Well, sorry - that was not really meant to ruffle your feathers so much! I didn't realize you were that sensitive.
(I actually thought you had developed more of a callused approach to me . . .)
But all that aside, see
my responses below to your three substantive questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
My brother Son to Glory! do you really want to have some serious dialogue, or do you want to play games and be cute? If you don't want to be called a "Lee-ite", then could you please stop insulting my intelligence like Witness Lee did to those who questioned his teachings? What gave you the impression that I take the Word of God as flowery, figurative speech? Let's have some serious, sincere discussions. Modalism is a serious error. For hundreds upon hundreds of years there has been a clear understanding of the delineation between the orthodox view/understanding of the Trinity. Orthodoxy is not a moving target...or at least it shouldn't be.
I fully understand that you do not subscribe to the traditional, orthodox teachings regarding the Trinity. You obviously consider Witness Lee's teachings as more Biblical than the traditional, orthodox teachings. No problem! This is a valid and fair position around these parts! After all, we are on LocalChurchDiscussions!
I have answered your valid and fair questions and concerns in sincerity and good faith. Can I please ask the same of you?
Question one: When Jesus Christ calls himself "the Son of Man", and Paul refers to him as "the Son of his love" and "the Son of God who loved me", is the Bible talking about 3 different persons? Or are these three different titles to the same person? Same
Question two: When Jesus Christ said "If you've seen me you've seen the Father" (John 14:9) was he saying that he was literally God the Father standing there in front of Phillip? If that was so, then why did did he tell the disciples in the very same chapter: "I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I"? Same as when it says Christ is in us, yet also on the throne. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."
Question three: (put in the form of a statement) To say that the Holy Spirit is representing the Father and the Son is perfectly biblical. Yes, there are deeper and fuller understandings of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but at the very least, the Holy Spirit is representing the Father and Son. Agreed. Representation is one aspect, but as you point out there's a deeper, organic aspect too, and this is the real significance - it's this deeper, intrinsic aspect that's key, right? It's like saying my son looks like me. Well of course, but why? Because he shares my DNA.
These questions are not merely rhetorical or hypothetical. They are my sincere effort to "come and reason together". I am asking these questions in good faith, and not as a hammer or an implication that your answers are not going to be valid. Great!
I think I have answered this contention. But I will be more than happy to answer/clarify further after you have taken the time to answer the three questions above. Thanks.
-
|
Now off to have a good time enjoying Christ in us the hope of glory, with my local ekklesia, as I hope you are with some too!