Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Ok.. thanks for the clarification. So, the term "processed" is the objection not the concept. Very well.
I'll concur that the term is unusual and therefore provokes your attention.. as it did mine when I first heard it and apparently also did you. The other term Brother Lee used to describe the same thing but did not invent is "Economical Trinity" .... maybe you prefer that term?
Yet, the most important thing for any conversation about the Trinity/Triune God is to make a distinction between the being of God .... and.. the activity of God the Father, Son, and Spirit in the works of creation and complete salvation. So, what God is vs. what God does is important to distinguish and emphasize no matter what term is used. I think "processed" causes one to think about it, and then having considered the intent and meaning of the term to then rightly categorize the topic into His activity without much deliberation vs what He is. It worked for me, but it doesn't for you... in any case, we agree that God did go through a series processes to complete His redemption and complete salvation.
Still, some who do not take the time to think it through will continue to conflate the aspects of the Trinity and that will erroneously lead to inaccurate charges of modalism.. for instance. Yet, that is a topic for another day.
thanks
Drake
|
Even those who apply the terms "economical" and "essential" Trinity, delineating between what God does and who He is, will not accept Lee's nonsense about the "Processed Triune God."
Witness Lee's footloose theology here invites criticisms of "modalism" from serious scholars, which he then used with his followers to claim persecution.
Why not adhere to the language of the New Testament and the church? Is that not sufficient? Why risk having one's ministry passing away into oblivion?