Lee's Trinity

[Sons to Glory!]

I do not dismiss the Bible from the discussion. But it is clear that defining the Trinity and the precise relationship of the Three as One God was never its goal. It was not made a lynchpin of Christian theology. Why? I don’t know. But it was not.

I still don’t know what kind of oneness that is because other than “You in me and I in them” nothing is said to describe it. And if it is just about the fact that Jesus is in us, then still no need to pray about it. That is the way it is Jesus is in us (unless we are reprobates).

Thoughts?(Modalism has been brought up a few times recently in various threads on this forum recently, and I thought to start a discussion about it. But then I found this thread and thought to just comment here . . .)

This was a good opening post by OBW back in 2017, and this thread had stretched into the spring of this year. So here's my buck-two-ninety-eight on the subject.

Trying to definitively describe the triune God, as my dad likes to say, "Is like trying to corner Jello!" People go forth and back and forth with each other, trying to nail this down. It's perhaps worse than an amoeba trying to describe a flying eagle to another amoeba (picture that!). But yet brothers rail against others and call them heretics (and maybe worse), because they perceive that the other is off somewhere in describing their perception of this mystery (i.e., Modalism vs Trinitarianism).

Dare I say it - SO WHAT!?

I read a book by Bill Freeman from 1994 titled, "The Triune God in Experience (The Testimony of Church History)." It is the best thing I've read on the subject (BTW - out of print) as its main thesis is that, "The utterance selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the fact of God's triune existence as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is consistent within the text of experience. . . . the way He has chosen to make His triune being known is in the context of man's experience." (from pg. 1-2) Therefore all the back and forth humans have in trying to pin down exactly how this One exists, is akin to the proverbial "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" argument. In other words, it doesn't really make any difference in the end, and misses the point, namely - GOD WANTS TO BE EXPERIENCED BY US AND HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH US! (and not to be mentally dissected by us)

I believe if someone is in perceived error regarding the exact nature of God, it is His job to point that out, not mine. And who am I really to say that I (amoeba) have an accurate view of God's (eagle) nature any way? The important thing conveyed in the New Covenant is that we are to go boldly to Him, and He will then let us know what we need to know. (this is, of course, unless the person thinks God is like the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster or some such nonsense)

There, I feel better now . . . (and it's all about me :D )

[Bubbles!]

(Modalism has been brought up a few times recently in various threads on this forum recently, and I thought to start a discussion about it. But then I found this thread and thought to just comment here . . .)

This was a good opening post by OBW back in 2017, and this thread had stretched into the spring of this year. So here's my buck-two-ninety-eight on the subject.

Trying to definitively describe the triune God, as my dad likes to say, "Is like trying to corner Jello!" People go forth and back and forth with each other, trying to nail this down. It's perhaps worse than an amoeba trying to describe a flying eagle to another amoeba (picture that!). But yet brothers rail against others and call them heretics (and maybe worse), because they perceive that the other is off somewhere in describing their perception of this mystery (i.e., Modalism vs Trinitarianism).

Dare I say it - SO WHAT!?

I read a book by Bill Freeman from 1994 titled, "The Triune God in Experience (The Testimony of Church History)." It is the best thing I've read on the subject (BTW - out of print) as its main thesis is that, "The utterance selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the fact of God's triune existence as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is consistent within the text of experience. . . . the way He has chosen to make His triune being known is in the context of man's experience." (from pg. 1-2) Therefore all the back and forth humans have in trying to pin down exactly how this One exists, is akin to the proverbial "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" argument. In other words, it doesn't really make any difference in the end, and misses the point, namely - GOD WANTS TO BE EXPERIENCED BY US AND HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH US! (and not to be mentally dissected by us)

I believe if someone is in perceived error regarding the exact nature of God, it is His job to point that out, not mine. And who am I really to say that I (amoeba) have an accurate view of God's (eagle) nature any way? The important thing conveyed in the New Covenant is that we are to go boldly to Him, and He will then let us know what we need to know. (this is, of course, unless the person thinks God is like the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster or some such nonsense)

There, I feel better now . . . (and it's all about me :D )
There are a few bugs in this site, so, I hope that you received my private email I sent earlier.
But, it's quite a coincidence that you write this today! ( The Holy Ghost says that it's ''mystical!'' )
It amazes me that some claim to have such an esoteric knowledge of the Trinity. ( this amazement came from the Son! ) Even some of the things I read on here make my head spin! I also know that the angels on that pin spin too! Sometimes they do a ''twin spin'' just like the ol' 60s disc jockeys did! ( the Father hath revealed it! ) Exactly 4501 angels can fit on that pin! ( but I heard that the extra one got kicked off! )
I think I could profit by studying in ''cemetery.'' ( not a bad coining by Bro. Lee! )
Hey, I had spaghetti for lunch today! Any connection to the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster? ( play Twilight Zone theme )

[awareness]

Any connection to the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster? ( play Twilight Zone theme )
Hey, hey, now. There's been sightings of the flying spaghetti monster. Not a one of the trinity.

[UntoHim]

But yet brothers rail against others and call them heretics (and maybe worse), because they perceive that the other is off somewhere in describing their perception of this mystery (i.e., Modalism vs Trinitarianism).
Dare I say it - SO WHAT!?

SO What..What? So I guess you don't believe that there is such a thing as heresy? There is no correct teaching....only one person's "perception of this mystery" as opposed to another persons perception of this mystery? So really it boils down to your guess is as good as mine?

In other words, it doesn't really make any difference in the end, and misses the point, namely - GOD WANTS TO BE EXPERIENCED BY US AND HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH US! (and not to be mentally dissected by us)
So when I'm reading my Bible, how do I know if I'm experiencing God or just mentally dissecting him? Serious question. How do I know?
-

[Sons to Glory!]

SO What..What? So I guess you don't believe that there is such a thing as heresy? There is no correct teaching....only one person's "perception of this mystery" as opposed to another persons perception of this mystery? So really it boils down to your guess is as good as mine?

So when I'm reading my Bible, how do I know if I'm experiencing God or just mentally dissecting him? Serious question. How do I know?
The point is, it's pretty much pointless - at least for me. What would I rather have - perfect knowledge about God's nature and not have a living relationship with Him; or have imperfect knowledge of God's nature, yet have a living relationship with Him? It's the old "Would you rather know the book or the Author?" question. (of course, having both - knowing the Author and accurately knowing His book - is best) If I know the Author, He will show me what I need to know about Him. But if I just know the book, without understanding - that's as far as my knowledge goes.

Just to put things in proper perspective . . . I've just seen myself spend hours, days, weeks, years going around and around this subject. If I added up all I gained in knowledge from studying the Trinity and put it on one side of the scale, then put one little flash of light from Him concerning His nature - guess which side would weigh more by far? (although some might say I was brought to the point of that flash of light by all the study)

And regarding your question, I would say the sense of life bro - a living relationship. Things are fresh and not dead. There is energy to pursue Him, get into His word and to get with others pursuing Him. "I've set before you this day life and death. Therefore choose life."

[Ohio]

The point is, it's pretty much pointless - at least for me. What would I rather have - perfect knowledge about God's nature and not have a living relationship with Him; or have imperfect knowledge of God's nature, yet have a living relationship with Him?
I agree with you both!

No one has a "perfect knowledge" about God. I think a wide diversity of "God knowledge" is expected. For years I felt that Lee's "modalistic" tendencies were not worth fighting over -- Lee obviously did it to prove the rest of Christianity was off, and only he was the standard bearer for the truth. He poked the bear in the eye, and the bear reacted. Lee loved it! His adherents rallied around him.

That's not to say that "diversity is our strength" and we are all free to compose our own theology. Most of us draw a line with the deity of Christ (think JW's), His death, and His resurrection. Heresies often start right here with these.

For all the talk about high peaks theology at LSM, it's readily apparent that their relationship with God is sorely lacking. How can they do what they do, often with Lee's teachings and actions as their only justification, if their relationship with God was healthy?

[Ohio]

And regarding your question, I would say the sense of life bro - a living relationship. Things are fresh and not dead. There is energy to pursue Him, get into His word and to get with others pursuing Him. "I've set before you this day life and death. Therefore choose life."
This all sounds so good, and normally should be, but in the hands of Lee and the Blendeds, even this is dangerous stuff. Lee taught his followers to "follow the sense of life" as he was filing lawsuits, quarantining insiders, shaming leaders, abusing his authority, covering sin, and judging everyone.

Any "sense of life" within us must be tested and governed by righteousness and scripture. The fact is our conscience can be trained wrongly.

[awareness]

This all sounds so good, and normally should be, but in the hands of Lee and the Blendeds, even this is dangerous stuff.
The suicide of Greg Cansteel is just one example of how dangerous Lee and the local church is. It seriously screws with saints heads. This is no light matter.

I know there are those out here that don't like to call it a cult. But it is. And it's as dangerous as any other cult. And the training's are nothing but an initiation into the cult, and into the group-think of the personality cult of Witness Lee.

[Sons to Glory!]

This all sounds so good, and normally should be, but in the hands of Lee and the Blendeds, even this is dangerous stuff. Lee taught his followers to "follow the sense of life" as he was filing lawsuits, quarantining insiders, shaming leaders, abusing his authority, covering sin, and judging everyone.

Any "sense of life" within us must be tested and governed by righteousness and scripture. The fact is our conscience can be trained wrongly.Agree. That is why the Father has equipped us with both: The indwelling Christ within & His word with out - plus the body. But as you say, the conscience can be trained wrongly. What a mercy that He caused us to escape this error!

"God has sent for the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying Daddy, Father!"

[UntoHim]

What would I rather have - perfect knowledge about God's nature and not have a living relationship with Him; or have imperfect knowledge of God's nature, yet have a living relationship with Him?
You have created a false dilemma. Who has ever said we need to have "perfect knowledge about God's nature?" In the past 50 years, I cannot recall anyone ever saying anything like this. I guess one could easily think that Witness Lee thought such things...Lord knows he taught such things. This kind of thinking is what led Lee to say: "The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism". Of course he never considered the opposite side of the coin: His "processed triune God" teaching is grossly overstated and borders on modalism.

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:3
I would posit that it is virtually impossible to "experience" someone that you don't know. The Lord Jesus did not say "that they may have perfect knowledge of you", he said "that they know you". I think that he means intimate knowledge. Knowledge that issues in love and grace. Love and demonstrable grace towards our neighbor - our fellow man. Does the knowledge come before love, or love before knowledge? The answer to this one is way above my paygrade, but at the end of the day, I will simply believe and say amen to the Lord Jesus' prayer to the Father: "that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

It's the old "Would you rather know the book or the Author?" question. (of course, having both - knowing the Author and accurately knowing His book - is best) If I know the Author, He will show me what I need to know about Him. But if I just know the book, without understanding - that's as far as my knowledge goes.
Ah, "accurately knowing his book". I think you mean biblical theology, right? I mean, all of us have a theology. For some of us, our theology has gotten bent, twisted and turned every which way by some misguided, yet well-meaning "Bible teachers". The most dangerous ones, in my observation and experience, are teachers who say things like "people have been getting this all wrong for these 2,000 years....God has shown me the way it was from the beginning...What I teach is recovered truth!". (sound familiar?)

Theology does matter. Correct and accurate teaching does matter. I question anyone who says they know the Author but cannot accurately articulate the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, and basic historical, orthodox Christian theology. And yes, I also question someone who has all the things I've just listed, yet displays no grace towards their fellow man - believers and non believers. Anyone who knows the Author, and has a relationship with the Author, will treat others, love others and serve others just as we see the Author did in the Gospels.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Okay and well said!

I don't think theology matters as much as a living relationship with the Lord - can't add much to that. I don't know any place in scripture that we are told, "Know accurate theology," but how many places say something about knowing the Lord? (although I guess some might say this includes accurate theology - but the word, to my knowledge, doesn't seem to emphasize knowing theology) However, if I had my druthers (interesting word . . .), I would prefer to also have accurate theology!

Was God closer to me when I thought He was 3-in-1 than when I thought He was more 1-in-3? I firmly doubt it.

In any case, I appreciate those that strive for accurate theology. I hope they also "taste and see that the Lord is good." (BTW: we enjoyed singing that old song just this morning at brothers' breakfast!)

[OBW]

Okay and well said!

I don't think theology matters as much as a living relationship with the Lord - can't add much to that. I don't know any place in scripture that we are told, "Know accurate theology," but how many places say something about knowing the Lord? (although I guess some might say this includes accurate theology - but the word, to my knowledge, doesn't seem to emphasize knowing theology) However, if I had my druthers (interesting word . . .), I would prefer to also have accurate theology!

Was God closer to me when I thought He was 3-in-1 than when I thought He was more 1-in-3? I firmly doubt it.

In any case, I appreciate those that strive for accurate theology. I hope they also "taste and see that the Lord is good." (BTW: we enjoyed singing that old song just this morning at brothers' breakfast!)SoG

I was perusing several old threads and noticed that there was some recent activity on this otherwise old thread.

I agree that theology is not our basis for salvation, knowing the Lord, oneness, etc. But when it comes to getting spiritual nourishment, not everything that sounds "spiritual" is fit for consumption. We recognize some of the New Age garbage easily since it generally falls outside of anything in the Bible. But then there are some who claim a veneer of Christianity but provide a lot of nonsense wrapped in Christiany terms. Several TV personalities and self-help gurus come to mind.

But what is worse is when someone who is allegedly staying strictly within the bounds of acceptable Christian teaching is providing garbage. It might not keep the followers from being able to claim true Christian belief. But so much of what they consume spiritually may be quite tainted.

And when that tainted "food" results in their bondage to a system that . . . .

You get the picture.

In various places, Jesus, then later Paul and others, provided markers for true spiritual leadership. Jesus contrasted the ways of the Pharisees with the servant-leaders that are to be the mark of Christian leadership. Paul provided additional markers that ranged from variations in teaching to evidence in their personal lives that such persons should be refused the opportunity to teach.

Therefore, when there begins to be a significant collection of variant teachings (especially if they stand in contrast to the very scripture from which they are presumably derived), and there is evidence of personal, financial, etc., misconduct (especially if it drags the Christian followers into the problems), and there is evidence that efforts are being made to "collect" people to themselves (such as making followers fear that leaving would be spiritually or even physically dangerous), then it is time to shine the light on such teachers. Give the followers the opportunity to see more than the one side they have been given.

There have been various positions taken here about how to deal with Lee's teachings. Some think that we can safely take it all except where we come to find error. Sort of following one of Lee's lines from way back about eating the chicken and rejecting the bones and feathers. Others (like me) go so far as to say that if you can't find it as something fairly regular inside of the rest of Christianity, you should reject it.

For me, the problem is that trying to pick out the bones means that I suddenly need to be able to see what I could not for so many years while inside that system. That is seldom what happens. They did some studies and discovered that (especially in a religious context) that if you learn something incorrectly because the context was omitted, that introducing the context (which shows the error in the prior teaching) only convinces about 50% of people. In other words, because you heard it first, you are more likely to believe it no matter how wrong it turns out to be, and how obvious the error is.

For this reason, when it comes to some of the more egregious doctrinal errors of Lee, it is important to chink away at the nonsense. To point at the lack of actual evidence over and over. People like Drake and Evangelical may be too indoctrinated to ever see the nonsense in what they say. But maybe someone else will.

And while I cannot remember enough of the words of the "taste and see" song to comment on it, I am prone to refraining from the old LC songs, especially in the supplement, since too many of them are emotional rather than substantive even when not doctrinally incorrect. The LC (and a lot of modern Christianity for that matter) are too caught up in feelings. How something moves me. How I feel. Unless you are in a more "traditional" service, even the songs that seem to speak of God's attributes are too often more about how I am emotionally affected by them than who and what God is. And the traditional services can sometimes fall into "by-and-by" kinds of songs that tug at heartstrings of seeing family again, or avoiding suffering.

There's going to be suffering in this world. Jesus said it would be.

But it should not come from being trapped in Lee's system of error. When you put the warnings of Jesus and Paul together, neither Nee nor Lee could be seen as viable sources for spiritual teaching. They fail on too many levels. Lack of true theological training is just one. (I like to point out that I was an accountant just like Lee.) Immorality. Making money off the flock. Teachings that do not constitute sound doctrine. And if you reject them, you should fully reject them. That is why I say that nothing should be kept that is not found somewhere else. (And just because something sort of like it is said somewhere by one person does not really qualify.)

The guys we are arguing with — Drake, Evangelical, and others, past and present — may never budge an inch. But there are many lurkers who will see and some will consider.

Or that is our hope.

[Sons to Glory!]

Another thoughtful post bro OBW! I certainly can see where you are coming from. Most here in Scottsdale don't read and/or bring up Lee's stuff any more, probably for many of the same reasons. Occasionally there may be something brought up of Lee's, by one brother in particular, but I think it is well filtered and certainly not any silly MOTA emphasis. This brother is pretty mature and experienced, I think, in "getting the chicken and spitting out the bones." Personally, I can't remember the last time I referred to or even read any of Lee's stuff, and also stopped using the RV NT some time ago (even though it was the one without footnotes). It is something the Lord led me to do, because of how certain things were translated. Not really big things, but in the end, the Greek is a better/safer reference in my opinion.

I may not be as far on the anti-Lee spectrum as some. But shoot, I can find issues with something in just about any Christian speaker/author! However, these things bother me less and less as I go on. In other words, I'm not blown about as much as I once was, due to better grounding in His love and His word. This also helps me be open to others and other groups, who don't do things exactly as I might think they should - I'm not threatened in any way, and can accept them more in love as beloved believers regardless.

Regarding the "taste & see" song - there is nothing wrong with that, bro! But again, I understand where yer coming from. Yes, many things are way emotional in Christendom. I will just say that while I certainly appreciate the "meatiness" of a good hymn (and the more the older I get), there is also a place for simple love songs to Jesus! For instance, sometimes Thursday morning we may break into a rousing vocalization of "Jesus loves me this I know!" :D

Be blessed.

(PS - You do bring up a good point about others who may be lurking and reading these things, who have some interaction with the LCs now. So let me say to any reading that I do believe there is serious error in the LC/LSM system. It is a system that is well built-up over time, and not in a good way. The extreme exclusivity of this group is a sin, period and I see that clearly now. And there is an organization in place to protect from and exclude other blood-washed believers who are not in the LC system. The teaching that was supposed to be "The Answer" and provide oneness in the body of Christ has become a entrenched system of error. It is an example of the church in Laodicea (Rev 3) I believe - calling themselves rich, but are actually anything but (because they have not held to the one main thing - Christ alone). Any glory of Christ that was once there back in the 1960s & 70s has left, and it is now an empty shell system, a kingdom being propagated and defended by men.)