really a Person distinct from the Father, but is the Father "come forth to manifest Himself." Neither is the Holy Spirit a Person distinct from the Father and Son, but "the transmission," the "communion"; He is in fact the Father and the Son in a different stage of expression to man. As former Local Church member Bill Freeman put it in "Witness Lee and Local Church's Reply to the 'Bible Answer Man' ":

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. The second type- of Scriptures showing the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is the verses that specifically state that one Person of the Triune God is Another.11

Systematic theologian and historian of doctrine Louis Berkhof described Sabellianistic modalism thus:

. . . Sabellius . . . distinguished between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifestations, which are represented as following one another like the parts of a drama. Sabellius indeed sometimes spoke of three divine persons, but then used the word 'person' in the original sense of the word, in which it signifies a role of acting or a mode of manifestation. According to him the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence manifests itself. God reveals Himself as Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification.12

Systematic theologian Abraham Kuyper wrote of Sabellianism:

Sabellius . . . came to the conclusion that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were after all but one Person; who first wrought in creation as Father, then having become the Son wrought out our redemption, and now as the Holy Spirit perfects our sanctification."13

Historian of theology William Kelly wrote:

Taking its name from the third century Sabellius, this . . . reduced the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Ghost to three characters, modes or relations of the Godhead assumed for the purpose of the divine dealings with man. Thus God is eternally and essentially one, but economically, i.e., for specific purposes, he takes the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. . . .'4

Systematic theologian Augustus Strong wrote:

Sabellius and Schleiermacher hold that the One becomes three in the process of revelation, and the three are only media or modes of revelation. Father, Son, and Spirit are mere names applied to these modes of the divine action, there being no internal distinctions in the divine nature. This is modalism, or a modal Trinity."15

Church historian Philip Schaff wrote:

While the other Monarchians confine their inquiry to the relation of the Father and Son, Sabellius embraces the Holy Spirit in his speculation, and reaches a trinity, not a simultaneous trinity of essence, however, but only a successive trinity of revelation. He starts from a distinction of the monad and the triad in the divine nature. His fundamental thought is, that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself in the course of the world's development in three different forms and periods of revelation, and, after the completion of redemption, returns into unity. The Father reveals Himself in the giving of the law or the Old Testament economy . . .; the Son, in the incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration."16

Remember the teaching of Lee: "Thus, the three Persons of the Trinity become the three successive steps in the process of God's economy."17 There can be no doubt that this aspect of Lee's teaching is modalistic in the Sabellian sense: that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three successive modes (hence the name "modalism") or stages in the manifestation of God to man, rather than three internally, essentially distinct Persons.

This doctrine was declared heretical in the third century (A.D. 263 under Bishop Dionysius of Rome), and has since crept into the teaching of the Church from time to time, always to be rejected in favor of the Scriptural teaching of the essential Trinity. Scripture affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three successive steps, for they are eternal and simultaneous. Hebrews 9; 14 tells of Christ offering Himself through the "eternal Spirit." They both existed at the same time, and Christ was not the Spirit. Yet Lee wrote, "the Son became the Spirit for us to drink in as the water of life. . . ,"18 John 17:5 shows that the Father and the Son existed simultaneously "before the world was." Yet Lee wrote, "But now [the Father] has . . . become incarnate in human nature. The Father was pleased to combine His own divinity with humanity in the Son."19

The concept of the Father becoming the Son and the Son becoming the Spirit is contradicted in other ways in Scripture. Malachi 3:6 tells us that God does not change; yet modalism would entail changes in God. In Isaiah 44:6 we have the Father (Jehovah, the King of Israel) and the Son (His Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts) speaking simultaneously, affirming at once that they are the same God, yet presented clearly and directly as distinct Persons. In Luke 22:42 Christ prays to the Father, "not my will, but thine be done." there is a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, yet they exist simultaneously. They have separate (though never conflicting) wills, and hence must be separate Persons, yet are the same God.

In John 14:26 we find that the Father will send the Holy Spirit; in 15:26 we find that Jesus wills end the Spirit (see also 16:7); and in 17:8 and 20:21 we find that the Father has sent Jesus. We see a complete distinction among the Persons of the Trinity. None of them becomes another, none is another. All are eternally distinct, not successive stages in God's revelation of Himself to man. All relate to each other as one Person to another Person.

Static Modalism The Local Church also teaches another view of the Trinity, also modalistic. For the purposes of this booklet, we shall call this "static modalism," because in this form there is no succession of one becoming another. Father, Son, and Spirit are presented as separate but simultaneous modes or aspects of the revelation of the same One to man. Lee writes:

Although he is one God, yet there is the matter of three-foldness, that is, the threefold Person—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. 20

He [the Father] is the One hidden within, and the Son is the One manifested without; yet the One who is manifested without is the One who is hidden within—the two are just one. 21

Thank the Lord, He also has two ends: at the end in heaven He is the Father, and at the end on the earth He is the Son; at the end in heaven He is the One who listens to the prayer, and at the end on earth He is the One who prays. He is both the One who prays on earth and the One who listens in heaven. 22

The Son who prays is the Father who listens. 23

Therefore the Bible clearly reveals to us that the Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit. Otherwise, how could these three be one God? 24

The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit.25

The Lord Jesus is the Holy Spirit. . . ,26

It is clear that Lee also teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously each other. At one and the same time, the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit. The statement concerning the Father and the Son that "the two are just one" is actually unclear: we are forced to ask, "One what?" Lee's answer is that they are the same Person, for we are told that the threefoldness in God is the "threefold Person."27 This implicates the Holy Spirit in this one person as well. The fact that this teaches simultaneous, non-successive modalism cannot be denied, regardless of the fact that it is therefore in direct contradiction to Lee's teaching, shown above, of developmental modalism.

The term applied to this teaching in the history of Christian doctrine is generally Patripassianism (from pater, Father, and potior, to suffer), because it logically implied the suffering of the Father on the Cross as Christ. Schaff wrote of this class of thinkers:

The second class of Monarchians, called by Tertullian "Patripassians" . . . together with their unitarian zeal felt the deeper Christian impulse to hold fast the divinity of Christ; but they sacrificed to it his independent personality, which they merged in the essence of the Father. They taught that the one supreme God by His own free will, and by an act of self-limitation became man, so that the Son is the Father veiled in the flesh. They knew no other God but the one manifested in Christ, and charged their opponents with ditheism.28

William Nigel Kerr wrote:

Patripassianists . . . with the modalists confused the persons of the Trinity and denied the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ. Defending monotheism they held that since God was one essence there could not be three persons but instead three modes of manifestation. Thus the Son was the Father appearing in human form. Noetus taught that Christ was the Father and so the Father was born, suffered and died upon the cross, hence the name patripassian.29

One of the most famous early teachers of this doctrine was Praxeas, of whom Schaff wrote:

Praxeas, constantly appealing to Isaiah Is. 45:5; Jno. 10:30 . . ., as if the whole Bible consisted of these three passages, taught that the Father Himself became man, hungered, thirsted, suffered, and died in Christ.30

Two other early thinkers taught this doctrine, bishops of Rome Zephyrinus and, with some modifications, Callistus: "Zephyrinus (201-219) and Callistus (219-223) held and taught (according to the "Philosophumena" of Hippolytus, a martyr and saint) the Patripassian heresy, that God the Father became incarnate and suffered with the Son."31 Louis Berkhof wrote of Praxeas and Noetus, the two most prominent teachers of this doctrine:

Praxeas . . . seems to have avoided the assertion that the Father suffered, but Noetus did not hesitate at this point. To quote the words of Hippolytus: "He said that Christ is Himself the Father, and that the Father Himself was born and suffered and died." According to the same Church Father he even made the bold assertion that the Father by changing the mode of his being literally became His own Son. The statement of Noetus referred to runs as follows: "When the Father had not yet been born, He was rightly called the Father; but when it pleased Him to submit to birth, having been born, He became the Son, he of Himself and not of another.32

While we can see the beginning of successionism in Noetus's doctrine, the primary teaching represented in these and other quotations is the simultaneous identity of one Person as Father and Son, which Witness Lee also propagates.

Like Sabellianistic (or successionalistic) modalism, static modalism also fails to conform to Scripture. The presentation of distinction among the Persons of Father, Son, and Spirit in Scripture is unmistakable: Father and Son have separate, though never conflicting, wills (Luke 22:42; the Father sends Jesus (John 17:8; 20:21); Jesus and the Father send the Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7; 14:26). Even the Hebrew word that tells us that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4; echod) has implicit within it the concept of plurality.33 In Luke 3:22 the Father addresses the Son, saying, "Thou art my beloved Son"; if Father and Son are the same Person, this makes no sense. John 1:1, which reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," gives a perfect presentation of the unity of Father and Son as the same God (third clause), and yet also of their personal distinction, since the Word was "with God" (second clause; the Greek pros, here translated with, is usually held to be, in contexts like this, an abbreviated form of prosbpon pros prosbpon, the Greek phrase for face to face). Even John 10:30, where Jesus says, "I and the Father are one," carries within it their personal distinction, since the verb is plural and may be translated "we are."

With such scriptural evidence against both successionalistic and static modalism, it is easy to understand the conclusion of theologian W.H. Griffith Thomas in regard to modalism in general:

Sabellianism both ancient and modern has always proved impossible in the long run. Modalism even without Successionalism is wholly inadequate to the Scripture testimony. There is scarcely anything more significant in the history of the Church than the recurrence and also the rejection of Sabellianism, for it is at once apparently easy, and soon seen to be utterly impossible to consider the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as mere aspects or manifestations of one God.34

Lee's two doctrines of modalism are no exception to this conclusion. They disagree with the testimony of Scripture. They are revivals of two ancient heresies. They are contradictory not only to Scripture but even to each other. Thus they must be rejected by all Christians, since Malachi 3:6 declares the unchangeableness of God.

The Extension of the Incarnation: The Church as God Manifest in the Flesh. As a result of these heresies, we expect more errors, and the primary one we find in Lee's teaching is that God becomes the Church, or vice versa. For most Christians such a teaching is so incredible that we tend to refuse to believe that anyone could seriously teach it. Yet it has actually been taught, and rejected, time and again throughout the history of Christianity and has sometimes been referred to as the doctrine of the "extension of the incarnation."

That Lee teaches this is clearly seen in many of his writings:

The Church—The Manifestation of God in the Flesh. . . . This Church is the continuation and the multiplication of God manifest in the flesh. ... We are then the increase, the enlargement, of the manifestation of God in the flesh. God manifests Himself again in the flesh, but in a wider way. ... In other words, God is mingled with human beings, not in an outward way, but in an inward way. The Church is the manifestation of God not the manifestation of doctrines or gifts.35

This Christ has expanded from one Person to thousands and thousands of persons. He was once the individual Christ, but in Acts He has become a corporate Christ.36

[Speaking of the Church and Christ:] In number we are different, but in nature we are exactly the same37

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.38

With the Incarnation a dispensation began in which God and man, man and God were blended into one.39

The first creation, though brought into being by God Himself, is by God Himself suffered to pass into death that it may emerge in resurrection as a creation of dual nature, i.e., combining the natures of God and man.40

The resurrection followed the crucifixion. The resurrection recovered and uplifted the standard of humanity created by God and brought the human nature into God. By incarnation the divine nature was brought into man; by resurrection the human nature was brought into God. Now it is possible for man to have more than a created human nature. . . . God mingled with man and man mingled with God. . . . God in His three Persons mingles Himself with us.41

Then the day will come when the Triune God and the resurrected man will be one expression. . . ,42

"Eventually God will become us."43

"Christ will be increased through us because He is reproduced in us」44

As Local Church member Ron Kangas wrote, "The many brothers and the firstborn Son are the same in life and nature," and "Both the firstborn Son and the many sons are the same in the divine life and nature."45

We are left with no doubt that the Local Church teaches that the Church becomes God, and vice versa. This is stated not only by Lee, but also by one of the apologists of the Local Church, Bill Freeman, who wrote of the "mystery of Christ and the Church as one entity."46 Another Local Church apologist, John C. Ingalls, wrote that "Christ is not only the Head, but also the Body [i.e., the Church]."47

Such an idea as this necessarily involves a change in the very nature of God. God must become the Church, and every time someone is added to the Church, God must increase. Indeed, when Lee writes of the Church as the "increase, the enlargement, of the manifestation of God in the flesh," in the context of the other writings quoted above, he clearly implies an increase in God Himself. But such a teaching is impossible in the light of Malachi 3:6, where-God proclaims, "For I am the Lord, I change not. . . ."

Paul commented on others who confused God with His creation: "For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. . . ." [Romans 1:20-23]

Colossians 1:18 declares that Christ is "the head of the body, the church," where the word for head is kephale, used metaphorically to mean the One preeminent over, but not a part of, the Church.48 He is not, then, the Body, but the Head of (or "over") the Body.

The Local Church doctrine of God, therefore, is contrary to the Word of God. It teaches that God is changing, first, from Father to Son to Spirit, then to the Church itself. It denies the real, distinct personalities of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, speaking instead of these as stages in the manifestation of God to man. By so doing, it really denies the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It must be rejected by Christians.

The Way of Salvation

The Local Church's believes in regard to salvation are complex and even appear contradictory. Lee first teaches that salvation is simply and only a matter of calling on the name of the Lord. But in other literature he strongly implies that it is impossible to be saved unless one attends the Local Church. It is helpful to see how he states both positions:

We have seen that to reach the unbelievers, no preaching is necessary. If we help them say "O Lord" three times, they will be saved. If they open the window, the air will get in. All they have to do is to open their mouths and say, "O Lord, O Lord." Even if they have no intention of believing, still they will be caught. Regardless of whether they have the intention or not, as long as they open the window, the air will get in. It is not a matter of teaching; it is a matter of touching the seven Spirits of God.49

The implications of this are clear. All that is necessary for salvation is that one say, "O Lord, O Lord, O Lord." Nothing else is necessary. Is it truly not necessary to believe, or eve to intend to believe? Does salvation have nothing to do with the belief of the individual, but just with words he says?

On the other hand, there is clear indication in the writings of Lee and the Local Church that they believe that one cannot be saved if he is not in the Local Church. Finding Christ by the Living Star tells of three kinds of stars: the "Living Star," which is Christ Himself; the "living stars," which are members of the Local Church; and the "wandering stars," which are all those who are outside the Local Church. Lee writes:

If we follow the wandering stars, eventually our portion will be the same as theirs—the blackness of darkness forever. .... If anyone comes to you without a definite standing and certain course, avoid him. The proper standing is the local church, and the right course is to go on in the Spirit in the local church.50 Never be a wandering star, and never follow a wandering star. .... Today the only way for you and me and for anyone to find Christ is to see the living star. Hallelujah! Today the star is not far from us—it is with the local churches. . . . Today the living star and the living stars are in the local churches. Let us follow them and let us be one of them.51

Lee and those in the Local Church consider all those outside the Local Church "wandering stars." And the destiny of these "wandering stars" is "the blackness of darkness forever." Apparently only by being in the Local Church can one be saved. This contradicts his teaching that all one need do to be saved is to say "O Lord, O Lord, O Lord." Which, then, is true?

According to the Bible, neither is true. The belief that all who say "O Lord, O Lord, O Lord," regardless of belief, will be saved, is not true. Christ says: "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23). The context of this statement shows that it is not simply the doing of good works, or the calling on the name of the Lord, that saves one. What is necessary is belief, or faith (John 6:29; John 8;24; Acts 16:31). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

Since the Local Church has also a false doctrine of God, it cannot be true that one must be in the Local Church to be saved. We see that both aspects of Lee's teaching on salvation are contrary to God's Word. Yet even if the Local Church did have a true belief about God, instead of the false belief it has, and a true belief about salvation, instead of its false belief, it would not be the only group in which one could be saved, for Scripture opposes such exclusivism (1 Corinthians 1:12-13ff). The exclusivism of the Local Church divides the true Body of Christ and is contrary to the Bible.

The Church: The Belief in Localism

In accord with the teaching that one must be in the Local Church to be saved, Lee teaches the doctrine of "localism," that is, that there is only one true representative of the Body of Christ in any city. This, of course, is said to be the Local Church. The Local Church alone is alleged to be the true representative of the Body of Christ, and all other churches are false:

If you get into anything other than the local church of the city, you get into a division; if you get into the church of that city, you get into unity.52

[Satan] has taken another step by creating all the sects, denominations and divisions in the Body of Christ. . . . God is moving in these days to recover. What is the way of His recovery? . . . the recovery of the proper unity. Not until these three things are recovered among us will we have a proper and adequate church life.53

Through all the centuries since then, religious people have followed in their steps, persecuting the genuine seekers and followers of the Lord in spirit and life, while still considering themselves to be defending the interests of God. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as Judaism, all fall into this category, becoming an organization of Satan as his tool to damage God's economy.54

... the church life must be practiced today and there is no other way but the local churches.55

Judaism is satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is Christless.56

Localism. There are two primary aspects to this teaching. First, Lee teaches a doctrine called localism. This, however, is refuted in the Word of God when Paul writes in Romans 16:3-5a: "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house." Paul wrote to a church in Rome, yet he asked that group of saints to greet the church that was in Priscilla and Aquila's house. There were therefore at least two churches in Rome, even at that early time. Church history shows that it was common to have more than one church in a city, even in apostolic times. Schaff wrote of early churches:

The first traces of special houses of worship occur in Tertullian, who speaks of going to church, and in his contemporary, Clement of Alexandria, who mentions the double meaning of the word ekklesia. About the year 230, Alexander Severus granted the Christians the right to a place in Rome against the protest of the tavern-keepers, because the worship of God in any form was better than tavern-keeping. After the middle of the third century the building of churches began in great earnest, as the Christians enjoyed over forty years of repose (260-303), and multiplied so fast that, according to Eusebius, more spacious places of devotion became everywhere necessary. . . . Rome is supposed to have had, as early as the beginning of the fourth century, more than forty churches.57

It is clear that the number of churches in a given community simply increased proportionate to the number of Christians in the community, as they had need. If there were forty in Rome by a.d. 300, surely there were more than a few during and shortly after the apostolic age.

The second aspect of the teachings quoted above is that of the condemnation of all denominations other than the Local Church.58 Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are called organizations of Satan. This can only be seen as extreme divisiveness in the Body of Christ. This teaching opposes Christ's prayer on behalf of the Church, the Body of Christ, 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). The Local Church's divisiveness is against Christ, and because of this it is harder for the world to see that Christ truly is sent of the Father.

The Local Church claims that it, and it alone, is the true Church in any community; that all others are organizations of Satan; that it is impossible to be in a right standing, or on correct ground, outside the Local Church. Because of this it is imperative that the Body of Christ respond strongly and quickly by showing the errors in the Local Church, warning others against it, and helping those in the Local Churches to understand Lee's errors and return to Biblical truth. We must not meet their condemnation by condemning them personally. We must point out the heresies taught by the group, correct them lovingly according to the Word of God, and help members of the Local Church to understand the true teachings of Scripture so that they will no longer be confused by false teachings.

The Bible and Reason in the Local Church

While the Local Church teaching recognizes the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, the Bible does not seem to govern the beliefs of most Local Church members. Their beliefs apparently are governed by their experiences, not by a study of Scripture. With this in mind, we can more easily understand the inner contradictions in the Local Church. Members of the Local Church are told not to research, understand, or learn the Word. This rejection of the mind and thought explains the confused nature of much Local Church teaching.

The Local Church approaches the subject of teaching, or doctrine, negatively. Lee writes, "Doctrine only works divisions among the Lord's children."59 (But Lee, as he does so often, contradicts himself. He writes, ". . . we can certainly receive help from doctrine. . . ."60) This attitude makes it hard for Local Church members to consider seriously the importance of their own beliefs and compare them carefully with Scripture. It is an attitude contrary to the teachings of the Word of God, which says, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine . . . and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

There is a general emphasis in the Local Church against teaching, knowledge about the Bible or God, and study of the Word:

As long as [Jesus] is with us, we need no regulations, no rituals, no doctrines or forms. . . . Do you come to the meetings for teaching or for learning? We must come to the meetings for feasting." Suppose in the meetings of the local church we did not do anything but say: "O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah! O Lord, Amen, Hallelujah!" If the Lord were to lead us to do this for two hours, I believe we would all be set on fire. Everyone would be burned. This is much, much better than any kind of prevailing message. Why is this? It is because when we say these four words we are touching the seven Spirits of God which are before the throne. Try it and see if the seven Spirits will not burn you.62

Lee's attitude toward studying the Bible is significant, in that it explains much of the confusion and misunderstanding of the Bible prevalent among members of the Local Church. It is connected with a doctrine called "pray-reading" the Word, which Lee explains:

. . . there is no need for us to close our eyes to pray. It is better for us to close our mind! . . . Do not try only to leam the Bible. We must realize that this is a book of life, not a book of knowledge. This book is the divine embodiment of the living Spirit, and He is life.63 Simply pick up the Word and pray-read a few verses in the morning and in the evening. There is no need for you to exercise your mind in order to squeeze out some utterance, and it is unnecessary to think over what you read. ... It is better for us to close our mind! For example, n pray-reading Galatians 2:20 simply look at the printed page, which says, "I am crucified with Christ." Then with your eyes upon the Word and praying from deeply within say: "Praise the Lord, 'I am crucified with Christ!' Hallelujah! 'Crucified with Christ.' Amen. 'I am.' Oh, Lord, 'I am crucified.' Praise the Lord! 'Crucified with Christ.' Amen! 'I am crucified with Christ.' Hallelujah! Amen! 'Nevertheless.' Amen. 'Nevertheless.' Amen! 'I live.' Oh, Lord, 'I live!' Hallelujah! Amen! 'Yet not I but Christ,' etc." . .. There is no need for you to compose any sentences or create a prayer. Just pray-read the Word, pray the words of the Bible exactly as they read. Eventually, you will see that the whole Bible is a prayer book! You can open to any page of the Bible and start to pray with any portion of the Word. . . . There is no need to explain or expound the Word, simply pray with the Word. Forget about reading, researching, understanding, and learning the Word. You must pray-read the Word.64

Such a teaching discourages careful study of the Word by Local Church members, and therefore encourages them to accept without questions the group's teachings. This implication alone would be contrary to 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Test all things, hold fast that which is good." But there are further difficulties.

The dislike for knowledge is contrary to Paul's prayer that we "might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding . . . and increasing in the knowledge of God" (Colossians 1:9-10). The advice that we "forget about reading, researching, understanding, and learning the Word" is against 2 timothy 2:15, which says to "show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

The idea of closing our minds when reading Scripture and praying is against the Word of God when Paul writes, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also" (1 Corinthians 14:15). It is completely contrary to the spirit of the psalmist, who wrote: Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. I opened my mouth, and panted: for I longed for thy commandments, order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me. . . . Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; and teach me thy statutes. . . . The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live. [Psalm 119:129-131, 133, 135, 144] This certainly presents a contrast to the one who says, "Forget about reading, researching, understanding, and learning the word!"

Furthermore, the constant repetitions and exclamations that mark the practice of "pray-reading" the Word are comparable to what Paul taught against when he wrote, "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker . . ." (2 Timothy 2:16-17). it is refuted by Jesus' statement about prayer: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them . . ." (Matthew 6:7-8).

It is clear that the Local Church method of using the Bible and of prayer is contrary to Scripture. It can contribute to a general confusion about the Word of God itself, about what it teaches, about God Himself, and about the individual's relationship to God and others. But furthermore, it can contribute to an unquestioning acceptance of Local Church teachings over all others, including those of the Bible. This is coupled with Lee's claims about his own teachings:

These words are not merely a teaching but a strong testimony to what I have been practicing and experiencing for more than 35 years. I have been captured by this vision. By the mercy of the Lord I have never changed my way or my tone. And I have seen truly local churches raised up in many cities as an incontrovertible testimony that this is the way of the Lord.65

Do not think this is my teaching; it is the Lord's revelation. The Lord is going to recover it, and He is doing it now. We must have a change. Repent! Change your concept! Be buried! Enjoy Jesus as the Bridegroom!66

These high claims about Lee's teaching, plus the discouragement of serious study and thought about the Bible, lead to unswerving allegiance to the Local church. Such claims are a source of great difficulty in communicating with members, yet they are completely nonscriptural. Not only are these teachings wrong about God, salvation, and the Church, but also they are contrary to Scripture concerning prayer and the study of God's Word, and encourage the practice of accepting beliefs without questioning them, contrary to 1 Thessalonians 5:21. There is nothing that should not be tested in relation to any religious belief. We encourage members of the Local Church to be like the noble Bereans "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Here Luke shows that the Bereans were "noble" because they tested even the gospel Paul preached by the Scriptures. Certainly if the Bereans were "noble" for testing the preaching of Paul by Scripture, members and those interested in the Local Church should test the teachings of Witness Lee also.

The Local Church Belief About Sin and Satan

When we approach the teachings of the Local Church about sin and Satan, we strike at the root of Lee's doctrine, and perhaps find the stem from which all his doctrines naturally flow. Lee begins with Paul's references to the "flesh" as the sinful nature in man and literalizes them so that sin actually is the flesh of man. We see the flow of Lee's thinking from this point in The Economy of God:

Man's body as originally created by God was something very good, but it has now become the flesh. The body was pure, since it was created good, but when the body was corrupted by Satan, it became flesh.67

It was God's intention for this neutral, innocent man to take God into himself, that God and man, man and God, would be mingled together as one. . . . Another possibility, however, was that man would be induced to take the second tree, the source of death. As a consequence, man would then be mingled with the second tree. Oh, that our eyes might be opened to see that in the whole universe it is not a matter of ethics and of doing good, but a matter of either receiving God as life or Satan as death.68

The significance of Adam taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge was that he received Satan into himself.. . . Satan grew in Adam and became a part of him.69

The body simply became the residence of Sin, which is the embodiment of Satan. . . . This corrupted, transmuted body is called the "body of sin," and the "body of death," because this body became the very residence of Satan.70

[After the fall] Satan was joyful, boasting that he had succeeded in taking over man. But God, who was still outside of man, seemed to say: "I will also become incarnated. If Satan wrought himself into man, then let Me enter man and put man upon Myself."71

The body is something satanic and devilish, because Satan dwells in this body. All the lusts are in this corrupted body which is called the flesh. . . .Satan, from the time of the fall, dwells in man. This is what happened when man partook of the second tree.. . . Since Satan and man became one through the second tree, Satan is no longer outside of man, but in man.72

Christ is the embodiment of God, but sin is the embodiment of Satan. . . . Sin can be lord over us; hence, Sin must be the evil one, Satan. Through the fall, Satan came into man as Sin, and is ruling, damaging, corrupting and mastering him. In what part? Satan is in the members of man's body."

The problem for man, then, is sin. Sin, according to Lee, is Satan. Satan has come into man's flesh and masters him. In this way, Satan has taken complete control of man, and this control can only be broken by God coming into man in the same way Satan has come. We see the following step in Lee's teaching:

When the Lord Jesus incarnated Himself in flesh, He was "in the likeness of the flesh of sin." . . . When Christ was on the cross, He was a man "in the likeness" of the serpent. The serpent is Satan, the devil, the enemy of God, but when Christ was incarnated as a man, He had even the likeness of the sinful flesh, which is the likeness of Satan. . . . After God became a man and put that man with Satan within him upon Himself, He brought that man to the cross. Satan thought he had succeeded, but he only gave the Lord an easy way to put him to death. ... By taking man, he [Satan] was caught and imprisoned in man. Subsequently, the Lord came and put man upon Himself to bring him to the cross.... At the same time, Satan within this fallen man was put to death also. . . . Christ brought man with Satan into death and the grave and brought man without Satan out of death and the grave. He left Satan buried in the grave. Now this resurrected man is one with Christ. . . . [T]hrough this resurrection man with God became one. By incarnation God came into man, and by resurrection man with God became one. Now God is in man's spirit.74

Parallel Incarnations of God and Satan. The line of thought here is clear: God first intended to create man for the purpose of manifesting Himself; Stan tempted man, so that man took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by so doing, man took Satan into himself, and so long as Satan is there, man cannot manifest God; God therefore purposed to put Himself into man, which He first accomplished through the incarnation in Christ (and later extends this incarnation to all believers); He then brought Christ to the cross so that the man and Satan died; finally He raised the man and Christ (Himself) from the dead, so that man could at last fully express God. Let us see how all of this stands in relation to Scripture.

Lee's teaching stems from his identification of sin with Satan. It is difficult to see whether Lee intends to personify sin in making it Satan, or to depersonify Satan by making him (it) sin. Whichever is the case, neither view is Biblical. The Bible shows a clear distinction between sin and Satan. Sin is revealed as the attitude or acts of disobedience and disloyalty to God and His Word (Romans 3:20; 4:15; 7:7-25, esp. 15-16). While sin is sometimes personified in Scripture, as if it had a will of its own, this can be easily seen to be figurative language. Satan, in contrast, is presented as a particular personal being, the fall angel (2 Corinthians 11:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:5; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8). It is incorrect, therefore, to call sin Satan.

Yet this error leads to a more significant one. Because man became a sinner when he took of the forbidden fruit, Lee infers that he therefore took Satan into himself; his literal flesh then became the abode and embodiment of Satan. Man then became the manifestation of Satan. But again this is contrary to Scripture. It misinterprets Paul's use offlesh as a metaphor for the sinful nature of man, making the "flesh" itself actually evil. But Paul says no such thing of our literal flesh: instead he thinks of it as morally neutral and, because it is a creation of God, generally good. He sees the flesh simply as being under the bondage of sin (Romans 7:17, 18, 24) and therefore subject to corruption (romans 8:18-23). This is what he calls the "natural body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). But flesh itself will become the "spiritual body" when it has been raised from the dead and has put on immortality (Luke 24:39; John 2:19-21; 1 Corinthians 15:44-54; Romans 8:11). The flesh is not evil and is not the manifestation of sin.

This error of believing flesh to be evil leads to another error, still more significant. Lee believes that Satan corrupted all men by becoming one with them, by being incarnated in them. It follows that he must believe that God can only save men by becoming one with them, which is what he wrote: "God . . . seemed to say: 'I will also become incarnated. If Satan wrought himself into man, then let Me enter man and put man upon Myself.'"75 It follows logically from Lee's belief that Satan was incarnated in all men that God will become incarnated in all those who become Christians, and it follows that Lee would teach that the Church itself is God manifest in the flesh, as we saw before.

There are two parallel lines that run through Lee's teaching about God, man, salvation, the Church, sin, and Satan:

First, sin and Satan are one and the same, Satan became incarnate in man at the fall, the flesh of all men is therefore Satan incarnate, the only means of redeeming men is for God to become incarnate in them instead of Satan, God first became incarnate in Christ, and through the Holy Spirit He becomes incarnate in the Church, the Body of Christ.

Second, God created man for the purpose of expressing Himself, man fell, the Father became the Son to be the first man in whom God was incarnate, He died, leaving Satan in the grave, and rose, becoming the Holy Spirit, the Spirit comes into believers, making them the continuation of the incarnation so that the Church is God manifest in the flesh.

All of this is contrary to the Word of God, for it requires that God be changing, contradicting God's nature. It robs Christ of His uniqueness, contrary to John 3:16. It confuses sin with Satan and takes an unbiblical view of the physical body by calling it evil. It confuses saved men with God, contradicting Isaiah 43:10; Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19, and accepts the error proposed to Eve by Satan in Genesis 3:5.

Conclusion

Our conclusion can only be that the teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church are heretical. We urge all Christians everywhere to pray for those in the Local Church and to help them see Lee's errors and return to the true gospel, the true Jesus, the true Spirit, and the pure Word of God, which is the lamp unto our feet. The teachings of the Local Church are false, and false teachings originate with Satan (John 8:44). Such teachings are darkness (Ephesians 6:12), and the Christian must not walk in darkness (1 John 1:5-7). Let us walk in the light as He is in the light (1 John 1:7).

About the Author

E. Calvin Beisner is associate professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary. He spent seven years as a researcher and writer on doctrinal and cult apologetics in the 1970s and early 1980s with the Christian Research Institute under the late Dr. Walter Martin and with CARIS (Christian Apologetics: Research and Information Service, the precursor to the present Answers in Action) in cooperation with cult apologists Bob and Gretchen Passantino. He contributed to Martin's The New Cults and wrote research reports published by CRI. Among his teaching responsibilities at Knox is a course on the theology of the cults. Among his eleven books is his God in Three Persons (Tyndale House, 1984), a study of the early history of the doctrine of the Trinity, and "Jesus Only" Churches (Zondervan, 1998), a refutation of the modalist theology of Oneness Pentecostalism, which is in some respects similar to that of Witness Lee and the Local Church. He earned a B.A. in interdisciplinary studies in religion and philosophy, magna cum laude, in 1978 from the University of Southern California, where his thesis on the early history of the doctrine of the Trinity was awarded highest honors; an M.A. in society with a specialization in economic ethics, magna cum laude, in 1983 from International College; and a Ph.D. in history in 2003 from the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland.

References

1 Witness Lee. The Practical Expression of the Church (Anaheim: Stream, 1974), 92, 111.

2 For more detailed statement and scriptural proof, see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 volumes (Grand R apids: Eerdmans, 1 973), 1:442 ff.

3 Witness Lee, The Economy of God (Los Angeles: Stream, 1968), 10.

4 Witness Lee, "Concerning the Triune God" (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 3 1.

5 Ibid., 8-9.

6 Lee, The Economy of God, 11.

7 Lee, "Concerning the Triune God," 8; brackets added.

8 Ibid., 8.

9 Lee, The Economy of God, 11.

10 Witness Lee, The All-inclusive Spirit of Christ (LosAngeles: Stream, 1969), 4, 6,8.

11 Santa Ana Register, Saturday, October 22, 1 977, D.

I2 Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975), 79: cf. 78-79.

13 Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 45.

14 William Kelly, "Sabellianism," in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, edited by Everett F. Harrison (GrandRapids: Baker, 1975),465.

15 Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1976), 327.

16 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 volumes (USA: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.), 2:262.

17 Lee, The Economy of God, 1 0.

18 Lee, 「Concerning the Triune God」 8

19 Lee, The Economy of God, 11

20 Lee, 「Concerning the Triune God」 11

21 -26 Ibid

27 Lee, "Concerning the Triune God," 11.

28 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:260.

29 William Nigel Kerr, "Patripassianism," inBaker's Dictionary of Theology, 396-7.

30 Shaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:260.

31 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 volumes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 197 7), 2:1 77.

32 Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 79.

33 William Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans, and ed. S. P. Tregelles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 974), 28-29.

34 W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of Cod (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 129.

35 Lee, The Economy of God, 199.

36 Wintnes Lee, "Life-Study in Matthew, Message One" (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 3.

37 Witness Lee, The All-inclusive Christ (Los Angeles: Stream, 1969), 103.

38 Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church, 43.

39 Witness Lee, The God of Resurrection (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 4.

40 Lee, The God of Resurrection, 12.

41 Lee, The Economy of God, 206-7. Note that while Lee here speaks of "three Persons" in God, this does not excuse him from the charge of modalism. It merely makes clear that he must redefine the word person so that it bears little resemblance to the true meaning of the word. Berkhof (History of Christian Doctrines, 79) wrote that "Sabellius indeed sometimes spoke of three divine persons, but then used the word 'person' in the original sense of the word, in which it signifies a role of acting or a mode of manifestation." It is apparent that Lee has done the same thing.

42 Ibid., 113.

43 Life-Study in Genesis, Message 10, 121-2.

44 "Christ as Life (2 3) Christ's Increase-His Bride," excerpt of Life Study in John (Stream, 1977),on John3:29-30.

45 "A Response to False Teachings," Santa Ana Register, date unknown.

46 Bill Freeman, The Testimony of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Mingling of God with Man (Anaheim: Stream, 1 977), 5.

47 John C Ingalls, "The Truth Concerning God manifest in the Flesh," in "The Response of Witness Lee and Local Church To a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland」 Santa Ana Register, October 8, 1977.

48 J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Wheaton: Evangel, 1974), 345.

49 Witness Lee, Stream Magazine 8:1 (February 1,1970), 6.

50 Note that Lee never uses the phrase local church in a general sense as denoting any local congregation of Christians; rather, in his use it always denotes specifically the one local congregation of believers who follow his teachings.

51 Witness Lee, Finding Christ By the Living Star (Los Angeles: Stream, 1970), 27-28.

52 Witness Lee, The Vision of the Church (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 9.

53 Witness Lee, Satan's Strategy Against the Church (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 6, 8.

54 Witness Lee, The Recovery Version of Revelation (Anaheim: Stream, 1976), 17.

55 Witness Lee, The Churches (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 12.

56 Stream, vol. 4, no. 4.

57 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:93.

58 It is interesting that those in the Local Church do not consider the Local Church a denomination. A denomination is simply a group (usually religious) with a name. This description fits the Local Church.

59 Lee, The Economy of God, 23.

60 Ibid, 24

6l Witness Lee, Christ vs. Religion (Los Angeles: Stream, 1971), 14-15.

62 Stream Magazine 8:1 (February 1, 1970), 5.

63 Witness Lee, A Time with the Lord (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 10, 11.

64 Witness Lee, Pray-Reading the Word (Los Angeles: Stream, n.d.), 8-10

65 Lee, The Vision of the Church, 10-11.

66 Lee, Christ vs. Religion, 13.

67 Lee, The Economy of God, 108.

68-75 Ibid, 106-112

The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church

目次

引言

地方召會的教導以及經文的對照

神的本質(Nature)

順序形態論（Successive Modalism)

靜態形態論（Static Modalism）

道成肉身的延伸：教會作為神在肉身的顯現（The Extension of the Incarnation: The Church as God Manifest in the Flesh）

救贖的道路（The Way of Salvation）

教會：地方化信仰（The Church: The Belief in Localism）

地方化

地方召會的聖經和推理（The Bible and Reason in the Local Church）

地方召會關於罪和撒但的信仰(Local Church Belief About Sin and Satan)

神和撒但平行的成了肉身(Parallel Incarnations of God and Satan)

結論

關於作者

參考

The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church 英文全文

Introduction

The Teachings of the Local Church Compared with Scripture

The Nature of God

The Way of Salvation

The Church: The Belief in Localism

The Bible and Reason in the Local Church

The Local Church Belief About Sin and Satan

Conclusion

About the Author

References

導覽菜單

The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church

引言

地方召會的教導以及經文的對照

神的本質(Nature)

順序形態論（Successive Modalism)

靜態形態論（Static Modalism）

道成肉身的延伸：教會作為神在肉身的顯現（The Extension of the Incarnation: The Church as God Manifest in the Flesh）

救贖的道路（The Way of Salvation）

教會：地方化信仰（The Church: The Belief in Localism）

地方化

地方召會的聖經和推理（The Bible and Reason in the Local Church）

地方召會關於罪和撒但的信仰(Local Church Belief About Sin and Satan)

神和撒但平行的成了肉身(Parallel Incarnations of God and Satan)

結論

關於作者

參考

The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church 英文全文

Introduction

The Teachings of the Local Church Compared with Scripture

The Nature of God

The Way of Salvation

The Church: The Belief in Localism

The Bible and Reason in the Local Church

The Local Church Belief About Sin and Satan

Conclusion

About the Author

References

導覽菜單

搜尋