Modalism

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. This verse seems to shatter the "three distinct and separate persons in God" orthodoxy. Perhaps not, but sure casts some doubt.

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

But in typical form, WL goes further. Paul says "the Lord is the Spirit." Paul did not say Jesus the Son, but "the Lord." He did not say the Holy Spirit but "the Spirit." Why is that?

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I would also ask, does every mention of the Spirit of God definitively imply "the Holy Spirit?"

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

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

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

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

As I have read more and more of your replies (bro UntoHim) to various topics, it's becoming more and more apparent that you put a lot of stock in historical interpretations, right? Historical interpretations are not necessarily right or wrong, in my book. I've found many I don't agree with, but also many I do.

Personally, I don't think we should be so beholdin' to what man's thinking has been over the past two millennia that much. Things get built-up upon an idea, and soon then there's a systematic theology which develops and becomes cemented in place - whether right, wrong, a little or a lot off (or perhaps even correct). We all know what that got the educated Jews - they totally missed Christ.

So you put more stock in one approach and I put more in another. Fine, but regardless what our approach and thinking is on a matter --> here comes the bottom-line --> the Lord always needs to illuminate us in order for us to get it right!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So you put more stock in one approach and I put more in another. Fine, but regardless what our approach and thinking is on a matter --> here comes the bottom-line --> the Lord always needs to illuminate us in order for us to get it right!

So what do we do when someone like Witness Lee comes along and says the Lord "illuminated him" to teach that the Son is the Father, and the Son became the Holy Spirit? Should we throw up our hands and just say "It's all a big mystery! Who knows! Lee's approach is as good as anyone else's!". Sorry my brother, but I don't trust man's personal "illuminations" any further than I could throw em.(and that includes mine) This is why our theology should be based in and upon the historical, orthodox teachings/interpretations. God is more than capable and willing to "illuminate" us within the bounds of the historical orthodoxy established since beginning.

It should go without saying that Witness Lee decided that he was never going to be restricted or bound to anything or anyone. He even went far beyond his mentor and guru Watchman Nee. For all his faults, Nee did not teach modalism. Nee did not teach that the Son is called the Father, or that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Personally, I don't think we should be so beholdin' to what man's thinking has been over the past two millennia that much.

But you're perfectly willing to be beholden to what Witness Lee's thinking was, right? What gives bro? Why the discrepancy?
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So what do we do when someone like Witness Lee comes along and says the Lord "illuminated him" to teach that the Son is the Father, and the Son became the Holy Spirit? Should we throw up our hands and just say "It's all a big mystery! Who knows! Lee's approach is as good as anyone else's!". Sorry my brother, but I don't trust man's personal "illuminations" any further than I could throw em.(and that includes mine) This is why our theology should be based in and upon the historical, orthodox teachings/interpretations. God is more than capable and willing to "illuminate" us within the bounds of the historical orthodoxy established since beginning.

But you're perfectly willing to be beholden to what Witness Lee's thinking was, right? What gives bro? Why the discrepancy?

This is not a binary thing - that is, either I'm one way or another. Again, and let me repeat myself, one more time, over and over, again & again - did I say let me repeat myself? (I think I did . . .) Here it is: As I have stated many times on here before, just because I'm not ALL in regarding everything "anti-Witness-Lee . . . throw-baby-out-with-the-dirty-bathwater" doesn't mean I'm necessarily pro WL! This attempt to repeatedly paint me in this way is a logical fallacy called a "straw man." Straw man definition: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

So I would ask, once again, that you not categorize me in that way - PLEASE! (or do you do it to just push my buttons, or is it a seeing of everything through anti-WL glasses?)

Now if my thinking is wrong here, and you are NOT inclined to heavily trust historical Christianity, please let me know. I don't want to be guilty of trying to present a "straw man fallacy" regarding you . . .

[Sons to Glory!]

(Bro UntoHim - I just reread the last post (below) I made to you from a couple days ago. I'm sorry for the tone - maybe I should have done a private message about that. The post was regarding something I believe I've observed (I do think there was at least some merit to the observation), but I didn't feel much brotherly love coming from what I wrote when I reread it . . . Please forgive my tone.)

As to the reason I actually came to this thread just now - I had a realization during my not-so-quiet-time with the Lord this morning (there was singing, praising and shouting!). There's been two basic ideas about the nature of God on this thread: The traditional Trinity vs the Modalistic view. But what if both are right?!

There are many things in the Bible that different ones latch onto and say "this & this is so," to the exclusion of the scripturally-based ideas that others latch onto. The infamous case in point I always think of is the Calvinists and Armenians. One says it's all God's doing and things are completely about His predestination (Calvinists); the other group says it's really about man's free will (Armenians). Which one is right? My answer is both, because we can certainly find both aspects in scripture. Can we understand this? Not so well, because we are trying to grasp an infinite God here.

Likewise, we can quote many verses that support one view or the other regarding this thread's topic. So what came to me this morning, regarding the Trinity and Modalism, is that both are perhaps true. God became a Man, and then after doing the work and going through the necessary experiences (life, death, resurrection), then as The Spirit He can get into other men. However, during all of this, God the Father still exists eternally and the four gospels record the Son's interaction with His Father. Does this make perfect sense to us? Of course not - we can't grasp the infinite God (otherwise I don't think He would be God)!

Any way, that's what came to me - for what you may think it's worth . . .