Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
But it is incorrect to say that the Father and the Spirit were not with Christ when he died on the cross, or they were in no way afflicted with Christ's suffering. It is incorrect to say that the whole Godhead did not indwell Christ's flesh when he was on the cross. But they did not die.
|
With the possible exception of the small portion "were in no way afflicted by" I find that your statement is not only marginal within what is available to be read in the Bible, but can only be understood as whimsical or otherwise not based upon the Bible, but wholly upon a human notion. Or the insisting that things said in other contexts about other things must force their way into this discussion.
Sort of like declaring that leaven is always bad. Metaphorically and figuratively it is used by Jesus as both good and bad. Therefore the use of the word has no obvious meaning as to the status of the thing that it is likened to. Rather it is the context that supplies the status. "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" is clearly bad. "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which . . ." is clearly the opposite. So "leaven" does not control the nature of the thing being talked about. But it does describe how that thing, whether good or bad, disappears into something else and causes changes that are vastly beyond what would be imagined from such a small bit of substance.
As for the little part about being "in no way afflicted" it is reasonable to assume that a God who is not simply a cold, heartless being (cold-hearted orb that rules the night . . .) that cannot be moved, I could never imagine that the Father was not
affected. Afflicted might be a little much, but arguably similar and therefore plausible.
But part of the one that died on the cross? It just isn't a reasonable conclusion from any of the information available.
And I don't need a new verse to tell you that the unsupported things you are saying are wrong. You need a verse to establish that what you are saying is true. You are asking me to disprove what has not been tentatively established as true.
And this is the place where it should be pointed out that this forum is at least partly about discussing the errors (or at least potential errors) of Nee and Lee. Therefore the fact that they said something is not a valid point in their favor. Since there is, and has been, a significant body of study and agreement (even among groups that don't entirely agree on everything) that have disagreed with the marginal positions since the beginning, and since Lee is effectively resurrecting a variant on an ancient heresy, the weight is on you to prove that it is true. And "Lee said" is not proof. If that is all it takes to have a fact, then I can simply say that "I said" and you are foiled. But then you would say "But I say" and we would be at an impass.
The thing is that since the controversy concerns the teachings of your favorite theologian (or more correctly, non-theologian) his bare statements about what things mean other than what they say is not a defense of their position. I admit that I have made statements about what certain things mean. But I have at least been thoughtful and am willing to allow you to look at the passages and tell me how I am wrong. And I can show you how I think I am right. I don't need Swindol or Ryrie or Piper or any other in most cases. The Bible is really quite readable if you just read it rather than study its jots and tiddles for coded messages. You need something more than a lot of pray-reading to cause something that is not there to suddenly be what it is talking about.
So, without resorting to quotes from Nee or Lee, what is it that causes the Father to be on the cross with Jesus the Christ? The extra-biblical terms co-exist, co-inhere, as well as the others do not suffice. They do not force there to be an absolute unity of "persons" for lack of a better word. They do not obscure and obliterate the "tri" of triune. They only describe something of the "une." Your version says "triune" but effectively means "une." There is One God. Period, Amen. I can hear that God saying "I know you talk about three stuff, but you should forget it because it is really parlor tricks. 'We' are little more than a series of schizophrenic episodes."
Don't think I am insulting God. rather I am acknowledging that he is much more than the limitations that such an extreme understanding of "une" puts on him. It's as if there is no three. It was a waste of ink and scroll. There was no reason to end letters with references to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. "We" really are just one with one name. I don't know what those human scribes were thinking. They messed it all up. Thank myself that Lee came along and straightened it out. That Bible is just not very accurate or meaningful.