Re: A System of Error?
A little more . . . .
While we generally understand roles for the Three of the Trinity, there is nothing that definitively makes those roles (in part or in the whole) the sole purview of any one of the Three. In addition, I have not found Lee nor Nee to be particularly good at identifying roles, functions, etc., in such a manner as to think their determination as to who/what has a particular role or function. Go back to Nee's lengthy list of the various functions that he attributes to soul v spirit when trying to create a separation and definition for them. Many years ago we realized that many of his "spirit" roles were really just functions of the soul. Our conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence that any alleged "human spirit" was other than a spiritually enlivened aspect of the soul. And even there insufficiently so to make it a doctrinal point to stand on.
To all of this, trying to drag uses of words with some overlay of meaning because of passages other than the particular one that is currently under the spotlight is not a very solid base. While you did stay within the confines of 2 Corinthians, any presumption that any particular word must have a constant meaning (in its entirety) over the whole of the somewhat lengthy letter is suspect, at best. Not saying that it cannot. But where there is any possibility of alternate meanings (from slight variations to extreme differences) you cannot simply presume such a singularity of meaning.
But the more problematic thing is that the passage in question is talking about the nature of a covenant, not the Godhead. So I find it unlikely that Paul (or anyone else) would make such a theologically important statement as "the Son is the Holy Spirit" in such a vague way (possibly in two different situations, if you count 1 Cor 15) while primarily talking about something else and never make such a statement in a more direct manner. If it is really so important (as Lee clearly stated) then it deserves more than one or two vague, off-point inferences (not statements).
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
|