Let's take your first paragraph.
Modalism is one of their favorite teachings. Oh, they love the doublespeak! Leeists do teach modalism, no matter how much they say they don't believe it. It is in actuality denying the Trinity of God's 3 Persons as distinct in the Triune Godhead. It is a pridefully puffed up teaching to think "God is a threefold Person" and the "Father is the Son" (these are quotes of Witness Lee) to get leeists to think they are onto something brand new to self-exalt themselves with as the most spiritual people that ever lived and mark themselves unique in all of creation even above all of Christendom. But what this teaching actually conveys a heart willing to alter God's Word (Rev. 22.18,19) with eternal consequences.
Do you have then the courage to adopt this as definitely your OWN opinion RJHInds? Are you ready to defend this charge?
Whoever wrote this is NOT HERE to speak for it. YOU ARE.
So shall we now consider this paragraph as definitely YOUR thoughts?
Are YOU - RJHinds going to OWN these ideas as your OWN.
Or do you like a want me to go off and find this fool and debate with whoever this is who wrote this stuff.
A Yes or a No will do.
I have NEVER heard the term Leeist.
I would not and do not refer to myself as a Leeist.
Sure, I have benefitted from the ministry of Witness Lee.
This is the slander of someone wanting to start up a term like "Moonie" or something.
No matter HOW MUCH they deny Modalism they teach it YOU BELIEVE. Yes
YOU BELIEVE.
In other words you are going to say "They Lie. And no matter what evidence they present that the local churches that received Witnesss Lee's ministry do not teach Modalism ... WELL you just have to believe on RJHinds's say so, that they do."
A fine kangaroo court you want to set up.
A McCarthy like Inquisition you want to set up?
Guilty anyway, passed proven innocent.
A Witch Trial you want RJHinds.
So let's see:
Taken from
The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches
The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).
This means nothing to your Witch Trial does it RJHinds?
CO-EXISTING EQUALLY means nothing to you. Regardless of the co-workers writing that we believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "co-existing equally" from eternity to eternity, you are still going to use brute force accusation and claim we teach Modalism anyway.
How can I be a Modalist if I teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit CO-EXIST equally? The existence of the Son does not mean the non-existence of the Father and the Holy Spirit because they CO-EXIST.
Means nothing to you?
Geisler and Rhodes’ Flawed Reasoning
The error of modalism (and by extension, patripassianism) is that it does not recognize the distinctions among the three of the Divine Trinity. Modalism developed out of a desire to protect the oneness of God, but it erred in making the Father, the Son, and the Spirit temporary manifestations of God in time. Both modalism and patripassianism are heresies that are firmly and unambiguously rejected in the teaching of Witness Lee and the local churches.5 Geisler and Rhodes, however, label the local churches as heretical by claiming that espousal of the coinherence of the Divine Trinity and of the involvement of the Father and the Son in one another’s activities necessarily leads to patripassianism. Their logic is flawed in three major respects:
Geisler strongly affirms God’s immutability, but he and Rhodes avoid endorsing coinherence, something that is clearly revealed in the Lord’s own words in the Gospel of John. Geisler and Rhodes seem to make allowance that coinherence is within the realm of orthodoxy. However, if we accept Christ’s own word that He was coinhering with the Father in John 10, 14, and 17, then the Father and the Son must also have been coinhering as Christ was being crucified on the cross or else God’s immutability would be compromised.
By insisting that if the Father was coinhering with the Son on the cross, the Father must have suffered, Geisler and Rhodes contradict Geisler’s own writings on God’s impassibility.
Equating "involvement" with "patripassianism" is an unwarranted conclusion.
Coinherence and God’s Immutability
Coinherence refers to the mutual indwelling of the three of the Divine Trinity. In the Gospel of John the Lord repeatedly told His disciples that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10, 20; 17:21, 23). The coinhering oneness of the Divine Trinity is fundamental to understanding how the Father, the Son, and the Spirit can be one God. The coinherence of the Divine Trinity is beyond illustration, as it has no corollary in the physical universe. Even more, it is beyond the ability of man-made systems of logic to explain. It is the greatest mystery concerning the Triune God and shatters all attempts to neatly explain the Trinity.
From http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/Geisler-Rhodes/Father-Son-coworking.html#ImmutabilityCoinherence