Merged Thread - Did Witness Lee Teach Modalism?

[WitnessMe]

I want to let you guys know that I am Chinese, and English is not my first language.

I was trying to use the Trinity framework to explain to two of the elders that Jesus became the Spirit, or Jesus became the life-giving Spirit is nonsense.

Given that Witness Lee affirms the orthodox understanding that there are “three persons in the Godhead” - https://an-open-letter.org/en/ets-20...f-witness-lee/, the elders cannot disagree with it.

Here is my reasoning. God is a spirit, the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit are also God, then the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit are also the Spirit. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in the same Godhead, but distinct in persons.

"Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (1 corinthians 15:45)

In 1 Corinthians 15:45, the spirit in the "life-giving spirit" means Jesus's resurrected spiritual body, and "life-giving" means that the spiritual body can provide immortality. The word spirit cannot indicate Godhead in this context because, Jesus, the son of god, is the Spirit in terms of Godhead, but he is still the second person, the son of god, within the context. Even before Jesus's resurrection, Jesus's words give life to people, which means Jesus, the son of God, is always the "life-giving spirit" in terms of the Godhead.

"By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:39, NIV)

In John 7:39, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit in terms of Person, so what is the point of saying "Christ became the Life-giving Spirit"? This is meaningless, because as I have mentioned, Jesus is always the Life-giving Spirit in terms of Godhead, since God is a spirit in his nature and Jesus's words already give life even before his resurrection. Was Witness Lee trying to combine the second Person and the third Person into one Person in the Godhead?

After I asked the question to the two elders, there was still no response from them, but they told me that they had already found a local church brother in Taiwan, who does theological research and has a Master of Theology, can answer my question. I think that the reason for the brother to do theological research is to find loopholes in theology to defend WL's heresy.

What answers do you guys would expect from that brother? How will he defend that?

[WitnessMe]

In other words, can you still be saved if you believe Witness Lee's modified modalism teaching?

Also, was Witness Lee saved according the following bible verses? Since he twisted the meaning of the verses in the Bible for his own gain.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
- 2 Peter 3:1

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
-Revelation 22:18-19

[Ohio]

Why not post the verses Lee used to develop his "modified modalism teaching?"
-

[UntoHim]

I think we all know what verses Lee used. Not much mystery there.
I think there are two questions that need to be addressed -

*1)Were their any renowned, reputable Christian teachers, scholars, authors or apologists that used these verses as prooftexts?
-
*2)What are the assessments/criticisms of the majority of teachers, scholars, authors and apologists regarding Lee's teachings on the Trinity?

In regards to the first question, one is very hard-pressed to find any reputable Christian author who even comes close to agreeing with Lee's "modified modalism". However I did discover this paper written by Richard Gaffin Jr., a theology professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, quite a number of years ago entitled "LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT: PROBING THE CENTER OF PAUL’S PNEUMATOLOGY". This is a very large and comprehensive, technical and scholarly treatment of 1 Corinthians 15:45, but the main gist of Gaffin's thesis can be found in the opening paragraphs of the paper:
A couple of interlocking, mutually reinforcing considerations show, decisively it seems to me, that “spirit” in v. 45 refers to the person of the Holy Spirit. (1) Pneuama in v. 45 and pneumatikovn, twice in v. 44 and once in v. 46, are linked semantically.....This conclusion is reinforced by the participial modifier Paul uses. The last Adam did not simply become pneuama but “life-giving” pneuama (pneuama zwopoiouan). The “spirit” in view is not merely an existing entity but an acting subject. Paul’s use of this verb elsewhere proves decisive here, especially his sweeping assertion about the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:6: “The Spirit gives life.” In the contrasting parallelism that stamps this passage too, few if any will dispute that “the Spirit” (to; pneuama) in v. 6 is “the Spirit of the living God” just mentioned in v. 3—in other words, the Holy Spirit. Again, Rom 8:11 attributes the “life-giving” activity of resurrection to the Spirit (cf. John 6:63). For these reasons, pneuama in 1 Cor 15:45 is definite and refers to the person of the Holy Spirit.
***In a very interesting (if not ironic) coincident, Richard Gaffin Jr.'s father, Richard, Richard B. Gaffin, Sr. (1907-1996) was one of the founders of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, and was also the very first person who introduced confessional reformed faith to the people in Taiwan. I also noticed that Gaffin Sr.'s life and ministry coincided almost exactly with that of Witness Lee. (1905-1997)

In regards to the second question, the Internet is replete with many scholarly evaluations and polemic criticisms of all the major teachings of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. As a matter of fact, many, if not most, of them are chronicled on this very forum.
-
Open-Letter.Org - More than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations have signed an unprecedented open letter to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry.
-
A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the “Local Church” Movement
Norm Geisler and Ron Rhodes
-

[WitnessMe]

If Richard Gaffin Jr. thought that Jesus the second Person became the Holy Spirit the third Person, then where did the third Person go? Or the thinks that the third person did not exist before Jesus resurrection? How does it make sense within the Trinity framework? Was he talking nonsense? Was he denying Trinity?

[UntoHim]

I posted Gaffin's paper with no small amount of trepidation, knowing full-well that some people might be making sweeping insinuations and conclusions without reading the entire article. Sorry WitnessMe, I should have made this more clear...my bad.

A little later (from the portions I already posted) Gaffin made the following comment:
From the viewpoint of contemporary evangelical and historic Christian orthodoxy, the apparent objection to this translation and the supporting exegetical sketch given above is as obvious as it is serious. To find here a reference to the person of the Holy Spirit seems clearly to put Paul at odds, even in conflict, with later Church Trinitarian and Christological doctrine. It apparently makes him, as the historical-critical tradition has long and typically argued, an advocate of a so-called functional Christology that has no place for a personal distinction in deity between Christ and the Spirit. (emphasis mine)

Now, to be sure, what Gaffin has written here and in all of this paper, marks the huge difference between Witness Lee's make-it-up-as-you-go-along, homebrew theology, and the well-researched, scholarly work of a highly educated, professional theologian. This being said, I must say that I do not fully agree with many of the conclusions that Gaffin has made in this article - namely that "the Life-Giving Spirit" in 1Cor15:45 is a direct, strict reference to the Person of the Holy Spirit, at least not with the forcefulness that Gaffin asserts. But again, at least he makes his case with sound reason, solid biblical rational and his expert grasp of the Greek vocabulary and grammar.

So, if anyone wants to argue anything from Gaffin's paper, please, please read the WHOLE article carefully at least once, and preferably several times. (I think I have read this article at least 10 times)
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by WitnessMe

In other words, can you still be saved if you believe Witness Lee's modified modalism teaching?

Also, was Witness Lee saved according the following bible verses? …

What does salvation have to do with anything Lee taught I.e. “modified modalism”? Lee downgraded the gospel of Jesus Christ to the “low gospel”, and elevated his “ministry” to the “high gospel”.

With the possible exception of his messages on Romans, Lee didn’t preach the gospel, did he? I don’t believe I ever heard him share a gospel message to lead someone to the Lord. Not that he never did, but …..

The verses you quoted from 2 Peter (a rebuke) and the Revelation (regarding prophecy) are not intended to be a pathway to salvation. So I would say it might be almost miraculous to accept Jesus Christ as your savior from these verses.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not complicated. (Confess, believe, ask) Maybe that’s why Lee believed it was “low”. Lee complicated many things about the Bible to elevate himself.

Nell

[WitnessMe]

Originally Posted by Nell

The verses you quoted from 2 Peter (a rebuke) and the Revelation (regarding prophecy) are not intended to be a pathway to salvation. So I would say it might be almost miraculous to accept Jesus Christ as your savior from these verses. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not complicated. (Confess, believe, ask) Maybe that’s why Lee believed it was “low”. Lee complicated many things about the Bible to elevate himself.

I think did not make it clear enough. Was Witness Lee cast to the lake of fire according to 2 Peter 3:1 Revelation 22:18-19, since he twisted the original meaning of many verses in the Bible intentionally.

[bearbear]

In this quote, Witness Lee seems to be teaching that members of the Trinity coinhere with one another which seems to be within an orthodox view of the Trinity and away from modalism:

From these verses we can clearly see that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all in us. But how many are in you? Do you have three Gods in you? No. You just have one God in you. Who is this One? He is the Triune God — Father, Son, and Spirit. We do not have three Gods in us; our experience tells us that we have just one in us. The Father is in the Son to be in us, and the Son who is in us is the Spirit. The Spirit in us is the Son in us, and the Father is in the Son to be in us. Therefore, as long as we have the Spirit, we have the Son and the Father too.

Lesson Book, Level 2: The Triune God—The Triune God and the Person and Work of Christ, Lesson 6

But elsewhere he seems to be teaching modalism via the quotes I found in https://open-letter.org

"The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person."

Witness Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1970), p. 48

"THE SON IS THE FATHER, AND THE SON IS ALSO THE SPIRIT.... and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the Eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father. Hallelujah!"

Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1973), pp. 18-19

"The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism. When the Spirit of God is joined with us, God is not left behind, nor does Christ remain on the throne. This is the impression Christianity gives. They think of the Father as one Person, sending the Son, another Person, to accomplish redemption, after which the Son sends the Spirit, yet another Person. The Spirit, in traditional thinking, comes into the believers, while the Father and Son are left on the throne. When believers pray, they are taught to bow before the Father and pray in the name of the Son. To split the Godhead into these separate Persons is not the revelation of the Bible...."

Witness Lee, Life Messages
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1979), p. 164

"The Son is called the Father; so the Son must be the Father. We must realize this fact. There are some who say that He is called the Father, but He is not really the Father. But how could He be called the Father and yet not be the Father?... In the place where no man can approach Him (I Tim. 6:16), God is the Father. When He comes forth to manifest Himself, He is the Son. So, a Son is given, yet His name is called 'The everlasting Father.' This very Son who has been given to us is the very Father."

Witness Lee, The All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ
(Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1969), pp. 4-5

What did Witness Lee really believe?

Also, I think his teachings concerning the 4 in 1 God could be way more heretical than modalism. That CRI missed this in their re-evaluation of Witness Lee's teachings seems to be egregious.

"Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the 'four-in-one' God.' These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused."

Witness Lee, A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1990) pp. 203-204

[bearbear]

You know how YouTubers often create clickbait video titles that compel you to click, only for you to realize the content doesn't live up to the hype? I suspect Witness Lee's teaching style was similar. He would make statements that sounded like heresy to appear theologically innovative and profound, then proceed with double-speak to align his point closer to orthodoxy.

Take, for example, the prime doctrinal statement he's known by, "God became man to make man God." At first glance, it sounds heretical, but he then clarifies in footnotes, "but not in the Godhead."

If this was his intent, he was violating Jesus' command for our 'yes' to be 'yes' and our 'no' to be 'no' and to speak plainly.

Matthew 5:37
All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Take, for example, the prime doctrinal statement he's known by, "God became man to make man God." At first glance, it sounds heretical, but he then clarifies in footnotes, "but not in the Godhead."

I don't buy that.

If you have to "clarify" such a statement, it shouldn't be said at all.

There is no possible way to "clarify" the heresy out of it. It's heretical. It doesn't just "sound heretical". It IS heretical. First glance, second glance...whatever.

Shortly after this heresy was first spoken, when the printing presses were still active in Irving, I went to the office to buy a book. In a brief conversation with one of the workers, he made the statement "we are baby-Gods". I was shocked. From "God became man to make man God" to "We are baby Gods." Rather than "clarified" the heresy was spreading.

Nell

[Ohio]

Can we just correct this fallacy?

God the Son became man to make man sons of God.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Nell

There is no possible way to "clarify" the heresy out of it. It's heretical. It doesn't just "sound heretical". It IS heretical. First glance, second glance...whatever.

The following is from ChatGPT.

“ Becoming Gods: One of the more distinctive teachings of Mormonism is the belief that faithful individuals can eventually become gods themselves. This is often summarized in the phrase attributed to early LDS leader Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” This belief in deification implies that humans can progress eternally to become like God, though they will always be subordinate to God the Father.”

Witness Lee’s theology has similarities to Mormon theology.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by HERn

Witness Lee’s theology has similarities to Mormon theology.

I personally believe Joseph Smith was visited by a fallen angel and thereby received a direct revelation from Satan based on testimonies like Cody Leatherbury's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N94InzLM_qk

It fits pretty well with Paul's warning of fallen angels bringing another gospel.

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by WitnessMe

I think did not make it clear enough. Was Witness Lee cast to the lake of fire according to 2 Peter 3:1 Revelation 22:18-19, since he twisted the original meaning of many verses in the Bible intentionally.

I asked ChatGPT 4 if the early church fathers believed modalists were saved. I think their views are important since they were more likely to have the same thinking as the first apostles since many were direct or indirect disciples of the Apostles and they were fluent in Koine Greek and understood the culture in New Testament writings.

Question: Did the early church fathers believe that modalists were saved? Explain with quotes and references

The early Church Fathers generally did not consider modalists to be orthodox Christians and, by extension, did not view them as saved. Modalism, also known as Sabellianism, is the belief that God is a single person who has revealed Himself in different modes or forms rather than as three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead. This doctrine was seen as a significant deviation from the Trinitarian understanding of God.

Here are some quotes and references from the early Church Fathers regarding their views on modalism and its adherents:

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD):

• Tertullian was one of the foremost critics of modalism. In his work "Against Praxeas," he vigorously argued against the modalistic views of Praxeas, who taught that the Father and the Son were the same person.
• Quote: "He [Praxeas] says that the Father himself came down into the virgin, was himself born of her, himself suffered, indeed was himself Jesus Christ. And on this theory, by which he compels God himself to be born and suffer, he will be making him his own son." (Against Praxeas, Chapter 1)
• Reference: Tertullian, "Against Praxeas," Chapter 1.

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235 AD):

• Hippolytus wrote extensively against heresies, including modalism. In his work "Against Noetus," he criticized Noetus, a proponent of modalism, for denying the distinct persons of the Trinity.
• Quote: "Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person introduced the heresy which is called by his name, asserting that Christ is the Father himself, and that the Father himself was born, and suffered, and died." (Against Noetus, Chapter 1)
• Reference: Hippolytus, "Against Noetus," Chapter 1.

Origen (c. 185 – c. 254 AD):

• Origen, a prolific early Christian theologian, also opposed modalistic views. In his commentary on the Gospel of John, he emphasized the distinctness and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• Quote: "For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine; for they say that the Father and the Son are the same, the Father himself becoming the Son. Nor do we say, as some suppose, that the Son is a part or member of the Father. But we believe that the Son, being distinct from the Father, is yet inseparably one with Him." (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter 6)
• Reference: Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John," Book II, Chapter 6.

Athanasius (c. 296 – 373 AD):

• Athanasius, a staunch defender of Nicene orthodoxy, also rejected modalism. He argued for the co-eternity and co-equality of the Father and the Son in his work "Against the Arians."
• Quote: "For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father; for neither is He His own Father, nor His own Son. But the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son, the Son of the Father. For the Lord said, 'I am in the Father, and the Father in Me' (John 14:10); and 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30)." (Against the Arians, Discourse III, Chapter 4)
• Reference: Athanasius, "Against the Arians," Discourse III, Chapter 4.

These quotes and references illustrate that the early Church Fathers viewed modalism as a significant heresy and, as such, did not consider modalists to be within the bounds of orthodox Christianity, which implied doubts about their salvation according to the orthodox beliefs of the time.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Nell

Shortly after this heresy was first spoken, when the printing presses were still active in Irving, I went to the office to buy a book. In a brief conversation with one of the workers, he made the statement "we are baby-Gods". I was shocked. From "God became man to make man God" to "We are baby Gods." Rather than "clarified" the heresy was spreading.

The spirit behind the slogan appears to be in direct contradiction to Philippians 2:6
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Even Jesus who was God was humble about being God.

I like the language scripture uses instead that Ohio quoted of being "sons of God" since it focuses on our identity as being part of God's family which implies relationship and love between God and family members.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

The following is from ChatGPT.

“ Becoming Gods: One of the more distinctive teachings of Mormonism is the belief that faithful individuals can eventually become gods themselves. This is often summarized in the phrase attributed to early LDS leader Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” This belief in deification implies that humans can progress eternally to become like God, though they will always be subordinate to God the Father.”

Witness Lee’s theology has similarities to Mormon theology.

He also got “door-knocking” from the Mormons.

[bearbear]

The practice of chanting the name of a deity mindlessly is also practiced in eastern religions and is in violation of Matthew 6:7

Matthew 6:7 (NLT)
When you pray, don’t babble on and on as the Gentiles do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again.

The key Greek word in the verse is battalogēsēte and means vain repetitions.

Could the way Witness Lee promoted calling on the Lord's name via mindless chanting also be demonically inspired?

Q: What is the practice of chanting and meditating on a god's name?

The practice of chanting and meditating on a god's name, often referred to as japa or mantra meditation, is a spiritual practice found in various religious traditions. Here's an overview:

Hinduism
In Hinduism, chanting and meditating on a god's name is a common devotional practice. This is known as japa. Devotees repeat the name of a deity or a sacred mantra, often using a mala (a string of beads) to keep count of the repetitions. For example, chanting the Hare Krishna mantra ("Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare; Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare") is a well-known practice in the Vaishnavism tradition. This repetition is believed to purify the mind, bring spiritual benefits, and develop a deeper connection with the divine.

Buddhism
In Buddhism, particularly in the Pure Land tradition, chanting the name of Amitabha Buddha (known as nembutsu in Japanese) is a central practice. The phrase "Namo Amituofo" or "Namo Amida Butsu" is chanted to express faith and seek rebirth in the Pure Land, a realm associated with Amitabha Buddha. This practice is believed to lead to enlightenment and liberation from the cycle of rebirth.

Sikhism
In Sikhism, the practice of chanting and meditating on God's name is known as Naam Simran. Sikhs repeat the name of God (Waheguru or Satnam) as a form of devotion and to attain spiritual enlightenment. This repetition is seen as a way to cleanse the soul and keep the mind focused on the divine throughout daily life.

Common Elements
Repetition: Repeatedly chanting or mentally reciting the name or mantra.
Focus: Concentrating the mind on the divine name or mantra to achieve mental stillness and spiritual connection.
Tools: Using prayer beads (such as malas, rosaries, or komboskini) to keep count.
Intention: Seeking spiritual purification, divine connection, enlightenment, or inner peace.
Overall, chanting and meditating on a god's name is a widespread practice across various religious traditions, aimed at fostering a deeper spiritual connection, mental tranquility, and spiritual growth.

[UntoHim]

bearbear and others,

This thread is wondering a bit from the general theme. Let's tighten things up a bit, shall we?
-