Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Having said that I am certain that this article will be a big hit here. Most will scarf it up!
|
Not me. Although I like to agree with Dr. Tomes, I don't always.
Actually, I didn't read the article until today. I was more interested in the discussion about Noah.
Let me say, if I understand Tome's argument, I think it is a stretch. In the first place, I'm not sure I don't believe in EFS. In the second, even if it EFS is true that doesn't necessarily support Lee's authority model anyway.
And I disagree with argument that says if EFS is true that boils down to that the Son has a different essence than the Father. The fact is, that there is a Father and Son shows they are in some way different. If they are the same in every way then the distinction is completely meaningless. Therefore there must be a difference and that difference must be eternal and essential.
But just what does "essential" mean. Well, as always with the Trinity, it often boils down to subjective registrations of what we think the words used to discuss it mean. We say God is of one "essence" but we think of that essence as a cloud of stuff. But God's essence is not just stuff. In fact, I would argue that the most important part of his essence is something that is very difficult to define. But I guess the closest I can get is to call it a "moral idea in its reality." We say God is love. But is love a stuff? No, love is something that is alive and has a kind of consciousness and moral substance. The same for righteousness, wisdom and relationship.
I think the key to the Trinity is to think of it in terms of relationships rather that "stuff." God has a relationship with himself. Is that one or two? It is both. The Father is God in himself and the Son is God in his image of himself, what he sees when he considers himself. Yet these two have a relationship. So in that relationship the image (Son) can by definition only do what the source (Father) does or tells him to do, because the Father is the origin. Yet since the Son is God's perfect self-image, he is equal to the Father in every single way except for the distinction between the two, and thus not subordinate, but just one.
So just as my self-image is subordinate to me, God's is to him. Yet since my self-image, if I was as moral and psychologically healthy as God, would be exactly me, except for the distinction, so we would be co-equal. I think full salvation will bring us to the consciousness where we regard our self-image in the manner the Father regards the Son. This in the end is "finding your soul."
Anyway, regardless. I don't think either view validates or negates Lee's authority model. His model is wrong because it is not supported by scripture and manifestly always-and-ever produces rotten fruit.
So as the Apostle John wrote: "Remember, the sins of some people are obvious, leading them to certain judgment. But there are others whose sins will not be revealed until later." It's the same with doctrines. Some aren't revealed for what they are until they are put into practice. Let's authority model is such a doctrine.