Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Take away the Creeds and the Trinitarian dogma it is hard to argue from the bible alone that for Jesus to say he is one with the Father does not mean he is the Father.
|
I would disagree. I tend to give the words there more weight than those supplied by others. If "I and the Father are one" and I have also heard the Son pray to the Father, then I must assume that the definition of "one" that is in play is not about number, but about unity. Unity does not change number. As blunt as Jesus was on several occasions, he would have at least told the disciples in private something like "I am simply the God of the universe, therefore I am the Father" it that was all it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
The reason for this is that the Trinity doctrine itself is illogical. To make 1+1+1 = 1 work, we have to do some adjusting. We cannot fit a square peg in a round hole. Something must give, either we can make the square smaller or the hole bigger. It is the same with the Trinity, either we lean to the ditch of modalism, or the ditch of tritheism, to make it logical for us. Or we simply accept the caveat that "it is a mystery".
|
And this is the reason that you, and Lee before you, have such a hard time with the Trinity. You are correct that the Trinity doctrine is illogical. But to think that it makes the idea that is hinted at in its illogic wrong is to presume that the God that gave us intellect cannot be something more than what we are able to understand. So a single God/being could do it all. He could even send part of himself to die on the cross. We think that would be impossible. But when we say that, we are denying the deity of God.
Of course, God, through his written word, describes something different from that. He describes Three that are in perfect unity. That stand together as God, not as Gods. That take different functions, yet are not simply aspects of a singular. That are more one/unified than most of us are with ourselves on a really clear-headed day, yet not obliterated into a singular for all meaningful purposes.
Is any of that logical? Not according to what humans can consider. They can only accept that as something of faith in a God beyond their own ability to describe in a coherent way.
Nothing must give. Except our insistence on forcing God to fit into one man-understandable model or the other. Lee's need to push God to be "simply each other" is evidence that he could not accept what he could not understand. So he created God according to what he could understand. Others have done it to the other side.
Do they still believe in the God of the Bible? I think so. Some are not so generous. I worry about those who declare that the Son is not God. Or that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. I have my opinions as to their status as Christian. (And we just might agree on it.)
But Lee's problem is not just that he is moving toward the line of one extreme. It is that he teaches his followers to be dismissive of those who disagree. To label them as following a heresy. To refuse to break the bread of the Table with them (unless they come to your table and you decide to allow them to participate). This is a problem with respect to the unity of the church. This little sect has defined everyone but themselves outside of the "fellowship" and are happy to think they are the only ones really communing with God.