"Processed Triune God"

[bettercountry]

I know there have been numerous discussions over the past several decades concerning WL's interpretation of the Trinity versus orthodox views. But no matter how the local church spins it, WL's teaching of the Godhead seems to teeter dangerously close to "modalism". Modalism, of course, is the unbiblical view that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are essentially 3 stages (or modes) of God. Whereas, the orthodox/biblical view is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 distinct Persons, who "coexist" simultaneously and are one with each other. So, the one God exists in three Persons.

So....for those in the LC that continue to use the phrase "Processed Triune God"....how is that not modalism?

Please help me understand this concept of "Processed Triune God" in layman's terms (please do not regurgitate WL writings).

[Ohio]

Do you really think anyone here would actually take the risk of explaining WL teachings? lol

[UntoHim]

Please help me understand this concept of "Processed Triune God" in layman's terms (please do not regurgitate WL writings).
Not sure how one could talk about such an extremely deep and profound theological concept without the use of relatively deep and profound theological words and terms. If by "layman's terms" you mean the use of non-theological, secular words and concepts, I don't think this will allow you, or anyone for that matter, to get a good understanding of Witness Lee's teachings.

But here goes....and this is going to sound familiar....
The orthodox/biblical view is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 distinct Persons, who "coexist" simultaneously and are one with each other. So, the one God exists in three Persons.
Excellent! The only slight addition I would give is the use of the "Being" - The orthodox/Biblical view is that the Father, Son and Spirit are One Eternal Being who coexist in Three distinct Eternal Persons.

WL's teaching of the Godhead seems to teeter dangerously close to "modalism". Modalism, of course, is the unbiblical view that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are essentially 3 stages (or modes) of God.
Excellent! You've got it! Most legitimate, orthodox teachers, scholars and apologists who have looked at Lee's teachings over the past 50+ years consider them to be some form of modalism. There are several different types of modalism, but for our purposes here you have hit the nail right on the head.

So....for those in the LC that continue to use the phrase "Processed Triune God"....how is that not modalism?
This one is simple - it's called self delusion. It's called self deception.

If you want to discuss Lee's modalism in a more detailed way, please let me know and I'd be glad to oblige. The only thing I would ask is that those who participate do so respectfully and in good faith.:)
-

[Zezima]

I know there have been numerous discussions over the past several decades concerning WL's interpretation of the Trinity versus orthodox views. But no matter how the local church spins it, WL's teaching of the Godhead seems to teeter dangerously close to "modalism". Modalism, of course, is the unbiblical view that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are essentially 3 stages (or modes) of God. Whereas, the orthodox/biblical view is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 distinct Persons, who "coexist" simultaneously and are one with each other. So, the one God exists in three Persons.

So....for those in the LC that continue to use the phrase "Processed Triune God"....how is that not modalism?

Please help me understand this concept of "Processed Triune God" in layman's terms (please do not regurgitate WL writings).


Before you eat a water melon, you need to cut it open, then you need to cut it into bite size pieces.

Well God is the water melon, and the process of incarceration, death, and resurrection are the cutting of the watermelon.

You see, the Recovery thinks that the Tree Of life contained God & humans failed in eating it. So through the “process” above, God once again made himself available to be “eaten”.

If God didn’t get processed, humans would never be able to partake of God.

[bettercountry]

If you want to discuss Lee's modalism in a more detailed way, please let me know and I'd be glad to oblige. The only thing I would ask is that those who participate do so respectfully and in good faith.:)
-

Thanks for the input. I have mainly two reasons I raised this topic.

#1 - To those that were or are still in the LC, what does the concept "Processed Triune God" mean to you in your own words? I am very curious to hear anyone's personal take on this "Processed Triune God" term.

#2 - Although I completely disagree with modalism, how dangerous is it to hold a modalistic view of God? Could this be even of salvific consequence? And if so, why or why not?

Obviously, none of us mere humans can come even close to understanding the triune nature of God. But, I'm wondering what exactly makes modalism dangerous? Again, I personally do NOT agree with modalism, but I'd like to be further enlightened about the inherent dangers of this belief.

Many passages of Scripture clearly show that God coexists eternally (without beginning & without end) in 3 Persons. So, I'm not asking for biblical proof to refute the concept of modalism. I'm already clear on that. What I'd like to further understand is why holding onto a modalistic view....and as a result....why the teaching of the "Processed Triune God" is so dangerous, esp from a salvific perspective.

Here's just one of many questions I would ask someone who believes in modalism -- "how would you explain where God was in the 3 days after Jesus' crucifixion and before His resurrection?"

[bettercountry]

Before you east a water melon, you need to cut it open, then you need to cut it into bite size pieces.

Well God is the water melon, and the process of incarceration, death, and resurrection are the cutting of the watermelon.

You see, the Recovery thinks that the Tree Of life contained God & humans failed in eating it. So through the “process” above, God once again made himself available to be “eaten”.

If God didn’t get processed, humans would never be able to partake of God.


Thank you, Zezima, for your response. But, wait, what you stated is the principal of "substitutionary atonement", or "justification", "reconciliation", no?

How would you explain how salvation came to those prior to Jesus' earthly ministry and death?

[Zezima]

Thank you, Zezima, for your response. But, wait, what you stated is the principal of "substitutionary atonement", or "justification", "reconciliation", no?

How would you explain how salvation came to those prior to Jesus' earthly ministry and death?


What I stated was how the Lords Recovery or what the Lords recovery means when they say “processed”. They think that unless God went through those steps, then man could never “receive” the dispensing.

See, if the watermelon is never sliced up, then it can’t be served at a picnic.

I’m not sure how the recovery explains salvation BEFORE Jesus. However the Bible is very clear, that it was by faith. We today place our faith in a past event, they (those before Jesus) placed their faith in a future event.

[bettercountry]

I’m not sure how the recovery explains salvation BEFORE Jesus. However the Bible is very clear, that it was by faith. We today place our faith in a past event, they (those before Jesus) placed their faith in a future event.

Agree completely, 100%....as stated clearly in Hebrews.

I wonder how those still in the LC think about this. Why is it the teaching of the processed Triune God such a great thing and a tremendous insight in their eyes? And what does it mean to them exactly? Or maybe they don't really think about it, and just continue to mindlessly parrot WL's teachings. What a tragedy that would be.

[Ohio]

.
#2 - Although I completely disagree with modalism, how dangerous is it to hold a modalistic view of God? Could this be even of salvific consequence? And if so, why or why not?

I have never seen anyone explain what horrible dangers were involved from WL’s theology, or brand of modified moralism. It’s not like he has denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.

I was there 30 years, and have always felt that WL’s theology of God was perhaps the least of his problems. The basis of his teachings on this subject were to distinguish his ministry from the rest of the body of Christ. He would create false standards which were used to condemn all others. The root issue was pride.

[Ohio]

Agree completely, 100%....as stated clearly in Hebrews.

I wonder how those still in the LC think about this. Why is it the teaching of the processed Triune God such a great thing and a tremendous insight in their eyes? And what does it mean to them exactly? Or maybe they don't really think about it, and just continue to mindlessly parrot WL's teachings. What a tragedy that would be.

They are convinced that only they “eat Jesus,” hence the “edible” processed Triune God. Based on John 6.57, by eating Jesus only they are living by Him.

[bettercountry]

I have never seen anyone explain what horrible dangers were involved from WL’s theology, or brand of modified modalism. It’s not like he has denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.

I tend to agree. I've listened to Walter Martin's lecture from the 70s concerning modalism as it pertains to WL's teachings...and have also read various books/articles....but I have not seen anyone explain clearly the dangers of modalism.


I was there 30 years, and have always felt that WL’s theology of God was perhaps the least of his problems. The basis of his teachings on this subject were to distinguish his ministry from the rest of the body of Christ. He would create false standards which were used to condemn all others. The root issue was pride.

Very interesting and insightful perspective. In my time there (until the late 80s), I don't think I read/heard any blatant heretical teachings. Of course, the stuff about man becoming God (in the 90s)....that was a different story. But, I had left before then. Agree that the root of the problem that eventually destroyed the blessing in the LC (IMO) was pride.

They are convinced that only they “eat Jesus,” hence the “edible” processed Triune God. Based on John 6.57, by eating Jesus only they are living by Him.

So, if the term "processed" was used to simply emphasize "eating Christ", I don't think in this aspect I would have a big problem with this. Perhaps it was a bad use of the English language, rather than modalism? But, in some writings from WL, I've seen him use the "processed" term to essentially explain the way humans also can become divine/deified. Either I don't follow what he's trying to say, or this is where the "processed" teaching becomes harmful.

[Trapped]

I tend to agree. I've listened to Walter Martin's lecture from the 70s concerning modalism as it pertains to WL's teachings...and have also read various books/articles....but I have not seen anyone explain clearly the dangers of modalism.

It's interesting, there is a lengthy debate online somewhere of Walter Martin and Cal Beisner going head to head with some, I think, United Pentecostals who would be considered "modalists", and in watching it, I realized one side is affirming God is one person, and the other side was affirming God is not one person, but is one BEING, three persons.

"God is one person" versus "God is one being". Both sides calling the other heretics.

As far as I can tell, the primary danger of modalism is that a person would have to ignore portions of the Bible that contradict it. In that debate, the UPC guys had no response when they were pressed on the scene in Jesus' baptism which clearly shows the Father, Son, and Spirit all at the same time, no modes about it. And so obviously a willingness to simply wipe aside portions of Scripture sets a problematic precedent.

So, if the term "processed" was used to simply emphasize "eating Christ", I don't think in this aspect I would have a big problem with this. Perhaps it was a bad use of the English language, rather than modalism? But, in some writings from WL, I've seen him use the "processed" term to essentially explain the way humans also can become divine/deified. Either I don't follow what he's trying to say, or this is where the "processed" teaching becomes harmful.

If I remember, correctly, there has been a discussion about "processed" on this forum in the past. My personal issue with the word is that is depersonalizes God into something that resembles a deli ham on a conveyor belt.

Personal beings "go through a process", sure. But it's extremely strange to say any kind of living personal being "was processed". It's too mechanical and depersonalized. I can't give Lee any passes on his misuse of the English language given that he had a circle of co-workers around him who should have been able to speak up about the problem. If they didn't feel comfortable to say something, that's a problem of their and Lee's making. It's not on everyone else to parse and wade through what Lee "really" meant.

[bettercountry]

Appreciate the input, Trapped. The essence of what you said reminded me of some verses.

Malachi 3:6a - "For I the Lord do not change."

Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."


How does the doctrine of "processed" align with these portions of Scripture?

[Unregistered]

The biggest issue with the “Processed Triune God” invention, is that the newly created “description” of God or who He is, becomes the ultimate “prescription” for everyone to follow. You take Bible out of context to create a system, in which the so-called “processed, consummated, all inclusive cook god, or some mixture of lemons and water”, become the cookie cutter “reproduction”.

God is not processed or changed, or even altered in any shape or form since eternity past. It’s all goes back to the presupposition of the Local church inventors: God had to go through the “process” of making Himself a man, so that we will go through the same “process” to become god and become the same. If you believe this theology, then you must believe the processed god, otherwise you are just a human being, in need of God, and depend on Him as your Lord and Savior, Mediator, rather that becoming god in life and nature.

I would also suggest this article “Why Modalism is Dangerous”, with link below. It actually addresses some things that have been asked and brought up in this thread.

https://www.krissinclair.com/the-danger-of-modalism/

In order to understand Lee, you need to understand Nee. In order to understand Nee, you need to understand the Quaker beliefs and practices that date back to 1800’s, and also study the mentors of Nee and how he became who he was. If you don’t know anything about Quakers, I’ll add this link below. You should probably never read the LSM “history” of Nee, as actually true, but find other research to see for yourself the teachers and the influencers of all of his work. I think the Local Church has continually modified their versions of the way things ought to be, since Nee, then Lee, and now the blenders. It’s the same system, but I think that the current blended bros, are no longer recovering anything but use rules and system written by Lee as a spiritual Pope of the Recovery for now, and for forever.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3H08cyXVYDw

[Trapped]

Appreciate the input, Trapped. The essence of what you said reminded me of some verses.

Malachi 3:6a - "For I the Lord do not change."

Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

How does the doctrine of "processed" align with these portions of Scripture?

Well, I think context is the important thing in each of those cases. Even for Christians who don't hold to a "processed Triune God" but simply to a "regular, orthodox Triune God", there is still the question of squaring up an "unchanging God" with a God who in the Bible does change in various ways.

The question is just: in what context do those verses mean God does not change or Jesus Christ is the same yesterday/today/forever?

After all, Jesus Christ DID change - He took on human flesh. And then He died. And then He was raised with a spiritual body. All those are undeniable changes.

Does that make Hebrews 13:8 a lie? Wrong? No - it's just speaking of a specific way in which Jesus Christ is the same. If we pan out even just a little to include the immediate surrounding verses, the context in Hebrews 13 is in remembering the word of God that the teachers spoke and not being swept away by strange/new teachings.

Heb. 13:7-9
7 Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by foods of no value to those devoted to them.

As far as I can tell, and others can correct me if I'm reading it wrong, but the context seems to be like "that which you have already heard about Jesus Christ, hold to it, it won't change. If you hear a new teaching, it doesn't mean Jesus changed, and there is something new. That's not going to happen". It doesn't mean Jesus is an unchanging statue.

Similarly, Malachi 3 seems to be an assurance that what God has promised regarding punishment or mercy won't change. It doesn't mean God is a static, unmovable rock that doesn't move or twitch or speak or change in any way. After all, prior to Jesus' baptism, God wasn't speaking, and right after Jesus' baptism, God spoke. That's a "change" from not speaking to speaking. So we just need to look at the context of what "doesn't change" means so we don't apply it wholesale to all situations where it isn't intended to apply.

[bettercountry]

The biggest issue with the “Processed Triune God” invention, is that the newly created “description” of God or who He is, becomes the ultimate “prescription” for everyone to follow. You take Bible out of context to create a system, in which the so-called “processed, consummated, all inclusive cook god, or some mixture of lemons and water”, become the cookie cutter “reproduction”.

God is not processed or changed, or even altered in any shape or form since eternity past. It’s all goes back to the presupposition of the Local church inventors: God had to go through the “process” of making Himself a man, so that we will go through the same “process” to become god and become the same. If you believe this theology, then you must believe the processed god, otherwise you are just a human being, in need of God, and depend on Him as your Lord and Savior, Mediator, rather that becoming god in life and nature.

I would also suggest this article “Why Modalism is Dangerous”, with link below. It actually addresses some things that have been asked and brought up in this thread.

https://www.krissinclair.com/the-danger-of-modalism/

In order to understand Lee, you need to understand Nee. In order to understand Nee, you need to understand the Quaker beliefs and practices that date back to 1800’s, and also study the mentors of Nee and how he became who he was. If you don’t know anything about Quakers, I’ll add this link below. You should probably never read the LSM “history” of Nee, as actually true, but find other research to see for yourself the teachers and the influencers of all of his work. I think the Local Church has continually modified their versions of the way things ought to be, since Nee, then Lee, and now the blenders. It’s the same system, but I think that the current blended bros, are no longer recovering anything but use rules and system written by Lee as a spiritual Pope of the Recovery for now, and for forever.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3H08cyXVYDw


Thank you so much for the links and the input. Very much agree with everything you said, esp that God has never changed. He is the same from eternity past to eternity future. He has not evolved over time.

And I agree that one of the main dangers of holding onto the LC's teaching of a processed God....is that the doctrine of glorification means not simply that one day "we shall be like Him" (1 John 3:2)....but that we will be deified.

However, having said this, I think the majority of Christianity at large today does a poor job on teaching about the wonderful truth of the power of transformation and the importance of sanctification. The LC might not have it right concerning "processed" or even concerning their belief of "overcoming"...but at the root of these teachings is a desire (at least on the surface) to deny the flesh or to take the cross and to aspire towards increasing maturity.

Anyway, I appreciate the link to the article. I concur with the writer that the understanding of "atonement" becomes completely strange and muddled if you hold onto a processed/modalistic view. At the very least, the ability to accurately present the heart of the gospel to others is seriously hampered.

Everyone's comments are definitely providing solid clarity to the random thoughts I have accumulated on this subject over the years.

[bettercountry]

Well, I think context is the important thing in each of those cases. Even for Christians who don't hold to a "processed Triune God" but simply to a "regular, orthodox Triune God", there is still the question of squaring up an "unchanging God" with a God who in the Bible does change in various ways.

The question is just: in what context do those verses mean God does not change or Jesus Christ is the same yesterday/today/forever?

After all, Jesus Christ DID change - He took on human flesh. And then He died. And then He was raised with a spiritual body. All those are undeniable changes.

Does that make Hebrews 13:8 a lie? Wrong? No - it's just speaking of a specific way in which Jesus Christ is the same. If we pan out even just a little to include the immediate surrounding verses, the context in Hebrews 13 is in remembering the word of God that the teachers spoke and not being swept away by strange/new teachings.

Heb. 13:7-9
7 Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by foods of no value to those devoted to them.

As far as I can tell, and others can correct me if I'm reading it wrong, but the context seems to be like "that which you have already heard about Jesus Christ, hold to it, it won't change. If you hear a new teaching, it doesn't mean Jesus changed, and there is something new. That's not going to happen". It doesn't mean Jesus is an unchanging statue.

Similarly, Malachi 3 seems to be an assurance that what God has promised regarding punishment or mercy won't change. It doesn't mean God is a static, unmovable rock that doesn't move or twitch or speak or change in any way. After all, prior to Jesus' baptism, God wasn't speaking, and right after Jesus' baptism, God spoke. That's a "change" from not speaking to speaking. So we just need to look at the context of what "doesn't change" means so we don't apply it wholesale to all situations where it isn't intended to apply.


Right...in other words, without the work of Christ -- incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection -- He would not have been able to say "it is finished". Now, the veil has been torn down and fellowship with God the Father has been restored. This is atonement, redemption, reconcilation, justification.

I think we both agree that I don't see how any of this needs to be construed as "processed".

[Ohio]

As far as I can tell, the primary danger of modalism is that a person would have to ignore portions of the Bible that contradict it. In that debate, the UPC guys had no response when they were pressed on the scene in Jesus' baptism which clearly shows the Father, Son, and Spirit all at the same time, no modes about it. And so obviously a willingness to simply wipe aside portions of Scripture sets a problematic precedent.

Yes, and WL never denied that the Father, Son, and Spirit all existed at the same time. That’s why I called his teaching “modified modalism.” He used Isa 9.6 to say the Son is the Father, and I Cor 15.45 and 2 Cor 3.17 to say the Son is the Spirit. So he never was a true modalist, yet he took too many liberties in equating the three of the Godhead.

[Ohio]

Appreciate the input, Trapped. The essence of what you said reminded me of some verses.

Malachi 3:6a - "For I the Lord do not change."

Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."


How does the doctrine of "processed" align with these portions of Scripture?
I had problems with these verses, unless I considered His goals, His love, His plans, etc. Surely when Jesus was born, died and resurrected, He went thru some changes, eh?

[FaithHopeLove]

Berean Standard Bible (https://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/1.htm)
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.”

https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm

From what I believe to understand, God is an entity. There is God the Father who is the Creator, God in the Son who is Yeshua Hamaschiach the Messiah, and God in the Holy Spirit and God in His Word. These 4 are all part of God's entity so when we refer to God, we should be specific as in to which part of Him we are referring to. The Word of God is alive and living. So, we know even the Word of God is part of God Himself.

Why is God referred to as a He and not a she? I believe when referring to the whole entity of GOD, GOD is referred to as a He because GOD is the HEAD, not humans. God's church is referred to as the counterpart, who are the people of GOD who needs GOD as their HEAD so it really reflects the husband and wife aspect of that. I believe the scripture says that God is a spirit so there is no gender like humans.

Even after we die and resurrect with God, our bodies transform and we are no longer in this flesh divided by gender.

So when GOD says LET US make man in OUR image, isn't it clear that they are in a meeting and conversing with one another? Do we have then, 4 GODS? The Father, the Son, the Spirit and the Word? This is something people ask me too. Well, we may have 4 " persons " but they all have the same life inside. The life of God that rules over well, as far as I believe, Earth. God's not created, so where does God come from?

This, I honestly, don't know. If anyone has answers, please do share.

[Nell]

Berean Standard Bible (https://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/1.htm)
...

This, I honestly, don't know. If anyone has answers, please do share.
Truth be told, we don't know any more than you do. :stunned: Our experience is in deconstructing the Local Church of Witness Lee.

Of course, we have opinions and interpretations of other theology stuff, too. Some of it might even be scripturally founded and "correct". But the best answer to your questions above the same as you ... "I don't know." :(

My suggestion is that you "ask Him," then ask Him again, and again. He will answer you or not. He might just get tired of you buggin' Him and answer your question/s. He might tell you "ask another question."

IMHO part of having faith is to ask Him, then wait until He answers. "Answers" from anyone but Him are based in speculation and personal interpretation. Any answer you can get from all of us mortals, should be prefaced with "I think".

John 4:23-25
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman said unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

We mortals don't have all the answers...yet. What we do have is "faith".

I'll ask you a question: Which is better...an answer from ME or an answer from HIM? (Choose "Him"). That even sounds better. If we are willing to ask Him, then wait on Him for an answer, we grow in faith. He answers us (or not) in his own time. Which is better: to know Him or know things about Him. So this is my answer in two words: Ask Him.

Your post is really full of deep stuff. He might ask you "Why do you want to know?" Then you have to think about it and answer HIS question/s. So talk to Him. Every day. Talk to Him. Tell Him what you think. The more you get to know Him, you'll get answers from Him.

In this life, I think the first thing we need to learn from Him is "patience". :scratchhead:

Welcome to the forum! :)

Nell

[bettercountry]

Below is a snippet from the site (https://agodman.com/the-triune-god-went-through-a-process-economically-and-became-the-spirit-john-739/) that looks to be a good summary of what the LC believes:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), and with Him there is no change (Mal. 3:6; Num. 23:19). However, in the Gospel of John 1:14, we see that the Word – who was with God and who was God – became flesh. In His essence, God cannot change and will not change – He is perfect, complete, and without any need to change. Economically though, when it comes to His economy and the accomplishment of His plan, God became a man through incarnation (John 1:14) and then He as the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, the Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b; John 7:39). The Triune God passed through a process to become the consummated Spirit, which the Apostle John calls, “the Spirit” (John 7:38-39) who was not yet before the Lord’s resurrection. The Spirit is the crystallization of the Triune God, the consummation of all that God has passed through in Jesus Christ."

"The Spirit is not merely the third of the Divine Trinity – the Spirit is the entire Triune God who passed through the process of incarnation, human living, crucifixion, and resurrection to become the Spirit! The fact that God went through a process economically doesn’t mean that God somehow is incomplete or imperfect. God is eternally complete and perfect in His essence. But the Bible shows us clearly that, economically speaking, our God took some steps and passed through a long process when He became a man, and the consummation of this process is that He became the Spirit."


Is this sound doctrine? Why or why not?

[Trapped]

bettercountry,

There is a lengthy and interesting thread on this forum titled "Lee's Trinity". The discussion included two current/active members of the local church, usernames Drake and Evangelical.

It touched upon the processed stuff a little, but it also just shows the lengths to which their own beliefs are simply incoherent. It might be an interesting (or maybe frustrating) read.....

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=5765

Trapped

[Trapped]

Below is a snippet from the site (https://agodman.com/the-triune-god-went-through-a-process-economically-and-became-the-spirit-john-739/) that looks to be a good summary of what the LC believes:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), and with Him there is no change (Mal. 3:6; Num. 23:19). However, in the Gospel of John 1:14, we see that the Word – who was with God and who was God – became flesh. In His essence, God cannot change and will not change – He is perfect, complete, and without any need to change. Economically though, when it comes to His economy and the accomplishment of His plan, God became a man through incarnation (John 1:14) and then He as the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, the Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b; John 7:39). The Triune God passed through a process to become the consummated Spirit, which the Apostle John calls, “the Spirit” (John 7:38-39) who was not yet before the Lord’s resurrection. The Spirit is the crystallization of the Triune God, the consummation of all that God has passed through in Jesus Christ."

"The Spirit is not merely the third of the Divine Trinity – the Spirit is the entire Triune God who passed through the process of incarnation, human living, crucifixion, and resurrection to become the Spirit! The fact that God went through a process economically doesn’t mean that God somehow is incomplete or imperfect. God is eternally complete and perfect in His essence. But the Bible shows us clearly that, economically speaking, our God took some steps and passed through a long process when He became a man, and the consummation of this process is that He became the Spirit."


Is this sound doctrine? Why or why not?

It's not sound doctrine. I don't have as much time to get into the details as I'd like, but one really basic flaw in Lee's ministry as well as in this snippet is the assumption that there is only one divine "pneuma" (spirit) that exists in the universe, and that any time a reference to some kind of divine spirit is made, it MUST MEAN the Holy Spirit ONLY. (Even though he suddenly has no problem with there being the seven Spirits in Revelation.....go figure).

But context shows that's not the case. The Bible speaks of both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. It also speaks of Jesus becoming a life-giving Spirit, and the context is obvious that "Spirit" in that chapter means more along the lines of "spiritual body" since it's speaking about what kind of body the dead will be resurrected with, etc...

Lee accused Christians of basically believing in three Gods, and so he compensated for it by pushing far in the opposite direction, identifying Father/Son/Spirit so extremely closely that he jumped into the modalist swimming pool all while claiming he wasn't wet. As your snippet shows, he identified them so closely that even though the Bible says God sent His Son, and that it was the Son who died on the cross and the Son who was resurrected, Lee (and those who follow him) essentially act as if what the Bible really means is the Father also died, the Father also resurrected, etc... claiming an essential oneness so strong that they speak as if whatever one went through, the other went through too, even in situations they would by all rights describe as "in His economy" rather than "in His essence". This is why we get statements like the ones found in the snippet like "The Triune God passed through a process...."

Trapped

[Trapped]

Berean Standard Bible (https://biblehub.com/bsb/genesis/1.htm)
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.”

https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm

From what I believe to understand, God is an entity. There is God the Father who is the Creator, God in the Son who is Yeshua Hamaschiach the Messiah, and God in the Holy Spirit and God in His Word. These 4 are all part of God's entity so when we refer to God, we should be specific as in to which part of Him we are referring to. The Word of God is alive and living. So, we know even the Word of God is part of God Himself.

Why is God referred to as a He and not a she? I believe when referring to the whole entity of GOD, GOD is referred to as a He because GOD is the HEAD, not humans. God's church is referred to as the counterpart, who are the people of GOD who needs GOD as their HEAD so it really reflects the husband and wife aspect of that. I believe the scripture says that God is a spirit so there is no gender like humans.

Even after we die and resurrect with God, our bodies transform and we are no longer in this flesh divided by gender.

So when GOD says LET US make man in OUR image, isn't it clear that they are in a meeting and conversing with one another? Do we have then, 4 GODS? The Father, the Son, the Spirit and the Word? This is something people ask me too. Well, we may have 4 " persons " but they all have the same life inside. The life of God that rules over well, as far as I believe, Earth. God's not created, so where does God come from?

This, I honestly, don't know. If anyone has answers, please do share.

Welcome to the forum, FaithHopeLove!

You make such an interesting observation about the Word being God. I wonder why so many hold to a "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit" view and yet don't add "God the Word" into the mix. Or why it's not "God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Spirit" when John 1 seems to show the Word is the term used prior to incarnation.

Anyway, things to think about.

I think even among Trinitarians, there isn't necessarily agreement on what the "Let US" in Genesis 1:26 is referring to. Since the Bible is clear that the Son was involved at creation, and says that the Son is the image of the invisible God, some believe the "Us" is simply God the Father speaking to His Son....God being the source of creation, and the Son being the agent through which everything was created. In other words, if the Son is the image of God, then explaining the verse as simply the Father saying to the Son "let us make man in our image" isn't dissonant with Scripture because we would be in the image of God and of the One who is Himself already the image of God. There isn't consensus on it, but this verse might not necessarily be a verse pointing to a three-in-one God (or a four-in-one God). It doesn't negate it, but given the rest of what Scripture says about creation, it may not be the "entity" verse it's often been thought of.

I don't think I worded that very well, but.....there you go.

Among Christian apologists, most will say that there must be what is called "an uncaused first cause". In other words, there must be something/someone that is the initial cause of all creation, but that something/someone must itself/himself be uncaused, ever-existing. Some people try to claim that the universe itself is the "uncaused first cause", that it is the universe that is eternal and just always existed, and that nothing caused it. Except if that was true, if the universe simply always existed, then all the stars would have burned out a long, long, long time ago. There has to be a hard beginning for the universe to operate the way it does. And so that (and many other things) point to the existence of something outside the universe that caused the universe....and whatever that thing is, that's what people mean by "God". If someone wants to say "well God must have a cause, or must be created", well, okay, then whatever caused God to exist.....THAT is the thing we actually mean by "God".

The Bible says God alone is immortal. I can't wrap my head around it, but....He's the basis of all our reality. Keeps me up at night occasionally!

Trapped

[Unregistered]

Before you eat a water melon, you need to cut it open, then you need to cut it into bite size pieces.

Well God is the water melon, and the process of incarceration, death, and resurrection are the cutting of the watermelon.

You see, the Recovery thinks that the Tree Of life contained God & humans failed in eating it. So through the “process” above, God once again made himself available to be “eaten”.

If God didn’t get processed, humans would never be able to partake of God.

How beautiful and peaceful it is, to live your life by faith in the LIVING God, and no longer have to eat the watermelon offered up by the Local church, while constantly chocking and spitting out seeds of the “processed god”. Unfortunately this watermelon is a man created entity, made by MOTA, or the “Oracle”.

[FaithHopeLove]

Truth be told, we don't know any more than you do. :stunned: Our experience is in deconstructing the Local Church of Witness Lee.

Of course, we have opinions and interpretations of other theology stuff, too. Some of it might even be scripturally founded and "correct". But the best answer to your questions above the same as you ... "I don't know." :(

My suggestion is that you "ask Him," then ask Him again, and again. He will answer you or not. He might just get tired of you buggin' Him and answer your question/s. He might tell you "ask another question."

IMHO part of having faith is to ask Him, then wait until He answers. "Answers" from anyone but Him are based in speculation and personal interpretation. Any answer you can get from all of us mortals, should be prefaced with "I think".

John 4:23-25
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman said unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

We mortals don't have all the answers...yet. What we do have is "faith".

I'll ask you a question: Which is better...an answer from ME or an answer from HIM? (Choose "Him"). That even sounds better. If we are willing to ask Him, then wait on Him for an answer, we grow in faith. He answers us (or not) in his own time. Which is better: to know Him or know things about Him. So this is my answer in two words: Ask Him.

Your post is really full of deep stuff. He might ask you "Why do you want to know?" Then you have to think about it and answer HIS question/s. So talk to Him. Every day. Talk to Him. Tell Him what you think. The more you get to know Him, you'll get answers from Him.

In this life, I think the first thing we need to learn from Him is "patience". :scratchhead:

Welcome to the forum! :)

Nell

Thank you, brother Nell.

Well, at this point in time, definitely knowing God is more important because this is the whole point isn't it?

We can't be feeding off what we can seemingly know about God from someone else and not be knowing who God really is in our personal lives. I count on Him, talking to Him, and His Word but I'm not alone in that because His Son is interceding for me, and His Spirit convicts others to pray for me, especially when I'm being far from God. He also sends His angels to work. I believe this is how His Kingdom works, to an extent.

That's where this LR movement, which may have (unsure) started out with good intentions, derailed into its own self-defeating purpose. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they wanted to make it so clear and easy for people to get the Lord so they've essentially kind of put God under a microscope and broke it down for everyone to process that knowledge that they've gotten. The thing is that, they say, it's their way or the highway, essentially. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work that way. By doing so, they've essentially cut your personal relationship with God and everything you want to know about God has to be from them. Is this fair? Is this what God wanted us to be like? This is really painful and the answer is no. You cannot separate God from His own people, and put a man in a kind of totalitarian charge over that people. Sure, you can teach, you can shepherd, you can share, but who is the guide? It is the HOLY SPIRIT. You have to let God's own holy spirit guide people into God's own truth. Check verse here. https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%2016%3A13

First of all, I do not think their doctrines/interpretations/studies are accurate as with their beliefs of " processed Triune God " and " god men " and " shouting the name of God loudly ".

Processed Triune God - an item of the LR. If they mean that The Father processed Himself to come to earth incarnated (becoming in human flesh form) to be the Son (Jesus), and then processed the Son to die and resurrect to become the Spirit, or rather, what they term as the " life - giving " spirit, so that the spirit can get into our spirit to make it easier for humans to contact God, then I do not think it is accurate to what the bible is saying.

Jesus came to fulfill His Messianic role and to die for our sins as God's own blameless sacrifice for all humans' forgiveness as in John 3:16. SIMPLE AS THAT. Problem is, they call this birth - death - resurrection - as part of a process! It gets complicated when you start naming things in the bible according to your own terminologies. That's where you get all these ideologies. You think they simplify the meaning of the bible but in fact, it just makes everything complicated and worse, changes the meaning.

OKAY, let's say that was indeed " a process " that GOD had to put HIMSELF through in order to save mankind, again, you have to be specific as in which part of GOD and which part of HIMSELF you are referring to. Otherwise, it becomes like modalism, right?

Obviously, The Father never left His throne in Heaven, and the Son could not be praying to nobody in heaven or to Himself while He was on earth. The Son could also not be risen by Himself for it is the Spirit of God that resurrected Him back to life. So, now, we have God the Father on His throne in heaven, we have God the Son (Yeshua Hamaschiach - Jesus Christ the Messiah) seated on and interceding for us on the Father's right hand in heaven, and we have God the Spirit being sent to the earth to convict the people. Jesus is seated on, but that doesn't mean He is just sitting there forever. I believe Jesus is free to stand and walk wherever He wants to in heaven or hell (the spiritual realm). I do not think Jesus is free to come to earth whenever He wants to because the bible says Jesus will only come back to earth when the Father says it is time to do so.

Therefore, any claims of meeting Jesus on earth now, or that Jesus has returned, are questionable. The bible describes the return of Jesus as an event that all inhabitants of the earth will see in the skies with the clouds. So obviously, it is a tremendous event.

Interestingly, we also know that Jesus, while He was on earth, has the power to raise Lazarus from the dead.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011%3A38-44&version=NIV

So, how can the Son have the power of the holy spirit (as we know it is God's spirit that raises Jesus from the dead). Well, the bible also says that all power has been given unto Jesus. So, Jesus has the power but Jesus is NOT the holy spirit. Jesus is God as in the Son of God, and the holy spirit is God as in the Holy Spirit of God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2028%3A18

And what about God in His Word? Well, I think the Word of God is whatever God means (the message, the meaning, the intent) when He spoke. Is the Word of God (God's message) then Jesus Himself? Actually yes because it clearly says that the Word is alive, the Word has always been with God, the Word was sent in the flesh to earth (Jesus). Jesus also said before Abraham was, He is. The bible says all things were made through Jesus. And how did God the Father created the earth? He spoke. And He spoke the meaning of what He wanted. So, whatever the Father says and means, which is in His Word, is also what Jesus would have said and meant. So, Jesus is also the messenger of God's Word BUT Jesus is not only the messenger, JESUS IS THE MESSAGE OF GOD. It's like telling someone, hey I have given you my word, so it means it will not change, it is my promise to you, it is my covenant with you.

So, when the bible says that only the Father knows when the time is ready for Jesus to return, He will obviously then say His Word (what He intends) to Jesus. Then again, Jesus is the Word as He carries out the Father's message. This I believe is true because Jesus said He doesn't do things out of His own will but He does the will of the Father.

In conclusion, Jesus is NOT just the messenger of the Word of God, but God has said that Jesus IS actually the message of God (the Word of God) Himself, and that the Word of God was God now put in the Son. All the scriptures, which are also God's directed words as in God-breathed, are indeed God directed, men written, (except for the tablets given to Moses that He formed) talking about (or illustrating, or depicting, or referring, or concurring) the message of God, which IS the WORD OF GOD (as in the MESSAGE) is JESUS CHRIST. It's really a lot to take in but yeah, this is what I understand.

In other words, God is like, talking about His Son to us, and then sending His Son to us to tell us, hey I'm what God has been trying to tell you all this time, and I'm also here to make GOD known and accessible to you.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%2014%3A6

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%208%3A11
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%201%3A14
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Colossians%201%3A16
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%201%3A1
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%205%3A30
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%205%3A39

I could be wrong about equating Jesus as being the same thing as the Word of God. I'm also learning.
But here it clearly speaks of someone as the Word of God, which I believe is Jesus. (but again, I am not 100% sure yet.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019&version=KJV

Found this link to consider about it.

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/revelation-19/

God bless.

[Ohio]

Thank you, brother Nell.

God bless.

Nell’s pronouns are she/her/sister

[Nell]

Thanks FaithHopeLove for your thoughtul comments. I love your name!

...more of my thoughts on Lee's teachings.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Regarding the Local Church of Witness Lee, and his teachings, these verses put "things" in perspective for me on who the enemy IS and who the enemy IS NOT.

The Watchman Nee and Witness Lee made a lot of mistakes, but their biggest "mistake" (or their biggest "on purpose") IMHO, was to fight the wrong battle. Their descendants, today's "blendeds", carry on fighting the wrong battle. They accuse, blame and control their brothers and sisters, including name-calling, treating them/us like WE are their enemy. Or, we are a threat to their little ministry kingdom. Further, it's insidious that they used the scriptures, that is, their interpretation of scriptures (i.e. the "Processed Triune God") to browbeat their brothers and sisters. All that said, Nee and Lee are not the enemy. They also were deceived by the serpent.

Where is the proof? Where and when did this begin?

Genesis 3:13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled (deceived) me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The woman confessed her sin, and God cursed the serpent, not the woman. So this is the battle. As prophecied, due to this enmity, the serpent was defeated by the seed of woman, Jesus Christ, on the cross. The serpent did bruise his heel, but, it was a trap! The serpent's sentence/execution has not been carried out yet. Hence the warning verses in Ephesians above.

With all that in mind, I believe that the issue of the "Processed Triune God" should be classified as a "Non-Christian 'spiritual' Teaching" and discussed from that perspective. I think that's what we're doing here on this forum. Even so, the "Ministry" of Lee is not our enemy. The Local Church leadership is not our enemy, though sometimes it sure does seem that way.

Eventually, I believed that surviving the Local Church depended on pleasing the brothers, rather than walking with God. I was deceived. It became, in fact, easier to follow the Lord than to "follow the Elders". So I found the door and walked through it, leaving the "Processed Triune God" and other such manufactured teachings behind.

Nell

[FaithHopeLove]

Nell’s pronouns are she/her/sister


Oh I see, thanks brother/sister Ohio.


God bless

[FaithHopeLove]

Thanks FaithHopeLove for your thoughtul comments. I love your name!

...more of my thoughts on Lee's teachings.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Regarding the Local Church of Witness Lee, and his teachings, these verses put "things" in perspective for me on who the enemy IS and who the enemy IS NOT.

The Watchman Nee and Witness Lee made a lot of mistakes, but their biggest "mistake" (or their biggest "on purpose") IMHO, was to fight the wrong battle. Their descendants, today's "blendeds", carry on fighting the wrong battle. They accuse, blame and control their brothers and sisters, including name-calling, treating them/us like WE are their enemy. Or, we are a threat to their little ministry kingdom. Further, it's insidious that they used the scriptures, that is, their interpretation of scriptures (i.e. the "Processed Triune God") to browbeat their brothers and sisters. All that said, Nee and Lee are not the enemy. They also were deceived by the serpent.

Where is the proof? Where and when did this begin?

Genesis 3:13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled (deceived) me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The woman confessed her sin, and God cursed the serpent, not the woman. So this is the battle. As prophecied, due to this enmity, the serpent was defeated by the seed of woman, Jesus Christ, on the cross. The serpent did bruise his heel, but, it was a trap! The serpent's sentence/execution has not been carried out yet. Hence the warning verses in Ephesians above.

With all that in mind, I believe that the issue of the "Processed Triune God" should be classified as a "Non-Christian 'spiritual' Teaching" and discussed from that perspective. I think that's what we're doing here on this forum. Even so, the "Ministry" of Lee is not our enemy. The Local Church leadership is not our enemy, though sometimes it sure does seem that way.

Eventually, I believed that surviving the Local Church depended on pleasing the brothers, rather than walking with God. I was deceived. It became, in fact, easier to follow the Lord than to "follow the Elders". So I found the door and walked through it, leaving the "Processed Triune God" and other such manufactured teachings behind.

Nell


Yes sister Nell,


I praise and thank our God for letting me know the truth only He can provide. I am glad that I understand first of all I am convicted by His holy spirit to ask Him for help. Many of the instructions of God in the bible are more than crystal clear and so easy to understand, even a child understands. I'm glad the new testament starts with the book of Matthew. May God continue to hold our hands and lead us through our whole lives. May our lives be according to what He has told us. I pray for all of us to know nothing but the truth of our God in Christ Jesus, Amen.

[Ohio]

Oh I see, thanks brother/sister Ohio.


God bless
My pronouns are he/him/brother.

My adjectives are wise and handsome. :lol:

God bless.

[Nell]

My pronouns are he/him/brother.

My adjectives are wise and handsome. :lol:

God bless.

I’d like to buy a verb…