Triune God, modalism, or are you heretic?

[KSA]

Here I would like to discuss the teachings of LC about God. It is a hot topic and therefore needs to be addressed fairly. First of all, I would say that Witness Lee teaching on God differed from common teaching. I think all of us who came to LC found his teaching new - something we hardly heard in Christianity. Now, I am not saying at present that his teachings were not biblical - this we will figure out together. I am saying they were different.

Okay, I do not have time right now for a large post; therefore I'll start with one point for starters. It would be a good beginning.

Witness Lee differed in his teaching that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the entire Triune God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Most common teaching is that Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity - the Son.

Now your thoughts, please...

[YP0534]

I always have been and still today now remain very comfortable with the idea that the moderator of a public forum may one day conspire with others, likeminded or not, to have me burned at the stake for rejecting the historical prescribed dogma of Roman Catholicsm and all of its many multiplied descendents and instead accepting each and every one of Lee's teachings on the topic of the Trinity where they are plainly founded on the Bible.

Therefore, I'd propose a shift in this inquiry:

We should concern ourselves with the question of whether Lee's teachings are in conformity with the scriptures and also whether the "common teachings" themselves are in conformity with the scriptures.

My impression is that the dusty old doctrines and creeds of the so-called "Church" are of little to no value in living the reality of the Christian life. If you think they are, then don't call me a Christian if that makes you happy. It is no problem to be different from all the world if all the world is simply wrong.

Although I'd concede that Lee got a little loose sometimes in his speaking and that looseness caused him trouble in terms of valid criticism, the ridiculous charges of heresy should be at last put to rest by serious review and comment outside of the "Affirmation and Critique" blind defense of Lee's doctrine.

In other words, we can look at issues surrounding "Persons" and "hypostases" and "co-exist and co-inhere" until the Lord returns but that wouldn't really benefit anyone and none of that is fundamentally the Bible anyway. And I for one have absolutely no interest in the topic.

Garbage from Lee is no better or worse than garbage from Augustine.

Like I said. Kindle the fires.


Otherwise, this is my sole contribution:

Yes, Lee taught differently from the "common teachings."

Definitely, yes.

[OBW]

I think that it is in an inquiry like this that we will discover the dogmas of the historical teachings of Christianity, both RCC and Protestant, to be incomplete. Many of us were seeing something of this in the last month of interplay with the BARM’s super-moderators.

Without going into the details, after reading the BARM statement on the Trinity over a year ago (written by abugian, I believe) I noticed that it was well written and consistent with most other such writings I have seen previously. But it was mostly dismissive of the verses that demonstrate the oneness and interplay of the Three that are One.

There is something mysterious about a “three” with one image. About a God from whom there is stated to be “one Spirit” (Ephesians) yet the references to the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord (in a discussion about the resurrected Christ).

For all my ranting about the errors of Lee, I remember him on more than one occasion referencing the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary’s statement to the effect that we must be careful in the use of the term “person” when describing the Trinity or risk the possibility of falling into the error of tritheism. (I wish someone could find that reference and verify that it was not out of context. Lee was great at taking things out of context.)

When you read the words of the BARM on the subject, you are impressed with a God of three persons that share an essence. They stand on the fence the separates Trinitarian from tritheist while holding onto a thin chord called “essence” to keep from falling onto the wrong side. My observation is that Lee mostly did just the opposite, using virtually all of his breath to describe the singular aspects of the One God, holding ever so loosely onto the belief that the event described at Jesus’ baptism was more than some parlor trick to give the illusion of three.

There is something mysterious about this God who is fully three and fully one. For any who say that those words are not in scripture, I agree. But neither are the words spoken by the “separate persons” crowd or those who would make God into a singular who transitioned his appearance over time. Each position is like a man describing a skyscraper from a singular vantage point. For each perspective, there is something different to see. While none are wrong, none are entirely correct because they can only see a part.

From the vantage point of God as three, it is well established that the second ─ the Son ─ “became flesh.” But seeing that One was also seeing the Father, not just seeing someone with a resemblance to the Father. That means that the very three/one dichotomy makes even this straightforward question somewhat ambiguous. I would say that the record is that the Son became flesh, but that all of the Godhead dwelt in Him. It is a subject upon which the correct answers would seem to be equivocation due to reality of those answers being outside of the understanding and experience of man. Our understanding is limited by the bounds of physics, biology, chemistry, time, and even philosophy and imagination because God is outside those constraints.

[YP0534]

Lee's statement:

"Griffith Thomas, the writer of the best exposition on Romans, said in his book, Principles of Theology, ‘‘The term Person is also sometimes objected to. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism ... While we are compelled to use terms like ‘substance’ and ‘Person,’ we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance and personality ... The truth of the experience of the Trinity is not dependent upon theological terminology.’’ Griffith Thomas also said that our human language is inadequate to explain this divine mystery. We lack the language, the utterance, and the terms. We are short of the proper understanding of this divine mystery." LS Genesis, Message 30

This seems to be the source: William Henry Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (New York:Longmans, Green, & Co., 1930), p. 31.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I always have been and still today now remain very comfortable with the idea that the moderator of a public forum may one day conspire with others, likeminded or not, to have me burned at the stake for rejecting the historical prescribed dogma of Roman Catholicsm and all of its many multiplied descendents and instead accepting each and every one of Lee's teachings on the topic of the Trinity where they are plainly founded on the Bible.

Therefore, I'd propose a shift in this inquiry:

We should concern ourselves with the question of whether Lee's teachings are in conformity with the scriptures and also whether the "common teachings" themselves are in conformity with the scriptures.

That is exactly what I proposed. To compare with the Scriptures! I mentioned "common teaching" for a certain reason. On the one hand, LC and BB claim that their teaching on God is within Orthodoxy and therefore deny accusations in heresy. On the other hand, they claim that the Orthodox view is deficient, and say that their teaching is according to the "pure Word". So before comparing LC's teachings on God with Scripture, I thought it would be profitable to see where their teachings stand regarding the common teachings in Christianity. As I have stated in my first point offered for discussion, Witness Lee differed from Christianity in his belief that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Triune God, when other Christians commonly teach that Christ was the incarnation of the second Person of Trinity - the Son. Now we have to find out what teaching is scriptural. I would suggest that we should go point by point. Let this point be the first. We can come to other points - like modalism - later. So what are your thoughts regarding this point?

My impression is that the dusty old doctrines and creeds of the so-called "Church" are of little to no value in living the reality of the Christian life. If you think they are, then don't call me a Christian if that makes you happy. It is no problem to be different from all the world if all the world is simply wrong.

I wouldn't brush creeds away so quickly. I agree that creeds are not the Word of God and are not infallible. We base our faith on the Word of God, not the creeds. However, creeds express certain stages of the church development. It is good to take them into consideration and not act too independently. We do not exist in vacuum. We have 2000 years of church history - and this history is not worthless - we may learn a lot from history, both from its achievements and its failures.

In other words, we can look at issues surrounding "Persons" and "hypostases" and "co-exist and co-inhere" until the Lord returns but that wouldn't really benefit anyone and none of that is fundamentally the Bible anyway. And I for one have absolutely no interest in the topic.

I somewhat agree with you here, but not fully. Our Christian life hinges upon our knowledge of God. Therefore, we should try to know God both spiritually and intellectually. We will never get the full answers, but we will grow in the knowledge of the Lord. And the matter of hypostasis is actually quite important, when we come to it. So I hope in the future to ignite your interest in this topic.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

I wouldn't brush creeds away so quickly. I agree that creeds are not the Word of God and are not infallible. We base our faith on the Word of God, not the creeds. However, creeds express certain stages of the church development. It is good to take them into consideration and not act too independently. We do not exist in vacuum. We have 2000 years of church history - and this history is not worthless - we may learn a lot from history, both from its achievements and its failures.

I somewhat agree with you here, but not fully. Our Christian life hinges upon our knowledge of God. Therefore, we should try to know God both spiritually and intellectually. We will never get the full answers, but we will grow in the knowledge of the Lord. And the matter of hypostasis is actually quite important, when we come to it. So I hope in the future to ignite your interest in this topic.

I came to LC out of RCC via universalism a very long time ago. When that "Beliefs and Practices" thing came out, I was flabbergasted, although I suspended judgment for awhile since it seemed like it was pretty good.

I am not unaware of history and I seriously have no use for creeds whatsoever as a direct consequence.

I might be showing my LC roots when I say it, but, I had to laugh at the very notion of "church development." Sorry!

The only thing set in Nicea was rigor mortis.

The BARM favor credal formulae for good and self-evident reasons, I think. It took me about three weeks to be well past done over there.

I just hate to see people yet again drawn into the thicket.

But, whatchagonnado?

We are free in Christ to even hypostasis if we want to!

[KSA]

Ok YP0534, you do not like the topic. Maybe someone else is interested. What do you think of the incarnation of Christ?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

Ok YP0534, you do not like the topic. Maybe someone else is interested. What do you think of the incarnation of Christ?

I think it's marvellous that Christ was incarnated as the mystery of God, don't you?

My!

I was watching a PBS show last night about the vastness of the universe and they were just going on and on about how vast the universe really is and about how we're on a speck of a planet and only on a thin surface layer of it.

That the very God who made the heavens and the earth would become confined within one of us teeny human beings in order to accomplish something mostly for our benefit is just beyond use of superlatives!

And that this One having passed through so many human experiences, even death itself, in order to get into and grow in all of us? My heart is racing just a little bit writing this! Too wonderful for words really!

PRAISE THE LORD!

HALLELUJAH!

[Timotheist]

I agree with these sentiments about the Triune God teachings posted thus far in this thread:

1) The 'orthodox' dogma is flawed, or incomplete
2) Lee's teachings are 'scriptural', but also flawed, or incomplete

Now about "modalsim"

I don't think John was seeing a "sevenfold, intensified, Spirit". Rather, these seven spirits can be found in non-canonical texts: they are the seven Arch-Angels.

To me the Spirit that breathed life into Adam is the same Spirit that is breathed into new testament believers. The difference lies in the degree of God's "presence". The Holy Spirit is a stronger degree of God's presence than the first:

1) The Spirit gives life: the Holy Spirit gives holy life
2) The Spirit gives a human his life: the Holy Spirit gives eternal life.

The Spirit did not have to "change" to become a life-giving Spirit. Rather the dose was increased, this made somehow possible by the redemption of the cross.

But I find it interesting that Christ took his resurrected body with Him to heaven and was described as seated on the "right hand" of God. What happened?

1) Did Christ sit at the right hand before His incarnation?
2) Or did having a Body make Him a separate entity (or at least more separate than before)?

I have spent some time looking into Jewish apocrypha trying to see any evidence of two thrones or a twofold Godhead of Father and Son. Recently I found this reference and will one day do some more research on it. It appears that there is a somewhat controversial passage (to Jews) in the Talmud that refers to a 'greater Yahweh' and a 'lesser Yahweh'. There is an introduction to this subject in Wikipedia at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron

The description seems to paint a 'Co-existing but separable' God on the Throne.

Check it out!

[KSA]

It seems nobody is interested in this thread

[Only by Grace]

OK, KSA...I like this thread, but being as I'm not an expert on LC theology as taught by Lee, and I'm not a biblical apologist, but rather, your run of the mill evangelical, born again Christian...let me just pull something from another thread that was stated that sounds "off" to me. Something that Lee taught that doesn't align with what I've been "taught" or read from the Bible myself.

"Ultimately, of course, our destiny is to blended and mingled with one another and the Triune God unto the eternal consummation of God's eternal purpose."

I don't believe that is my destiny. I don't believe the Bible teaches this as our destiny. I don't expect to be blended and mingled with one another and the Triune God...even though you're all nice folks and all.

I believe that we are here on this planet to please Him, give glory to Him, to worship Him and to share the wonderful news of salvation by grace by faith in Jesus Christ. THEN, I believe in the simplicity of Heaven...a wonderful, currently unknown-to-us place, where in spirit and with new glorified (individual) bodies, we will cast crowns at His "feet" (whatever form He has taken on) crying, Holy, Holy, Holy! (Yes, I know there will be other things we'll be "doing" -- but you know, no more cryin' there, no more pain, etc.)

So...how's that for starters? Or, does this go to another thread (a laymen's one?)...or, do the rotten tomatoes start getting tossed my way! Or maybe I should just back slowly out of the room and humbly and quietly head to another forum?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

OK, KSA...I like this thread, but being as I'm not an expert on LC theology as taught by Lee, and I'm not a biblical apologist, but rather, your run of the mill evangelical, born again Christian...let me just pull something from another thread that was stated that sounds "off" to me. Something that Lee taught that doesn't align with what I've been "taught" or read from the Bible myself.

Quote: blended, mingled, consummated...etc

I don't belive that is my destiny. I don't believe the Bible teaches this as our destiny. I don't expect to be blended and mingled with one another and the Triune God...even though you're all nice folks and all.

I believe that we are here on this planet to please Him, give glory to Him, to worship Him and to share the wonderful news of salvation by grace by faith in Jesus Christ. THEN, I believe in the simplicity of Heaven...a wonderful, currently unknown-to-us place, where in spirit and with new glorified (individual) bodies, we will cast crowns at His "feet" (whatever form He has taken on) crying, Holy, Holy, Holy! (Yes, I know there will be other things we'll be "doing" -- but you know, no more cryin' there, no more pain, etc.)

So...how's that for starters? Or, does this go to another thread (a laymen's one?)...or, do the rotten tomatoes start getting tossed my way! Or maybe I should just back slowly out of the room and humbly and quietly head to another forum?

Actually, Grace, I wrote that tongue-in-cheek. It was a quote, not direct, but a mish-mash quote of the sayings that delineate the teachings of the 'Lord's Recovery' theology. Lee believed that and spoke it and got a lot of people to take his terminology as the equivalent of the gospel. However, the gospel to me is that I am a sinner who believed into the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I endeavor to go on in this faith, which includes among other things receiving the believers who are alongside me. That includes you, among others, so please stay!

Sorry to throw you off by that quote. It needed some parenthetical thing, perhaps combined with smiley faces! I have a dry sense of humor, sometimes too dry...

KSA, I don't understand this kind of theology, sorry. Lee didn't do a good job explaining it to me. No one has, so I suspect either I'm dull or it doesn't matter too much. I probably just haven't 'got it' yet.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by aron

KSA, I don't understand this kind of theology, sorry. Lee didn't do a good job explaining it to me. No one has, so I suspect either I'm dull or it doesn't matter too much. I probably just haven't 'got it' yet.

Okay, let me state my reasons for starting this thread. One of the major accusation against LC is that of modalism. However, I found out that those who set this accusation do not really know theology well. My discussion at the Bereans proved it. When we touch this matter two things usually come up: 1) Is Witness Lee's theology scriptural? 2) Is Witness Lee's theology "orthodox" i.e. in accordance with historical Christian faith. At the beginning of this thread I stated that Witness Lee's view of incarnation is not "orthodox" - he taught that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Trinity, when "orthodox" or "historical" approach is that Christ was the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity - the Son. Now we have to face a question: which position is scriptural? And is it important? If not, why? If yes, why?

Ohio, if this thread doesn't take off well, I will share some of my thoughts. But I will wait a bit longer, maybe someone will pick this topic up. SpeakersCorner, how about you?

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I am interested in this thread but I think you can move along the time line a little further and ask if the Father and the Holy Spirit where incarnated does this mean they died on the cross? And if not what happened to them?

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by KSA

SpeakersCorner, how about you?

KSA,

Nothing makes this ol' fish bite faster than a lure like that.

I would like to take the angle of who died on the cross. Charles Wesley wrote in 1738, "Tis mystery all: the Immortal dies. Who can explore His strange design?"

When I first really noticed this line it shocked me. The immortal dies? It is an absolute contradiction of itself. Immortality cannot be mortality. And yet it happened. For me, this paradox has been one of the reasons I continue to preach Christ to others. It is the deepest truth in the universe, at least in my estimation. It is my hope, for if the immortal can take on mortality, then perhaps the mortal can take on immortality.

So for me the whole thing must be true: God died that day on the cross. I realize it is much more complex than that, but it also is that simple. If you explain away that God didn't really die, just the Son did, then you have diminished the cross experience by two thirds at least.

Anyway, that's my starting salvo. Yes, the entire Godhead dwelled in the Son. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.


SC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by KSA

Ohio, if this thread doesn't take off well, I will share some of my thoughts. But I will wait a bit longer, maybe someone will pick this topic up. SpeakersCorner, how about you?

I like SC's post about "The Immortal" dieing on the cross. What mystery!

If we can explain it all, then it becomes worthless doctrine, with little ability to inspire us or others. Nearly none of the Berean theological threads did me any good. I would usually just "shake my head" and "walk away."

Here's a line of thought that I do love. It came from a Brethren? tract "Jesus is Jehovah" refuting the "Jesus is not God" nonsense. The author compared numerous OT and NT scripture covering a couple dozen topics, the first one being creation. E.g. Isa 45 says, "Jehovah made the earth and man." John 1 says , "All things were made by Him." How can you NOT say that Jesus is Jehovah? Reading thru the booklet, the author makes an overwhelming case that Jesus is Jehovah.

What a great mystery this is. I can't begin to understand it. No, the Bible does not say, "Jesus is the Father," but so many scripture indicate that the Father and the Son are not "two separate and distinct persons, who both just happen to be God."

Phil Comfort, who was perhaps the most studious and most passionate minister I ever sat under in the LC, and who went on to become a well-respected Greek scholar, told me something helpful, that I never forgot, and perhaps helps to summarize my view of God. Referring to John 14.8, he said, "Many Christians in that day will still be asking the Lord Jesus, 'will you now show us the Father?'"

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by KSA

Okay, let me state my reasons for starting this thread. One of the major accusation against LC is that of modalism. However, I found out that those who set this accusation do not really know theology well. My discussion at the Bereans proved it. When we touch this matter two things usually come up: 1) Is Witness Lee's theology scriptural? 2) Is Witness Lee's theology "orthodox" i.e. in accordance with historical Christian faith. At the beginning of this thread I stated that Witness Lee's view of incarnation is not "orthodox" - he taught that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Trinity, when "orthodox" or "historical" approach is that Christ was the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity - the Son. Now we have to face a question: which position is scriptural? And is it important? If not, why? If yes, why?

For clearer discussion, please allow me to post the following excerpts from "The Move of God in Man" how Brother Witness Lee taught regarding this subject:

IV. ALL THE DIVINE TRINITY PARTICIPATING
IN THE INCARNATION

All the Divine Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—participated in the incarnation. Many Christians are accustomed to saying that the incarnation is merely the incarnation of Christ, but we must realize that this is the incarnation of Christ with the Divine Trinity.

A. Being the Incarnation of Christ as God

The incarnation is the incarnation of Christ as God. First Timothy 3:16 says that Christ was God manifested in the flesh. John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh. This is the incarnation of the Word. But verse 1 says that the Word was God, and God here is the complete God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The incarnation is the incarnation of Christ, who is the embodiment of the Triune God (Col. 2:9). Therefore, the incarnation of Christ is the incarnation of the Triune God.

B. Being the Incarnation of the Son of God

God's incarnation was the incarnation of the Son of God (Rom. 8:3). In His essence God is one, but in His economical move, God is three. This is why we do not say that God the Father accomplished redemption. We say that God the Son accomplished redemption. Acts 20:28, however, says that God obtained the church with "His own blood." Thus, the blood of Christ is the blood of God. This implies that the Lord Jesus is God. This shows that we have to be very careful when we talk about the Divine Trinity in His person and in His work. The safest way is to just follow the Bible. Whatever the Bible says, we should say. The Bible reveals the economical aspect of the Divine Trinity and it also reveals the essential aspect. Our redemption was accomplished by God the Son economically, but God the Father and God the Spirit also took part in this accomplishment. Whatever the Son did was with the Father and by the Spirit because the three are essentially one.

C. God the Father Having Participated
in the Incarnation

God the Father participated in the incarnation. Isaiah 9:6 says that a Son was given to us. This was the incarnation. According to Isaiah 9:6, the Son given to us in incarnation is called the eternal Father. Is this One the Son or the Father? John 5:43a says that the Son came in the name of the Father. We need to consider what this means. If a person goes to the bank to cash a check signed by another person, he must go there in the name of that person. To go to the bank in the name of another person is to go there as that person. The Son coming in the name of the Father means that He came as the Father. This is equivalent to the Son being the Father; hence, He is called the Father in Isaiah 9:6.

In the Divine Trinity, the Son, the Father, and the Spirit are all one. The Son came, but the Son and the Father coinhere. To coinhere is to mutually indwell each other. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really one. No one can divide Them. There is a distinction among Them but there is no separation. In the Lord's prayer in John 17, He revealed that He and the Father are one (vv. 21-22). From all of this we can see that the Father participated in the incarnation.

D. God the Spirit Having Joined the Incarnation

God the Spirit also joined the incarnation. In Luke 1:35 the angel told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her as the power for her to conceive the holy child. Matthew 1:18 and 20 tell us further that Mary "was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" and that "that which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit." This indicates that the divine essence out of the Holy Spirit had been begotten in Mary's womb before she delivered the child Jesus. The incarnation was of the Son of God, but it was carried out by the Spirit. The Spirit also participated in the incarnation.

Now we can see that the entire Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—was incarnated. All three participated in the incarnation. When we say "God's move in man," we mean the Triune God's move in man, the move of the Three of the Divine Trinity. God's incarnation was the start of God's direct move in man. The Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—all came out of eternity with divinity to enter into a human being to be one with man, to make Himself a man, and to participate in man's nature (Heb. 2:14a). This is so great and is far beyond our natural thought and understanding. God came in a silent way, in a secret way, and even in a small way. He came in His Divine Trinity to enter into a human being and be born there. By this He made Himself one with man and a part of man. From the time of His incarnation, He began not only to be in man but also to be a man.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

So...how's that for starters?

No, no, no I'd like to first discuss the incarnation of Christ. Was Christ the incarnation of the entire Triune God or only of the Son? Let's stick to this for awhile. At present I am not interested in mingling and blending.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by KSA

It seems nobody is interested in this thread

Wait a minute here ... I'm interested in reading what KSA has to say!

I suppose it's readily apparent that when we consider both the "teachings and practices" of the LC, that KSA leans towards the former, and I lean towards the latter. I can't help it. He can't either. Doctrines bore me. But ... I do like to read KSA's posts about them. For example, just this morning, I was driving through town and passed a Greek Orthodox Church, and I began to think about the many posts I read by KSA who presented an "eastern" view of theology, rather than my own "western" or RCC view.

My encouragement to KSA is this, don't look at the "replies" column, but rather look at the "views" column.

[finallyprettyokay]

Here is a little story that happened to me just the other day. I think it is a sweet little example of how much God loves us. Umm, I think that would be God the Father. Or maybe the Son.

What happened was we were at a campground, with our cute cute little dog (a Shih Tzu, so cute), and this man came over to meet our little dog and talk to me. The man was in his 80's, I think.

After a couple of minutes, he started to tell me about his little dog that had died just a few months ago. He was really sad.

I listened, and indicated how sad it was. And I almost asked him what his dog's name was, but I had a shouting voice inside me say DO NOT ASK HIM. The voice was loud, clear, and definite. Don't do it.

I stopped, a little confused --- why not ? Why would asking him his little dog's name be a bad thing? And then the voice said because, if you do, this man will fall apart. It just would have been too close, too much for him. We talked a few more minutes, and then he went on his way.

So, I have thought about this a lot of times since then. I have thought that God (the Father) knows this man, and loves him. And He knows that if this man started to cry in front of me it would have been a horrible experience for him. And God wanted to spare him that pain.

And God also knows me pretty darn well. So the Holy Spirit hollered at me. No still, small voice this time. Got my attention.

So, I have thought about it a lot of times. Thought about how much God loves that man. I was witness to just a small little incident that any parent would do to protect their child.

What does this have to do with this thread on the Trinity? Well, just that I feel like I saw that fullness of God in this thing that happened. I really have never tried very hard to understand the nuances of the doctrine we are discussing here -- it always seemed easy to me. God/One/Three --

But boy, oh boy, does He love us. I feel so privileged that I got to see God in action here, just taking care of a man I will probably never see again. But God will!!!

Thanks, you guys. I like to be here, share with all of you, have you listen to me. It's nice.

PS -- SpeakerCorner --- I love Charles Wesley. He writes the most mysterious songs of all. Deep stuff. But it always sort of kills me that I actually have a favorite hymm writer. I just don't seem to me like the kind of girl that would. But there you have it.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

....What does this have to do with this thread on the Trinity? Well, just that I feel like I saw that fullness of God in this thing that happened. I really have never tried very hard to understand the nuances of the doctrine we are discussing here -- it always seemed easy to me. God/One/Three --

For all the doctrines on the Trinity, the Truine God, we KNOW HE is real! We may not understand the intricities but without anyone explaining the Triune God to us, we experience HIM.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

For all the doctrines on the Trinity, the Truine God, we KNOW HE is real! We may not understand the intricities but without anyone explaining the Triune God to us, we experience HIM.

This is a very Leeish view

And I really hope we get more smilies in the future. Our humor needs more ways for expression.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by KSA

This is a very Leeish view

And I really hope we get more smilies in the future. Our humor needs more ways for expression.

Yeah...and just think...I've been out of the LC for 30 plus years now!! Man...my heart goes out to those who have just gotten out recently !!

[KSA]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

For all the doctrines on the Trinity, the Truine God, we KNOW HE is real! We may not understand the intricities but without anyone explaining the Triune God to us, we experience HIM.

We may also say that God is Triune so that we can get drunk with the Spirit. A drunk person has no problem to understand how one can be three - he experiences it every day. So let us get drunk with the Spirit. I am actually typing all these posts in this thread just to get drunk.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by KSA

We may also say that God is Triune so that we can get drunk with the Spirit. A drunk person has no problem to understand how one can be three - he experiences it every day. So let us get drunk with the Spirit. I am actually typing all these posts in this thread just to get drunk.

Oh KSA...I KNOW what you mean about being drunk in the Spirit!!! I had to pull over one day while I was Praising/Worshipping the Lord in my car while driving!! I was on my way to an appointment & couldn't get out of my car!

Drink on Brother KSA!! Drink ON!!!!!!!!!!!! GLORY- GLORY- GLORY to the NAME of JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS !! JEEEEEEEEEESUS!! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS, We LOVE YOU LORD JESUS!!!!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Oh KSA...I KNOW what you mean about being drunk in the Spirit!!! I had to pull over one day while I was Praising/Worshipping the Lord in my car while driving!! I was on my way to an appointment & couldn't get out of my car!

Drink on Brother KSA!! Drink ON!!!!!!!!!!!! GLORY- GLORY- GLORY to the NAME of JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS !! JEEEEEEEEEESUS!! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS, We LOVE YOU LORD JESUS!!!!!

I bet cmw has smiley faces all over her car too! What a sight to see!

[Abounding]

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Abounding

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

I would suggest that it is not that simple either way.

But I would also suggest that unless you intend to say that there is simply one God who left heaven entirely to become the visible Son in the Middle East at what we now consider the transition from BC to AD, then left that to become the Spirit, then it probably is truly modalism. Does that warrant a claim that you are not Christian? Probably not.

But modalism is not the point of this thread anyway.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Abounding

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

JustynM from the other forum is convinced that WL and all current and former members are all modalists, and thus should all be considered a cult. The Bible has fewer demands than the Berean management.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

JustynM from the other forum is convinced that WL and all current and former members are all modalists, and thus should all be considered a cult. The Bible has fewer demands than the Berean management.

I think it may be helpful to understand that just because somebody is under the ministry of someone who teaches heresy, that does NOT make them a heretic. Only the person who actually teaches heresy should be considered a heretic.

Furthermore, in my view, there are degrees or shades of heresy. Some heresy may take the form of gross misinterpretation and misuse of the scriptures. I think many, if not most, of the "heresies" (open for debate!) taught by Witness Lee fall under this category of misinterpretation and misuse of the scriptures.

A glaring, red-letter example of this is Witness Lee's teachings regarding the trinity - they are at the very least extremely contradictory and confusing, and this has lead to the somewhat "confused" question by our friend Abounding.

Originally Posted by Abounding

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

Like OBW says

Originally Posted by OBW

I would suggest that it is not that simple either way.

Witness Lee tried to make it simple by saying that Isaiah 9:6 say that the Father is called the Son and that 1 Corinthians 15:45 says the Son became the Spirit. It does not help that these are the very same verses used by many of the "Jesus only" proponents, such as the Oneness Pentecostals.

Please note that these are my personal views and not the "official position" of this forum. The official position of this forum is that anybody's view is just as official as the next. Everybody's arguments will rise and fall upon there own merit, especially when it comes to proposals and contentions placed here in the apologetic discussions board.