Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
The only objection I have to the Trinity debate is when it results in bloodshed ... as has happened in the past of Christendom.
|
I would agree.
And when some get so strong for a particular way that they are ready to cut off everyone that does not agree 100 percent with their view, there is at least mental, emotional, and psychological bloodshed on the way. It is more important to argue people to put down their guns.
And every time some wannabe spiritual guru comes along and takes common words in a defined context with clear meaning and says they are talking about something else and mean something besides the obvious, there is yet one more faction in the debate.
So the beginning of hope is when you can get them, or their followers, to face the error in their thinking.
Now there are aspects of what we believe that is a matter of faith. But that is not primarily in the things that are given for us to believe. The Bible says much about God, man, righteousness, evil, etc. There are some who believe that what it says is true and others who do not.
But among those who claim to believe what it says, there are some who take what it says and turn it, twist it, misapply it, etc., to say something that it does not say. And that is what they believe. So when they say that they believe what the Bible says, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in that statement. (I'm being kind.) They may believe a lot of what it says, but they don't believe it all. At least part of what they think the Bible says is not actually there.
I like the way Iqzy put it. And that reminded me of yet another approach — math, and more specifically, set theory. There is a set of things that are "spirit." There are three members of that set, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Separately and together they are God, therefore God is spirit (which is actually the statement from scripture that gets this little ball rolling). But when considering the members of any set, membership, while having its privileges, does not turn one member into another. It just points to the common characteristic. So being a member of the set of God/spirit, Jesus (the Son) is God and he is spirit. But he is not the Father. And the Father is God and he is spirit, but he is not the Son. And neither of those, being God and spirit, are the Holy Spirit.
Yet this is what Lee is declaring when he reads 1 Cor 15:45. But as I started my original post (on the blog), the verse is not about the Trinity other than the fact that one member (the Son) is referenced. Paul is somewhat poetically saying that Adam was created with the body we know as living humans. Christ was resurrected with a different body — one that is spiritual. And while Paul used the word "spirit" (or some Greek equivalent), he was not using it in the sense of saying that Christ became "spirit" in the sense that John recorded when Jesus said "God is spirit." Same word, but different meaning. In John's gospel, Jesus is speaking of the essence of God. In Paul's letter, he is speaking of the change in the nature of the physical body that Jesus was seen walking around with after the resurrection. It has physicality, but was not bound to the limitations of the body I now inhabit. So his use of the word "spirit," while perfectly valid, is not a reference to the essence of God as "spirit." Neither is it a reference to the "third" or the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.
I know that many of us who have seen through Lee's error here still like the idea that it still speaks of the unity fo God. But it does not. It was not a statement about the unity of the Godhead. Neither was it a statement about the "processing" of Christ.
We used to get so excited when we heard those words — the processed Triune God. Why was that? What does having some theology down in such a fine way (assuming it is correct) really do for you? Does it cause God to love you more for understanding the hidden code better? Do we really believe in that God (or more correctly god)? If we don't, then what does it do for us besides give us a sense of superior understanding of the Bible.
God is God. Those who seek him will find him. They will find him praying "sinner's prayers" and singing Baptist Hymns. They will find him as they are reminded of the truth of God in the weekly liturgy and as they come down and pray at the end of a more evangelical/charismatic service. They will find him as they spend a little time in the Word and/or in contemplation at the beginning of the day, and as they set themselves to be righteous as they drive in rush hour traffic on the major freeway in the middle of a 5-year reconstruction project. As they treat all their coworkers with respect, including the gay guy or the one who is . . . .
I honestly believe that most of our past LRC experiences were of two kinds. First are those that happened because we really were seeking God and found him. The others were because we jointly worked ourselves up over a point of knowledge or just experienced a bit of mob dynamics. I know that sounds more onerous that I mean it, but it is more about the euphoria of being in "the group" than something real. And we got that way over "realizing" that "Christ became the Holy Spirit."
But he didn't, so the entire experience was manufactured. It was a farce. We went gaga over a lie. How do you continue to defend that? (And for those who can't tell, I am not talking to/about awareness.)