God's Nature - Modalism

[CoreIssue]

Looking at Watchman Nee.org (http://www.watchmannee.org/major-teachings.html#God) we see the following on the nature of God:
Quote:God


Watchman Nee pointed out that God is eternal, self-existing, ever-existing, having no beginning or ending, and complete and perfect in every sense. God is triune; in His Godhead, He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the application. God the Son is the embodiment of God the Father, while God the Spirit is the reality of God the Son, applying the Triune God to those who believe into God the Son. God is also holy and righteous. Holiness refers to God’s inward nature, while righteousness refers to God’s outward acts. God is love and light. Love is the element of His inward nature, while light is the element of His outward expression. This God possesses extraordinary wisdom and accomplishes superlative works.


God is triune in how he presents himself but not in personage.

In Heaven he is the Father (Source). On the earth he is the Son (Expression). In saints he is the Holy Spirit (reality).

This is Modalism and false doctrine.

[Parture]

I would like to show you some sins bearing false witness against Watchman Nee through the flesh of men.

"The Father is the source, the Son is the expression, and the Spirit is the application." Watchman Nee never said this, nor did He believe this. Nee believed the Son was not the Father, nor was the Son the Spirit. You're confusing Witness Lee with Watchman Nee. Witness Lee spent his entire life trying to convince people Nee agreed with him. Nee did not.

"God the Son is the embodiment of God the Father." Watchman Nee never said this, nor did He believe it, for the Bible says, the Son is the Godhead bodily, not the Father.

Someone else, an unregenerate, said Nee said these things - those who are carnal and those who are unregenerates such as Witness Lee.

"God is triune in how he presents himself but not in personage" - Watchman Nee never believed this. Watchman Nee believed God was Triune in His 3 Persons that held council before the foundations of the world.

Do you see how you sin bearing false witness? Your link is from a Witness Lee site, not a Watchman Nee site. They even alter Nee's writings,
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm

"In Heaven he is the Father (Source). On the earth he is the Son (Expression). In saints he is the Holy Spirit (reality)." This is modalism which is a false doctrine that Watchman Nee never believed in, so why sin bearing false witness against him? What is your hidden subterranean motivation?

In order to make any of your false allegations, you need to be able to quote Watchman Nee to prove it. Otherwise it is just he said, she said. It's always interesting to find out what peoples' real agenda is after you catch them sinning bearing false witness.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm

[John * Thunder!]

`

Question: How can CI be bearing false testimony against someone when he is
only calling it as he sees it? I mean, you have evidence that Nee doesn't
believe as CI thinks he does, but CI apparently thinks that about Nee because
he read it wherever. It's not like CI is saying something that he believes is untrue.
That would be sinning via lies, as you have accused. So can you please mellow out
with the accusations?

[CoreIssue]

Thanks, John.

I could be wrong, but I believe Parture has been on an old CTZ board saying these same things. If not him, at least the author of Telnus has been in the past.

The problem with Telnus is that those of pro Nee sites have posted his writings. And Telnus and such have tried to rewrite what Nee has said, change it meaning and so on. They have tried to pawn it off on Watchman Lee, an 'Apostle' of Nee.

Nee was very non-biblical and justly labeled a cult founder by Biblical Christians.

[CoreIssue]

Hi Parture,

Then post Nee's quotes showing us what he really taught.

I see nothing from you but a statement. Post's Nee's words here on the trinity.

By the way. That quote was from a Watchman Nee site.

[Parture]

I need not post what Nee taught, for it is all through my pages, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm . I have already given you the 5 basic teachings that set Nee apart to prove deeper truth as well.

I see nothing from you but statements, without proof in Nee's writings your claims are true, so it remains. And until you provide some quotes of not he said, she said, then there it remains. Why so afraid to quote Nee? Nee writes tonnes on the Trinity; all you need do is read through the pages. Don't be lazy. For example, see the Way of the Lord - http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm

By the way, the quote you gave was from a Witness Lee site, not a Watchman Nee site. Do you see how you are trying to be cunning and unethical? It's easy to see.

Watchman Nee's original writings are found here - http://www.c-f-p.com/

[CoreIssue]

I need not post what Nee taught, for it is all through my pages, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm . I have already given you the 5 basic teachings that set Nee apart to prove deeper truth as well.

I see nothing from you but statements, without proof in Nee's writings your claims are true, so it remains. And until you provide some quotes of not he said, she said, then there it remains. Why so afraid to quote Nee? Nee writes tonnes on the Trinity; all you need do is read through the pages. Don't be lazy. For example, see the Way of the Lord - http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm

By the way, the quote you gave was from a Witness Lee site, not a Watchman Nee site. Do you see how you are trying to be cunning and unethical? It's easy to see.

Watchman Nee's original writings are found here - http://www.c-f-p.com/
I see.

Then you need not post here with your preachings since we can read the links without your commentaries?

This got you banned before and it is about to get you banned again.

Since you know the materials you know where to go and where to extract his defintion of the Trinity.

Please either do so or go away and we can research on our own without your commentary.

[Parture]

John,

Just because someone calls it as they see it is not justification that it is true. Don't you think that is selfish? It must be shown to be the case. What have we seen that CI sees? We see that he does not quote Watchman Nee to make his case and only relies on he said, she said without evidence. I call that shoddiness and overassuming which is a lack of humility.

It is true, many places try to marry Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, but only because Lee was under Nee. Nee is not to be blamed for Lee's false teachings after Nee was imprisoned for life. Nee is not responsible for Lee's sins. Certainly CI can be deceived by making this mistake, so he has been. Certainly CI has his own false teachings such as the fallen bipartite view of fallen man, just as he takes the word of men as the gospel, though unproven.

Why not relax, mellow out, and realize this error being made, and if you wish to make certain claims, be sure you can back them up. That would seem like the reasonable thing to do. I don't accuse, but merely tell you the truth, whether you like to hear it or not.

Of course Nee was an Apostle for he did have authority and was directly commissioned by God. As proven as before, we see here a proof that the LSM cult did alter Nee's writings. http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Spiritual_Man.htm. Conclusion: the 3 major categories of emotion are not love, hate and being affected; rather, Nee's writings show (CFP white), as in the 3 chapters that have these titles that agree, that emotion has the components of affection, desire and sensing/feeling.

By carefully reading this proof you will see the contradiction in the LSM version of TSM, and the consistency of the CFP original of the TSM, so therefore, what CI is saying is false. The change in meaning has been committed by the LSM cult. Do you see how this proof is given here? Whereas the claim made by CI comes from his own selfish center as a self-declaration inspired by the evil spirit.

CTZ forums therefore is just labelled a cult, for sinning bearing false witness against spiritual Christians is what it does, and so shall judgment come upon CI. He can't repent, we have seen that. This is God's righteous way of dealing with such souls.

[Parture]

I don't think you see. My purpose here is that when you make a false claim, someone will come in to show you the truth of your mistaken assumption. That is what I have done for you, and so that you read the the information in the links. I need not respond to your claims more than this since you show you have no evidence for your claims. To provide evidence for your claims you would need to quote Nee saying things you accuse him of, but you don't do that, so there is nothing to disprove other than to say you don't have evidence to make your claim; and he said, she said is not evidence.

I understand why you need to ban because you can't repent, so you will just accuse others and pass blame when it belongs on you. You should ban yourself since you make claims and can't back up your position.

Your belligerency is noted. You asked for information on the Trinity, and I gave you the link in the piece entitled "The Way of the Lord". Here it is again...http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/thewayofthelord.htm

Obviously you can't research your own information since your research produces a false conclusion as you still have no evidence for your claims. Evidence entails you quoting Watchman Nee saying things you said he said. Why do you refuse to do this? A reasonable person would conclude that you are incapable of doing so. This type of behavior makes you seem like you are trying to be cunning and couth, for certainly you can't be this much of a dullard. Or maybe you are.