Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Alan Gomes letter to John Ankerberg regarding quotations from LSM - Forum
April 7, 2002
Rev.
John Ankerberg
P.O.
Box 8977
Chattanooga, TN 37414-0977
Dear Rev.
Ankerberg,
This letter is in response to your request for me to examine some selected quotations from the literature of the Local Church on the question of the Godhead.
You asked that I render a theological opinion as to the orthodoxy of the views expressed in these citations.
I have gone through the materials you sent and will tell you what I can based on that sample.
First, I thought it might be helpful for me to say a few words about my background and qualifications to analyze this material.
Then, I must state some limitations of what I am able to do given the materials provided to me.
I hold three degrees in biblical/theological studies: the Master of Divinity (Talbot School of Theology, 1982), the Master of Theology (Talbot School of Theology, 1984), and the Ph.D.
In Historical Theology (Fuller Theological Seminary, 1990).
Since 1987 I have taught at Talbot School of Theology, where I am currently an Associate Professor of Historical Theology.
My main area of teaching has been historical and systematic theology.
I have also taught courses on religious movements, and have published widely in this area.
I am the series editor for the Zondervan Guide to Cults and Religious Movements (15 vols.), in which I edited all of the books in the series and authored three of them.
I have also published both in academic and in popular journals on subjects in theology, the history of Christian doctrine, and contemporary religious movements.
I currently serve as the Department Chair for the Department of Theology at Talbot.
I think it would be helpful for me to indicate the limitations of what I am able to provide you in terms of my analysis.
First, although I have a significant background in the study of religious movements, the Local Church/ has never been a research interest of mine.
Most of what I had known about the group to this point was based on secondary source treatments, and even my knowledge of these is minimal.
I have never undertaken an independent study of Local Church literature, whether the writings of Witness Lee or of the current theologians in the church.
Therefore, I do not possess a broad knowledge of the Local Church in which to set these quotations.
Second, and related to the first point, the critique that follows must be understood as based strictly on the samples you chose to send me.
What you provided were Quote: s abstracted from the Local Church literature, with footnotes indicating the source of the Quote: .
I do not have access to these original sources so I was not in a position to verify the accuracy of your abstraction/transcription with respect to the original sources.
Furthermore, without having the actual sources in my possession I cannot set the citations in a larger context.
Thus, the analysis that follows is based strictly on the excerpted material that you sent me, apart from any possible larger contextual considerations.
I have divided the primary source quotations you sent me into two main categories: those of Witness Lee himself (the founder of the movement), and those of the current theologians of the (such as Kangas, Robichaux, and Marks).
I shall deal with these in turn.
Citations by Witness Lee
If I had to classify the citations attributed to Witness Lee, I would describe them as teaching a view of the Godhead called modalistic monarchianism, known also simply as modalism.
Other designations for the teaching, based on the names of ancient proponents, are Sabellianism and Praxeanism.
The teaching is also sometimes called “patripassianism.” This teaching denies the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which is that within the nature of the one God there are three eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In contrast, modalists teach that there is a one person God who manifests himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thus, the “persons” of the Godhead are in reality merely three different ways in which the one uni- personal God reveals himself to his creation ad extra (i.e., outside of himself).
I draw this conclusion based on a straightforward reading of what is attributed to Lee in the abstracted quotations that you have provided.
Lee makes statements where he declares that the Father, Son, and Spirit are “one person.” He states that the Father is the Spirit, that Jesus is the Spirit, that the Son is the Father, that the Son is the entire triune God (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), etc.
Such statements appear to me to teach modalism.
One thing I found particularly bizarre, at least from an orthodox Trinitarian perspective, is Lee’s query, “Why is there one God in three Persons”?
Even to ask such a question suggests a modalistic view of the Godhead—an impression that is not at all allayed when one reads his answer.
An intelligent orthodox Trinitarian would not ask such a question anymore than he or she would ask, “Why does God know everything?” or “Why is God eternal?” The form of the question suggests that God might be otherwise—as if his Triunity were a matter of the Divine decree.
Lee suggests just this in his answer to the question: “Why is there one God in three Persons?
Simply for the purpose of dispensing and applying God to us.” No intelligent orthodox Trinitarian would speak in such terms.
God exists in three persons because he is God, and because God is Triune.
He is not “Triune” so that he can accomplish some work ad extra.
The fact that God’s triunity has implications for how he accomplishes his purposes ad extra is an altogether different matter so far as orthodox Trinitarianism is concerned.
Now, from a modalistic perspective the question is not bizarre but makes perfect sense.
Since, for the modalist, “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” designate simply the modes of operation in which God chooses to engage his creation, the number and kinds of these modes are a matter of the divine will.
That is, God could, if he wished, reveal himself, e.g., in one mode or five modes.
For the modalist, the question “why three modes?” becomes a natural one to ask.
Now, you asked whether the view espoused in these citations is “orthodox.” Let me just say that since these citations teach modalism (given the qualifications I have noted above), the view espoused in these citations is unorthodox.
Stated simply, modalism is an unorthodox view of the Godhead.
It contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible on the nature of God.
It is, in my view and in the view of the church historically, a heresy, which is an essential deviation from one of the constitutive credenda of the Christian faith.
Thus, any group that would embrace a modalistic doctrine of the Godhead, implicitly or explicitly, would not be Christian in my view.
Rather, such a group would be, as my book Unmasking the Cults defines it, “a cult of
Christianity.”
Citations by Modern Living Stream Theologians
The theology of the Local Church becomes muddier as represented in the citations you sent me from their current theologians.
Some of the citations contain orthodox sounding language (e.g., affirming the simultaneous, eternal coexistence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Other statements appear to be modalistic.
Yet other statements could possibly be interpreted as teaching some tertium quid that is neither Trinitarian nor, strictly speaking, modalistic.
And finally, certain citations seem to espouse contradictory views even within the very same statement.
Before examining the specific statements a word of terminological clarification is in order.
A thread running through these more recent Quote: s is the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity.
This is a well-established distinction in historic discussions of the doctrine, though the usage made by the modern Local Church writers is not always clear.
In the historic usage of these terms, the ontological Trinity looks at God in terms of the internal, intra-Trinitarian distinctions ad intra, or within the Godhead itself.
In contrast, the economic Trinity refers to the offices or functions performed by each of the three members.
The economic Trinity concerns the roles that each member performs in terms of the created order ad extra, or outside
of himself.
First, consider some recent Local Church statements that bear an orthodox sounding form.
Robichaux states, “According to the Scriptures, God is triune both essentially—in His inner being—and economically—in the outworking of His purpose with His chosen and redeemed people.” Likewise, Kangas declares that the Father, Son, and Spirit “coexist” and “coinhere” eternally.
Other statements by their modern theologians appear to teach modalism.
Consider Kangas’ description of the economic Trinity as “being carried out in these three successive steps.” This is an unorthodox way of viewing the economic Trinity.
Certainly the baptism of Jesus is an economic event in salvation history, and here the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in evidence not successively but simultaneously.
Likewise, Onica and Pester state, “If we accept the identification of the persons of the economic Trinity with the persons of the essential or immanent Trinity, then we must also be willing to accept the consideration that the relationships between the persons of the economic Trinity are rooted in the same ontological principles of coexistence and coinherence, as exhibited in the essential Trinity.
As such, we readily and willingly should declare that the last Adam (an economic appellation for the second of the Trinity) is the life-giving Spirit (an economic appellation for the third of the Trinity) by means of their mutual, economic coexistence and coinherence” (emphasis added).
Note that, according to this Quote: , the second person of the Trinity is the third person of the Trinity, not only in terms of his operations ad extra but also based on the internal Trinitarian relations ad intra.
Here they draw upon, and misrepresent, the patristic doctrine of perichoresis (also known as circumincession), according to which the divine essence in its entirety inheres in each of the three persons.
This doctrine was expressed by some of the fathers as an interpenetration or indwelling of the persons in one another.
However, unlike in the modalistic version presented here, the early fathers did not teach that this interpenetration amounted to either an identity or conversion of one person into the other.
Indeed, for one person to coinhere in another assumes the continuing and distinct personhood of each of the three Trinitarian persons.
Some of the statements by the modern writers appear, on the face of them, to be somewhat different from classic modalism but still heretical.
The statements in question seem to imply ontological trinality but a kind of “economic modalism.” For example, Robichaux states that because the third person of the Trinity “applies the accomplishments of the second,” the second person of the Trinity, “from this economic perspective, has become the third” (emphasis added).
Though not clearly stated, the implication may be that God is ontologically triune (contrary to classic modalism) but economically modalistic.
Regardless, Robichaux’s qualifier “from this economic perspective” does not salvage this Quote: for orthodoxy, whatever else it may do.
According to orthodox Trinitarianism, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, whether viewed ontologically or economically.
Stated simply, the Son is not the Spirit, and there are no qualifications that would make such a statement comport with orthodox Trinitarianism.
Certain Local Church statements seem to affirm a contradiction within the very same quotation.
For example, a citation from the Young People’s Training, 2nd ed., pp.
109-110 states that the Son is the Father and that Jesus is the Spirit.
But in the very next sentence the source affirms that they also believe “the other side” of the Triune God, namely, that “all Three of the Godhead exist at the same time.” The Quote: concludes by saying that “we cannot reconcile these two aspects of the Trinity.” Indeed.
Are the modern spokespersons for the movement modalists?
As I stated at the beginning of this section, the more recent Quote: s seem less clear and even contradictory.
I do note that included in the Quote: s you provided me are direct repudiations of modalism by current spokespersons for the church.
Their repudiation of modalism as a “heresy” is based on the claim that modalism “denies the fact that the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternally coexistent,” in contradistinction to their position that God is triune in his inner being.
Assuming that these modern teachers do indeed hold to God’s ontological trinality as understood in the orthodox sense, they would be correct in eschewing the label “modalism” to describe their position.
An essential characteristic of modalism is that it denies the Trinity ontologically.
On the other hand, that would still leave what appears to be an unbiblical understanding of the economic Trinity, which becomes a kind of “modalism” in practice.
Are they saying that God is, in himself, Triune, but reveals himself (economically) according to a modalistic pattern?
This seems to be one possible interpretation of their meaning, but I am not sure because of the obscurity of the way in which these writers express themselves.
If this is their meaning, then such a view is certainly at odds with orthodox Trinitarianism, and is fraught both with biblical and with epistemological problems.
I think it is worth noting that the modern theologians for the Local Church write on this subject in a very confusing way.
I dare say that the confusion lies on their side and not with the reader.
I am well acquainted with the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, and with the doctrine as treated in systematic theologies, ancient and modern.
I am no stranger to reading recondite and abstruse theological writings.
While I realize that sometimes a line of argument is difficult to follow because of the technical character of the subject matter, I also know that a discussion may be difficult to follow because it is muddled and possibly even incoherent.
I believe that in this case the difficulty in synthesizing a clear view lies in the muddled character of the content and neither in the loftiness of the matter itself nor in the subtlety of their presentation of it.
I therefore think that few people would be able to make sense of their discussion on the Godhead—assuming that such is even possible.
I certainly can see how a reasonable reader could conclude that these modern writers hold to modalism.
Likewise, depending upon which Quote: s are selected for consideration, a reader could possibly conclude that they hold to orthodox Trinitarianism.
Personally, I suspect that most readers would simply throw up their hands in confusion.
The foregoing is the most accurate conclusion I know how to draw based on the body of evidence that I was provided.
Sincerely,
Alan W.
Gomes, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Chair Dept.
Of Theology Talbot School of Theology
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
"Though not clearly stated, the implication may be that God is ontologically triune (contrary to classic modalism) but economically modalistic."
I couldn't have said it better myself!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : One thing I found particularly bizarre,...
Is Lee’s query, “Why is there one God in three Persons”?
Even to ask such a question suggests a modalistic view of the Godhead—an impression that is not at all allayed when one reads his answer.
An intelligent orthodox Trinitarian would not ask such a question anymore than he or she would ask, “Why does God know everything?” or “Why is God eternal?” The form of the question suggests that God might be otherwise—as if his Triunity were a matter of the Divine decree.
Lee suggests just this in his answer to the question: “Why is there one God in three Persons?
Simply for the purpose of dispensing and applying God to us.” No intelligent orthodox Trinitarian would speak in such terms.
God exists in three persons because he is God, and because God is Triune.
He is not “Triune” so that he can accomplish some work ad extra.
The fact that God’s triunity has implications for how he accomplishes his purposes ad extra is an altogether different matter so far as orthodox Trinitarianism is concerned.
Now, from a modalistic perspective the question is not bizarre but makes perfect sense.
Since, for the modalist, “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” designate simply the modes of operation in which God chooses to engage his creation, the number and kinds of these modes are a matter of the divine will.
That is, God could, if he wished, reveal himself, e.g., in one mode or five modes.
For the modalist, the question “why three modes?” becomes a natural one to ask.
This section makes such an excellent point.
Why would Lee ask "why does God exist in three persons?" and even more crazy, why would he attempt to answer that question?
It's like he sees God as this one being that wears three different masks(or modes), namely, Father, Son, and Spirit...so he can relate to humans?
I hope our God's very existence is bigger in purpose than simply to dispense Himself to us.
He exists in three persons because He is God.
Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Lee makes statements where he declares that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one person . One thing I found particularly bizarre, at least from an orthodox Trinitarian perspective, is Lees query, Why is there one God in three Persons ?
Either I never paid much attention...OR I never heard him say this...OR the elders in San Diego never Quote: d Lee like this.
Hope, Norm, UntoHim, Ohio, FPO , anyone ..is this true?
If it is...
Totally WRONG!
There is NOT one God in three persons.
There are 3 PERSONS , the FATHER, THE SON and the HOLY SPIRIT
in ONE GOD .
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are NOT one person.
They are ONE GOD.
Even the RCC got THAT ONE right!
If Lee taught "one God in 3 persons"...no wonder the Spirit left the LC !
But those of you who were in the LC from wa back and assert of this statement is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Either I never paid much attention...OR I never heard him say this...OR the elders in San Diego never Quote: d Lee like this Hey, maybe all three are true!
Seriously, the main thing to keep in mind here is that there is lot of evidence that Witness Lee taught a form of modalism, and he did so right along side of more conventional orthodox teachings regarding the trinity .
Now Local Churchers will tell you that Lee was simply "balanced"...
Leaning neither too far towards the "God is one" side, nor too far towards the "God is three" side.
The problem is that we don't need some man to do a balancing act for us ....the Bible is already fully balanced in this regard.
The Bible is most theologically balanced book every written!
We just need to make sure that we take into account ALL the various sections that teach us about the trinity, treating them all with the appropriate respect and weight they deserve.
The bottom line is Witness Lee had no business being the chief (much less sole) theologian for an entire Christian movement.
Witness the fact that a real theologian was able to rip apart Lee's teachings regarding the trinity in just a few paragraphs.
My favorite:
"One thing I found particularly bizarre, at least from an orthodox Trinitarian perspective, is Lee’s query, “Why is there one God in three Persons”?
Even to ask such a question suggests a modalistic view of the Godhead "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : My favorite:
"One thing I found particularly bizarre, at least from an orthodox Trinitarian perspective, is Lee’s query, “Why is there one God in three Persons”?
Even to ask such a question suggests a modalistic view of the Godhead " That whole section on theological thought crime just made me laugh out loud.
I'm sorry, but that part is among the lamest things I've ever read.
Too funny.
And the assertion that he makes in that context is particularly priceless:
Quote: : The form of the question suggests that God might be otherwise—as if his Triunity were a matter of the Divine decree.
That God is Triune because He is unable to be otherwise?
The implication here is that God is somehow subject to laws other than those of His own making.
I don't know who's god he's talking about, really.
The one he's speaking on behalf of appears to be a little less than omnipotent.
God is Triune because He desires to be Triune.
This is indeed a matter of Divine decree.
None requires, enforces or continues His Triunity but Himself.
He is the Great I Am and His Triune existence is a matter fully of His own self-origination.
If He preferred to be seven-in-one, He would be so.
God is either Triune arbitrarily or for a purpose.
As God is a God of order and purpose, He is not arbitrary and we consequently might inquire after His purposes, including those relating to his Triunity.
To inquire "Why is there one God in three Persons?" merely suggests intelligence and curiosity, not modalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : God is either Triune arbitrarily or for a purpose.
As God is a God of order and purpose, He is not arbtirary and we consequently might inquire after His purposes, including those relating to his Triunity.
To inquire "Why is there one God in three Persons?" merely suggests intelligence and curiosity, not modalism.
A seemingly very strong point indeed, YP.
But let's take it a step farther.
Would you also say God exists because He wants to?
And that if He didn't want to exist He wouldn't?
This is taking your logic to its extreme conclusion.
Just wondering your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : A seemingly very strong point indeed, YP.
But let's take it a step farther.
Would you also say God exists because He wants to?
And that if He didn't want to exist He wouldn't?
This is taking your logic to its extreme conclusion.
Just wondering your thoughts.
All things exist through Him and nothing exists without Him.
If He didn't exist, neither would we, and your question becomes entirely moot.
But I would hold that, yes, if for some reason God didn't wish to exist, He is fully capable of such non-existence.
In fact, I would suggest further that God could both exist and not exist simultaneously should it suit Him.
Our inability to fathom such matters is no constraint upon His power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : I'm sorry, but that part is among the lamest things I've ever read.
Actually what is lame is a person with no formal Christian education whatsoever hopping off the boat and telling everybody that HIS theology, and HIS alone, is "recovered truth".
And then a bunch of gullible people actually believe him!
Now THAT'S lame. And as we all found out, that is also very, very dangerous.
Quote: : God is either Triune arbitrarily or for a purpose..
This is a false choice.
Yes God is a God of order and purpose, but as far as we see in his Word, this applies to what he DOES and not really to who HE IS.
Take for example, God's declaration: "I am that I am" or "I shall be that I shall be".
God has had many chances over human history to tell us more, but He only tells us "I am that I am"...so I guess we'll just have to wait on this one.
Quote: : To inquire "Why is there one God in three Persons?" merely suggests intelligence and curiosity, not modalism.
Well, I wish I could give Witness Lee the benefit of the doubt here, but we all know that he did much more then just "inquire"...he answered his own question by inventing an entire theological premise out of thin air - that God went through a "process".
He also used other modalistic terms such as "steps".
Quote: : "Though not clearly stated, the implication may be that God is ontologically triune (contrary to classic modalism) but economically modalistic."
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Right. This is what I have been saying on these forums for years.
Lee uses the term "essentially" instead of ontologically but the idea is the same.
Saying this is nothing more then a copout...
It's a way of teaching modalism along side of the orthodox view of the trinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : All things exist through Him and nothing exists without Him.
If He didn't exist, neither would we, and your question becomes entirely moot.
But I would hold that, yes, if for some reason God didn't wish to exist, He is fully capable of such non-existence.
In fact, I would suggest further that God could both exist and not exist simultaneously should it suit Him.
Our inability to fathom such matters is no constraint upon His power.
It's an interesting question: Is there a difference between God's nature and God's person?
Obviously in His case they are perfectly in sync.
In our case our nature and will are often at odds.
It is hard for us to conceive of a state where they would never conflict.
But I think you take it too far by saying God could both exist and not exist at the same time.
This is a variation of the Could God Create A Rock So Big He Couldn't Lift It argument.
God cannot make something exist which is absurd.
He cannot make something false true.
He cannot make round squares, since by definition squares are square.
Round squares are an absurdity.
The are certain constraints even on God.
The Bible says he cannot deny himself, which means he cannot commit unrighteouness.
He cannot lie. ("In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie,..." Romans 3:4).
There are things outside his "power," or, rather, to say they are within his "power" is a perversion of the concept of "power."
But these kinds of discussions almost always come down to semantics, and then our language pixelates.
However, I do think that saying "God is triune for the fulfillment of his purpose" is insightful.
I mean, did God say "Well, what do you know?
I'm Triune. So I guess I'd better come up with a purpose which fits my nature.
Let's see, what should I do?
Hmmm..."
That sounds at once silly and yet feasible.
As does His saying:
"I want do something that puts a premium on relationships.
What should I do?
Well, if relationships are important then I'd better be relational in my own being.
So for a relationship you need at least two people.
And yet you need the spirit, the connection, of the relationship itself, even as a third being.
So I'll become Three.
The two having the relationship, Father and Son, and the one who is the relationship, the Spirit.
Then I'll create all these people in my image who can get in on the relationship.
Yeah, that's the ticket!"
I don't think its either/or, I think it's both/and.
God's nature, as it should, perfectly suits his heart's desire.
And it was so "from the beginning."
Of course, I'm open to other ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : But I think you take it too far by saying God could both exist and not exist at the same time.
This is a variation of the Could God Create A Rock So Big He Couldn't Lift It argument.
God cannot make something exist which is absurd.
He cannot make something false true.
He cannot make round squares, since by definition squares are square.
Round squares are an absurdity.
The are certain constraints even on God.
The Bible says he cannot deny himself, which means he cannot commit unrighteouness.
He cannot lie. ("In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie,..." Romans 3:4).
There are things outside his "power," or, rather, to say they are within his "power" is a perversion of the concept of "power."
But these kinds of discussions almost always come down to semantics, and then our language pixelates.
Yeah, and I'm generally ready to drop it myself on account of same, but the thing is, He has defined true and false, round and square, righteous and unrighteous.
Had He defined such matters differently, there would be no absurdity at all.
And that much is meaningful because, as I appreciate it, at least part of man's role in the universe is that we have heard both God's universal love story and His enemy's rebellious lies and we have chosen and declared the Lord's side as the just and righteous one...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Either I never paid much attention...OR I never heard him say this...OR the elders in San Diego never Quote: d Lee like this.
Hope, Norm, UntoHim, Ohio, FPO , anyone ..is this true?
If it is...
Totally WRONG!
There is NOT one God in three persons.
There are 3 PERSONS , the FATHER, THE SON and the HOLY SPIRIT
in ONE GOD .
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are NOT one person.
They are ONE GOD.
Even the RCC got THAT ONE right!
If Lee taught "one God in 3 persons"...no wonder the Spirit left the LC !
But those of you who were in the LC from wa back and assert of this statement is true.
What is the story on the teaching on the Trinity by Witness Lee?
First WL was not a theologian.
He was a Bible teacher and had a gift in this area.
He was not a historian and does not know as much about church history as he thought and in particular he knew very little about the history of church theology and the development of church hierarchy.
Watchman Nee did not say much if anything about Gods Economy from the angle of dispensing. In 1958 while in England WL did a lot of contemplation regarding such passages as John 14-16, 2 Corinthians 3:17 and 13:14.
He began to come to a realization regarding the work of the persons of the God-Head as related to the economy of God.
He further developed the teaching of WN and TAS on the parts of man and the inner life.
Early in his time in the USA he gave messages which became the book The Economy of God. I listened to the original reel to reel tapes.
This book put together his thoughts on the parts of man, the inner life, and Gods purpose.
Everything was explained from the notion that Gods Economy was Gods Dispensation.
He had never heard the term modalism or any of the modalistic illustrations until some began to critique his teaching.
He had to learn from some of the brothers what modalism was and how his illustrations in the Economy of God were very much like the modalistic illustrations of the early Christian Era.
WL also believed in the traditional teaching regarding the Trinity but preferred the term Tri-Un.
His basic Trinity knowledge came from the very orthodox Plymouth Brethren and Watchman Nee.
Once he was challenged, he had to prove himself correct.
Rather than make any adjustments, which WL could never do, he developed his approach to presenting the Trinity.
He presented the ontological Trinity but he stressed the the economic Trinity which refers to the offices or functions performed by each of the three members.
WL centered his teaching around the concept of God being a God of purpose and that purpose was to dispense Himself into His creation, Man.
Therefore it was natural for him to ask questions such as why is God in three persons.
Among us in the early days, that question was a sort of given.
I cannot put my finger exactly when and where I would have first heard the question but I am very familiar with it and I can assume it was asked very early here in the USA.
A believer in Christ Jesus,
Hope, Don Rutledge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : There is NOT one God in three persons.
There are 3 PERSONS , the FATHER, THE SON and the HOLY SPIRIT
in ONE GOD .
If you feel that way, CMW, be careful when you sing "Holy Holy Holy." Holy, holy, holy!
Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, holy, holy!
Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : If you feel that way, CMW, be careful when you sing "Holy Holy Holy." Holy, holy, holy!
Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, holy, holy!
Merciful and mighty,
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!
ok ...I stand corrected.
Thanks for the heads up!
But you know...the words to that hymn might be wrong too!
I never paid much attention to them...and I bet a whole lot of people never put much stock into those words either..
but as I look at them...hmmm...I am going to have to put my Sherlock Holmes cap on and go on a search for the truth !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : WL centered his teaching around the concept of God being a God of purpose and that purpose was to dispense Himself into His creation, Man.
Therefore it was natural for him to ask questions such as why is God in three persons.
Among us in the early days, that question was a sort of given.
I cannot put my finger exactly when and where I would have first heard the question but I am very familiar with it and I can assume it was asked very early here in the USA.
The thing I think nearly all of us post-LC can agree upon is that Lee's approach, at a minimum, over-emphasized the mechanics of God's operation to the serious neglect of God's intimate and personal involvement at every step of the process of our complete salvation.
Thus, frequent and repeated illustrations of "God's dispensing" tended to color a relationship with a loving Father as if it were interaction with a heavenly vending machine.
Even if that vending machine is a free-flowing water fountain available without charge, that's still just an analogy to illustrate one of the multitude of aspects of the complete and total relationship of the believers with their God.
Indeed, "a flowing river and a tree, Eden's oustanding features are," but only if you discount that God also walked with man there and fashioned the woman...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YP hits it on the head.
Modalism is bad because it seriously dilutes the relational aspect of God.
Since Lee deemphasized the relational, personal aspect of God, it figures some of his stuff sounded modalistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : WL centered his teaching around the concept of God being a God of purpose and that purpose was to dispense Himself into His creation, Man.
Therefore it was natural for him to ask questions such as why is God in three persons.
Among us in the early days, that question was a sort of given.
I cannot put my finger exactly when and where I would have first heard the question but I am very familiar with it and I can assume it was asked very early here in the USA.
Thanks for the explanation Hope...
Do you know if Lee looked at other people's writings aside from Nee, The Plymouth Brethren, TAS ?
How about ANDREW MURRAY ?
Did he read Murray's work ?
The thing about Lee and Nee is it's almost as if people didn't know any better (like me who had absolutely no bible knowledge..except the very little I got from the RCC) & you get saved through the LC ministry...you'd think they were the only people in modern times being used by God!!
I'm around Word Faith people...and boy, the people you hear them talk about is Smith Wigglesworth , Norville Hayes , Kenneth Hagin (Sr) Oral Roberts (back in his early days- 50's.
(now..I have no opinion of them..I just hear people talking about them..)
Occassionally, I'll hear the name of Nee being tossed into the mix..but not often.
In recent months I've come across Clarence Larkins' writings.
He was around during the late 1800s and died around 1925.
I think he's one of the best Bible teachers around and very few people have even heard of him!
Back to Lee , I heard he was raised as a Baptist.
Any truth to that?
I also remember hearing he had read the Bible 50 times.
Any truth to that?
Personally, I don't think he was THAT great of a bible teacher.
He had an agenda.
It may look to some he didn't..that he was all about 'God's eternal purpose..and God's economy'...but it was through Lee's eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : The thing I think nearly all of us post-LC can agree upon is that Lee's approach, at a minimum, over-emphasized the mechanics of God's operation to the serious neglect of God's intimate and personal involvement at every step of the process of our complete salvation..
And..I think nearly all of us post-LCrs can agree that the LC put wa too much stock on every word that proceeded out of Lee's mouth and writings.
If Lee said it. If Lee wrote it..then he can't be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : The thing I think nearly all of us post-LC can agree upon is that Lee's approach, at a minimum, over-emphasized the mechanics of God's operation to the serious neglect of God's intimate and personal involvement at every step of the process of our complete salvation.
Thus, frequent and repeated illustrations of "God's dispensing" tended to color a relationship with a loving Father as if it were interaction with a heavenly vending machine.
Even if that vending machine is a free-flowing water fountain available without charge, that's still just an analogy to illustrate one of the multitude of aspects of the complete and total relationship of the believers with their God.
Indeed, "a flowing river and a tree, Eden's oustanding features are," but only if you discount that God also walked with man there and fashioned the woman...
The two key verses in the New Testament which contain the Greek word oikonomia are 1 Tim 1:4 and Eph 3:9.
The word does not mean “dispensing.”
Please note the definition from Strongs, oikonomia (oy-kon-om-ee'-ah);
From NT:3623; administration (of a household or estate)
It can also be translated dispensation, or stewardship.
The main dictionary definition of “dispensation” is 1 a: a general state or ordering of things ;
Specifically : a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs b: a particular arrangement or provision especially of providence or nature2 a: an exemption from a law or from an impediment, vow, or oath b: a formal authorization
The last definition of the word dispensation is 3 a: the act of dispensing b: something dispensed or distributed
Thus we have dear WL taking a secondary English translation of the Greek word oikonomia and picking up that term “Dispensation” and then using the last and very minor definition of the word “dispensation” and using it in a way that does not fit the context at all.
Here are the verses:
1 Tim 1:4, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
NASB
Eph 3:9, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things;
NASB
Yes, the oikonomia of God is big big.
Paul desired to bring it to light.
In God’s administration, where does prayer fit it?
Where does family fit it?
Where does speaking and sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ fit in?
Where does the assembly fit in?
Where does leadership in the assembly fit in?
And so many other items.
If you miss on what is God’s administration, you will miss on so many things.
Unfortunately, dear ole Brother Lee missed on this key item and so many other errors followed.
The book “The Economy of God” has some good points on the parts of man and on the inner life.
Hope, Don Rutledge
A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee's trinity teaching was a eureka moment for me when I first heard it.
Yes, yes! it all makes sense.
God is three because He needs a way to get into humanity.
Suddenly it's clear why the Son had to come, had to put on the flesh.
Suddenly it's clear why the Comforter was waiting in the wings.
The Spirit -- or Essence -- of God was squeezed out of Him on the cross and now has covered the world so that He as near to anyone as their mouth is.
Modalism is wrong and even if Lee hadn't ever heard of the term, he had considered the idea.
He knew God wasn't just one form at a time.
This shows up all over the place in his writing (speaking).
Those who charge him with modalism are forced to overlook hundreds of references where he shows the Son and Father and Spirit coexisting simultaneously from eternity past to eternity future.
Tritheism is also wrong because it misses the unique oneness of God.
The word triune is superior to trinity because it places the threeness and oneness of God into an oxymoronic tension.
It's a perfect term.
Sorry that I'm repeating points I've made on these pages in the past on this topic but it is one that stirs my spirit every time I consider it.
I love the three-one God.
I love "Holy, holy, holy" (they repeat it three times, CMW, to emphasize the threeness of God).
Just for me to type these words sanctifies me and uplifts me from my miserable fleshly state.
SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Quote: : I love the three-one God.
I love " Holy, Holy, Holy " (they repeat it three times, CMW, to emphasize the threeness of God).
Just for me to type these words sanctifies me and uplifts me from my miserable fleshly state .
I hear ya, SC !! I sooo much have a deep, DEEP appreciation and LOVE for the TRIUNE GOD.
To the mind, it is a mystery indeed.
And yet, in my spirit, The 3 in ONE..yet Separate & distinct yet still ONE GOD..The same Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make perfectly sense in my spirit.
HOLY-HOLY-HOLY is the LORD GOD who IS ONE.
The Father is GOD.
The SON is GOD and the HOLY SPIRIT is GOD, equal to the Father and to the Son.
I have a relationship with the Father..that is sometimes I speak to the Father.
Sometimes I speak to the Lord Jesus Christ and yet I know I'm also speaking to the Father for no man can come to the Father but through Jesus..and in most recent years I have increased my communion with the Holy Spirit who is the Voice of God and anoints us with the the OIL of Gladness, the OIL of Joy, who is our Counselor, our Guide, our Comforter who leads us into the Path of Righteousness.
It is mind boggling to the flesh but not to the spirit.
This comes purely from Revelation.
Faith comes from hearing...and Hearing from the Word of God.
We may experience a relationship with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and not really know it..then we read the Bible..and some of it makes sense so we understand.
Some scriptures take a while for them to sink into us.
When we pray to the Lord Jesus, it is through the Holy Spirit in our spirit we are praying to Him and to the Father.
It is the Spirit that gives Life.
By Faith we believe the Scriptures..and as we meditate and put our Faith in them, suddenly the SPIRIT reveals them to us so that we understand perfectly well what the scriptures ARE saying...what a GLORIOUS moment it is WHEN that happens!
Thank YOU Father, God Thank YOU Lord Jesus , Son of the Most High God and Thank YOU Holy Spirit of God -the Eternal Spirit..for You, Dear GOD give us LIFE and give us LIFE more ABUNDANTLY until it overflows!
May the Spirit of Life enlighten us so we may speak to one another in the Light and Fellowship of our Lord Jesus Christ...so we can help one another understand the Deep things of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMW,
Sort of like the discussion months ago about the rapidly moving avatars, that jumping/clapping emoticon is getting really annoying.
I find it way too distracting and can hardly read what is within an inch or so of it.
I like your sentiment with it, but the actual visual is not having the desired effect, at least not for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : CMW,
Sort of like the discussion months ago about the rapidly moving avatars, that jumping/clapping emoticon is getting really annoying.
I find it way too distracting and can hardly read what is within an inch or so of it.
I like your sentiment with it, but the actual visual is not having the desired effect, at least not for me.
Did I overload on you Mike?
Was my post annoying?
If I did, if it was---sorry.
Did not mean to overload or annoy.
Not really knowing me..talking to me face to face, we can only visualize one another..and none of us, no matter our background are on the same page spiritually.
God is our Father.
Jesus our Lord and the Holy Spirit our Guide, and Couselor.
I have a deep relationship but not at all RELIGIOUS with all Three and yet with only ONE.
That is what I was trying to convey.
Again..sorry if I was over the top.
P.S.
It may come across that I'm Sappy...if that's how it's coming across...sorry...'cause I may have the Joy of the Lord in me...but I ain't NO SAPPY-PAPPY...you'd have to be around me in person to know that when I say I AM in CHRIST...
You KNOW I AM in Christ .
Those aren't just words from the Bible.
I live it..I walk it..I talk it.
And if I person or Satan himself doen't like it...
TOUGH ! Too Bad for them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMW,
Sorry if it seemed personal in any way.
It really is just the nature of that emoticon.
Nothing personal.
I am not complaining about you.
Keep posting to your heart's content.
We may not always see everything eye-to-eye (few of us do) but we generally do pretty much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Sort of like the discussion months ago about the rapidly moving avatars, that jumping/clapping emoticon is getting really annoying.
I find it way too distracting and can hardly read what is within an inch or so of it.
I like your sentiment with it, but the actual visual is not having the desired effect, at least not for me.
Mike, Are you serious?!?!
Amazing to me that you can't let a person post as their heart leads.
Astonishing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Thanks for the explanation Hope...
Do you know if Lee looked at other people's writings aside from Nee, The Plymouth Brethren, TAS ?
How about ANDREW MURRAY ?
Did he read Murray's work ?
"The Sprit of Christ" written by Andrew Murray was held in high esteem by Witness Lee in the earlier years and many of us had copies of it.
He spoke very highly of that book.
That was back in the days when we all read from the writings of what many called the inner life people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : "The Sprit of Christ" written by Andrew Murray was held in high esteem by Witness Lee in the earlier years and many of us had copies of it.
He spoke very highly of that book.
That was back in the days when we all read from the writings of what many called the inner life people.
Yeah !!! That's RIGHT!
And Andrew Murray knew how to pray and knew the power of Prayer.
I have some of his books.
Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : CMW, Sorry if it seemed personal in any way.
It really is just the nature of that emoticon.
Nothing personal.
I am not complaining about you.
Keep posting to your heart's content.
We may not always see everything eye-to-eye (few of us do) but we generally do pretty much.
No problem Mike...as I posted somewhere I use the emoticons to lighten up the place.
And I don't know how these emoticons are acquired but these emoticons are not the best.
I've seen others in other message boards that are really neat.
I make do with what we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Mike, Are you serious?!?!
Amazing to me that you can't let a person post as their heart leads.
Astonishing! It was a respectful request due to a factor that was not about emotions, likes or dislikes.
I was merely noting that it actually distracted me from reading what was written.
If I didn't care about what was written, I wouldn't care about the distraction.
Further, I noted this morning that one of the reasons that I do almost all of my posts offline and then copy/paste them in is that that particular emoticon is there on the side jumping and clapping.
It is not about CMW.
It is about the emoticon.
It was a request.
She was free to ignore me.
No harm done.
So what brought on your response?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, I think OBW and countmeworthy understand each other now.
Can we please just get down to addressing the Gomes letter.
Tank U.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Modalism is wrong and even if Lee hadn't ever heard of the term, he had considered the idea.
He knew God wasn't just one form at a time.
This shows up all over the place in his writing (speaking).
Those who charge him with modalism are forced to overlook hundreds of references where he shows the Son and Father and Spirit coexisting simultaneously from eternity past to eternity future Well spoken, and the point that we should be looking at Lee's entire body of work is valid.
Nevertheless, I would point out that when one teaches an unorthodox view of a certain doctrine (in this case the trinity) it is in no way mitigated when this same person turns around and teaches the orthodox view.
(or visa versa)
Common sense even tells us that when true is juxtaposed with false, no matter how close in time or space, true remains true and false remains false .
Just because you speak something false, and then right away say something true, it does NOT make the false true ...or even partially true.
There is no doubt that the nature of the trinity is very mysterious, but this does not give us license to run off and make up all new concepts and notions out of thin air, even if they are "balanced" by commonly held biblical/orthodox concepts and notions.
Here are some snippets from Gomes which illustrate what I'm talking about :
"First, consider some recent Local Church statements that bear an orthodox sounding form.
Robichaux states, ' According to the Scriptures, God is triune both essentially—in His inner being—and economically—in the outworking of His purpose with His chosen and redeemed people .' Likewise, Kangas declares that the Father, Son, and Spirit ' coexist ' and ' coinhere ' eternally."
"Other statements by their modern theologians appear to teach modalism .
Consider Kangas’ description of the economic Trinity as ' being carried out in these three successive steps.
' This is an unorthodox way of viewing the economic Trinity.
Certainly the baptism of Jesus is an economic event in salvation history, and here the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in evidence not successively but simultaneously"
"Some of the statements by the modern writers appear, on the face of them, to be somewhat different from classic modalism but still heretical.
The statements in question seem to imply ontological trinality but a kind of 'economic modalism.' For example, Robichaux states that because the third person of the Trinity ' applies the accomplishments of the second ', the second person of the Trinity, ' from this economic perspective, has become the third ' (emphasis added).
Though not clearly stated, the implication may be that God is ontologically triune (contrary to classic modalism) but economically modalistic.
Regardless, Robichaux’s qualifier ' from this economic perspective ' does not salvage this Quote: for orthodoxy, whatever else it may do.
According to orthodox Trinitarianism, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, whether viewed ontologically or economically .
Stated simply, the Son is not the Spirit, and there are no qualifications that would make such a statement comport with orthodox Trinitarianism"
"I think it is worth noting that the modern theologians for the Local Church write on this subject in a very confusing way.
I dare say that the confusion lies on their side and not with the reader"
Gomes clearly states that he is making judgments from a limited sampling of Quote: s from Witness Lee and others, but he also points out that many of these statements are so blatantly unorthodox (and unbiblical) as to stand on their own as proof that Lee taught a form of modalism.
Furthermore they wonder so far from orthodoxy that even a "balancing" or "qualifiying" word cannot salvage them from being placed squarely in the category of heresy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Gomes clearly states that he is making judgments from a limited sampling of Quote: s from Witness Lee and others, but he also points out that many of these statements are so blatantly unorthodox (and unbiblical) as to stand on their own as proof that Lee taught a form of modalism.
Furthermore they wonder so far from orthodoxy that even a "balancing" or "qualifiying" word cannot salvage them from being placed squarely in the category of heresy.
Confusing? Sure. This is a complex topic.
Gomes himself, in the Quote: s you provided, isn't exactly bristling with clarity.
What Gomes has done here is interesting: he now is allowing that Lee was not a modalist in his view of the "essential" trinity, but was one in his position on the "economical" trinity.
So that's progresss, IMHO.
Modalism implies that when God became a man, he ceased to be God, really.
And it further implies than when he became a Spirit, he ceased to be Christ.
A true modalist can't have the Son sitting in the heavens at the right hand of the Father.
Lee didn't think that and you know it and so does everyone else who sat under his ministry for any length of time.
The charge of modalism has always been a way for his detractors to "get" Lee like when they got Al Capone on tax evasion.
It's a red herring and it's a bogus charge.
SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Romans chapter 8 Paul tells us the Spirit of God dwells in us(v.9), that we have the Spirit of Christ (v.9) , that Christ is in us (v.10) and that the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in us (v.
11)
Then goes on to say we are led by the Spirit of God (v.14) and that the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit (v.16)
So
..according to orthodox teaching on the trinity do I have three different beings all in spiritual form dwelling in me?
Maybe the orthodox view needs to be reexamined a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Confusing?
Modalism implies that when God became a man, he ceased to be God, really.
And it further implies than when he became a Spirit, he ceased to be Christ.
SC Modalism does not imply that at all (that he "ceased to be God")
This economic modalism that Gomes is noting is that of God in one person, revealing Himself in different modes (or forms) to relate and dispense Himself to man...
I wish Gomes had used these Quote: s from "open-letter":
"...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...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
"Therefore, it is clear: The Lord Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and He is the very God.
He is also the Lord.
He is the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Mighty God, and the Lord."
Witness Lee, The Clear Scriptural Revelation
Concerning the Triune God
Especially the second Quote: is exactly the same statement that "oneness" pentecostals use to describe God's nature.
Absolutely No difference at all.To them, the Father is Jesus and the Spirit is also Jesus...That's exactly what Lee is saying in this second Quote: and that's modalism.
As Gomes noted, lee affirms the essential trinity in one place, but in another breath affirms modalism in a rather clear way that can't be confused, twisted, or taken out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Modalism does not imply that at all (that he "ceased to be God") city,
Rather, "ceased to be the Father." This was my meaning.
I'm not so sure about the totality of teaching of the "oneness Pentecostals" on the trinity, but I have had fellowship with some and the ones I spoke with (and even met with on occasion) did not believe in the "essential" threeness of the trinity.
In fact, they didn't believe in the trinity at all.
As one brother proudly told me, "I'm a monotheist!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification...
It's clear when one looks at the LC compared to other modalistic groups that the LC is not really in the same category at all.
(even though random statements have been made by WL, RK, and others that leave room for the modalist label..)
If anyone wants to see what it means to be a true modalist, just take a look at oneness pentecostals.
T.D. Jakes is a popular example of a modalist who denies the triune unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit claiming that God is one person...Jesus.
No other name but that name.
The modalist God is one who has three different costumes hanging in His closet named Father, Son, and Spirit.
Although, Witness Lee has also been Quote: d to say God is one person...While elsewhere he affirms He exists in three...
How many Quote: s does it take to consider someone modalist?
Even if they completely contradict themselves in the next sentence...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Confusing?
Sure. This is a complex topic.
Gomes himself, in the Quote: s you provided, isn't exactly bristling with clarity.
What Gomes has done here is interesting: he now is allowing that Lee was not a modalist in his view of the "essential" trinity, but was one in his position on the "economical" trinity.
So that's progresss, IMHO.
Modalism implies that when God became a man, he ceased to be God, really.
And it further implies than when he became a Spirit, he ceased to be Christ.
A true modalist can't have the Son sitting in the heavens at the right hand of the Father.
Lee didn't think that and you know it and so does everyone else who sat under his ministry for any length of time...
Quote: : In Romans chapter 8 Paul tells us the “Spirit of God” dwells in us(v.9), that we have the ”Spirit of Christ” (v.9) , that ”Christ” is in us (v.10) and that the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in us (v.
11)
Then goes on to say we are led by the “Spirit of God” (v.14) and that the ”Spirit Himself” bears witness with our spirit (v.16)
So …..according to orthodox teaching on the trinity do I have three different beings all in spiritual form dwelling in me?
Maybe the orthodox view needs to be reexamined a bit.
Come on fellas, you can do better then this!
“Confusing” and “complex” are not the crux of this issue… though if we can agree upon that much it does reinforce my long-held contention that we better leave the heavy theological lifting to well-educated men and women.
I suppose that Witness Lee was welcome to throw his newfangled, homebrewed theology into the mix, but it should have been thoroughly compared and contrasted to long-established standards of orthodoxy.
My contention now is that if we were allowed to do this comparing and contrasting back in the day, we would have found such notions as “the processed God” severely wanting at the very least.
Let’s also take note that Gomes, even with so little to go on, could figure out that Lee was not necessarily “a true modalist”, but you see it’s kind of like the old saying: “there’s no such thing as a little pregnant”.
In the same manner, I don’t think any teaching, especially one as profound and foundational as the trinity, can be accepted and imbibed if it is just “a little” or “partially” orthodox.
Even a teaching that could be considered “mostly” orthodox must be held up to the strong light of the Word of God and the orthodoxy as established by the early creeds, church fathers and pioneering theologians, and then stand corrected as needed.
Lee refused to let his followers do the slightest comparing and contrasting, and that alone should have been a huge warning sign for all of us.
Now we find the Blended brothers doing the exact same thing.
So in at least that sense, they are surely “brother Lee’s continuation”.
Another major thing to be addressed when considering the teachings of Witness Lee: The notion that any of the major doctrines of the church needed be “recovered”.
None have ever been lost.
Yes, throughout history some of been emphasized and/or annunciated more effectively, but none have ever been lost.
This is especially important to keep in mind when somebody like Lee comes along, proclaiming that every Christian teacher and scholar has been getting it wrong for all these years.
Oregon brings up the issue of the wonderful, mysterious indwelling of the Spirit of God within the believers – a rather different and separate issue then the very nature of the Godhead.
And this is part of the problem with the teachings of Witness Lee – he was constantly confusing the nature of the Godhead with other different and separate issues.
This is why Gomes says that even Lee’s questioning “why is there one God in three Persons” suggests a modalistic view of the Godhead.
And this is the problem (and danger) in pulling versus out of one context and putting them in a totally different context – one can easily find themselves employing “proof texts” that do not prove what they say they are proving.
(and I can prove it!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Lee was no modalist.
He just sounded like one sometimes.
In like manner, the typical Christian isn't a tritheist, he just sounds like one sometimes.
The typical Christian may not appreciate the oneness of God as well as Lee did.
By the same token, there is little doubt that Lee deemphasized the threeness of God to a fault.
He barely mentioned the relational aspect of the Father and Son, which is the wellspring of all other relationships.
He was so busy making hay about the Son being the Father that he neglected to talk about the difference between the Son and the Father in anything but economical terms.
But the existence of the Father versus the Son, and the Son versus the Father, must imply that at the most essential level there is value in the other and in being in relationship with the other.
Lee for the most part missed this, or seemed to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me also say I think Dr.
Gomes got it backwards.
It doesn't seem to me that Lee was essentially orthodox and economically modalistic.
Rather it seems he was essentially leaning modalistic and economically orthodox.
By that I mean he would generally only distinguish between the Persons of the Trinity in regards to what they do , but in regards to who they are he would rather dwell on his belief that one was the other, rather than on their distinctiveness.
Since his view was that one was the other, a relationship between them was a relatively moot point, and he didn't seem much interested in discussing that aspect of God, or about what lessons we should draw from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : The notion that any of the major doctrines of the church needed be “recovered”.
None have ever been lost.
Yes, throughout history some of been emphasized and/or annunciated more effectively, but none have ever been lost.
Unto,
Josiah's man Hilkiah found the book of the Torah (perhaps just Deuteronomy) hidden away in the temple while doing some housecleaning.
That was lost truth, was it not?
Truth does get lost, all the time.
Every age has to rediscover it.
I know people today who reject science.
They trust vendors of "natural" medicines more than their doctors.
To me, they've given up an important truth.
I understand your rejection of the term "recovery" because in many ways I have rejected it too.
It is too backward looking, IMHO.
We have eyes on the front of our heads, not the back.
We should look forward more, away unto Jesus, as the scripture says.
But the scripture also says we should look backward: that's what the Lord's table is all about.
Again, it's a baby/bathwater issue.
Don't throw out "recovery" just because it was over-emphasized in the "Recovery."
SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Let me also say I think Dr.
Gomes got it backwards.
It doesn't seem to me that Lee was essentially orthodox and economically modalistic.
Rather it seems he was essentially leaning modalistic and economically orthodox.
Igzy,
I don't wish to defend Lee here, but I must ask this: wasn't Lee's teaching on the "processed TG" enlightening in terms of how the TG is applicable to us?
It sure was a light going on for me.
I recall his illustration about electricity: the power plant being like the Father, the transmission lines like the Son, and the electric current within like the Spirit.
(I think that's how he broke it down.) That really helped me to realize how each person of the trinity was necessary for me to enjoy God.
Same with the watermelon illustration.
The idea that God is too big in his wholeness for me to receive, but that the juice squeezed out isn't was a marvelous insight to me.
I am convinced God did process Himself.
I am thankful for it.
To me, the whole teaching of the trinity seems kind of pointless without understanding why God is three as well as one.
SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC,
Good to hear from you!
Yes, I did find those things helpful.
The power plant illustration was helpful.
I don't want to take that away from him.
For his time he was sharing things that weren't generally shared on Sunday morning, or in mainstream books.
But now the Church has more or less caught up with him.
For example, I've heard other illustrations of the Trinity.
For example, sun, light and ray.
The Father is the sun, the Son is the light emanating from the sun, and the Spirit is the ray reaching us.
The essentials of what Lee taught are found and understood by many.
Just few majored on it like he did.
Another illustration that I read just the other day online was this: Mind, thoughts, words.
The Father is the mind, the Son is the thoughts and the Spirit is the words.
On the one hand these three are one, on the other hand they are distinct.
This was the best illustration of the oneness-threeness dichotomy that I think I've ever heard.
Let me spell out my problem with Lee on this issue.
One, he acted like his way of serving up this stuff was the only five star restaurant going and anybody else's was at best an appetizer or a leftover.
That in itself is enough to be irked by him.
Of course, he was wrong.
Why? Well, that brings up my second problem with him.
He almost totally missed the relational lessons the Trinity teaches us--the matters of love, intimacy, mutual respect and service, coming out of oneself and into another, and the sheer marvelous mystery of getting to know another person and being better for doing so.
I just don't see much of that in his ministry.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Honestly, I think understanding and "experiencing" the Trinity in only the narrow way Lee taught it can lead to an assumption of growth that really isn't happening.
Real growth comes from getting to know God and letting him become more and more your Trusted One and Master.
Growth doesn't come from simply imbibing an enjoyable flow.
Eventually you have to deal with God and submit to his living and loving direction in your life.
I used to think I'd grown because I'd enjoyed God some.
But I had simply had the pleasure of experiencing joy.
My heart and character hadn't really been affected much.
I've been shocked to see how much of what I thought was growth was simply knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Igzy,
I don't wish to defend Lee here, but I must ask this: wasn't Lee's teaching on the "processed TG" enlightening in terms of how the TG is applicable to us?
It sure was a light going on for me.
I recall his illustration about electricity: the power plant being like the Father, the transmission lines like the Son, and the electric current within like the Spirit.
(I think that's how he broke it down.) That really helped me to realize how each person of the trinity was necessary for me to enjoy God.
Same with the watermelon illustration.
The idea that God is too big in his wholeness for me to receive, but that the juice squeezed out isn't was a marvelous insight to me.
I am convinced God did process Himself.
I am thankful for it.
To me, the whole teaching of the trinity seems kind of pointless without understanding why God is three as well as one.
SC,
I understand what you are saying.
But I have been having trouble finding how it was that this Processed Triune God (PTG) teaching was constructed.
I remember the example of the electricity, the wires and the plant.
But is there some actual verses that make this example viable, or did it just sound good?
Surely the Son did become a man, die, resurrect, and ascend.
But are all of the other things that were tied to this to create this PTG teaching actually relevant to the purpose, or was this example of electricity used to pull things together that otherwise didnt go together?
And even if the example fits, does it define it as a process or is it merely an example of the scriptural view of the Three in the Trinity without actually demonstrating any "process?"
I must admit that my Lee/Nee resources are fairly limited now and that searching through the LSMs online library would be too prohibitive without significant direction.
Where and how did Lee put this together?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi SC...
Lee had several illustrations that helped me too...as he did you, Igzy and others.
I don't even have a problem with the concept of the unity of the body of Christ..ONE CHURCH.
No matter where we meet, how we meet, we the body of believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Word are THE CHURCH.
We should NOT be calling ourselves by a denominational name or non-denominational name..and that includes the 'church in ".
Paul did write letters to the church in and that's cool !
I get it.
I think we all get it.
My problem is....the emphasis that was placed solely on Lee's teachings w/some sprinklings on Nee's teachings.
Lee became everything..and still is.
Lee's explanation on the Triune God fell short because he/we placed wa tooo much emphasis on one phrase "O Lord Jesus." I write this cautiously because I respect my LORD JESUS.
And I want to be careful not to disrepect calling on His Name.
To this day, I call on the Name of the Lord.
I sometimes do say "O Lord Jesus"...always with respect and with a conscientious heart.
I however, never came to know the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.
I knew He resided in me, along with the Son, Jesus, and the Father God.
God is God is GOD.
God is the Father.
God is the Son. God is the Holy Spirit.
But I never talked to the Holy Spirit in my whole time I was in 'the church'.
I didn't talk to the Holy Spirit after I left the church either.
It's only been in the last few years, I have opened up and began talking with the HOLY SPIRIT in my spirit.
After all, the HOLY SPIRIT is our Comforter, our Guide, our Counselor.
He is the Oil of Gladness, the Oil of Joy, He is the Anointing of the Father on us.
Jesus Himself received the HOLY SPIRIT when He was baptized in the Jordan.
When He came up from the water, He was FILLED with the SPIRIT
After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water;
And behold, the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil
We are instructed not to GRIEVE the HOLY SPIRIT in Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Now maybe I'm short of chip but I don't recall Lee ever going beyond the explanation of the 'process of the Triune God'.
I had no problem with his explanation over all.
But I don't think we were taught to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit, or the Father.
We acknowledged the Life Giving Spirit back in my day.
We acknowledged the Father..especially at the Lord's table.
But as we all can attest, we placed a LOT of emphasis solely on chanting "O Lord Jesus".
I'm not criticizing calling on the Lord.
For the Spirit of God, PRODS us to call on the Lord Jesus!
That's a FACT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : We should NOT be calling ourselves by a denominational name or non-denominational name..and that includes the 'church in ".
CMW,
When you say that we should not be calling ourselves by any name, do you think that our lack of calling ourselves something will make it not be so anyway?
I think I recall that you have mentioned, both somewhat directly and indirectly, that you have been involved recently in groups that are what are now referred to as charismatic (and would have previously been known as Pentecostal).
(Play along even if I am wrong on this.) So if some group of this type meets without a name, do you think that it is not identified as something besides simply church? Even without registering with the government and therefore having no requirement for a name, those who are of both the same and different opinions about the outward, miraculous gifts of the Spirit (that are a significant part of the charismatic belief) will come to know of what doctrinal and practice slant they are.
Some will choose to join with them and some will not.
They may only be refered to as that charismatic group that meets at 123 Anywhere Lane, SomeCity, SomeState.
Do they have a name?
Sort of. It is long and includes descriptions of their doctrines and practices along with a location.
What changes if they have an actual name?
The unofficial and long name is replaced by a shorter one.
The name need not actually identify anything about their beliefs.
SomeCity Community Church or the Anywhere Lane Assembly do little more than give a vague location with no identification of doctrines, yet they have now decided how to be labeled rather than the longer version that was more descriptive.
In fact, their name is less open about their actual differences than the unofficial one.
But what really changed?
Nothing.
They actually practice the same.
They have not changed their doctrinal stance.
I assume that they previously welcomed all who would join (with normal church discipline still on the table) and still do so.
They did not tell those Baptists down the street to stay out by putting up a sign with the name.
In fact, they have clarified to the unobservant that there is actually a group of Christians that meets in that place.
Some may have thought it was offices before.
What was wrong with the church in Corinth?
It was not names.
It was exclusion and division.
Saying I am of Paul meant more than putting a sign outside.
It meant that they follow the doctrines and teachings that Paul taught and not those of someone else and more importantly that they excluded those who were not in agreement.
The name was as much a statement of positive association as it was of non-association.
The problem wasnt that there were names, but that there was division.
The names were not the division.
The exclusiveness was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't get the LC obsession with names.
It's like obsessing about recycling, or about wearing white after Labor Day, or about stepping on a crack and breaking your mother's back.
People get hung up on the strangest things.
I mean, a church might be leading hundreds to the Lord.
But some will be saying, (queue snively, nasily voice) "You shouldn't be called Boston Christian Fellowship.
That's div sive."
Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Igzy,
Hello again.
I agree with you that Lee's teaching somehow seemed to cause us (or at least allow us) to miss something experiential.
I have my theories why.
Lee's analysis of the triune God has, like the medical world's slogan -- Do thy patient no harm -- the danger of making God further rather than closer to us.
That's the nature of analysis of living things.
In cutting open the organism to see how it works, we kill it.
Sitting in all those meetings (my biggest regret of those years of my life) also had the same dangerous two-edged effect.
On the one hand, listening to anyone speak about God can enliven the hearer.
Faith does come by hearing.
On the other hand, it can deaden with knowledge.
No doubt in some respect my Lee-learned understanding of the TG has driven me away from God, but I can't deny in other respects it has helped me approach Him.
SC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : CMW,
When you say that we should not be calling ourselves by any name, do you think that our lack of calling ourselves something will make it not be so anyway?
I think I recall that you have mentioned, both somewhat directly and indirectly, that you have been involved recently in groups that are what are now referred to as charismatic (and would have previously been known as Pentecostal).
(Play along even if I am wrong on this.) So if some group of this type meets without a name, do you think that it is not identified as something besides simply church?
Let me try to explain through my observations, what I'm trying to convey.
I go to 'Christian Family Church'.
Up the road is 'Bible Community Church' and a little further up is 'Cornerstone'-John Hagee's church.
I went to a small Vitamin store yesterday.
No one was there except the sales clerk and myself.
We're talking about my health..and I said to the guy you know..what Satan meant for evil GOD turned to Good." The man smiles and replies "God always does".
It didn't take long for us to begin fellowshipping.
He and I were on the same page.
We are Word-Faith people.
(and really...the LC could have been an AWESOME Word-Faith people!...more on that later.)
We were talking about the economy and the state of affairs a little bit...neither of us had a fearful spirit.
We KNOW and both of us were talking about how GREAT our GOD is who is our Provider and so on and so forth.
We were exchanging thoughts on how we have been praying for our struggling brothers & sisters in Christ..for the people of this nation who are losing their jobs, homes etc..
We talked about how we needed rain and we both began to pray for rain.
When we finished praying, he remarks: "It's gonna rain..you watch.
Of course, I knew it was going to rain as we prayed believing & in agreement.' Sure enough, this morning we got a very nice much needed rain shower.
<VBG>
So he asks me where I go to church.
I told him. He nodded and told me he went to BCB.
Now...WHY do we have to ask each other where we go to church?
Are we not one Body in Christ?
Does my hand ask my foot what paart of the body it's located at?
When I left, I told the Lord...It's too bad it's embedded in Christians to ask each other where they go to church.
Our fellowship was GREAT...we brethren in Christ ought to recognize each other in Christ and just begin to fellowship and build one another up.
That's the way I would like to us all live..
We shouldn't have to ask 'Where do you go to church'.
With respect to the LC ..sure, the biblical concept was correct.
We called ourselves Christians...and when asked where we went to church, we replied something like..we just meet as Christians....like the saints in the NT did.
We are Christians in .
Fine and dandy...BUT there WAS a stigma..a label to us.
We weren't just believers meeting in that particular city.
We were under Lee's ministry..'the Lord's Recovery'.
It may not have started out that way to most of us...who believed what we were told..but we know it was/is another denomination or non-denominational church.
As for the term 'Word-Faith' , in my tenure in San Diego, as elsewhere to my knowledge, we learned to Pray-Read the Word.
We got the Word into us..we learned to 'exercise our spirit'.
Yet you know, most of us..or a LOT of us, did not learn to APPLY the WORD of GOD in actuality.
Hebrews 11:1 tells us FAITH is the substance of things hoped for.
It is the evidence of things not seen .
Did we not learn about calling things not being into being?
We were being taught to speak in FAITH.
That's why we pray read soo much.
So the Word would be 'birthed' into us..so the Holy Spirit would REVEAL the Word of God into us.
Maybe other people in the LC GOT IT, but I didn't .
I believed the Word.
I went along with speaking the Word, pray-reading the Word but it wasn't quite birthed in me until I began to hear teachings on Faith.
Now...a lot of people shun the 'Word of Faith' teachings ..because there is a lot of emphasis placed on prosperity and healings.
I know all about it...and then some.
What I do is I take scriptures I learned/we learned back in the day..and declare them to the Most High God with thanksgiving...like Galatians 2:20 ...the scriptures on the Blood..
Hebrews 4:12... I take scriptures on being Blessed and Highly Favoured, on being Healthy..I give Thanks to the LORD BELIEVING I am BLESSED and HIGHLY FAVOURED...and lately..
I'm declaring it for my brothers & sisters in Christ too .
I'm not only blessed and Highly Favored..( and I AM Mike.
) I AM blessed and Highly Favoured and everyone around me knows it) I am declaring YOU, MIKE, YOU ARE BLESSED and Highly FAVOURED by the MOST High GOD .
Had to throw in a smilie..just for you...but no jumping and clapping though.
Word of Faith people emphasize speaking and declaring scriptures dealing with health and prosperity..not much beyond that.
Well...thanks to my spiritual upbringing, I take the scriptures I learned back in the day on the Blood, the Cross, the Word of God being alive in us..the scriptures in Ephesians...even calling on the Name of the Lord..out of a pure heart, with true confession of Faith...I combine the scriptures with scriptures of 'calling things not being into being'.
I go around every day...thanking Him, Praising Him...I see it all come together....and that's how the Lord enlightens me but blesses me with FAVOUR.
So whereas the LC had tunnel vision on a particular subject matter, like the ground of the church..and Word-Faith emphasizes healing and prosperity, I combine everything God has shown me and I 'eat it ALL up.'
(Here's another smilie...just couldn't resist.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|