Boxjobox on modalism

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by HBJ

One of the theological problems with the Local Church is being accused of modalism. A website I found says "Modalism and Monarchianism are two false views of the nature of God and of Jesus Christ that appeared in the second and third centuries AD. A modalist views God as one Person instead of three Persons and believes that the Father, Son, and Spirit are simply different modes or forms of the same divine Person."

Now I did hear Brother Lee say "Jesus became the life - giving Spirit"

"Became" has modalist connotations. But Scripture is plain: God exists in three co-eternal, co-equal Persons. What do you all think?

This subject comes up on this site in periodic cycles. Last time I responded with my views on the “ trinity” issue, it was relegated to the alt site. But, since you asked what I think, I thought I would opine.

It seems absurd to me to speak about the scripture as the word of God, and then to hold to a caveat of trinitarianism doctrine as truth. The scripture does not contain teachings on God being triune, so this is a man made position that will continuously be argued from man made positions, which divide the people of God.

If WL really recovered the local church other than just in name, it would have resulted in the saints speaking similar to the teachings of Paul. In all of Paul’s epistles, he opens with a greeting along the line of Grace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus. Paul speaks often of the God of our Lord Jesus, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, God who raised Christ Jesus from the dead- this is the ministry, the thought of Paul. In other words, the speaking and teaching of the church WL tried to say he recovered would have to be filled with this kind of content. Trinitarianism came centuries after this, and has since been nothing but a source of division, fighting, and mockery- it has gained nothing for the testimony.

The thought of trinitarianism is really that the scripture did an inadequate job of presenting the truth of God and needs outside help. You can see from the various replies on this post that it is a whirlwind of confusion. As if there is something wrong with sticking to the NT presentation of One God, the Father, as Paul so succinctly states to the Corinthians, and that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Father, and that God raised him from the dead, and set him at His right hand as Lord over all. The church should be filled with praises to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, and prayers to our God and Father- our language and thought should match that of the apostle Paul, who never included a teaching that God is triune! Is there something wrong with sticking to the NT verbiage? The triune god, processed triune god, fully god fully man, god-man, god-men, god the son, god the Holy Spirit, god became a man so man, etc. are not the words of the NT, so why are they ours? The revelation, the thought given to us in the NT is that Jesus is the son of God, sent to die for our sins and that God raised him from the dead. This is the gospel, and the content of the church. Peter was not given the revelation that Jesus is God, that God is triune and on this rock Jesus would build his church.

A recovery of the church, a return to the truth, would stick to the simple speaking given in scripture- WL in “recovering” the church, brought it back to only the 4th century and then dumped his load of his personal form of trinitarianism refuse, which wholly polluted the whole concept of recovery. A true recovery would have resulted in the saints taking the sweet scriptural revelation of God our Father and Jesus, the anointed son, bringing us into a similar position as sons. There is a reason-from God himself, why this was what was presented in the NT. Trinitarianism has altered the gospel, the understanding of the scripture, appreciation of God our Father, and really, the important relation we have in and through Christ Jesus in our relation to God the Father.

[UntoHim]

I was wondering when our resident Unitarian friend would show up! Sorry Boxjobox, but I will only allow your false and heretical Unitarian garbage for one post....then off to the dungeon with ya me lad! And while you're down there you can pray-read "AND THE WORD WAS GOD" until you fall down and worship Jesus Christ as God, just as Thomas did when he proclaimed "MY LORD AND MY GOD!".

Amazing. On one thread we have trinitarians, doubletarians and now a unotarian(aka Unitarian)! Well, we can't all be right, now can we?

Sorry, but I am going to be rather strict on this thread. The topic is modalism as taught by Witness Lee. I'll allow some latitude...but just a little.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I was wondering when our resident Unitarian friend would show up! Sorry Boxjobox, but I will only allow your false and heretical Unitarian garbage for one post....
-

Woah ... Untohim ...after reading the recent post by Boxjobox, I never expected this response ... yikes! His post very exactly corresponds with the synoptic Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters. He has hundreds of verses to support him. I thought you would thank him for supporting your position (for the most part anyway. And then you threaten to quarantine him to the basement! God forbid!) Boxjobox definitely emphasizes the relationship of the Father and the Son in God Himself. What's not to like, bro? How is that "Unitarian," unless he does not acknowledge the eternal deity of the Son?

Then I was going to build on my post #132, saying that the N.T. also includes the writings of John, and John presents another view of God which emphasizes His inherent oneness.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I was wondering when our resident Unitarian friend would show up! Sorry Boxjobox, but I will only allow your false and heretical Unitarian garbage for one post....then off to the dungeon with ya me lad! And while you're down there you can pray-read "AND THE WORD WAS GOD" until you fall down and worship Jesus Christ as God, just as Thomas did when he proclaimed "MY LORD AND MY GOD!".

Amazing. On one thread we have trinitarians, doubletarians and now a unotarian(aka Unitarian)! Well, we can't all be right, now can we?

Sorry, but I am going to be rather strict on this thread. The topic is modalism as taught by Witness Lee. I'll allow some latitude...but just a little.
-

Is it Untohim or now Untohims?
My main point is that the early church as portrayed in Acts and Paul’s writings, which we hold as scripture/ Word of God did not contain anything related to the aforementioned topic. So should not a “recovered” church also be in the same mind? If it was the, shall I say, mind of the Spirit that the Church would be based on such concepts, it should follow that those concepts were spoken, reinforced, taught, exemplified, but alas, the church did quite well in the early days without any of those ideas. Both Jews and gentiles would have no clue God is triune unless such were clearly taught by Paul. If it was good enough for the foundational church to exist and flourish without such concepts, and there is a desire to “ recover” what was lost, seems to me that a return to the teachings and thoughts of Paul- the wise master builder, who gave the whole counsel of God in preaching and building the church- seems that is what should be the contents of the church.

If needs must be, Ill have to have another go at the alt-site, but me thinks a good healthy discussion by those of us who went through the LC/ WL would be beneficial to all. Is there a criteria I should follow in expressing my views? I really try to tie my opinions to the WL/ LSM controversy.

[UntoHim]

Ohio, sometimes I wonder how closely you follow our forum. Boxjobox does not believe that Jesus is God. He does not believe that the Holy Spirit is God. He has made his views very clear for years on this forum.

If I let him, Boxjobox would give us hundreds of verses "proving" that Jesus is not God. How would that work for ya?....No? I thought so.

This is simply the wrong forum for our friend Boxjobox. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of Internet Forums that someone like him can sell his wares without any problems. This forum is just not one of them.
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ohio, sometimes I wonder how closely you follow our forum. Boxjobox does not believe that Jesus is God. He does not believe that the Holy Spirit is God. He has made his views very clear for years on this forum.

If I let him, Boxjobox would give us hundreds of verses "proving" that Jesus is not God. How would that work for ya?....No? I thought so.

This is simply the wrong forum for our friend Boxjobox. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of Internet Forums that someone like him can sell his wares without any problems. This forum is just not one of them.
-

My main point is not to prove or disprove an ongoing controversy, but to point out that in the foundational church as portrayed in the writings of Luke/Paul, which comprise most of the NT, seems to me that Paul gave utmost care to refer to God as the Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, which is exactly the same as Jesus did. In fact Paul stated clearly to the gentile Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, and to the Ephesians, that keeping the unity of the Spirit relied on professing one God the Father. If there is a problem with one God the Father, maybe that’s where the church went astray and WL went way off the reservation. I do think this concept is germane to the topic discussed here.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[


The Lord Jesus was clearly speaking of the Holy Spirit as a person. A mere "power" or "life-source" cannot be blasphemed against. In fact, in the context of this passage, blasphemy specifically refers to speaking against God the Holy Spirit. In fact, this sin is so grievous that it will never be forgiven, even in heaven.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Ephesians 4:30

Very similar to the statement of the Lord Jesus in Matthew. Again, it should be obvious that a mere "power" or "life-force" cannot be "grieved". Only a person can be grieved.
-

Unto him- you made up a new term here and act as if it is scriptural- God the Holy Spirit is not a biblical term/ concept. You may want to rephrase your statement, and consider that there is a very good reason God the Holy Spirit is not used in scripture.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Trapped

My little observation is, I think, a minor point in this whole thread, but just for the sake of clarifying what I said.....my main thrust is the co-equal thing.

The Holy Spirit is simply depicted differently. "Left out" in places where we would expect to see him if he was a co-equal person of the trinity. Anyone can see that. There is a unique relationship between the Father and the Son. Of course there is a Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure how to describe it yet.

Without the Holy Spirit, our faith would be useless. It would be like having the reality of "light" and the star, the "sun", but no sun rays. If there are no sun rays that convey the light through the sun, no rays to reach the earth, the earth would still be in darkness, frozen and dead. All of the following are directly from verses in the Bible, and this list does not include everything. The Holy Spirit is mysterious, like the wind; He is everywhere and has done and does many things, that only He could do because He is God:

The Holy Spirit

• is the author, the source of the entire Bible
• was there hovering over the waters at creation
• is the One who spoke through all the saints and many people in the OT and NT
• was the One through whom Jesus was conceived
• was upon Jesus
• was through whom Jesus cast out demons
• raised Jesus from the dead
• convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement
• justifies us
• regenerates man, causing him to be born of God and renews us
• gives life
• is our pledge
• seals us
• is the realm of our fellowship and the realm by which we walk, serve and pray in
• is the sphere in which we are baptized, the whole Body of Christ is baptized in Him
• is the Spirit of truth that guides into all the truth
• testifies concerning Christ
• is the Advocate, Helper, Comforter, Counselor with the believers forever
• teaches us what to say
• indwells every single christian throughout history
• frees us, fills the believers, empowers believers, speaks to us and gives instructions, clarifies things
• approves matters and forbids matters
• sanctifies the Gentiles
• reveals things and searches all things, even the depths of God
• manifests, operates and assigns gifts of wisdom, knowledge, healing, works of power, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues
• is the One through whom we put to death the practices of the body
• produces fruit in us: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, etc.
• grants us access to the Father
• is the realm of our oneness
• is a sword for spiritual warfare
• helps us in our weakness, intercedes and prays through us
• is the realm of righteousness, joy and peace for the Kingdom of God
• is mentioned as the second in the trinity in Revelation
• is the One that speaks to the churches
• is the 7 Spirits of God that are in the hand of Jesus
• is the 7 Spirits of God as 7 torches of fire
• is the 7 Spirits of God that are before the Throne of God
• is the 7 Spirits of God and identified as the 7 eyes of the Lamb
• is the 7 Spirits of God that are sent out into all the earth
• is the One who together with the Bride cries out to Jesus to come back at the end of the Bible!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Without the Holy Spirit, our faith would be useless. It would be like having the reality of "light" and the star, the "sun", but no sun rays. If there are no sun rays that convey the light through the sun, no rays to reach the earth, the earth would still be in darkness, frozen and dead. All of the following are directly from verses in the Bible, and this list does not include everything. The Holy Spirit is mysterious, like the wind; He is everywhere and has done and does many things, that only He could do because He is God:

That makes sense! The Word was in the Father, in His bosom. When spoken the Word is the expression of the Father. The Word was always with the Father and one with Him. So therefore the Father and Son are one. This verse then comes to me: "Go therefore and baptize . . . into the NAME (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." These three are one. What I hear you saying, bro, is the Spirit is the transmission of this one God, right?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Without the Holy Spirit, our faith would be useless. It would be like having the reality of "light" and the star, the "sun", but no sun rays. If there are no sun rays that convey the light through the sun, no rays to reach the earth, the earth would still be in darkness, frozen and dead. All of the following are directly from verses in the Bible, and this list does not include everything. The Holy Spirit is mysterious, like the wind; He is everywhere and has done and does many things, that only He could do because He is God:

The Holy Spirit

• [B]is the author, the source of the entire Bible [/
• is the Spirit of truth that guides into all the truth

The biggest problem with WLs teaching was his taking snips of scripture, molding them together, coming up with his conclusion, making a statement based on his conclusion, speaking as if his conclusion was scripture, having all the saints Buy into and repeat his “scriptural” conclusion until everyone believed his conclusion was scripture.
Raptor, the scripture does not say the Spirit IS God, rather the Spirit of God. The scripture does say God the Father. And Paul beseeches us to keep the unity of the Spirit by confessing One God and Father, who is above all, through all and in all. You list the Spirit as the source of the entire bible; we should give earnest heed to what IS written and not alter thing to draw conclusions. Paul, in that great letter to the Ephesians, makes known the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. I think this would be the Spirit guiding us into all truth.

Modalism is a branch that shoots out of a God is three persons tree. A tree that the Holy Spirit does not guide us into. The Holy Spirit and Jesus and the Scripture guides us plainly, clearly into One God, The Father. WL lived off the three persons tree and filled the saints with this fruit, alls the while, the scripture spoke of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
Jesus, after raising from the dead, spoke to Mary and said I ascend to my God and your God and my Father and your Father. God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at His right hand- gave him the highest position in the universe, put him over all and gave him as head to the church. I think this should be the content of the church, not that three person tree! which was NOT written by the Holy Spirit!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Modalism is a branch that shoots out of a God is three persons tree. A tree that the Holy Spirit does not guide us into. The Holy Spirit and Jesus and the Scripture guides us plainly, clearly into One God, The Father. WL lived off the three persons tree and filled the saints with this fruit, alls the while, the scripture spoke of Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.
Jesus, after raising from the dead, spoke to Mary and said I ascend to my God and your God and my Father and your Father. God raised Christ from the dead and seated him at His right hand- gave him the highest position in the universe, put him over all and gave him as head to the church. I think this should be the content of the church, not that three person tree! which was NOT written by the Holy Spirit!

I thought Modalism would be from the "God is one" tree - that is God is one person, manifested in three stages. I'm I missing something here?

[Sons to Glory!]

Since these messages got moved to alt views, I will post this on here (afraid to say anything on regular forum as it might be censored): I don't understand why this is an alt view worthy item! Don't Boxjobox lives matter too?!

Seems like there's some "red-headed stepchildren" around here . . . or am I missing something?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Since these messages got moved to alt views, I will post this on here (afraid to say anything on regular forum as it might be censored): I don't understand why this is an alt view worthy item! Don't Boxjobox lives matter too?!

Too funny.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I thought Modalism would be from the "God is one" tree - that is God is one person, manifested in three stages. I'm I missing something here?

Depends on who you listen to or follow. There are numerous branches and theological/philosophical branches that come off the one God- three person tree, and every group and individual seems to have their own version. Modalism is also God manifests himself as 3 persons. Everyone seems to have name labels to describe everyone else’s view, and the argument goes on and on, division after division. I would say it’s Jezebel and all her daughters, but what do I know? What I do know is that the whole concept was not introduced by the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, because Paul clearly and plainly says that the oneness of the spirit is keeping the testimony of one God the Father. Is it not strange that this is so overlooked by all who claim the scripture is the word of God? You would think Paul wrote to keep the oneness professing a one God/ three person thing.

[Boxjobox]

The church definitely needs to be recovered, where the scripture is lifted up, and the monkey business is rejected. The church of WL/LSM does not do this. They are actually more full of the non scriptural triune god thing than the Catholic or Lutheran assemblies. In the last two, you get more of a sense of the awesomeness of God our Father- which is shoved out the door by the LSM crowd.
If the Holy Spirit insists on one God, the Father, that should be the stance of the Church. Oh, how there is a great need for Recovery!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Depends on who you listen to or follow. There are numerous branches and theological/philosophical branches that come off the one God- three person tree, and every group and individual seems to have their own version. Modalism is also God manifests himself as 3 persons. Everyone seems to have name labels to describe everyone else’s view, and the argument goes on and on, division after division. I would say it’s Jezebel and all her daughters, but what do I know? What I do know is that the whole concept was not introduced by the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, because Paul clearly and plainly says that the oneness of the spirit is keeping the testimony of one God the Father. Is it not strange that this is so overlooked by all who claim the scripture is the word of God? You would think Paul wrote to keep the oneness professing a one God/ three person thing.

Yes . . . I pointed out the labeling of Christians in an earlier post somewhere . . . just the action of labeling others creates division. So what if we have differing views and perspectives of this "elephant!" As long as we accept Jesus as the one Way, Truth & Life, I see little profit in much of the rest of the conniptions we tend to go through - proverbial angels dancing on the head of a pin thing IMHO.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Raptor, the scripture does not say the Spirit IS God, rather the Spirit of God.

God is Spirit.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Raptor

God is Spirit.

Yes, God is spirit- eternal immortal, invisible. But I’m referring to the Holy Spirit given to us by God. Angles are spirits as well according to the scriptures. There are evil spirits. All entities listed as spirit are not God. The Holy Spirit shows us quite clearly in scripture that the one true God is the Father John 17.3

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Yes, God is spirit

Yes, and there is no separate Holy Spirit. God is Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

Don´t bother to reply, I´m not going to further this discussion, God the Son is also God, in case you were wondering.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually, posts that don't address modalism as taught by Witness Lee are off-topic for this thread. Not sure why that's so hard of a concept for people to understand. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this: There are certain things that are not up for debate here on the main forum. One of them is the deity of Christ. Another would be that the Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and if we believe on him our sins our forgiven. Another would be that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised bodily on the third day, ascended to heaven and is now at the right hand of the Father. There are a number of other nonnegotiables as far as I'm concerned, but I won't take the time to reiterate them here.

My personal believe is the orthodox view/teaching/understanding of the Trinity, that God is one in Being and three in Person, has been a core element of the Christian faith since the beginning and is a nonnegotiable. However, since the very topic at hand is addressing Lee's non orthodox teachings, it seems reasonable for the various forum members to give their current views/understandings of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead. (Assuming that you even believe there is such a thing)
-

This seems like a mixed message . . . sorry but I'm struggling with what's permissible and what is not. That is, the first paragraph seems to say one thing - a narrow defining, but then gets at least a little reversed and broadened in the second paragraph.

And I'm sure you know better than I do regarding Boxjobox not believing in the deity of Christ. You are right - that is a basic non-negotiable. The understanding of the Trinity - not so much IMHO . . .

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

There are certain things that are not up for debate here on the main forum. One of them is the deity of Christ... There are a number of other nonnegotiables as far as I'm concerned, but I won't take the time to reiterate them here.
However, since the very topic at hand is addressing Lee's non orthodox teachings, it seems reasonable for the various forum members to give their current views/understandings of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This seems like a mixed message . . . sorry but I'm struggling with what's permissible and what is not. That is, the first paragraph seems to say one thing - a narrow defining, but then gets at least a little reversed and broadened in the second paragraph.

No mixed message my friend. The first paragraph was addressing Boxjobox's Unitarian views which I will not allow to be aired over on the main forum.

The second paragraph is a different subject - I was letting people know that expressing personal views concerning the nature of God/Trinity was perfectly acceptable on a thread about Lee's modalistic teachings.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No mixed message my friend. The first paragraph was addressing Boxjobox's Unitarian views which I will not allow to be aired over on the main forum.

The second paragraph is a different subject - I was letting people know that expressing personal views concerning the nature of God/Trinity was perfectly acceptable on a thread about Lee's modalistic teachings.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-

Okay, thanks. That is helpful (and not as narrow as I thought).

I read a few verses in Daily Light (and a couple other places) this morning about the Spirit and thought to share them in this thread.

"But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." "

"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God"

"If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."

"The love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."

"By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit."

"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

(John 16:7; Romans 8:16, 10, 11; 5:5 1 John 4:13)

These are all wonderful verses regarding the indwelling! If we were trying to figure out who of the Godhead is living in us, after reading these verses our answer would have to be "Yes!" That is all three persons of the Godhead are specifically named as living in us. Christ comes to us from/with the Father in the "supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil 1:19)

Concerning the first verse above (John 16:7), it is very interesting that Jesus had to go away before He could send the "Advocate." I think we would all agree that Jesus was speaking of the Holy Spirit here, right? So did Jesus have to go away first before the Spirit could come, because the two of them just couldn't be in the same place together at the same time? (seems like something of a silly notion, doesn't it?) Or was it because the One Grain had to fall into the ground to die, to bring something new forth to get into His followers? That is, for the "joy set before Him, He endured the cross" to make something happen - to produce something.

So what is being produced? Look at those verses in Genesis 2 where it says "The the LORD God built (lit.) a woman from the rib." Adam was a picture of Christ and Eve of the church. Then Adam says, "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh . . . because she was taken out of man." Fast forward to Jesus proclaiming, "I will build my church!" Are you seeing what I'm seeing?

Whoa - what hath God wrought!?!?!

Let's see if there ain't some good pipe-smokin' over that . . .

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No mixed message my friend. The first paragraph was addressing Boxjobox's Unitarian views which I will not allow to be aired over on the main forum.

The second paragraph is a different subject - I was letting people know that expressing personal views concerning the nature of God/Trinity was perfectly acceptable on a thread about Lee's modalistic teachings.
I hope that clears things up for you.
-

I guess I'll have read the modalism site on the home side, and comment on the alt site. UntoHim, for you, who is the God of our Lord Jesus that Peter, John, Paul and Jesus clearly refer to? I think if you objectively look at all the posts on your Modalism site, and particularly your desire to bend the conversation toward " orthodox " position, you will see that there is NO actual orthodox position on a trinity god, because it is NOT what is taught in the scriptures. You are trying to overlay a man made theology on scripture, and come up with some sort of acceptable belief, whilst knocking WL's attempt at the same process.

UntoHim- in your thinking and approach to truth, can you clearly state you have the mindset of Peter, John, Paul, and of course, Jesus and profess the God of our Lord Jesus, and speak clearly of the God of our Lord Jesus? If not, it seems you are lacking the fundamental foundation for any discussion of modalism. I would think as fellow believers in the redemption work of Christ, that our like precious faith of belief that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, that God raised him from the dead, and that God placed him at his right hand and gave him as lord over all to the church, that you would proclaim Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Maybe on your main site, you yourself would want to start a thread which honors the God and Father of our Lord Jesus as a fundamental foundation for all things related to considering the church. It's wasn't what WL did and look what that produced- it isn't what you've pursued, and look at the quagmire you now find yourself on your modalism thread. Only trying to help UntoHim, I appreciate you, brother.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually, posts that don't address modalism as taught by Witness Lee are off-topic for this thread. Not sure why that's so hard of a concept for people to understand. I'm not sure how many times I have to say this: There are certain things that are not up for debate here on the main forum. One of them is the deity of Christ. Another would be that the Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and if we believe on him our sins our forgiven. Another would be that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised bodily on the third day, ascended to heaven and is now at the right hand of the Father. There are a number of other nonnegotiables as far as I'm concerned, but I won't take the time to reiterate them here.

My personal believe is the orthodox view/teaching/understanding of the Trinity, that God is one in Being and three in Person, has been a core element of the Christian faith since the beginning and is a nonnegotiable. However, since the very topic at hand is addressing Lee's non orthodox teachings, it seems reasonable for the various forum members to give their current views/understandings of the nature of the Trinity/Godhead. (Assuming that you even believe there is such a thing)
-

Untohim, I see at least two large revealing errors in your post. First would be that God is one and three in person, being something core from the beginning. This is just not so. If this was taught by the apostles, we would not be having all of this discussion now. You need to consider what was preached and taught in the book of Acts to realize that the three person thing was not some core belief. Look at church history that led up to the various decree counsels. Be honest with yourself and with the scripture.

Second, and most revealing is you state " the Father so loved the world that he gave...". The error here is that John did not write the Father so loved, but God so loved... The one true God is the Father John 17.3 (Jesus's words as quoted by John- not mine) . But you can see that John's thought is God so loved. I think you altered the word to Father to preserve your trinitarian view, rather than the scriptural. John's thought of God, I'm afraid differs from yours. You reall should be calibrated by the scripture, and not try to mold the scripture to fit a man made theology.

[UntoHim]

Thank you Boxjobox for your kind, reasonable and thoughtful post. This forum could sure use a lot more of this - on the homepage as well as over here in the dongeon

Maybe I should give a short post with a short explanation of why I don't allow discussions of non orthodox (aka traditional, historical) theology over on the homepage of LCD. It is actually not for purely theological reasons, but also for some very practical reasons. One major reason would be the practical limitations of time and space on a forum with the limited scope of LCD. I have observed over the years that if an open Internet forum does not limit the scope of the discussions it soon becomes too large and unwieldy, and eventually loses the focus of it's mission. Off-topic, off-the-wall and totally irrelevant postings become the rule instead of the exception.

And speaking of the mission...one of the main parts of the mission of LCD is to become a "safe and sane" place for current and former LC members to have open dialog regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee movement. Many out there would question how much we have fulfilled this mission....especially our friends over at the LC/LSM headquarters over there on La Palma in Anaheim. In any event, my personal belief is that the real help and healing for all current and former LC members is to hear, fellowship and imbibe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to enter into the real teaching and fellowship of the apostles, both of which have been preserved for us down through the ages to this present day.

Anything that detours LCD from this core mission can quickly become a major problem as far as I'm concerned, and as the sole admin/moderator I feel obligated to protect the forum from such distractions.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

I am discouraged from posting on this forum. The message I posted on the Modalism thread was, I thought, perfectly in line according to the 2nd paragraph of the "new guidelines." However, it still got moved to this alt thread (see #23 below). I think what I posted was what some might label as a type of Modalism - and where did I get that idea from?. Would not some say it was from WL? And wasn't that the purpose of that thread . . . to discuss Modalism coming from WL !?

Anyway, I feel pretty much shut down on here, and will see where the Lord might lead me next . . .

UPDATE: I was made aware I had actually made my post on this thread and not in the regular forum in the Modalism thread. My mistake . . . I got confused . . . I'm over 60 . . . now what were we talking about?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

StG!: Same

Ok, then why is it that you don't apply the very same logic to the various titles of the Holy Spirit given in your post #206? (the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, etc)


StG!: Same as when it says Christ is in us, yet also on the throne. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."

Interesting answer! But there is a logical/theological disconnect in your answer again. My question was addressing the relationship of the Father and the Son, (two individuals) but your answer addresses the omnipresence of Christ (one individual)
Although there is an intrinsic, essential dynamic of oneness within the Godhead (cf: I am in the Father and the Father is in me), this dynamic does not confuse, much less obliterate, the relationship between the Father and the Son. A good illustration would be found in John 8: "Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." (vrs 16-18)


StG!: Agreed. Representation is one aspect, but as you point out there's a deeper, organic aspect too, and this is the real significance - it's this deeper, intrinsic aspect that's key, right? It's like saying my son looks like me. Well of course, but why? Because he shares my DNA.

I disagree that one "aspect" of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Father and the Son, and indeed with us as believers, has any more significance than the other. For example, the judicial/legal aspect of our "adoption as sons" (Gal 4:5) and "the Spirit of adoption as sons" (Rom 8:15) and "predestined us for adoption to himself as sons" (Eph 1:5) is just as significant as the "organic" aspect in John 14:19 "Because I live, you also will live". and 1 Pet 1:4 "you may become partakers of the divine nature". Witness Lee created a false dichotomy of sorts with his emphasis of the "organic" relationship over the judicial/legal aspect. As a matter of fact, Lee and his followers have implied that his teachings, and his particular emphasis of one aspect over the over other, was "recovered, high peak truth". It should go without saying by now, but I'm here to tell you that Lee's teachings, and Lee's emphases, are neither recovered truth nor high peak. In the end, my dear friend Sons to Glory!, I believe that we will find that the "many sons" will have been "brought to glory" because of, and through, the judicial AND organic aspects. All man-made aspects, emphases, significances, terms, creeds and doctrines will fade away in abject insignificance and utter worthlessness "compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us"(Rom 8:18)
-

Untohim, much quoting from John, but here is what you may want to consider: Jn 5: 26For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

We are dependent on the work of Christ. Christ Jesus here explains that he is dependent on the Father. The Father is dependent on no one, the Father is God- eternal, immortal, invisible. All things come out of Him, to Him, and through Him. Hence, the picture given to us that we should pick up is that we would relate to God as Father, Father as God. This is how Jesus lived and taught. God, the eternal God, who is above all, the everlasting one, gave life to Jesus- this is why we have the picture which we humans can understand: Father begat son. Son is dependent on Father, Father is independent- Self sufficient, Self existing, out from Whom come all things. We, through Christ are privileged to enter into this relation; we are privileged to be able to call God Father.

Untohim- all your explanations seem to me to be a dissuasion from considering this supreme blessing that God has wrought, which we should marvel at, appreciate, live by. We are not directed by scripture to delve into strange teachings which were not taught, but to hold to the teachings we were taught.

Witness Lee developed his own strange, ie non-scriptural theology, not given to us by Jesus and the apostles, by taking bits and pieces of scripture and cut and pasting and adding his own thoughts and interpretations and calling that truth and insisting that everyone accept it as such and accept him as the minister of truth, and that everyone buy his literature and study it and repeat it and believe it and live by it, and promote it to others who would buy it. It’s time for those in the LCs to chuck LSM into the cult furnace and return to scripture, and teach it and consider it, and believe it, and live by it.

[UntoHim]

Nice post Boxy. Unfortunately it is off-topic for this thread. Nice try. Please continue over on Alt-Views. Thanks.
-

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Nice post Boxy. Unfortunately it is off-topic for this thread. Nice try. Please continue over on Alt-Views. Thanks.
-

If the topic is modalism, it’s right on topic, but abbreviated on my part so as to avoid your ax. If the topic is three cheers for your brand of 4th century theology, then it is, alas, off topic. Introducing an alternative to your, or others, theology is what healthy discussion is all about. Maybe you would want to remake this thread topic to “Untohim theology”. I feel a need to counter what I feel is false, or particle theology you seem to present as opposed to the big picture presented throughout NT scripture. Are you running from or trying to bury that Jesus tells us God gave him life?

[Boxjobox]

Paul gives an interesting statement in 1Cor 15 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.

In reading this presentation from our beloved apostle Paul, who says he was called an apostle by the will of God (no small reference of his credentials) it would appear, if one was to follow the processed triune god formula, that there is a reverse process that will take place, where whatever was processed out from the source will be recalled, and the source ( God, whom Paul refers to as The Father) will return back to His status, and the other forms in the process procedure will no longer have the modal status they seem to carry in the thinking and teaching of the processed formula, the modal formula, and specifically as the source of all this nonsense, the trinitarian mother formula which are exposed here as a farce.

It should be obvious from reading this teaching of Paul, that Paul’s mind, his teaching, his revelation, his understanding, his doctrine, his orthodoxy had no tenants of triunism. In Paul’s presentation, God is the Father, and the Father is the One True God.

As far as Lee’s processed triune god formula, his process breaks down when confronted with Paul’s teaching. If certain ones are running around proclaiming themselves god-men, realize that your delusional self- aggrandizement may work well in your own cult circle, but falls flat in the light of the apostle Paul’s explanation. This shows Witness Lee to be, not an apostle of any sort, but to be a theological fraud. Best return to the scripture and dump his teachings.

As far as the triunists, realize your man made teachings do not match scripture either: reading this passage in 1Cor 15 does not teach us of a trinity God, but of the workings of the one true God, the Father.

[Boxjobox]

Yet another needed reply to what Untohim posted on the main site-modalism

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Here is a very good answer to this question by none other than Mr. Witness Lee:
Excerpt from The Spirit with Our Spirit
The Three of the Divine Trinity Coexisting and Coinhering as One God
The three of the Divine Trinity coexist and coinhere as one God from eternity to eternity (John 14:10-11, 26; 15:26; 10:30). Hence, He is the eternal God (Psa. 90:1-2). To coexist is to exist together at the same time. To coinhere is to mutually indwell one another. The Father exists in the Son and the Spirit, the Son exists in the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit exists in the Father and the Son. This is coinherence. In John 14 the Lord Jesus Himself said that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him (vv. 10-11). The Lord also said that when He came from the Father, He came with the Father (8:16, 29; 16:32b). This means that when He comes, the Father comes in Him. Christ comes with the Father, and the Spirit comes with Christ (14:26; 15:26). The three are coinhering. The Lord Jesus also revealed that His speaking is the Father’s working (14:10). Thus, the Son’s speaking is the Father’s working, and the Spirit’s moving is the Son’s moving and the Father’s moving. The three not only coexist but also coinhere.

This answer to your question, my dear friend Raptor, is the coinherence of the three Persons of the Trinity. This is "how it works" with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit indwell each other, or coinhere, Jesus Christ is in us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At the most basic level, the Holy Spirit "represents" the Father and the Son. As I mentioned to Sons to Glory! there are certainly deeper and fuller understandings of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and I think those deeper and fuller understandings may be a topic for another thread.
-

Untohim, in the scriptures I read, there is no God entity called “the Trinity”, there is no “three Persons of the Trinity”. You, and Lee create an false misrepresentation of truth/scripture/God in insisting on these. Your error comes from mixing the workings of God, you might say the plumbing God uses to deliver the water, with God Himself and thus are creating a different God than what we are given by Jesus and the apostles. In these explanations you proffer, as did Lee, you belittle the scripture and present your own “scripture” as superior, as coming from God ( Whom you misrepresent as being some sort of three person trinity). There is good reason Jesus ( through the writing of John) and Paul are adamant about presenting the Father as the one true God. It reveals the truth and voids false teachings by such as Lee and yourself. You can put you head in the sand and repeat “God is triune” for 1500 years, but you can’t negate that the scripture clearly says there is but one God, the Father. Your argument is not with me, but with scripture, with Jesus, with John, with Paul. You can ban me from opposing your fallacious teachings, but in the end I think you instinctively know you can’t set yourself up as superior to scripture. The workings of God are not the Person. God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus is the one true God. All is out from Him, through Him and to Him.
As the beloved Christ taught us- worship the Father in spirit and TRUTH.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ah, I see that Trapped is channeling his inner Boxjobox! I love it!

I think this might be a bit of a sidetrack from the discussions here.....but, what the heck....this thread has pretty much been blown to bits anyway!

Let's take a look at the verse and question and try to put it in a wider context (by comparing and contrasting the verse coming right before)

1 Corinthians 8:6 - εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

1 Corinthians 8:5 - καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many gods and many lords.

#1 Notice the sequence - One God...and one Lord, Jesus Christ. As many of you know the Greek word for Lord is κύριος This word can indicate THE LORD of heaven and earth. It can also indicate a human lord of sorts. It is clear from the context, and from the other writings of the apostle Paul, that he is referring to THE LORD of heaven and earth.

#2 Notice the wording/terms Paul used in verse 5. "many gods and many lords". Paul is equating the two - gods and lords. They are equal. They are on the same level. Then he immediately launches into the next verse with nearly the identical grammatical construct. Unfortunately, this is much clearer in the Greek than it is in the English, but I think that it is clear enough in the English that my point should be well taken.
-

Yikes! It looks like I got into Untohim’s head. So the one that forbids crossing the gulf between the main and alt site, doesn’t mind breaking his own rule.

Untohim, your error in your God/Lord explanation could be summed up by pointing out that the entire NT aim is to show that Jesus is Lord because God made him such. God, you know, the one unique, true God made Jesus, the man He raised from the dead, that Lamb OF God, MADE him Lord. (Read through Ephesians if you don’t grasp this). This Lordship of Christ Jesus has an ending- read 1 Cor 15.

Dear Untohim- you really should not erase this post, but embrace it. It was you who involved my name in your world this time.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is circular reasoning, but I'll try to answer the best I can.

First of all...and this should be painfully obvious....Church history had not taken place yet when the apostles wrote the NT. It's like asking me to show where DNA was discussed in the research of 18th century scientists.

Contemporary Christian orthodoxy is built upon the orthodoxy of the past few centuries. And the Christian orthodoxy was build upon the orthodoxy from previous generations and centuries. And if we dig back far enough, as noted by Acolyte4236, we can trace a line of orthodoxy proceeding from the earliest of 2nd generation teachers, scholars and apologists. Some have dubbed these as "the church fathers", who who are believed to have personally known some of the twelve apostles, or to have been significantly influenced by them. And there is a traceable line of orthodoxy proceeds from there. So by the time we get to the earliest of the ecumenical councils and formations of the earliest creeds and statements of faith, we find that they were not inventing new doctrines or teachings, but only reaffirming and reiterating what was passed down from the scripture writing apostles.

As I noted before, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, like so many false teachers before them, decided that would make a conscientious departing from Christian orthodoxy. Witness Lee taught us that "Protestantism is Christless". He taught that orthodox Christian teaching regarding the Trinity was "grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism". Is there any doubt that these "co-workers in the Lord's Recovery" have continued on with these absurd notions? Look at today's quote. These guys really think that we don't know what Witness Lee really taught. Their statement regarding the Triune God as posted at ShepherdingWords.Com belies the fact that Witness Lee clearly taught modalism. Anybody can easily and quickly confirm this by doing the most basic search of the quotes of Witness Lee. Seriously, how many nanoseconds can it take to discover that Lee taught that "the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh"
-

Error in presentation here should be obvious- Luke was not an apostle. Luke did his research and then wrote of those things which were believed among the church. Luke wrote Acts not prophetically, but looking back over church history. Luke did not write about tritheism.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Right, so there is a distinct parallel here and a definite contrast. V5 speaks of false gods and lords in Corinthian idolatry. V6 speaks of one unique God and Lord to us believers.

Paul makes a complete distinction between one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Look at Paul’s introduction in Chapter one, as in all his letters. Very plain distinction between One God, the Father and one Lord Jesus the Christ.

Throughout all of 1 Cor this is the pattern, such as the head of man is Christ and the head of Christ is God.

[Boxjobox]

Lee had a unique form of modalism as far as I know- the processed triune god. In presenting God in such a manner, his source material, the Father, became a rather useless, historical figure who was seldom brought out in LC practice, because, really He was processed into Jesus. So Jesus became the all in all, all things were prescribed to Jesus, and anything received from Jesus was through the Jesus become “a” oops THE life giving Spirit. So it was all Jesus- the processed one.

It was of no consequence that Jesus said such things as I am the way... no one comes to the Father except by me, or that eternal life was to know the Father, the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. Considering the Father was a waste of time, other than He had to be a place holder, an historic figure, a source- but not to be reckoned with, because the process produced the end product, Jesus.

Of course, none of this is the narrative of the NT, so a recovery version had to be produced with scripture and a whole lot of footnotes lest one just read scripture and drift away from the Lee version of God. ( which is why Psalms became so problematic- how could you have people singing about God and His Christ and follow the Lee theology?) But this was and is the content of the LC/Recovery, and LSM would not be in business without it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Paul makes a complete distinction between one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Look at Paul’s introduction in Chapter one, as in all his letters. Very plain distinction between One God, the Father and one Lord Jesus the Christ.

Throughout all of 1 Cor this is the pattern, such as the head of man is Christ and the head of Christ is God.

Not true at all. And you are guilty of neglecting the context in v. 8.5.

There is no "complete distinction" in Paul's writing. That is your fabrication.

Look at Titus 2.10-14, "Not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."

Who is our Savior? God Himself.

What is our blessed hope? The return of our God and Savior.

Who will appear in glory? Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior.

Who has redeemed us? Our great God and Savior Jesus.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not true at all. And you are guilty of neglecting the context in v. 8.5.

There is no "complete distinction" in Paul's writing. That is your fabrication.

Ohio, I can’t respond to something I don’t understand. What is out of context? Unbelieving ( and apparently some believing Corinthians) had many gods and many lords. Paul says to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Paul continuously preaches and teaches that God made Jesus Lord. This shouldn’t be a mystery or a point of contention, but should be our profession.

I realize there is a problem accepting that both Paul and Jesus tell us there is only one true God, the Father. It’s not what is professed in Christiandom today. I don’t hear you, or others talking in terms of “the God of our Lord Jesus. That should also be our vocabulary.

What am I taking out of context?

1Cor 8 4Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; 6yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Ohio, I can’t respond to something I don’t understand. What is out of context? Unbelieving ( and apparently some believing Corinthians) had many gods and many lords. Paul says to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Paul continuously preaches and teaches that God made Jesus Lord. This shouldn’t be a mystery or a point of contention, but should be our profession.

I realize there is a problem accepting that both Paul and Jesus tell us there is only one true God, the Father. It’s not what is professed in Christiandom today. I don’t hear you, or others talking in terms of “the God of our Lord Jesus. That should also be our vocabulary.

What am I taking out of context?

Ok, I'll spell it out. The idolatrous city of Corinth had much daily talk about their many gods and many lords. These were all unseen gods and lords, to be worshiped by the pagans with their priests, who offered sacrifices to them. In fact all foods were sacrificed to these gods and lords. Many of these had statues too. Many of the Corinthians had their own favorite god and lord. This pagan culture, with these pagan gods and lords, with these pagan sacrifices and practices were all counterfeits of the real "thing," the reality who is Christ, worshiped by the saints.

Paul used this as background to compare. He provided a parallel and a contrast. To us there is one God. To us there is one Lord. Paul's emphasis here was on "one." One God. One Lord. Then he added some description. He could have called God the Creator, like he did in Athens. He could have called Jesus the promised Messiah, like he usually did with a Jewish audience. He could have said, "Lord of lords and God of gods."

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look at Titus 2.10-14, "Not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."

We have talked about this before- the meaning changes depending on where the translators put commas, which are not in Greek. the version you give puts a comma after God and savior. Many put a comma after God: our God , and savior Jesus Christ. This is not a good verse to try to promote your view, in that meaning is not sufficiently clear.

Concerning our hope in relation to this what Paul says, you may want to read 1Peter chapter one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

We have talked about this before- the meaning changes depending on where the translators put commas, which are not in Greek. the version you give puts a comma after God and savior. Many put a comma after God: our God , and savior Jesus Christ. This is not a good verse to try to promote your view, in that meaning is not sufficiently clear.

Concerning our hope in relation to this what Paul says, you may want to read 1Peter chapter one.

No amount of commas in the world can save your heresy. Read my post again.