The Bible record describes God leading people into and out of things

[Evangelical]

The bible record describes God leading people into and out of things in various ways, for various lengths of time, at various times, for various purposes.

The bible mentions people being lead out of at least the following:
sin (obviously)
other religions (e.g. Judaism)
the world and mystery Babylon
occupations (e.g. fishing)
country of residence or birth
deception

It is notable that we do not find any examples of God leading people into and out of a few things including:
the truth, marriage, responsibilities to children and families (1 Tim 5:8), ministry, and churches.

But I would invite anyone to find one example of God leading someone out of a church in the Bible, I cannot find any.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But I would invite anyone to find one example of God leading someone out of a church in the Bible, I cannot find any.

I think you know why. Jesus Christ established only one Church, one ecclesia, not a collection of different churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

I think you know why. Jesus Christ established only one Church, one ecclesia, not a collection of different churches.

What I cannot understand is why Watchman Nee left the Protestant denomination to form his own church. Paul said, "In what you were called, in this remain." Nee did not remain.(1 Cor. 7)

Why leave a Protestant denomination, which according to Brethren teachings had a genuine lampstand (see RecV footnotes in Rev. 3) and go to the Philadelphia lampstand? Why leave one church for another?

My sense here is that it was like the rest of his ministry, and Witness Lee after him: untrammeled subjectivity. "When we do it, it's not sectarianism."

Like the 'recovery' of the principles of authority and submission, which conveniently occurred only after his senior co-worker Leland Wang was removed from the scene. Nee and Lee were both adept at uncovering biblical principles which applied to all but themselves.

[aron]

"But the Protestant church isn't a true church. It's a daughter of the Great Harlot". Okay, then, how did you find salvation there? How does it then supposedly have a lampstand burning with eternal fire before the One who is?

The whole thing is nonsensical mind games. O what tangled webs we weave!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

What I cannot understand is why Watchman Nee left the Protestant denomination to form his own church. Paul said, "In what you were called, in this remain." Nee did not remain.(1 Cor. 7)

You don't seem to know what the lampstand actually is. Why don't you tell us what you think the lampstand is? The lampstand is not something that once you have you keep it for ever. We need to keep the lampstand. The Protestants lost their lamp stand.

A summary of the descriptions of the churches is:

Catholic - apostate church
Protestant - degraded reformed church
Brethren - degraded recovered church
local churches - genuine recovered church

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

.The Protestants lost their lamp stand.

So how many lampstands are now burning before God? Four? Do you have any idea how naive this interpretation looks?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

So how many lampstands are now burning before God? Four? Do you have any idea how naive this interpretation looks?

No, only the locality churches have a lampstand.

No where in the Bible do we find a lamp stand given to a church with a name other than its locality.

Please show us from the Bible where Jesus gave a lamp stand to the Lutheran church or the Baptist church?

Do you know what the lampstand is anyway?

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A summary of the descriptions of the churches is:

Catholic - apostate church
Protestant - degraded reformed church
Brethren - degraded recovered church
local churches - genuine recovered church

Evangelical, I am sorry but I belive this is a myth. You must know the Bible well, so do you really want to say that Jesus Christ is a liar or the Bible truth changes?

It is the Lord who says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. (Matthew 16:18).

If the Church became apostate or degraded, this means the Church was conquered by hell and the Lord didn't keep His promise.

It also means that the apostles were not able to choose and instruct the right disciples. And it also means that the Holy Spirit became inactive in the Church for many centuries. Do you believe all this?

What about the Apostle Paul who says that the Church is holy and without blemish, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing? (Ephesians 5:27) Was it just a temporary Bible truth?

It is the same Apostle who says that the Church is the household of God, a pillar and ground of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

When Jesus says, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20), doesn't this mean that the Lord will be with His Church all the time to the end of the age?

Do you mean that the Lord and the Holy Spirit left His Church at the first centuries, took a pause, then, in the 15 century, the Lord was recovered by Luther, and then He was lost again... until the 20th century when Witness Lee recovered the Lord and the true Christian faith at last?

Then what about Ephesians 3:21? "to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever."

Doesn't this mean that the Church will glorify the Lord through all generations, always? Do you want to say that the Church stopped to glorify the Lord (I.e. the Church disappeared) until the Lord and His Church were recovered by Witness Lee and his man-made organization?

Evangelical, don't you see the contradictions?

I hope you will not say that the Church became invisible. The Lord and Apostles never said anything about invisible church. The Church is the Body of Christ. The Body, ecclesia, must be visible. The ecclesia are those people who gather together.

If the Church became apostate, then why do you accept her Bible which was compiled in the 4th century? It means you read the book of corrupt church. Why do you accept and trust the Bible canon of the apostate church? The canon which was formed by the Church Fathers in the year 363 at the Council in Laodicea? You don't seem to be consistent. What if apostate church gave you a wrong canon of the Bible? WL should have recovered it as well. Why did he give a new translation and didn't change the canon?

I think this statement is more consistent:

"If the gates of Hell prevailed against it even for one day, then that Scripture is wrong. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit will always teach and guide the Church, and lead it into all Truth. As Christians we have to believe that that Scripture is true, and that God has always preserved and kept His Church alive and well." (An Eastern Orthodox author).

Why should I trust you and Witness Lee and not the Apostolic Fathers, who followed and studied from the Apostles personally? Why should I believe you and Witness Lee but not early Church writings and Christian authors of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. centuries? They are very consistent in their faith. For example, for the Apostles' students and early Christians the Holy Communion (Eucharist) was not just a symbol but actual body and blood of Christ. For you and Witness Lee, it is just a symbol. Who is right? I believe the early Christians were right. Though you are right too. Because the Witness Lee's organization is not the Church. That's why what you have is just a symbol.

The Church was one unified body for the first one thousand years. The western Roman Catholic Church became corrupt doctrinally while the Eastern Orthodox Church preserved the Christian faith. (It is possible to check it out if we read the early Church writings and the decisions of the Councils before the Great Schism). Thus, the Church as a whole never apostatized. What is corrupt are groups who have broken away from the true church and established false doctrine, such as the RCC.

Christ did not come to establish a Bible, but rather His Kingdom through the Church. I wonder, could the LRC appear and exist without the Holy Bible? I don't think so. However, the Church was created without the Bible, existed without the Bible for a few first centuries and if you take the Holy Scripture from the Church, it will remain and not collapse. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth which is based on Christ. While, the LRC is based on Witness Lee's private opinion about the Bible. Do you see the difference?

Evangelical, I am sorry if I am bit harsh on you. You seem to be a thoughtful man. So, it is all personal, however not against you but against WL and his doctrines that my wife blindly holds on. She prefers to believe in myths since she doesn't have a wish to study and analyze the issue.

Please forgive me.

God bless.

PS The Church is One
by Alexei Khomiakov

The Church is one, notwithstanding her division as it appears to a man who is still alive on earth. It is only in relation to man that it is possible to recognize a division of the Church into visible and invisible; her unity is, in reality, true and absolute. Those who are alive on earth, those who have finished their earthly course, those who, like the angels, were not created for a life on earth, those in future generations who have not yet begun their earthly course, are all united together in one Church, in one and the same grace of God...

[Evangelical]

It is hard to reconcile the state of the Church with Jesus's words about the gates of hell even when considering the state of the early churches. Revelation shows that a genuine church can have its lamp stand taken away.

It is unclear that the early church believed in transubstantiation.There are many early church fathers who mention the bread and wine as symbols. Protestant theologians have carefully studied the early christian writings too. There has been no solid conclusion that the early church believed in transubstantiation as the Catholics (and Orthodox?) believe - otherwise we would all believe that. Logically, transubstantiation makes no sense. Basically to believe in transubstantiation is to believe that Jesus's blood can be bought at a liquor store. During the service the Priest does some hand waving magic hocus pocus and turns it into Jesus's blood, poof, alakazam, puff of smoke, it's now real blood - yeah right.

If the Orthodox church is the genuine church, one thing I do not understand is how can a church of another country be in a different country? For example why there is a Greek Orthodox church in London? According to the pattern of the New Testament churches, we do not find any of the churches named after a different country. For example, the genuine church in London is not Greek it is English. It does not make sense to say that a church which came from Greece and now exists in London is the true church in London. The bible consistently defines a church by its locality, not by its claimed links to history and apostolic succession - many Protestants can claim that, including Lutheran and Anglican. I've done the math in another thread - 100% hit rate for counting the number of times the Bible refers to church and locality in the singular.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

"If the gates of Hell prevailed against it even for one day, then that Scripture is wrong. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit will always teach and guide the Church, and lead it into all Truth. As Christians we have to believe that that Scripture is true, and that God has always preserved and kept His Church alive and well." (An Eastern Orthodox author).

If the gates of Hell prevailed against "it" (the church) even for one moment, then that was not the church. It is man who is wrong. Man tries to identify, define, describe the church but who can know the church but the one who died and gave Himself for it?

Just my thought---
Nell

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We have to be careful when quoting the early church fathers that we do not take them out of context. For example when Ignatius writes "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.", the "they" are the gnostics - they abstained from the Eucharist because they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. They denied what the Eucharist represented, not a doctrine which says that the Eucharist changes into anything.

Exactly! However, St Ignatius of Antioch clearly says that for him, the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Augustine wrote "“a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself” (On Christian Doctrine, 2, 1). "

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).

So Augustine believed that to mistake the bread and wine for the actual body and blood of Christ is error.

Are you sure you are not reading St Augustine out of context?

It was Augustine who said:

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table….That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.
Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426

[InChristAlone]

It is a fruitless conversation but brother UntoHim raised a good question.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...Jesus was the embodiment of the Father, God in human form.

If Jesus is not the Father, then you must believe in two Gods, or you must believe that Jesus is not God. If we believe that Jesus is God then we must also believe that Jesus is the Father. Jesus cannot be God and not hte Father because if Jesus is God and the Father is God, then logically Jesus is the Father. If you believe there is a "Father God" and a "son God" then you believe in two God's, not one.

In fact, if we unknowingly pray to two or three different Gods by not recognizing the oneness of the Trinity, we are then automatically participating in Mystery Babylon, Jezebel and Baal worship. There is strong evidence that the text “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” was added to 1 John 5:7.

Evangelical, we can say that John is a person. But we can't say that a person is John. Anyone who has seen John has seen a man. But not anyone who has seen a man has seen the John. It is just human logic. However, the concept of the Holy Trinity is not based on the rational thinking. It comes from the genuine living knowledge of those who have come to know God in faith.

You say that God the Father is God the Son. But that is a different gospel and a different Christ. The early Church has always believed that "the Son and Word is “in the beginning with God” (John 1:12) as is the Holy Spirit, and that the Three are eternally distinct. The Son is “of God” and the Spirit is “of God.” The Son and the Spirit are not merely aspects of God, without, so to speak, a life and existence of their own. How strange it would be to imagine, for example, that when the Son becomes man and prays to his Father and acts in obedience to Him, it is all an illusion with no reality in fact, a sort of divine presentation played before the world with no reason or truth for it at all."

Nowhere in the Bible, Jesus says that He is the Father. Moreover, He says "the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Why didn't Jesus just say that He is the Father?

St. Basil the Great writes, "We should understand in the creation the original cause of the Father as a founding cause, the cause of the Son as a creative, and the cause of the Spirit as an implementing one." Thus the Father is the "Creator of all things", the Son is the one "through whom all things were made", and the Holy Spirit is the one "in whom are all things". Everything that He (God the Creator) had made ... was very good" (Gen. 1:31), because "first He conceived, and His conception was a work carried out by His Word, and perfectly by His Spirit.

[InChristAlone]

Evangelical, your understanding of the Trinity is rather strange. It must be Modalism, also called Sabellianism, "the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons." The early Church didn't preach this heretical teaching. Why did WL pick it up?

Since you don't not hold the Trinitarian doctrine, here is some more explanations why Christians believe in the Trinity.

Fr. Brendan Pelphrey, in his "Explaining the Trinity to Muslims", says, "Christians believe that God is love. The Trinity defines love: the love of the Father for the Son, and the Son for the Father, of the Father for the Spirit, of the Son for the Spirit, and of the Spirit for the Father and the Son. It is, finally, a love which is so great that it went out of itself. This is why God created and sustains all that exists.

Actually there are over fifty references to the Trinity in the Old Testament. Some examples are in Genesis 18, Psalm 110, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 48, Isaiah 49, and Zechariah 3. Perhaps the most striking of the “theophanies” (appearances of God) in the Old Testament is the story of the visit of God to Abraham at Mamre (Genesis 18).

The Bible says that the LORD (Hebrew, YHWH) appeared to Abraham in the form of three angels. In the story, the verbs used for the angels are sometimes plural and sometimes singular: thus there are three, but there is only One. Historically, this passage left rabbis puzzled as they tried to interpret it. How could there be One who is Three? But in the Book of Genesis, God is always referred to both in the singular, as one God (El), and in the plural (Elohim). This is illustrated in Genesis 1:26: “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Even the first two verses of the Bible (Genesis 1:1-3) refer to the Trinity: God created, the Spirit hovered over the Deep, and the Word of God (Dabar) created light.

Does it make sense for God to be One and Three at the same time?

To the prophet Isaiah, God said, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways” (Isaiah 55:09). The logic of God is not our logic. That is why what is impossible for man, is possible for God (compare Matthew 19:26). We are not God, and we cannot know the essence of God.

However, the “mathematics” of God, as revealed in Christ, are: 1 + 1 + 1= 1.

Therefore, the nature of the Trinity is considered by the Church to be a mystery which, as God’s creatures, we cannot explain. However, it can be illustrated by the idea of “co-inherence” in contemporary physics. Science has discovered that certain sub-atomic particles must be considered as both separate particles, and as existing only within (or “one with”) other particles at the same time. Historically, the Church has used the example of three separate candle flames that come together and burn as one: the flames are all one, even though they are three.

The Greek word used for the “co-inherence” of the Three Persons of the Trinity is perichoresis, which literally means “running in a circle.” It means that when we see the Son, we see the Father, who has sent the Spirit to reveal the Son, who gives the Spirit, who draws us to the Father, who is only seen in the Son… Each One reveals the Others, and is found only in, and with, the other divine Persons.

This mode of existence defines what it means to be “person.” We cannot be real persons in isolation. Christians believe that our own nature, as persons, is a mirror of the person-hood of the Holy Trinity."

"Following the Holy Scriptures and the Church Fathers, the Church believes that the Trinity is three divine persons (hypostases) who share one essence (ousia). It is paradoxical to believe thus, but that is how God has revealed himself. All three persons are consubstantial with each other, that is, they are of one essence (homoousios) and coeternal. There never was a time when any of the persons of the Trinity did not exist. God is beyond and before time and yet acts within time, moving and speaking within history."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, your understanding of the Trinity is rather strange. It must be Modalism, also called Sabellianism, "the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons."

It is not modalism. Modalism rejects the idea of three persons. We believe in the Trinity, with a slight modification - we reject the idea that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit based upon the Scripture 2 Cor 3:17 and Isaiah 9:6. Our version of the Trinity doctrine matches the bible perfectly.

Isaiah 9:6 says:

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I think we can all accept that Jesus is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Prince of Peace. But you reject the idea that Jesus is the Everlasting Father, even though the verse clearly says that. You have to change the Word of God to fit your doctrine. But we change the doctrine to fit the Word of God.

You rightly said that 1+1+1 = 1. But you also believe that 1 <> 1 <> 1 where <> means "not equal to". In contrast, we believe 1 = 1 = 1 . We are not modalist, we are Trinitarian for we accept that 1+1+1 = 1. But we can see that the bible says the Son is the everlasting Father, so 1 = 1. And the Son is the Spirit, so 1=1. So we have 1=1=1.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Isaiah 9:6 says:

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I think we can all accept that Jesus is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Prince of Peace. But you reject the idea that Jesus is the Everlasting Father, even though the verse clearly says that. You have to change the Word of God to fit your doctrine. But we change the doctrine to fit the Word of God.

Evangelical, the literal translation of the Everlasting Father is the Father of eternity. Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Then, Colossians 1:16 gives the added detail that God created “all things” through Jesus Christ. Therefore, is that Jesus is the Creator of the universe. Thus, Jesus is the One who gives us eternal life. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light. Truly, He is the Father of eternity for His people.

But my main point is not the prophecy but your Old Testament. I think you know the difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. I mean, you know which texts is older and which text is newer. And I believe you know which text was used by the Apostles.

The bible of the Orthodox church is based on the Septuagint. And Isaiah 9:6 in Septuagint sounds like this:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

I hope you understand that your theology can be based on an error.

God bless.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, the literal translation of the Everlasting Father is the Father of eternity. Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Then, Colossians 1:16 gives the added detail that God created “all things” through Jesus Christ. Therefore, is that Jesus is the Creator of the universe. Thus, Jesus is the One who gives us eternal life. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light. Truly, He is the Father of eternity for His people.

If Jesus is the Father of eternity. Then Jesus is the Father. Or do you believe there are two Father? God the Father of eternity, and God the Father (the real Father)?

You must believe that the Septuagint is the only true and correct translation - all our Bible translations are in error.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

It is a fruitless conversation but brother UntoHim raised a good question.


Evangelical, we can say that John is a person. But we can't say that a person is John. Anyone who has seen John has seen a man. But not anyone who has seen a man has seen the John. It is just human logic. However, the concept of the Holy Trinity is not based on the rational thinking. It comes from the genuine living knowledge of those who have come to know God in faith.

You say that God the Father is God the Son. But that is a different gospel and a different Christ. The early Church has always believed that "the Son and Word is “in the beginning with God” (John 1:12) as is the Holy Spirit, and that the Three are eternally distinct. The Son is “of God” and the Spirit is “of God.” The Son and the Spirit are not merely aspects of God, without, so to speak, a life and existence of their own. How strange it would be to imagine, for example, that when the Son becomes man and prays to his Father and acts in obedience to Him, it is all an illusion with no reality in fact, a sort of divine presentation played before the world with no reason or truth for it at all."

Nowhere in the Bible, Jesus says that He is the Father. Moreover, He says "the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Why didn't Jesus just say that He is the Father?

St. Basil the Great writes, "We should understand in the creation the original cause of the Father as a founding cause, the cause of the Son as a creative, and the cause of the Spirit as an implementing one." Thus the Father is the "Creator of all things", the Son is the one "through whom all things were made", and the Holy Spirit is the one "in whom are all things". Everything that He (God the Creator) had made ... was very good" (Gen. 1:31), because "first He conceived, and His conception was a work carried out by His Word, and perfectly by His Spirit.

If the Father, Son and Spirit have a life and existence of their own, and if each is God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, then you believe in three God's, not one. Jesus said "I and the Father are one", indicating the inseparable unity between the Father, Son and Spirit, such that if one ceased to exist, the others would cease to exist as well. Wherever the Son went, the Father went, and wherever the Father went, the Son went, whatever the Father did, Jesus did:

John 5:19 "Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

Only God can give life, yet Jesus demonstrated His equality with the Father to give life:

John 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

John 6:40 " I will raise them up at the last day"

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the Father, Son and Spirit have a life and existence of their own, and if each is God, God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit, then you believe in three God's, not one. Jesus said "I and the Father are one", indicating the inseparable unity between the Father, Son and Spirit, such that if one ceased to exist, the others would cease to exist as well.

Evangelical, in my humble opinion, you hold a modification of Modalism when you say that the Father is the Son. But God is not a chameleon or someone with a reversible jacket. He doesn't change disguises.

"One in essence, God is Trinity in Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Trinity one in essence and indivisible." In these few words is expressed the core of the Christian teachings of the Most Holy Trinity."

I believe that the Holy Trinity, is three distinct, divine persons (hypostases), without overlap or modality among them, who share one divine essence (ousia Greek οὐσία)— uncreated, immaterial and eternal.

And you believe that Christ didn't exist as Christ, the Son of God. For you, Christ is just a manifestation of God the Father.

Can you say that "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."? (John 3:16)

How do you understand this verse?

You believe in "a God who is not truly self-revealed in the history of Israel and its Messiah, Jesus Christ: the biblical presentation of "Father," "Son, and "Spirit" are but temporary manifestations of deity, with the true deity ultimately hidden behind them.

Modalism is a seductive heresy because it seems to make sense of Scripture, yet it ultimately relativizes Scripture and invites us to search for a deity who, like the Wizard of Oz, ultimately remains hidden behind the biblical curtain. If modalism is true, there is no reason to believe that God is anything like our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Only the mystery of the Triune God provides the answer to these indicated difficulties. It reveals that the love of God has never been inactive, without expression: The Persons of the Most Holy Trinity from eternity live one with another in continuous contact of love. The Father loves the Son (John 5:20, 3:35), and calls Him beloved (Mt. 3:17, 17:5 et al). The Son says of Himself: "I love the Father" (John 14:31). Deeply true are the short, but expressive words of the blessed Augustine: "The mystery of the Christian Trinity is the mystery of Godly love. You see the Trinity, if you see love."

[Evangelical]

I agree that the Trinity is three distinct, co-existing, eternal divine Persons without overlap or modality. I have already said that we are not modalists, and a modalist would not agree with the Trinitarian doctrine.

However, we do not reject what the Bible says about Jesus being the Father as you do. We not only believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but also that He is the Everlasting Father as Isaiah clearly says. Also, Jesus called Himself the "I AM", which is the name of the Father. The Trinity doctrine as it is traditionally taught is flawed because it does not match the Bible in its entirety. You are forced to explain how Jesus is not the everlasting Father, when Isaiah clearly says He is. And if you believe that Jesus is not the Father, and that Jesus is another kind of Father then you believe in two Fathers, which is ridiculous. And if you believe that the Spirit of Christ is not the very Christ Himself, then you must believe in two Christ's and two Spirits. Jesus is as much the everlasting Father as He is "Mighty God". There is no issue to say that Jesus is Mighty God, or Jesus is the Father, no issue at all. It is not blasphemy or heretical to say "God is God".

When you say the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit, you are saying "God is not God is not God" while at the same time you say the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God. That defies logic. Our view says, "God is God is God" and matches the Bible perfectly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Although this is a mystery, Witness Lee's analogy to electricity is not bad. However, I think my analogy to the internet is probably better.

To access Amazon.com you would use your computer (your spirit) which is connected to the internet via a router (The Spirit) and your router is connected to Amazon's servers via a transmission service (Jesus) which connects my computer to the worldwide web (God the Father)