Boxjobox on modalism

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It may cast some doubt in your mind, and in the mind of Witness Lee, but it hasn't for the vast majority of Christian teachers and scholars for the past 2000+ years. So everybody has been interpreting this passage wrong for two millennia, and out of nowhere this Witness Lee fellow got it right. How convenient. How improbable.



Well one good reason is that the apostle Paul wasn't teaching modalism, and he never taught that Jesus Christ, the second of the Godhead, became the Holy Spirit, the third of the Godhead. Witness Lee went further in a lot of things, mostly because he thought he was the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle. Who needs to be bound up by all those poor, poor traditional and historic interpretations when you da man! The Bible says WHAT I SAY IT MEANS, GOT THAT MOO COW!


Of course not! That's puttin on your thinkin cap Ohio! Now don't stop there...keep going. Since you now admit that the reference to pneuma/spirit in 1 Cor 15:45 is not a definitive reference to the Holy Spirit, what spirit are we talking about? If I was talking to Witness Lee, I would expect to hear "how many spirits are there that give life?" but you're not going to do that to us, are you Ohio?

So back to my question. If this occurrence of pneuma/spirit is not a reference to the Holy Spirit, why not?
-

So Paul tells the Corinthians (1Cor.8) that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Paul does say that there are a whole lot of gods and lords, but to us there is One God The Father. He also says that there is not in all men that knowledge. This all seems pretty clear speaking and straightforward to me, and it is the belief that governs my scripture reading and practicing of the Christian faith.

In that regard, it seems almost insane that people spend so much time arguing about a trinity god. I mean, we are 2000 years past Paul’s writing and the best we can do is argue over something that no one can come to an agreement over, and the basis for this argument is really the Nicene Creed, written 3 centuries after Paul’s writing, which seems to be taken as authority over Paul’s clear statement. So in other words, the argument over 1 cor15.45b, which, if that statement of Paul results in a theoretical theological argument that tries to squeeze in a trinity with perhaps a modalistic tendency which then would negate Paul’s clear relating to the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, brings us to divisions of thought and sectarian associations, also negates Paul’s admonition in Ephesians to maintain a oneness be keeping the view of one Lord, Jesus and ONE God, the Father.

Is there perhaps a reason we do not grasp the concept of the Holy Spirit because we long left the scriptural instruction of the greatest commandment of loving the one true God and created a different entity which is now the replacement of the one true God. It seems to me that I read about this this falling away and false teaching business, and “fornication” somewhere in Revelation 2 and 3. That old Nicene creed created a nasty beast!! If the Spirit has walked away from it, but people holding on to it have unceasing theoretical arguments about it, and about the departed Spirit, that’s truly spiritual insanity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

In that regard, it seems almost insane that people spend so much time arguing about a trinity god. I mean, we are 2000 years past Paul’s writing and the best we can do is argue over something that no one can come to an agreement over, and the basis for this argument is really the Nicene Creed, written 3 centuries after Paul’s writing, which seems to be taken as authority over Paul’s clear statement. So in other words, the argument over 1 cor15.45b, which, if that statement of Paul results in a theoretical theological argument that tries to squeeze in a trinity with perhaps a modalistic tendency which then would negate Paul’s clear relating to the Corinthians that there is one God, the Father, brings us to divisions of thought and sectarian associations, also negates Paul’s admonition in Ephesians to maintain a oneness be keeping the view of one Lord, Jesus and ONE God, the Father.

Is there perhaps a reason we do not grasp the concept of the Holy Spirit because we long left the scriptural instruction of the greatest commandment of loving the one true God and created a different entity which is now the replacement of the one true God. It seems to me that I read about this this falling away and false teaching business, and “fornication” somewhere in Revelation 2 and 3. That old Nicene creed created a nasty beast!! If the Spirit has walked away from it, but people holding on to it have unceasing theoretical arguments about it, and about the departed Spirit, that’s truly spiritual insanity.

And it produced lethal insanity.

Back in the 16th c. the infamous but very popular (still today) John Calvin, condemned Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned with his books at the stake.

From Wiki:
"At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism, specifically, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[31] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

Thank God for secularism, or we'd still be burning at the stake for not believing in the trinity ... even by Calvinists ... not to mention the RCC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it produced lethal insanity.

Back in the 16th c. the infamous but very popular (still today) John Calvin, condemned Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned with his books at the stake.

From Wiki:
"At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism, specifically, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[31] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

Thank God for secularism, or we'd still be burning at the stake for not believing in the trinity ... even by Calvinists ... not to mention the RCC.

This is the tragic legacy of some of the more dogmatic Reformers. They (like John Calvin) escaped persecution, inquisition, and death from the hands of the Roman Catholics for their religious views, yet turned around and applied these same measures to those (like Servetus or e.g. the Anabaptists) who disagreed with them.

But lest we think that mankind has evolved or modern society has improved due to its technology and great learning, today's Left with its own religious tenets is now duplicating this same intolerant history. Whereas they once fought vehemently for the rights of all to be made known and heard, they now wish to silence the voices of all their own critics with unjustified accusations of "hate speech" and "racism." Today's antifa rioters are no different than the rabid reformers who called for the head of Servetus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is the tragic legacy of some of the more dogmatic Reformers. They (like John Calvin) escaped persecution, inquisition, and death from the hands of the Roman Catholics for their religious views, yet turned around and applied these same measures to those (like Servetus or e.g. the Anabaptists) who disagreed with them.

But lest we think that mankind has evolved or modern society has improved due to its technology and great learning, today's Left with its own religious tenets is now duplicating this same intolerant history. Whereas they once fought vehemently for the rights of all to be made known and heard, they now wish to silence the voices of all their own critics with unjustified accusations of "hate speech" and "racism." Today's antifa rioters are no different than the rabid reformers who called for the head of Servetus.

But John Calvin was on the right, and Servetus was on the left.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But John Calvin was on the right, and Servetus was on the left.

Don't know what that means.

Obviously the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.


Every society labels opponents "left and right." But you are a smart guy. Do you really think that all of these "lefts" and "rights" since the stone age can be lumped together?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't know what that means.

Obviously the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.


Every society labels opponents "left and right." But you are a smart guy. Do you really think that all of these "lefts" and "rights" since the stone age can be lumped together?

But out here you seem to see the mote in the left's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own party's eye.

Let's get back to topic, and stop introducing politics.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But out here you seem to see the mote in the left's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own party's eye.

Let's get back to topic, and stop introducing politics.

It is actually quite surprising, with your proclivity for introducing extraneous topics, to hear you say I am off topic. I am just overwhelmed.

If modern day examples help to explain the past, shouldn't we then apply them in order to learn?

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it produced lethal insanity.

Back in the 16th c. the infamous but very popular (still today) John Calvin, condemned Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned with his books at the stake.

From Wiki:
"At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism, specifically, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Sabellianism, and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).[31] Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."

Thank God for secularism, or we'd still be burning at the stake for not believing in the trinity ... even by Calvinists ... not to mention the RCC.

Oh, we know the routine- you can question about scripture, and come up with fantastic fanatics , but you better not step on the Nicene creed, or we will invoke the Athanasian Creed. The creeds take precedence over the scripture, and the trinitarians live by that spirit. Those who would dare to disagree are already damned to hellfire, so the good godly men are just assisting Gods judgement by starting the fires a little earlier.

Reading the main site modalism orthodox discussions really scare me. Religious insanity is most dangerous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Oh, we know the routine- you can question about scripture, and come up with fantastic fanatics , but you better not step on the Nicene creed, or we will invoke the Athanasian Creed. The creeds take precedence over the scripture, and the trinitarians live by that spirit. Those who would dare to disagree are already damned to hellfire, so the good godly men are just assisting Gods judgement by starting the fires a little earlier.

Reading the main site modalism orthodox discussions really scare me. Religious insanity is most dangerous.

Can you explain this post.