Modalism

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Well, to start, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus became the Holy Spirit, and neither did WL say that either...

Here's where Witness Lee said it:

"Let us now turn to 1 Corinthians 15:45. This verse says, “The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam became**a life-giving spirit” (Gk.). According to this verse, the last Adam, who is Christ, became a life-giving Spirit. Some twist this verse, saying that it speaks of “a life-giving Spirit,” not “the life-giving Spirit.” But besides the Holy Spirit who gives life is there another Spirit who gives life? To say that there are two Spirits giving life is to teach another great heresy. Whether the article is definite or indefinite, the last Adam, who is Christ Himself, became a Spirit, a life-giving Spirit. At this point we must refer to John 6:63, where the Lord says, “It is the Spirit that giveth life” (Gk.). In this chapter the Lord Jesus said that He was the bread of life to give life to people. Eventually, He indicated that in order to be life to people as the bread of life, He must be the Spirit, for it is the Spirit who gives life. Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Is not the Spirit in this verse the Holy Spirit? Can we say that besides this Holy Spirit who gives life there is also another Spirit who gives life? No, we dare not say this.

A second way of twisting this verse is to say that the life-giving Spirit here is not the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of Christ as a person. Those who twist the verse in this manner say that just as we have a spirit, so Christ also has a spirit. Then they proceed to say that the spirit here is the spirit of Christ, not the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the Spirit in this verse is the Spirit of Christ. But do you believe that besides the Holy Spirit there is another Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ? Or, to put the matter another way, do you believe that besides the Spirit of Christ there is another Spirit called the Holy Spirit? If you believe this, your mind must be darkened. No one with an enlightened mind would believe this."

There is no precise quote "Jesus became the Holy Spirit" but the typical winding reasoning of "if the life-giving Spirit Jesus became is something besides the Holy Spirit then that is the heresy of saying there are two Spirits who give life, and you are a meathead if you think that." Thus.....Jesus became nothing other than the Holy Spirit.

From his 1977 book, What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-Giving Spirits, and Three Gods! The quote can be found here, in the section "The Heresy of Two Life-Giving Spirits": https://contendingforthefaith.org/en...#heresyspirits

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Trapped

There is no precise quote "Jesus became the Holy Spirit"

That is what I said.

[UntoHim]

My brother Raptor, did you happen to miss these quotes I provided the other day?

"The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit... and the Lord Jesus who is the Son is also the Eternal Father. Our Lord is the Son, and He is also the Father."
Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1973)

"Through the process of resurrection, the Man who ended the old creation became the life-giving Spirit, the germinating element of the new creation."
Life Study of 1 Corinthians

"When He entered into resurrection, He became the Spirit who gives life"
Life Study of 1 Corinthians

So there is "The Son" who became the Holy Spirit who is not Jesus?

So this "Man who ended the old creation and became the life-giving Spirit" was not Jesus?

So the "He who entered into resurrection and became the Spirit" is not Jesus?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but could you please make us all clear on how these things could be? Take your time - most of us are at home anyway.
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Raptor

That is what I said.

Don't do that, Raptor. Your point is not that Witness Lee never said the precise words in the exact grammatical order of "Jesus became the Holy Spirit." You know full well the quotes provided amount to that.

What you are doing is saying that if a parent says "If you throw a party you'll be dead meat", you would turn around and say "they never said don't throw a party!" Give me a break.

When the plain words of Witness Lee mocking anyone who thinks the Spirit of Christ or the LGS is anything other than the Holy Spirit are right in front of you, but you deny those plain words, it's just immature and disrespectful on your part towards the discourse, as well as towards the people taking the time to participate.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Don't do that, Raptor. Your point is not that Witness Lee never said the precise words in the exact grammatical order of "Jesus became the Holy Spirit." You know full well the quotes provided amount to that.

What you are doing is saying that if a parent says "If you throw a party you'll be dead meat", you would turn around and say "they never said don't throw a party!" Give me a break.

When the plain words of Witness Lee mocking anyone who thinks the Spirit of Christ or the LGS is anything other than the Holy Spirit are right in front of you, but you deny those plain words, it's just immature and disrespectful on your part towards the discourse, as well as towards the people taking the time to participate.

No, you don´t do that. You hide behind what WL said and don´t contribute much at all to the topic. Why don´t you come up with an attempt to explain something? Did you read the whole post? Why don' t you comment on the verses, why don't you try to explain all those verses and how they fit together? You don´t get it do you?

The point is about what the Bible says in those verses. I wrote dozens of verses and tried to put them together with an explanation and you don´t attempt to expalin anything at all, neither how they fit together or make any comments on the verses themselves, which is 99% what I wrote about. You just try to poke holes in what WL said or find fault in some 1% of my post. Talk about straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. The post is not about what WL said or did not say, or what the Bible does not say. The post is about what the Bible says in all those verses, and about how, when you put them together, at one level they seem contradictory, hard to explain and go against so many traditional and conventional doctrine and understandings. Yet you don´t say anything about that. So no, you don´t do that.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Raptor

No, you don´t do that. You hide behind what WL said and don´t contribute much at all to the topic.

I assure you I am not hiding behind anything WL said. There's nothing to hide behind there. I've never been more sure of that statement in my life.

This is a free country. I can contribute as much or as little to any given topic as I like (within admin approval and bounds of decorum of course).

Originally Posted by Raptor

Why don´t you come up with an attempt to explain something?

Because, as other posters have noted, this is a mystery. I have not been detrimentally affected by this particular off-teaching of Lee's, so I don't have as much time and effort to devote to it. I have been reading with interest and appreciation, though.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Did you read the whole post?

Of course.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Why don' t you comment on the verses, why don't you try to explain all those verses and how they fit together?

Because you were doing a great job of it already.

I didn't feel I could contribute more, except when you made a claim that WL didn't say a certain thing. I knew he did, and there were requests in the thread to prove it, so I provided a quote showing it.

There are more people reading the forum than just those who post, and I don't want anyone to go away thinking that WL didn't teach something that he in fact did teach. Truth is important.

Originally Posted by Raptor

You don´t get it do you?

I need to know what "it" is before I can get it.

Originally Posted by Raptor

The point is about what the Bible says in those verses. I wrote dozens of verses and tried to put them together with an explanation and you don´t attempt to expalin anything at all, neither how they fit together or make any comments on the verses themselves, which is 99% what I wrote about. You just try to poke holes in what WL said or find fault in some 1% of my post. Talk about straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. The post is not about what WL said or did not say, or what the Bible does not say.

Actually the original post to this thread has the statement "Now I did hear Brother Lee say "Jesus became the life - giving Spirit"", so yeah, what WL did or did not say is a part of this thread.

You yourself were the one who made the statement that WL did or didn't do something. And then multiple posts followed concerning that very topic - whether WL said Jesus became the HS or not. And he did. So I provided a quote that had the phrase "Holy Spirit" in it, and not just "Spirit", which is what seemed to be the hangup.

Originally Posted by Raptor

The post is about what the Bible says in all those verses, and about how, when you put them together, at one level they seem contradictory, hard to explain and go against so many traditional and conventional doctrine and understandings. Yet you don´t say anything about that. So no, you don´t do that.

Yes, how dare I post a quote of Witness Lee's to show that he taught something you claim he didn't about the very topic at hand. Bad Trapped!!

Raptor, as I said, your posts were great. Really nailed it in some areas. And I mean that. It clearly took a lot of time and thought. But when you or anyone says that WL didn't do something that he absolutely did, and it is in literal print, this place is going to correct that. And then when you turned around and denied the clear words from the excerpt I posted showing he did in fact teach what you said he didn't, I'm not going to go along with a denial of the truth. UntoHim wasn't making it up when he said that WL taught that Jesus became the Holy Spirit. Now you have some evidence. That's all.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Trapped

.....WL taught that Jesus became the Holy Spirit

I'm not hear to defend or attack WL with this post; the issue here Trapped, is that by saying that Jesus became the Holy Spirit it implies (at least for me) that there was no Holy Spirit before. That is what I understand as Modalism; God in three successive modes, first the Father, then He ended and the Son appeared, then He ended, and lastly we have the Spirit. WL did not teach this, nor the Bible.

Not to beat a dead horsie...but if the Lord Spirit is not the Holy Spirit, then who is He?

[UntoHim]

I think some have made this point in the past, but I'll briefly reiterate:

Witness Lee did not teach classic modalism, but rather a modified form of modalism. Lee was also atypical in that he also taught the orthodox view of the Trinity along side of his modalistic teaching. Over the years, Lee used modalistic terms such as "stages" and "steps". He also interchanged orthodox terms with unorthodox/heretical terms. At times he taught God was "three persons" and at other times he claimed God was "one person". Of course what got him in the most trouble was his "Processed Triune God" teaching. I personally have never read or heard anything like it, and I don't think anyone has taught such a thing down through church history. Many of Lee's teachings were nothing more than home-brewed, make-it-up-as-he-went-along, unbiblical, unintelligible gobbledygook.

The best thing to say about Lee's teachings regarding the Trinity is that they are highly inaccurate, woefully imprecise, and in many cases just plain sloppy. As far as the proper interpretation/understanding of 2 Corinthians 3:16, I will defer to others for now. I have studied this passage in the same manner as 1 Corinthians 15:45. And just as in 2 Cor 3:16, there is much more to it than meets the eye.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The post is not about what WL said or did not say, or what the Bible does not say. The post is about what the Bible says in all those verses, and about how, when you put them together, at one level they seem contradictory, hard to explain and go against so many traditional and conventional doctrine and understandings. Yet you don´t say anything about that. So no, you don´t do that.

Raptor, not sure if you saw the discussion, but I confronted the exact same obstacles on this forum concerning "calling on the name of the Lord."

I quoted verses, and posters quoted WL. I quoted more verses with explanations, and they quoted WL and condemned his teaching. We went nowhere. We talked passed each other. So I gave up.

[Trapped]

For heaven's sake, no one is talking past each other. Next time I'll put "As an aside" at the beginning of a post about the topic at hand so no one thinks I'm intentionally trying to avoid something I'm not.

WL is a part of this discussion. So are verses. I just had a contribution on the WL side of it. Sheesh.

Regarding HBJ's original post in which he/she commented that God exists in three co-equal persons, and asked for thoughts about it.....I may get branded as a heretic here, but what comes to my mind are all the verses where Jesus states He doesn't do His own will, but that of the Father. He didn't send Himself, but the Father sent him. Jesus is always talking about the one true God. Etc. This, to me, shows more of a subordinate relationship. Still fully God, but we never see an instance where the Father submits to the Son. I hesitate slightly when saying they are co-equal. Jesus is fully God, but the Son always seems to be submissive to the Father.

[Trapped]

Also, related to the co-equal thing, the Spirit seems to be left out a lot. Revelation speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. Why isn't it throne of God, the Lamb, and the Holy Spirit?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I quoted verses, and posters quoted WL. I quoted more verses with explanations, and they quoted WL and condemned his teaching. We went nowhere. We talked passed each other. So I gave up.

No, Ohio, you didn't explain, and that's why we went nowhere. I asked you repeatedly what you meant by "calling on the Lord", and then you huffed and you puffed...and then you gave up. Same thing is happening here. We know you guys are better than this...but it seems that you're trying to pull the ole "Brother Lee said it, so that settles it" garbage. Sorry, but that boat don't float round these parts. Brother Lee says "1 Corinthians 15:45 is telling us that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, BECAME the Holy Spirit". "That's what the verse says!". Well, NO, that's not what the verse says, and nobody except Witness Lee and some other heretics, like the Oneness Pentecostals, agree that is what is says.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No, Ohio, you didn't explain, and that's why we went nowhere. I asked you repeatedly what you meant by "calling on the Lord", and then you huffed and you puffed...and then you gave up. Same thing is happening here.

First, I will address this. I provided numerous scripture verses, but you refused to even admit that there is basis in the Bible for calling on the Lord. Apparently you want some defined technique like WL promoted. I repeatedly said that no definitive technique exists either in the Bible or our life. Didn't David sigh and the Prophet breathe the name of Yahweh? That was apparently how they called on the Lord at one time. But not every time.

I only provided some principles for calling on the Lord, e.g. calling must be genuine, must be from the heart, cannot be vain babbling, cannot take His name in vain, etc. These are from the Bible. Let me repeat that I am only discussing Bible teachings, not those of the LC.

There are millions of Christians with billion of needy times who could call on the Lord millions of different ways. There is no one way to explain to you! Apparently this concept is just too difficult for you to understand. Obviously you want a YouTube video instruction for every language on earth. Hate to break the news, but we can't package this and sell it on Amazon.

Secondly, I also quoted verses from both Corinthian epistles that address this thread topic. Why have you not commented on them? With your caustic attitude here, I must conclude that you also consider Paul was a modalist, and I said that before. Explain to me what Paul said. Do not tell me what 2 millennia of "scholars" have told us. Obviously the Bible is no longer your standard for the truth. Where is that verse about "THREE PERSONS?" Where is any verse that uses the word "THREE" when referring to God?

You have no answers for these Biblical "problems," so you push back on me. Then you claim that I "huff and puff." Why don't you address the verses themselves? Forget about the LC and church fathers, what do you say about these verses? Forget about Grudem's Systematic Theology. Grudem was not an apostle! Let me repeat that I am only discussing Bible teachings, not those of the LC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The point is about what the Bible says in those verses. I wrote dozens of verses and tried to put them together with an explanation and you don´t attempt to explain anything at all, neither how they fit together or make any comments on the verses themselves, which is 99% what I wrote about. You just try to poke holes in what WL said or find fault in some 1% of my post. Talk about straining the gnat and swallowing the camel. The post is not about what WL said or did not say, or what the Bible does not say. The post is about what the Bible says in all those verses, and about how, when you put them together, at one level they seem contradictory, hard to explain and go against so many traditional and conventional doctrine and understandings. Yet you don´t say anything about that. So no, you don´t do that.

Raptor, regarding these two scriptural truths, i.e. that (1) believers should call on the name of the Lord and (2) that God is uniquely one, some have become so Anti-Lee that they are also Anti-Bible and Anti-truth.

Let me say clearly that I definitely reject many of WL's teachings. I am not promoting him, but rather promoting the Word of God. Also, let me definitively say that there is no mandate for salvation in the scripture concerning this second truth.

I do find it troublesome that some are unwilling to concede the truths displayed in certain verses because they don't fit their mindset about God. They resolutely refuse to acknowledge that we are only pointing out verses that they don't agree with. It's not me they disagree with, it is the writers of the Bible. I am simply willing to admit that I can't explain God, and that some verses appear contradictory. In the New Covenant we are called to know God, not be able to explain Him in full. John Wesley wrote, "Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and I will show you a man who can comprehend the Triune God."

If some folks refuse to call on the Lord, that's really fine with me. I'm glad that you love the Lord and have the liberty to pray and fellowship with God as you desire. If some folks view God as 3 separate "Persons," I am fine with that too. That's far better than so many genuine believers in the RCC who still pray to Mary and the so-called saints.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Raptor, regarding these two scriptural truths, i.e. that (1) believers should call on the name of the Lord and (2) that God is uniquely one, some have become so Anti-Lee that they are also Anti-Bible and Anti-truth.

Let me say clearly that I definitely reject many of WL's teachings. I am not promoting him, but rather promoting the Word of God. Also, let me definitively say that there is no mandate for salvation in the scripture concerning this second truth.

I do find it troublesome that some are unwilling to concede the truths displayed in certain verses because they don't fit their mindset about God. They resolutely refuse to acknowledge that we are only pointing out verses that they don't agree with. It's not me they disagree with, it is the writers of the Bible. I am simply willing to admit that I can't explain God, and that some verses appear contradictory. In the New Covenant we are called to know God, not be able to explain Him in full. John Wesley wrote, "Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and I will show you a man who can comprehend the Triune God."

If some folks refuse to call on the Lord, that's really fine with me. I'm glad that you love the Lord and have the liberty to pray and fellowship with God as you desire. If some folks view God as 3 separate "Persons," I am fine with that too. That's far better than so many genuine believers in the RCC who still pray to Mary and the so-called saints.

Ohio, your post is certainly worth commenting on, as I think I could have written these same words too! It also seems to me that effective discussions like this are extremely difficult on here at times, because often when something simple from scripture is presented, many times the replies seem to be given while viewing through "anti-all-things-WN/WL/LC" sunglasses. To demonstrate the apparent absurdity of this, let me give an absurd example: it's like if you said, "Praise the Lord, He loves us!" and then I would reply, "Well I can't agree, because WL taught this & that . . ."

I don't know if anyone else sees it this way however, and I'm starting to get the feeling that it's perhaps not even Kosher to bring this observation up on here now . . .

[UntoHim]

Sons to Glory! Nobody is "trying to nail down exact nature of the Triune God", at least not me. And even if someone was, that is their prerogative. There is no forum rule against trying to nail down anything, so long it is related to the main theme of the forum. It seems to me you don't have any problem when Witness Lee attempts to nail down the exact nature of the Triune God...why is that?

My only problem with any questions is when they are designed to sidetrack, slow down or stop the discussions. Over the years, I've seen posters try this, and I have called them on it every time that I see it. You may not even realize this is what you are doing, but I'm flat out telling you that is what is happening with your "what's the practical purpose of knowing" mantra. When I asked this on the other thread it was for the purpose of clarifying, and maybe slightly redirecting the discussion, and not for sidetracking, slowing down or stopping the dialog.

Yes, humor does have it's place here on the forum, but not as a tool to mock or to belittle. I'm not going to elaborate on this. We're all reasonable adults. Anyone is free to PM me for further comment or concerns.
-

[Raptor]

Here are more interesting verses that I call Godhead overlaps, places where the Persons of the Godhead are interchanged for one another and/or overlap in the scriptures. These are for your delight and wonder, and for His praise and glory. if you want to debate doctrine you will miss Him altogether.

Jesus, God, Father
a son will be given to us... Mighty God, Eternal Father - Isaiah 9:6

Father, Jesus
"the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name - John 14:26
"the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father - John 15:26

Jesus, Father
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Father, Jesus
"the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.” John 10:38

Jesus, Father
"Lord, show us the Father, Jesus replied, .. still you do not know Me?
Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father.
How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? John 14:8-9

God, Jesus
the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20:28

God, the Almighty, Jesus
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty." Rev. 1:8
"Behold, I am coming soon, and My reward is with Me, to give to each one according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega" Rev. 22:12-13,

God, Father, Jesus
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End I will be his God, and he will be My son. Rev. 21:6,
"Behold, I am coming soon, ....I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Rev. 22:12-13

Jesus, the Spirit
I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. John 14:18
the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send.. - John 14:26

Jesus, the Spirit
the Spirit of truth....will be in you...John 14:17
On that day you will know that....I am in you. John 14:20

Jesus, the Spirit, * 7 times...
These are the words of Him, ...the One,... the Son of God,... the Amen, etc.
let him hear what the Spirit says Rev. 2&3

God, the Father, Christ, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of His Son, Jesus, the Spirit of truth, Jesus Christ, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, ...
there are verses that mention each one of them as such that LIVE IN US and are INSIDE of US.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Here are more interesting verses that I call Godhead overlaps, places where the Persons of the Godhead are interchanged for one another and/or overlap in the scriptures.

Yet there are other overlaps that don't fit so neatly. One overlap that comes to mind is the angel that tells Stephen to go down the South Road, the Desert Path, and then when he gets there, without any transition or explanation, the Spirit tells him to go up to the chariot over there.

Most of the versions capitalize the word Spirit. One of them (NLT) uses Holy Spirit. I think it's worth asking, how did an angel suddenly become the Holy Spirit? Are they equivalent? It seems strongly implied, in the text. And of course, for the umpteenth time, an angel is a spirit. So why is it so shocking if The Spirit functions as a spirit, if there are overlaps and interchanges, as Raptor puts it? Does our theology shake?

I think this was what UntoHim was referencing earlier v/v the Spirit in textual usage. It's not as simple as certain self-styled teachers would wish. Circumspection is probably in order. Our confidence is in God, not our interpretations.

Originally Posted by Ohio

So much for the traditional descriptor of "3 Persons in one God," aron is trying to convince us that there are multiple Holy Spirits, one for each of us. I agree. There are far too many verses in scripture that just blow up any cute and stylized characterization of God.

I know this is probably at least partly tongue-in-cheek. But I'll take it at face value and say that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, except the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. To me, everything hinges on this and I refuse to let it go. Other than that, let the text take us - for example, if it says there are seven spirits burning before the throne, three things come to mind:

1) Moses was told, "See that you build everything according to the pattern you saw on the Holy Mountain" and Moses then built seven lamps. This is quoted in the NT as well (Hebrews). I know you & Raptor didn't say this, but in WL's mind, seven lamps in Revelations 2 & 3 was because of the degradation in the church. I think it's fair to ask, why then did Moses build seven lamps back in Exodus? Where was the degraded church, then? No, maybe Moses built seven lamps On Earth because he saw seven lamps of fire In Heaven. You know, "on earth as in heaven", like Jesus taught/prayed. Maybe John's vision in Revelations 2 & 3 affirms that. What is so complicated about seeing seven lamps of fire, or seven burning spirits before the throne? It says Moses and the elders sat down and looked across the paving stones of sapphire, at God (Exod 24:10). What did they see? Maybe the lampstand with seven lamps of fire offers us a clue? It's certainly suggestive.

2) I already quoted the Psalm: "His Voice divides the flames of fire". In this case division is multiplication. Though there are seven spirits, there is one spirit. "You shall be one, even as I am one with the Father" and the Seven Spirits are one with each other (and the Holy Spirit). And yes the light of seven is 'intensified' compared to a singular flame. But the seven flames were there, before God's throne, in Exodus. Revelation 2 & 3 is perhaps merely affirming the already-elucidated scene in heaven.

3) In the gospels there is a glorious holy spirit standing before God. Not "The" Holy Spirit but "a" holy spirit. "I am Gabriel, and I stand before God". Gabriel stood before God, was sent by God, spoke for God, yet was not God. I don't think any of that was too shocking to 1st-century minds, and probably shouldn't be to 21st century minds, assuming we're familiar with the text. And Revelation 8:2 is worth mentioning here as well. Multiple spirits (angels) standing before God.

All this is not to convince or sway anyone, but to say that it is not as self-evident as Raptor implies, in his questions on the Holy Spirit. There are simply too many other verses that, using the same associative rules he's using to "show" his proffered reality, indicate other things. And I think everyone has the right to say that. WL tried to belittle anyone that dared think otherwise from his "truths" and I'm not saying Raptor does also, but his style is reminiscent. It's perfunctorily dismissive of other possibilities when they're right there in the text, should one care to look. I'm just saying that a little circumspection is in order here; a little circumspection and curiosity.

Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find" and I think seeking God in His word is a good thing. It's not for disputation or to bully one another or to do a Little Jack Horner "hey everyone! look at me!" move. Together we open the text, consider the possible answers to our questions. There's nothing wrong with turning the word over, together.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

All this is not to convince or sway anyone, but to say that it is not as self-evident as Raptor implies, in his questions on the Holy Spirit. There are simply too many other verses that, using the same associative rules he's using to "show" his proffered reality, indicate other things. And I think everyone has the right to say that. WL tried to belittle anyone that dared think otherwise from his "truths" and I'm not saying Raptor does also, but his style is reminiscent. It's perfunctorily dismissive of other possibilities when they're right there in the text, should one care to look. I'm just saying that a little circumspection is in order here; a little circumspection and curiosity.

Aron, your points are interesting and totally seem to support my own. They seem to support Raptor's point of view also, but I'll him him speak for himself. You continue to introduce complications to the fixed paradigm of "3 Persons in the Godhead." The more you post, the more that structure is shattered, and the more complex our God is. Even the most elementary seeker would agree. How could we ever compile all relevant scripture and then devise some simplistic "3 Persons" cardboard box for God to inhabit? Makes no sense! The Bible never uses the word "Three" in connection with God, rather only "One" or even "Seven" would be suitable.

I agree that we need to keep seeking, keep digging, keep knocking. I expect we will do this for eternity. And keep all the "complications" coming. We have not yet begun to ask whether Jehovah is the Father or the Son? Is Elohim the Father and the Son?

Which brings us back to the absurdity of saying that there are "3 Persons in the Godhead." If we had ONLY a couple dozen verses concerning God, like e.g. 2 Cor 13.14, or when Jesus was baptized, then we might concoct the ancient "3 Persons" formula, but when we add in the hundreds and even thousands of other verses in the Bible, many which you have introduced, then that old description of God must be tossed in the trash heap of antiquity.

Don't you agree?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which brings us back to the absurdity of saying that there are "3 Persons in the Godhead."

My brother Ohio, I have seen you use the term "Triune God" many times. Sometimes I've even seen you referring to the "Trinity". I'm curious as to what you believe about the "Tri" in Triune God. I'm pretty we know what you think about the "une"!

So you do believe God is one. ONE WHAT?
Apparently you also believe God is three. THREE WHAT?
These are important questions, and bear heavily on this matter of modalism. I do understand, and even appreciate, your disdain for the traditional, historical teaching/doctrine of the Trinity. I once felt the same exact way.

Take your time. These are important questions. I personally believe that God has given us some clear answers to these questions, and yes, the historic Christian church has also confirmed these answers down through time. That's why the vast majority of the professing Christian Church has been considered to be Trinitarian. Apparently you do not consider yourself as a Trinitarian, or suscribe to the belief that God is one Being in three Persons.

And this is why I am asking you:
God is one. One What?
God is three. Three What?
I guess you could say it's all a big mystery and we really don't know. That would be a fair answer. Fair but totally unsatisfying as far as I'm concerned.
-

[Ohio]

We have been thru this game before. Why don't you like answers from the Bible? Why aren't you content with the word of God? Why isn't the scripture enough for you? Why do you need more? Why do you need to define God with extra-Biblical descriptions handed down from ancient church fathers, but not given to us from God Himself or the apostles, those who were with Jesus on earth? Why do you need systematic theology as prescribed by Grudem? And why do you chastize me for attempting to limit myself to what God gave us?

One what? One God.

Three what? There is no "Three" with God. There is only Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Add them up, and how many do you count?

And yes, God is a mystery, with many descriptions in His word. Sorry that is not good enough for you. This conversation may be going nowhere, but if I back out, then I will be mocked with a "huff and a puff."

It's sad that we live in a society that labels others we don't like. If I am a conservative, then I must be a nazi. If I believe God is one, then I must be a modalist. Was not Jesus crucified because of this basic truth? The Jews obviously got it. They killed Jesus because He made Himself equal with God. Why didn't Jesus explain to them that God was three, that He was not the Father, and provide us with good, understandable theology which would satisfy your need to know?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

..back to the absurdity of saying that there are "3 Persons in the Godhead." If we had ONLY a couple dozen verses concerning God, like e.g. 2 Cor 13.14, or when Jesus was baptized, then we might concoct the ancient "3 Persons" formula, but when we add in the hundreds and even thousands of other verses in the Bible, many which you have introduced, then that old description of God must be tossed in the trash heap of antiquity.

Don't you agree?

A cursory glance at the day's headlines strongly suggests that the human species isn't very good at solving problems. So how am I supposed to figure out the 'intrinsic' or 'essential' nature of God? Or count 'persons' of the God-head? James advised, "Do not be many teachers" and that's more true here.

Having said that, here are some tentative observations: 1. The gospel reached me in the local baptist 'Bible church' & I'm ever thankful for that, and won't sweep away the past into a dustbin. 2. Having said that, if the Bible says there are seven spirits before the throne of God, or an angel is a ministering spirit, or that "He comes with myriads of His holy ones", I'm not going to ignore that because it doesn't match our notions. The Bible comes first, not our conceptual schema.

3. I already listed my schema and will try to recap. Jesus said, "Even as the Father sent me, so I send you". This shows a chain of representative subservience. Jesus said, "Even as I kept my Father's commands, so you must keep my commands." Ditto. Jesus said, "They'll persecute you for my namesake even as they hate me for keeping the Father's name. The servant is not above the Master."

Jesus said, "Even as I am one with the Father, so you should be one with one another". This 'one' doesn't violate the Great Jewish Sh'ma, which Jesus affirmed. This is an absolute obedience to dictates of God thru scripture. How many times does the NT say, "That the scripture might be fulfilled"? This is alluded to by Paul when he says in Galatians 3:20 that "A mediator indicates more than one but God is one". Moses the first mediator was himself disobedient and fell in the desert. Jesus was one, or perfectly obedient as representative mediator, thus the new Covenant is superior to the old and we don't need a third covenant. Because God is one, and Jesus reflected that.

The Centurion testified on the same lines and Jesus marveled at his understanding. The Centurion being under authority gave him authority to to those under him. Same thing: a chain of representative subservience. Yet nobody conflates the Centurion with his supervisor, or for that matter the Centurionwith his slaves. Each one is distinct, yet when the servant speaks, the master's will is known. "No one has ever seen God, yet the Only Begotten Son has revealed God". Likewise, the Centurion was 'Caesar revealed' to the servants. I.e., When you see me, you see him who sent me.

Jesus even took the chain of representation further, saying, "Whatever you do to the least of these my brothers, you do to me." Yet no one conflates Jesus with them.

Seems to me that most of this would have been easily understood by first-century readers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

A cursory glance at the day's headlines strongly suggests that the human species isn't very good at solving problems. So how am I supposed to figure out the 'intrinsic' or 'essential' nature of God? Or count 'persons' of the God-head? James advised, "Do not be many teachers" and that's more true here.

Having said that, here are some tentative observations: 1. I was saved in the local baptist 'Bible church' & am thankful the gospel reached me, and am not eager to sweep away the past into a dustbin. 2. Having said that, if the Bible says that there are seven spirits, or an angel is a ministering spirit, and that "He comes with myriads of His holy ones", I'm not going to ignore that because it doesn't perfectly match our notions. The Bible comes first, not our conceptual schema.

3. I already listed my schema and will try to recap. Jesus said, "Even as the Father sent me, so I send you". This shows a chain of representative subservience. Jesus said, "Even as I kept my Father's commands, so you must keep my commands." Ditto. Jesus said, "They'll persecute you for my namesake even as they hate me for keeping the Father's name. The servant is not above the Master."

Jesus said, "Even as I am one with the Father, so you should be one with one another". This 'one' doesn't violate the Great Jewish Sh'ma, which Jesus affirmed. This is an absolute obedience to dictates of God thru scripture. How many times does the NT say, "That the scripture might be fulfilled"? This is alluded

The Centurion testified and Jesus marveled at his understanding. The Centurion being under authority gave him authority to to those under him. Same thing: a chain of representative subservience. Yet nobody conflates the Centurion with his supervisor, or for that matter the Centurionwith his slaves. Each one is distinct, yet when the servant speaks, the master's will is known. "No one has ever seen God, yet the Only Begotten Son has revealed God". Likewise, the Centurion was 'Caesar revealed' to the servants. I.e., When you see me, you see him who sent me.

Jesus even took the chain of representation further, saying, "Whatever you do to the least of these my brothers, you do to me." Yet no one conflates Jesus with them.

Seems to me that most of this would have been easily understood by first-century readers.

I understand your point about an obedient proxy, but it can introduce serious error. We had some posters here who tried to persuade us into believing that Jesus only became the Son of God after His baptism. Many others like the JW believe that Jesus was not God, rather an obedient angel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

3. I already listed my schema and will try to recap. Jesus said, "Even as the Father sent me, so I send you". This shows a chain of representative subservience. Jesus said, "Even as I kept my Father's commands, so you must keep my commands." Ditto. Jesus said, "They'll persecute you for my namesake even as they hate me for keeping the Father's name. The servant is not above the Master."

Jesus said, "Even as I am one with the Father, so you should be one with one another". This 'one' doesn't violate the Great Jewish Sh'ma, which Jesus affirmed. This is an absolute obedience to dictates of God thru scripture. How many times does the NT say, "That the scripture might be fulfilled"? This is alluded to by Paul when he says in Galatians 3:20 that "A mediator indicates more than one but God is one". Moses the first mediator was himself disobedient and fell in the desert. Jesus was one, or perfectly obedient as representative mediator, thus the new Covenant is superior to the old and we don't need a third covenant. Because God is one, and Jesus reflected that.

The Centurion testified on the same lines and Jesus marveled at his understanding. The Centurion being under authority gave him authority to to those under him. Same thing: a chain of representative subservience. Yet nobody conflates the Centurion with his supervisor, or for that matter the Centurion with his slaves. Each one is distinct, yet when the servant speaks, the master's will is known. "No one has ever seen God, yet the Only Begotten Son has revealed God". Likewise, the Centurion was 'Caesar revealed' to the servants. I.e., When you see me, you see him who sent me.

Jesus even took the chain of representation further, saying, "Whatever you do to the least of these my brothers, you do to me." Yet no one conflates Jesus with them.

The more I consider your "schema" for the Christian life, the more I am haunted by the militaristic mindset of the LC's I was a part of. As a new believer and member of the LC, I was told definitively that, "you are now in the Lord's army. You don't need to think that much. You will be told where to move and live." Apparently we were all under orders. God told WL who told TC who told the elders who told the group leaders who told me. Chain of representation alright! I trusted these guys with my whole life since they supposedly looked after my soul. Young Galileans, eh?

Sure .. I had no one to blame but myself. I had a strained relationship with my father, and wasn't saved long enough to repair that. Now I was with brothers whom I was supposed to trust more than my own family. God was supposed to bless my obedience to the brothers and my absoluteness for the church life. And their authoritative arms reached into every part of my life -- where to live, who to befriend, where and what to study, who to marry, how to schedule my time and money, etc.

That's why I have always felt that teachings about modalism and the like were basically insignificant. It was like choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Who cares, so what! What was really important about the LC was the abuse, the control, the shaming, the manipulation, the fear of their fake authority. These affected people's lives far more than some obscure teaching from WL in Anaheim about the theology of God while he was fighting with the Bible Answer Man in the Orange County Register.

That's why I find your authoritative schema so objectionable. Sorry. I lived in that militaristic, self-sacrificing, family-forsaking, regimented soldier life way too long. I really don't want to hear your teachings about Roman Centurions any more. In my mind the punchline for Jesus in that story was about faith. Faith in God.