These quotes reflect the Witness Lee that I remember

[UntoHim]

"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"
------------------------------------------
"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"
------------------------------------------
"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"
------------------------------------------
"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?"
------------------------------------------
"The Son who prays is the Father who listens"
------------------------------------------
"The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit"
------------------------------------------
"The Lord Jesus is the Holy Spirit..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Witness Lee vehemently denied that he was a modalist. But as a Christian teacher it is rather irrelevant what you SAY you are - it's what you teach. Maybe in his own heart and mind he convinced himself that he was not a modalist. Again, it does not matter a lick what he said he was. The quotes above are a fair representation of what the man actually taught, and they illustrate very clearly that he taught some form of modalism.

"The Son who prays is the Father who listens."

The Bible is clear. The apostle John (and other gospel writers) who recorded the Son praying to the Father several times was clear. John was never contradicted by the other scripture writing apostles. Neither was he contradicted by the early church fathers, theologians or scholars. The Son who prayed was NOT the Father who listened. Actually, to say this is much closer to blaspheme then it is to healthy, biblical teaching. Witness Lee should have spent less time denying he was a modalist and more time pray-reading this part of the Anthanasian Creed: "neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty."

"The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit"

Witness Lee, at various times, used clearly modalistic terms such as "stages" and "successive steps". For reasons which defy common sense, the man felt no constraint whatsoever in using whatever extra-biblical/unbiblical term popped into his head. As we know, when Lee was challenged about making such absurd declarations, instead of providing solid biblical proof, he would usually employ some diversionary tactic, such as answering a question with a question (a good example is the infamous "how many life-giving Spirits are there!?") Again, the Bible is clear here. The Son is NOT CALLED the Father. The Son NEVER said He was the Father. He was sent by/from the Father, He prayed to the Father, He was one with the Father, He did the Father's will, He finished the work for which the Father sent Him, and He finally ascended to the Father and is now at the right hand of the Father (see Acts 7:55,56 - Rom 8:34 - Eph 1:20 - Col 3:1- Heb 1:3)

"The Lord Jesus is the Holy Spirit"

Sigh :rollingeyesfrown: Then the next thing :banghead: and finally :verysad:
What can we say that has not already been said on these Internet forums and by Christian teachers, scholars and apologists for many years. What part of "confusing the Persons" did Lee and his followers not understand? This, of course, is a rhetorical question coming from some yahoo who believed this for many years. As some have noted on this very forum, wrong teachings beget wrong thoughts about God, and wrong thoughts about God beget all sorts of negative consequences. I really and truly believe that this teaching is not just "wrong" or false, I believe that it grieves the Holy Spirit. May God have mercy on us all
-

[cityonahill]

so true...:thumbup:

there is no circular argument or "context" that will fix these teachings...

It is difficult for me to understand how some can agree with these statements which are obviously modalistic and then affirm the "orthodox" trinity...there is no discussion or reasoning with such people.

[SpeakersCorner]

Hey, UntoHim,

Is that avatar of yours the HIM you're "unto"? Who is that guy, anyway? I've seen him around. He has a very southern European look.


SC


(Just messin' with ya, Unto.)

[UntoHim]

I was waitin to see who would take the bait first.....:gag:

(just messin with ya, Speaker...good to hear from you though)

-

[Ohio]

That "Jesus" looks like a brother I know. :D

-

[cityonahill]

Nice picture Unto Him...

I'm gonna get you a haircut one of these days...

and is that make-up you are wearing?

[UntoHim]

Now THERE is a man with my sense of humor :hurray:

This "version" was hung up in the main hallway by my nominally Christian parents when I was growing up. I think it actually deterred me from being so wild for a number of years.:eek:

What a coincidence that it looks just like the fellow whose image is on the Shroud of Turin :cool:

[Oregon]

So is God like a city council or something....Three distinct persons that somehow make up only one God?

A group of three that we call.....One God ? Is that orthodox christian belief and what the bible teaches?

[UntoHim]

Oregon,

As I see it, there is a LOT of ground in between your rather ridged "God is like a city council" example and Witness Lee's highly unorthodox declarations as noted by Beisner -
"The Son who prays is the Father who listens"
"The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit"
"The Lord Jesus is the Holy Spirit..."

My current understanding is that the orthodox, evangelical view of the Trinity attempts to take into account the entire New Testament (and to a lesser degree the OT) so as to use as much of "the whole council of God" as possible to settle upon the most accurate description, in mere human words, of one of the great mysteries of the universe. (yikes..did I just write that?:eek:) In my opinion many of the early "creeds", confessions of faith and doctrinal papers/statements of the early church fathers and theologians do a very good job of this.

Now the simple fact is that Witness Lee decidedly and intentionally wondered far, far from the orthodox view of the Trinity. The three tidbits I've posted here, which are a fair and accurate representation of what Lee taught on a regular basis, clearly illustrate just how far Lee wondered.

There is a reason why I titled this thread "This is the Witness Lee that I remember". Because these statements reflect the Witness Lee I remember. Of the hundreds and hundreds of Training and conference messages I attended, in person or by video over a period of many years, I can't recall Witness Lee emphasizing the orthodox view of the Trinity. In fact, he often claimed it was his calling to teach something quite different.

I'm glad you brought this up Oregon. This is the reason I have taken a great deal of time to put up the "Systematic Theology" board. If Local Churchers (and ex's too) would take some time to carefully review this exemplary work, I think they can come to a better understanding of what is actually taught and believed by the great majority of orthodox, evangelical and conservative protestant churches and ministries. Now that the Local Church/Living Stream Ministry is seeking acceptance among this large segment of the Body of Christ, I would think that they would try to at least understand what is taught and believed, and maybe even try to fall back from the old extremes and prejudices of the past.
-

[Oregon]

I'm not trying to be rigid.....it's just a simple question. The three "distinct" persons of the Godhead".....they are all seperate individuals....The Father is Not the Son....The Son is Not the Spirit...but they are all three God...and yet in order to avoid tritheism we say we have one God.

How do you deal with the various different verses in scripture that may possibly put this orthodox view in question?.....Is the life giving Spirit in I Corinthians different than the Holy Spirit? Is the Spirit of Christ in Romans different than the Holy Spirit?

How do you reconcile this with Paul's statement to the Ephesians that there is "one Spirit"?


Just questions on this very important matter.....and thanks for posting this.....I've pondered these matters a lot over the years.

[Ohio]

The three "distinct" persons of the Godhead".....they are all separate individuals....The Father is Not the Son....The Son is Not the Spirit...but they are all three God...and yet in order to avoid tritheism we say we have one God.



Oregon, I agree with you on this one. When I consider LC teachings such as "the Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit," I find only spiritual benefit, with no downside. This is contrary to lots of posters, but I'm fine with that. I have never seen the value in these theological disputes. It is not because of this, that I have issues with LSM.

[UntoHim]

I'm not trying to be rigid.....
I'm not saying you're rigid, it's just that the example you gave is rigid. It is easy to get ourselves in trouble when we try to describe or illustrate the Trinity with "earthly" descriptions. This is why, for the most part, I think the early Church fathers and theologians avoided using such physical illustrations and descriptions. And why should they, none of the scripture writing apostles used them.

it's just a simple question. The three "distinct" persons of the Godhead".....they are all seperate individuals....The Father is Not the Son....The Son is Not the Spirit...but they are all three God...and yet in order to avoid tritheism we say we have one God.I have heard it said that God is "three in number but one in substance". This is hard thing for our little minds to wrapped around. I do appreciate what the Anthanasian Creed has to say "neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being". When we say that the Father is the Son or the Son is the Spirit we are indeed confusing the persons. Yet when we say the Father is not the Son we are not dividing the divine being because it is God Himself who has declared that He is three.

Is the Father and Son's "relationship" just like that of an earthly father and son? Apparently not. While the Son said "I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" and "yet not as I will, but as You will" (indicating that the Son has a separate will from the Father) the Son also proclaimed that "I and the Father are one" and then "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" The orthodox view attempts to take in both of these seemingly paradoxical statements, which is how they came up with "neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being". Is this a perfect statement? No. But I think it's about the best we can do on this side of the Eternal Kingdom, where we may get some of these paradoxes "solved" for us.

How do you deal with the various different verses in scripture that may possibly put this orthodox view in question?.....Is the life giving Spirit in I Corinthians different than the Holy Spirit? Is the Spirit of Christ in Romans different than the Holy Spirit? Ah, but this is just it, I don't necessarily have to deal with the various different verses, for the orthodox view (which is largely encapsulated within so many of the early creeds and confessions) has already done this for me. Witness Lee claimed that many of the major Christian teachings needed to be "recovered". But he was wrong. They were never lost. What Lee ended up doing is "recovering" some of the ancient heresies of the first few centuries, albeit he slapped some fancy new names on them.

As far as "the life giving spirit" in I Cor... I will pull an ole Local Church trick on you and answer a question with another question: In the New Testament (or whole Bible for that matter), does the word "spirit" ALWAYS REFER TO THE HOLY SPIRIT? As far as "the Spirit of Christ", well this is no different then "the Spirit of God". Lee claimed that "elements" were "added" to the Holy Spirit and thus He gets "new" names after the resurrection. I don't have the time just now to go into all this, but suffice it to say that the orthodox view does not hold that elements were added to the Spirit after the resurrection or that He got new names. Suffice to say that the Holy Spirit has ALWAYS been life giving.

How do you reconcile this with Paul's statement to the Ephesians that there is "one Spirit"?Don't see how this relates to your previous questions/contentions.

Just questions on this very important matter.....and thanks for posting this.....I've pondered these matters a lot over the years.Me too. Isn't our God wonderful!!
-

[Igzy]

Oregon,

One thing that helps me to appreciate the Three side is to ask myself, how many consciousnesses are there in God, or, even, how many self-consciousnesses are there?

That is, does the Son have a consciousness of Himself that is different than His consciousness of the Father? It would seem, if our concept of divine Persons is in any way related to our everday concept of persons (that is, if it is at all useful), that the answer must be yes.

And if the answer is yes, then what happens to those separate consciousnesses when viewed from the One side? Do they disappear? If you say yes then that sounds very much like modalism. And if they don't disappear, then how can we say God is one Person in the same way He is three Persons, as Lee did?

So saying one Person is the other, in such a direct way, as Lee did, doesn't really work, does it? Which may be why the fathers didn't use such language.

[UntoHim]

...does the Son have a consciousness of Himself that is different than His consciousness of the Father?
So saying one Person is the other, in such a direct way, as Lee did, doesn't really work, does it? Which may be why the fathers didn't use such language.

I think having a separate will is even a stronger indication then consciousness, which is why I brought up this:
"My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." (Matt 26:39)

In Lee’s theology the Lord Jesus should have either said “as I will” or maybe “as we will”. What he said was “yet not as I will”. He had a will but chose not to exercise it, but rather deferred to the will of the Father. To say that “the Son who prays is the Father who listens” denigrates and disrespects this great sacrifice of will by the Son of God. Actually, He was an example to us in this regard (cf: the “Lord’s prayer”… “Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.)

“Saying one person is the other…doesn’t really work, does it?” Again I would go even further and say that, not only does it not work, repeating this kind of thing can do much harm. No, the fathers didn’t use such language and neither should we.
-

[IDon'tKnow]

For my part 2 Corinthians 3:17a "Now the Lord is the Spirit" so I'm guessing that their is at least some grounds to say that Christ is the Spirit. As I see little reason not to believe that the Lord here is Christ and that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

My main problem with Lee's theology at the end was this

... "Now I can get into man's body." However, Satan did not realize that this was a trap. When Satan took the bait, he was trapped. We may use the illustration of a mouse trap. It is difficult to catch a mouse because the mouse always runs away. However, we may use a mouse trap with some bait. ...
Life Study of Romans message 15In the end I just couldn't abide the thought that all the while God was speaking and being friendly to Adam in the garden, Adam was always meant to be satan bait. At the very least hardly seemed transparent so certainly didn't belong in the New Jerusalem.

Personally I think this was a natural outcome of Lee's process theology as quite simply in Lee's theology in order for the Lord to be processed to be eaten by us it was necessary for Christ to die on the cross (I believe he even said that this would be needed even if man had not fallen). Plus in order for the New Jerusalem to be Christ's bride required not only required man's becoming god in life and nature but also Christ becoming man. Anyway I remember getting the impression that none of the ultimate consumation could occur if the fall did not occur first. And in that way you could say that the fall was required for God's Economy.

[Ohio]

"Now I can get into man's body." However, Satan did not realize that this was a trap. When Satan took the bait, he was trapped. We may use the illustration of a mouse trap. It is difficult to catch a mouse because the mouse always runs away. However, we may use a mouse trap with some bait. ... Life Study of Romans message 15 It's interesting that you quote this passage ... reminds me of my very first days in the LC's ... the saints would mention this "mouse trap" analogy at times concerning Satan ... the thought was something like this ... "Now I caught you, you're stuck in man, and you can't get out ... man was just bait in the garden to trap you." All the saints at the time thought this was so neat, but considering the only wise God, today I'm not so sure ...

I believe this analogy misrepresents God's heart of love towards man. God was not waiting for eons to invent some "mouse bait" and "mouse traps" to get His arch enemy. Why God placed the Tree of Knowlege in the garden is just a mystery. Why God would give man a free will, and then immediately test it, is beyond understanding. He is all wise. He knows. But to reduce His eternal plan with man to "mouse bait" is questionable.

Oftentimes, WL seemed to misrepresent Satan also. We were often instructed to preach to the devil like he was some "little fool." But ... in the Bible, neither Jehovah God in the book of Job, nor the Lord Jesus in the wilderness after His baptism, nor Michael the archangel ever treated Lucifer disrespectfully. Respect is just a characteristic of the kingdom of God.

This thought engages a larger discussion, which I have mentioned at times, that LSM leaders never seemed to know who their real "enemy" was. From my earliest days until the passing of WL, the enemy seemed to be those bad guys in "Christianity." LSM was continually developing "bombs" and "weapons" to "get them." During the tenure of the BB's, however, they have begun to embrace many in "Christianity," and the "enemy" has become those from within, such as TC and Tomes in the GLA, Dong in Brazil, et. al. ... and shouldn't I include all of us internet authors including the so-called "man of death."

I do believe LSM should return to the basics ... and start a new study Who is God based on the Bible, Who is Satan based on the Bible, and Who is man based on the Bible.

[Oregon]

I appreciate the matter of the separate consciousness’s and will’s. Those are good points that have been made. The problem I have with this is that eventually what you really have is three Gods…..yet we Christians dare not utter such blasphemy so we have to come up with some sort of mysterious definition of how these three are really only one.

Groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons however just flat out deny the trinity altogether and don’t have a problem with trying to mesh this thing together somehow.

Take for example a few verses in John’s gospel.

John 16:28 “I come forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”

John 8:29 “He that sent me is with me”

John 10:38 “…that the Father is in me, and I in Him.”

OK…..Where is the Father? Is he in heaven while Christ is on earth or is he with Christ while he is on earth or is He in Christ while he is on earth. If the Father that sent Christ is with Him and in Him than why does he say that he leaves the world to go to the Father?

Just some added thoughts for this conversation...

Here’s an additional thought I have had. At what point in time did the disciples make a switch in their understanding concerning God’s composition so to say. I mean you have a monotheistic faith…..Judaism…..that believes in only one God. Then these ones come into contact with Christ and receive the revelation that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Then they receive the baptism of the Spirit at a later point. Now…..what was going on inside of their heads concerning God? Was there only one God as they had previously believed? How did the Son and the Spirit fit into the “one God” view.

Where did this concept of the three in one God come from. I hope you understand my question here.

[OBW]

It's interesting that you quote this passage ... reminds me of my very first days in the LC's ... the saints would mention this "mouse trap" analogy at times concerning Satan ... the thought was something like this ... "Now I caught you, you're stuck in man, and you can't get out ... man was just bait in the garden to trap you." All the saints at the time thought this was so neat, but considering the only wise God, today I'm not so sure ...

I believe this analogy misrepresents God's heart of love toward man. God was not waiting for eons to invent some "mouse bait" and "mouse traps" to get His arch enemy. Why God placed the Tree of Knowlege in the garden is just a mystery. Why God would give man a free will, and then immediately test it, is beyond understanding. He is all wise. He knows. But to reduce His eternal plan with man to "mouse bait" is questionable.One fact from scripture that this "mouse trap" analogy completely misses is that if that was God's intent, then why would he say only a few chapters after the fall that he might have made a mistake in creating man.

Read Gen 6:5-8. If his whole goal was to trap Satan, then wiping out man might have been the simple answer. But his heart was toward man, not against Satan. Noah found favor and as a result, we now have life here in the 21st century.

But if the trap required that this "process" happen so that God as a man could condemn Satan to death, then the whole idea of wiping out man back in Genesis would have been an admission of defeat in that goal. Instead, it would appear that man was precisely that clay in the potter's hands. We were there for His pleasure. If we were completely corrupted by Satan, God had nothing stopping him from destroying man — unless, of course, this "mouse trap" had always been His plan, in which case he would need to keep us around. But that is not what was recorded. Genesis does not say that God realize that He needed to keep man around. Instead, it records that one man still found favor with God and that man as a created being was retained rather than wiped out.

[OBW]

The problem I have with the Witness Lee I remember is that it was seldom of any consequence how out of line with actual scripture his words were, they were taken as God’s.

I often complain about people who use that worn out saying “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” The problem is that too often they do not really understand what God said but read scripture with a decision already formed and find confirmation of that decision without any consideration of the actual words written.

But the LC too often takes it one further. They not only make that stupid “God said it…” statement, but they also say that about the words of Witness Lee. They may not actually say, “Lee said it…” the way they would about God or scripture, but they mean it. I recall one time my sister asking me whether I agreed that something Lee said was the truth. It was not spoken as an inquiry into what I thought, or as fodder for discussion, but was said in a “this is what Lee said and it is true — right?” kind of way. She presumed that I would agree. She was surprised when I did not.

But the Lee I remember said things with no suggestion that there was anything left to discuss. He made statements not consistent with scripture in such a manner that we accepted them as better interpreting scripture. We were too ashamed to admit any disagreement or question concerning his sayings. He would latch onto the irrelevant and suddenly that was the most important thing in the passage. Words spoken in scripture became irrelevant and only the comparison to some other passage or an analogy — such as one about a power plant — was relevant. In fact, Lee’s analogies became more important in much of his theology than the actual scripture he claimed to be leaning upon. Upon closer inspection — something I don’t think he really wanted — verses were often abundant, but they did not support his theology. Without the stories, analogies, and overlays (such as “Christ and the church” or “God’s economy”) there was often no way to get Lee’s theology out of those verses. On their own they were useless to him.

In fact, at times I am not so sure how truly spiritual he was. Since he threw verses around so freely yet actually relied on them so little, I have begun to question whether his theology was really even scripture-based in his own mind, or instead he realized that he could only get Christians to follow if he used a lot of scripture.

I know that sounds really skeptical. And I probably to not believe it that strongly. But there was something seriously wrong with someone daring to trample the clear words of scripture so easily in favor of stories about power plants and pajamas with dragons on them. And creating teachings like “teach God’s economy” from a verse that only says that correct teachings will result in “God’s economy.” This last one sticks in my craw so badly because it was such a leavening of the Christian life. It dismissed so many significant teachings and replaced them with “dispensing of God.” It took away our own actions in our sanctification and made us into spiritual couch potatoes.

That is the Lee I remember. The one who spoke and then disappeared. Who never suggested that something someone else said in a meeting impressed him in some way. Who was simply “right,” and if he was not, he was in his spirit so it wasn’t important.

[Igzy]

I appreciate the matter of the separate consciousness’s and will’s. Those are good points that have been made. The problem I have with this is that eventually what you really have is three Gods…..yet we Christians dare not utter such blasphemy so we have to come up with some sort of mysterious definition of how these three are really only one.


You only have to seem to arrive at three Gods if you insist that the word Person describe the one God. But that might not be completely appropriate.

I think C.S. Lewis addressed this well, he said God is something more than a person. The problem is we can't imagine something more than a person. We think a person is the pinnacle of being. But if it is, it would seem than simply being a person would be enough. But it's not. In fact, it seems the point of being a person is to be in relationship with other persons, otherwise it almost seems a mockery. I think this is very crucial to understanding what's going on.

The difference between God and us is that we are many persons in many beings who are in relation with each other. God is three persons in one being who are in relation. These three are so cooperative that they can act as if they all blend into one Person.

Yet, we have to be careful when using the word Person to decribe the One, because the Bible never really says this. The Bible never says God is one Person. It says he is one LORD, or Jehovah. (See Deut 6:4, Darby, "Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;") God is one God, but we don't quite know what a God is. It may be premature to insist the word Person describes him the best way possible.

[aron]

You only have to seem to arrive at three Gods if you insist that the word Person describe the one God.

...The problem is we can't imagine something more than a person. We think a person is the pinnacle of being. But if it is, it would seem than simply being a person would be enough. But it's not.

... we have to be careful when using the word Person to decribe the One, because the Bible never really says this. The Bible never says God is one Person. It says he is one LORD, or Jehovah. (See Deut 6:4, Darby, "Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;") God is one God, but we don't quite know what a God is. It may be premature to insist the word Person describes him the best way possible.

As I read the discussions on the Trinity, here and elsewhere, I'm reminded of the story back in the '70s when a long-time motorcycle rider got a first glimpse of the new "mopeds", which had recently been introduced to the riding public. He said, "This thing is fast enough to get you into trouble, but not fast enough to get you out."

Regarding the "three Persons" debate, we have a few verses, a few dozen if we are opportunistic, and we have our limited intelligence, and we have our fleeting and shallow experience, and we have our vain, darkened, imaginations. Then we construct all kinds of theological 'cobwebs'. I never got Lee's fixation on this subject, but I figured it came with the territory (being in the Lc's), so I would put up with it. Now I am starting to think along the lines of OBW, that it was (at least unconsciously) some kind of "divide and conquer" strategy by Witness Lee.

Put out some questionable theology as "truth", and voila! The ones who stick around will be your faithful flock, available to be further abused as necessary. Whether or not that was his intention, that's how it seems to have worked out.

Personal admission: I am full of "questionable theology", with speculations ranging from fairly tame to fairly outre (out there). But I don't sit in front of thousands and present it as reality; it's just stuff I think about occasionally(Apparently I'm just not imaginative enough to get worked up over the Trinity).

Anyway, Jesus is Lord! Right? We got that part okay, didn't we? :)

[UntoHim]

…The problem I have with this is that eventually what you really have is three Gods…..yet we Christians dare not utter such blasphemy so we have to come up with some sort of mysterious definition of how these three are really only one. .

Thanks to Oregon and Igzy (and now aron) for their last posts here. Good stuff!

In regards to Oregon’s very legitimate concern of “eventually what you really have is three Gods”…

May I repeat something I posted a little earlier:
I have heard it said that God is "three in number but one in substance". This is hard thing for our little minds to wrapped around. I do appreciate what the Anthanasian Creed has to say "neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being". When we say that the Father is the Son or the Son is the Spirit we are indeed confusing the persons. Yet when we say the Father is not the Son we are not dividing the divine being because it is God Himself who has declared that He is three

When I say “it is God Himself who has declared that He is three”, what I mean is that we can reasonably deduce from what is presented to us in the Word that God is three persons. I use the term “persons” without much reservation here because it is the Lord Jesus who used the terms “Father” and “Son” (and the apostles employed the term “Holy Spirit” in a manner which indicated personhood as well).

Please follow me closely here:
We know from the Old Testament that God’s people considered God as their Father, which is why, when the Lord Jesus said “my Father”, “the Father” and “our Father”, they absolutely knew that He was referring to Jehovah God, I AM, Adonai, The Lord God. Later, we find the Lord Jesus making certain statements, that when some of the Jews who heard them, interpreted them as the Lord Jesus claiming that his relationship to Jehovah God was something much more then what they were used to.

Let’s look at John 5:18
“For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God”

Now we know that the Lord Jesus had referred to Jehovah God as his “Father” many times, yet there must have been something different here. According to the Greek, he used the same word that was commonly used for Father (πατήρ patēr), so why were the Jews so up in arms about his use of “Father” this time? Maybe he used a different form that didn’t make it to the Greek text, or maybe some Aramaic slang, or maybe it was just the intonation of his voice – whatever it was, the Jews interpreted it to mean that Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God in a manner similar to a certain human male claiming to be the son of a certain human father. This was anathema to the ears of the monotheistic Jews. Apparently it was big news to them that God had a Son! Then something just as shocking came in John 8:58: “…before Abraham was, I am”. (no surprise that they sought to kill him again). Not only did he claim to be the Son of God, he was also claiming to be eternal.

Here’s an additional thought I have had. At what point in time did the disciples make a switch in their understanding concerning God’s composition so to say. I mean you have a monotheistic faith…..Judaism…..that believes in only one God. Then these ones come into contact with Christ and receive the revelation that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Then they receive the baptism of the Spirit at a later point. Now…..what was going on inside of their heads concerning God? Was there only one God as they had previously believed? How did the Son and the Spirit fit into the “one God” view. Up till this point man had learned mainly about God from other men – Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and the prophets. Now, as in the garden before the fall, God was actually speaking directly to his creation. The God that was previously described to them by these men of old was not inaccurate per se, just “incomplete” (I use this word advisedly). So what did the Lord Jesus say to Peter right after his proclamation “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”? -- "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven”. “Flesh and Blood did not reveal this to you”. Reveal what? - That the God of the universe, the Creator, The Great I AM, Jehovah, The Lord God, Adonai, El Shaddai, Elohim, El Elyon, HAS A SON. God has a Son! Jehovah has a Son!

“..what was going on inside of their heads concerning God?” Excellent question! Well, I think we have the answer to this one right in our hot little hands. It’s called “The New Testament”. And do you know what the most wonderful thing is about these writings? Flesh and blood did not reveal the words to those blessed men. Which is why all their writings confirm that the Lord Jesus is indeed the Son of God, equal in divinity, power, glory, holiness, righteousness and love to his Father. He always was and always will be.

And who revealed all this to me? Not flesh and blood, you can be sure of that. That would be the third of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Next post….
-

[aron]

This present evil age we are living in is full of ungodly controlling people both in the secular environment as well as the religious environment which is sometimes cloaked under the banner of a 'spiritual' environment.

Lee was no exception. He had his good/spiritual/uncontrolling side but as he gained a loyal following, the spirit of control grabbed hold of him. He may not have started out wanting to control but once a person tastes 'power' mannnn, that spirit of control takes hold.

Look around. It happens everywhere. A 'nobody' runs for city council..then for mayor..and lo & behold, before long, he's the mayor of NYC ! A person becomes a CEO of a company...a -well known- spiritual leader with political connections....and the beat goes on...

Yes, the beat goes on. CMW's post put the dilemma in a nutshell. It is not like these peaceable, Christ-loving people got coopted by a nasty controlling Mr. Lee, but rather at least partly that they chose to become his "loyal following", and this process corrupted both him and them.

Look at the pattern. 1 Sam. 8, the people went to Samuel and wanted a King over them, so that they would be like the nations. It's not like the nasty Saul tricked the people into taking him as King. He was a nobody, but the people created a role for him, he walked into it, and the result was both ruinous for him and Israel.

Look at John chapter 6, verse 15. Jesus saw that the people wanted to seize Him by force and make Him King, so he withdrew and went away, alone, to a mountain to pray. Lee, unfortunately, didn't withdraw. He took the earthly "leader" role that the loyal following wanted.

The example of Jesus is very rare in human history. He chose a heavenly kingdom. Many of His followers get distracted by earthly roles, with all the trappings that go along with them. All the pomp and circumstance.

Matthew 6:1 "But beware of doing your good actions in the sight of men, in order to attract their gaze; if you do, there is no reward for you with your Father who is in Heaven"