Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Like Witness Lee, Augustine believed a version of the Trinity that some would say borders on modalism, that the 3 Persons are different aspects of the one Person.
|
Don't presume that making any kind of equation between Lee and anyone else makes any position reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
We should realize what the Trinity doctrine is. The Trinity doctrine is a model invented by humans. A model is something that humans use to more easily explain and analyze complex things, such as God. As a model, it can never be 100% accurate or detailed in every respect.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
. . . Not only is this denying the omnipresence of God, but Christ's own words . . .
|
Nothing in what I said denied the omnipresence of God. There is nothing in declaring the Godhead to be 3 persons in some kind of unity that is beyond our concept, or 1 person with more than parlor tricks (modalism) to be understood in three that is contrary to scripture except to the extent that it clearly contradicts something clearly stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Although Jesus taught the Lord's prayer to pray to the Father, this is not to the exclusion of praying to the Son.
|
I find that examples where there is some kind of prayer to Christ to be non-compelling when it comes to the fact that this was the only method taught by Christ, or observed of him by others. I am not saying that those others are wrong. Rather that, if anything, they are allowed despite the obvious statements that it should be according to a general format that was not like those prayers.
So if the goal is to use the scripture to insist on something, then it would seem that the insistence is on the way Jesus taught, not on the way some may have done it.
But when it comes to the teachings of Lee, he took great joy in describing the "low" prayers of poor Christians who just pray to the Father and pray about their needs, including the need for forgiveness. Lee insisted on praying only for the "high" things like the kingdom and the church.
Funny that this is not how Jesus taught us to pray.
But as it often the case, the goal of this thread was not to discuss modes of prayer, or whether Lee was a modalist. Rather to analyze the notion of the oneness of the Godhead in terms of some words found in the Bible. Words such as "be one as we are one." This is a statement that is not commenting on whether God is omnipresent. Rather it suggests something about the oneness of God that is not consistent with a "one God = one person" theology. It actually supports a theology that approaches three separates that are unified in a manner that we can likewise be unified. "Essence" doesn't even quite get it. It would seem to transcend. There should be something among the Christians that overcomes race, nationality, gender, political affiliation, and so much more. It is not something simply conferred upon us because we are Christian. It is something that needs action. Probably a change of heart and mind.
Yet it is, at least at some level, how Jesus declares he and the Father to be one. I will admit that their oneness does not require prayer to possibly happen. It simply is. Yet it is stated as being possible for us in this life.
Something that ignores whether you voted for Trump, Hillary, or some write-in. That is above your personal understanding of the best way to do communion or to baptize. Or whether you can lose your salvation or cannot. (Seems that if you are moving forward in Christ the issue is irrelevant.)
Yes, the decision of where to meet would be much easier if we were all that kind of one. We would not despise those who do not think like us.
The issue ceases to be whether our version of a particular doctrine is right but whether we are Christian. And no declaration of name or no name will make that right or wrong. It is beyond the identification of the assembly. it is in the heart of each Christian that must be one with all others. Those who separate will do so for themselves. Those who do not will be one no matter how or where they generally meet.
But then, once more, does that one statement by Jesus suggest something about the "One" of God that is more like three that are unified than one that is understood and experienced as three. I believe that it supports the former, not the latter.
Something more like the nearly tritheist position of the standard Trinity doctrine.