Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
Lee has stated "God's being triune is for His economy."
He also says "By studying the Trinity in Genesis, we can conclude that God’s trinity is for His economy, which is to dispense Himself into man so that man may enjoy Him and become His expression. In addition, according to the revelation in Genesis, there are two crucial points concerning the Trinity. First, the three of the Trinity are distinct but not separate. Second, in His essence God is one, but in His economy, His dispensing, God is three. God is essentially one and economically three."
I don't currently disagree with the essential/economical concept as part of the vast explanation of how God is both three and one.
But in reading what I quoted above, I don't agree that "God's being triune is FOR His economy." That makes it seem like His economy existed before He did, and He was triune because of that economy, and because of the future need in His economy for Him to be triune. God's being is just His being.....He is not a certain way FOR anything in the created world. It's the other way around: His economy is what it is because He is triune. If God wasn't triune, His economy would look different. But He isn't triune FOR His economy.
God is simply triune, that is who He is, and He is triune whether or not His economy as we know it existed or didn't exist in His heart. To think otherwise implies there was a purpose behind God being who He is......which means there is something outside of/larger than/before God, which doesn't work.
Just had to throw that out there after reading that.
|
I agree.
Lee's comment, "God's being triune is for His economy," goes along with his statements about man being the "center of the universe." As if the "Only Begotten" followed the creation and fall of man.
It would do the Body of Christ a great service if the Blended "Theologians" at LSM would begin to correct some of these errant and wildly speculative teachings of their founder. Instead they often decide to double down on stupid. We have seen some of the posters on this forum from time to time also do the same.
Reminds me of the histories of other so-called "MOTA's," James Taylor of the Plymouth Brethren and Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf of the Moravians. Professor Nigel Tomes did a great study on these two Christian leaders and their successors . . .
AFTER THE FOUNDING FATHERS—Historical Case Studies: Zinzendorf & James Taylor