[OBW]

From what I can see, the problem is that the views that create the "ditch" on either side are presuming a singular view of some aspect of humanity layered over God.

Saying that God is one person as we understand a person as being a single individual (not in the legal sense of either an individual or a body corporate), then there are problems with there being a Father of a Son that can pray back to the Father.

Saying that they are simply three persons creates a cloud over the claim to be "One God." At least as far as we can understand it.

Yet it would appear that God discussed the creation of man and said "let us make man in our image. . . ." So there is clearly a plurality. Yet only one image. Only one representation. Diversity that can discuss and unity in image.

The best (and still pathetic) comparison I can dream up looks like a joint venture of three that faces the universe as one. The problem with that is that our understanding of such a thing never has the three truly "one" in much of anything other than that first decision to join together.

But there is something solidly described showing three throughout the scripture. And yet they are so one that they have only one image. One likeness. Saying they are one person is not adequate. Neither is simply saying they are three persons. Yet they are more "one" internally that most of us are within ourselves on a good day. Yet that oneness does not lose the three into one, nor cause any one to be the other. Rather it defines the completeness with which they are unified and therefore "one."

But oneness does not create sameness. The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did. Neither the Triune God nor the Son "turned his face away." The Father did.

In no way does any one of them "become" the other. Any reading of scripture to say such a thing is a gross misreading and a prime example of proof texting, the fine art of using small portions of biblical text without concern for its context to impose understanding onto it rather than reading from it. I have come to refer to this method of scripture reading as the "fortune cookie" method of understanding the Bible in which small snippets not much longer than the little sayings on fortune cookies are used to create the impression of something being said that could not be fathomed if the rest of the context was considered.

Both Nee and Lee were masters at this. Now they were not the first, nor will they be the last to use such methods. But they excelled in it. And a system of error grew from it such that the adherents of that method are incapable of seeing beyond their pabulum of spiritual nonsense.

Do I think that Nee and or Lee willfully deceived through this kind of error? I must admit that I am not sure. But the signs that they should not be trusted as spiritual leaders or teachers are there to help us be wary of their teachings.